Two-Bath and Single-Bath Compensating" Developers

[Steve Sherman]

I actually learned the technique through Ray McSavaney and know of his work in the tire factory. He actually made some negatives in the tire factory where he kept the shutter open all night long while he rolled out a sleeping bag next to the camera.

Ray tells the story that he originally discovered the technique when he mistakenly grossly over exposed a sheet of film and rather than throw the film away he decided to experiment with a variation on Ansel Adams Water Bath development. He dramatically diluted the developer and reduced agitation rather than using full strength developer and periodically transferring to a tray of water and then back to the developer.

I have used this very method in the slot canyons of the Southwest and successfully preserved detail in Zone 15, a statement that Kodak tech reps continue to dispute as impossible.

I have achieved the same dramatic compression with Semi-Stand development which does not fall victim to greatly reduced micro contrast as the earlier technique suffers from.

[David Karp]

Ken,

I have not tried the two bath developers in the extreme conditions of McSavaney's photos of the tire factory. In those conditions, his method may be the best. I just don't know. Other similar examples of extreme compensating developers are the pyrocatechin developer given in "The Negative" by Adams, and John Sexton's use of extremely dilute T-Max developer (sorry, I can't remember the dilution). In fact, I think that McSavaney used the pyrocatechin developer from "The Negative" to make some of his night time photographs of downtown Los Angeles.

The only thing I have done close to this sort of photograph is a dark architectural interior photo with several lit sconces. I used the Thornton formula and got good detail in the light fixtures.

By the way, if any of you have not seen McSavaney's work in that tire plant, it is magnificent. You can see at least one of them right now at Freestyle Photo in LA, in their gallery, along with a couple of Kirk Gitting's photos, and some photos of another photographer, whose name escapes me right now. Take the opportunity to look at his stuff. It is just wonderful. McSavaney's work is as good as it gets. His book, I think it is called "Explorations," is my favorite book of photographs.

[David Karp]

Ken,

Sorry about the late post. It took me a while, but I found some information that I saved off of the late Barry Thornton's website, and some other information you might find useful.

First, here are some reasons that Thornton gave in favor of 2 bath developers (if in quotes, they are Thornton's words, if not I am paraphrasing). "[N]egatives of high contrast subjects have the highlights held back while the shadows continue to be built up so that detail can be printed easily at both ends of the scale." In the second bath, in "the highlight regions where the developed silver will be densest, the developer available in the emulsion is soon exhausted and development halts, thus automatically limiting the density of the negative at that point. The more the exposure, and the denser the highlight, the faster development ceases. In the shadows, though, there is little silver to reduce and there is enough developer to keep working there to push up the shadow detail density." And perhaps most interesting in answer to your post, Thornton said: "Indeed there is a minor hump put into the characteristic curve of many films between the shadow and mid tones to give heightened shadow contrast. The effect is not the same as the well known technique of compensating development by diluting developers, which does work in holding back dense highlights, but can give muddy mid tones and does not have the same automatic contrast equalisation as the tow bath." I found this latter statement interesting after reviewing it again for the first time in a long while, and it goes directly to what you were asking about in your first post.

Thornton's comments on various formulae: The Stoeckler formula is soft working and gives very fine grain, but he felt that with today's thin emulsion films it can be too soft. He called the Adams DD23 formula "robust" and said that it might give too high contrast on roll film. He felt that his formula was "in between for contrast" and had "extra acutance."

Next, I dug into my files and found the information about John Sexton's procedure for extra-dilute developer in high contrast situations. (At least the procedure he used at one time, anyway) He used T-Max RS concentrate, to which is added the small packet of part B. Do not prepare a stock solution. Dilute this with water 1:15. Process at 75 degrees. Film is processed in Sexton's slosher, which we have discussed elsewhere on this forum (just Google "slosher" in this site). Agitate gently for the first minute, and then ten seconds every 2 minutes thereafter. He suggested T-Max 100 at EI40 for 8-11 minutes. This procedure might be helpful if you use T-Max 100.

I hope you find some of this of interest.

[Ken Lee]

"The effect is not the same as the well known technique of compensating development..."



Yes - this is the kind of info I have been looking for. When I get the time, I intend to try some of these formulas for general use as well as high-contrast situations (if that makes any sense... I'll find out).

[David Karp]

It is too bad that Thornton's website disappeared not long after he passed away. There was a lot of good information there. I copied some of it, and happily was able to find the stuff on 2 baths.

Have fun, and please let us know what you think about your results.

[robc]

Barry Thorntons site is still up and running except the shop.

Barry Thornton

[David Karp]

Thanks Rob. I recall a notice that it was going to disappear, and actually thought it did disappear for a while. I am glad it is still available.

[robc]

It did disappear for a while, but Andy, who was webmaster, has put it back up. Don't know for how long though, so copy anything you want for long term reference.

You can still buy Barry's chemicals from Peter Hogan who was a friend of Barry's and has taken on production of the formulas.

[Ken Lee]

Let's say we only plan to print on multigrade Silver Paper, and want a non-staining developer that allows us a reasonable range of expansion and contraction ability on its own.



In other words, not for cases like Slot Canyons or Tire Factories, which require a special mix of perserverance, talent, and craft (or Hollywood lighting) - and not for printing via UV light.



Dick Arentz says in his recent Pt/Pd book that TMAX 400 and D-76 is (start paraphrase) perhaps the best combination for Pt/Pd (end paraphrase). I presume he is referring to the long linear scale and facility for expansion and contraction along that scale, along with the helpful ISO speed, somewhere around 200-400.



Given the above, wouldn't Divided D-76 (as referred to in Unblinking Eye) be a good candidate for most uses ?

[David Karp]

Ken,

Having used DD-76 with HP5+ and Thornton's metol 2 bath formula on 4x5 HP5+ and FP4+, I guess that I can comment on DD-76 and my preference for Thornton's formula.

I first used the Thornton formula after reading "The Edge of Darkness." In that book he discusses the benefits of metol as a high acutance developer, and explains that this characteristic is defeated in formulae that use 100g/L of sodium sulphite. Such developers included D-76 and D-23 (and their divided versions). His feeling was that at this concentration, the sodium sulphite reduces acutance. He formulated his 2 bath to take advantage of metol's high acutance benefits by reducing the sodium sulphite to 80g/L. (By the way, if you look at Thornton's website, the formula given there is different from the one I gave above in this thread. Thornton confirmed to me by e-mail not too long before he died that the formula I gave from his book was his most recent refinement of his 2-bath.) I thought that I did not have to worry too much about grain when working with 4x5 negatives, so I thought his solution seemed a good one for me. (Most of my photographs are of landscapes, architecture, or mechanical/industrial objects - No people.) So far, I have not been disappointed, and really like the results I get with his formula. I have not tried this formula with T-Max 100 or 400.

In addition, I have used DD-76 with 4x5 HP5+ negatives and liked the results. D-76 is the "standard" for developers. It seems to give very good results with most films in most situations.

So, I guess that is my long-winded way of saying "yes" DD-76 is a good candidate for most uses. I happen to like the way my photos look developed in Thornton's formula better, but that is just a matter of personal preference.