I was re reading the crappy ilford darkroom paper guide sold by ultrafine, and noticed something that i havent actually seen in ANY of my photography books.
The ilford handbook states that to long a time in the developer, has the ability to INCREASE the contrast of a print.
DOes this mean that one should always use the paper manufacturers times, ie foma says 2 minutes in the developer, but the bottle of developer says 1 - 1.5 minutes at same temp?
It is pretty easy to run a small test yourself of course. Expose 4 or 5 teststrips of the same area of your print with good shadow detail. Develop them for 1, 1.5, 2 and 3 and the last one perhaps 5 minutes. Fix, rinse and dry and compare them under same light you normally look at your prints.
My understanding is that it depends on the kind op paper you are using. RC paper is generally developed until completion. In my personal test Ilford paper reached that point faster then the Foma papers. Fiber based papers the development is stopped when the shadows reaches the density you are happy with.
So simply put, there isn't one absolute answer to your question. However, what I, and I believe a great many others do, is try to be as consistent as possible with each negative, during each print making session.
The manufacturer's data is only to be seen as a starting point.
My tendency has always been to employ as many tweaks and adjustments as possible in every step leading up to the final (print) development...so that I can allow the paper developer to give me everything it possibly can. Works for me!
make sure your developer is fresh when you do your baseline tests, your results will change as your chemistry is used ..
Some snatch OUT developing paper
when they see what they want
However I only do that when processing ancient paper
and plates
Tin Can
Until I recently closed my darkroom, I had probably been printing longer than most people have been alive -about 85 years of printing.
For each paper, I established a development time based on that suggested by the manufacturer, and only varied it for very special cases which were rare. Times with various papers varied from about 90 seconds to 5 minutes for Dassonville Charcoal Black (the best paper I ever used).
Recommended developing times for paper are based on the minimum time it takes the paper to develop fully, i.e., to the point where Dmax has been reached and the paper curve shape has reached a stable contrast gradient.
Extending development can do two things, but not to all papers. First, especially for graded papers of the past and some contact-printing papers, extending development can increase the contrast of the print slightly. That wasn't considered a disadvantage, but rather gave the printer one more control for manipulating the contrast of prints.
Sadly, most papers today do not respond to extended development with increased contrast. Instead, extending development with most modern papers after the characteristic curve has stabilized simply moves the curve to the more exposure side of the graph. In other words, extending development ends up increasing the effective paper speed and the results are the same as having added a little extra exposure. This is also not a disadvantage. I use this to easily add a bit more exposure to prints without having to actually increase my exposure time a tiny bit and adjust all my print manipulations accordingly.
I use fiber-base papers only and use a standard developing time of 2 or 2.5 minutes depending on the developer (RC papers generally take less time). It's important that you establish a standard time; as long as it's not too short. You'll then have a base line to compare to other prints. Deviate from this only when you have a good reason, e.g., to make a print with a tiny bit more effective exposure without actually changing the exposure time. It's surprising what even 15 seconds will do in this regard.
When I'm close to reaching a final print, I'll often make two or three developed at different times, say 2.5 minutes, 3 minutes and 4 minutes, dry them down and see which exposure I really like best under the viewing lighting.
I'll extend development to 5 minutes, but not longer. Overdeveloping paper produces fog and will adversely affect the whites and highlight separation.
With some warm-tone papers, the tone of the paper changes with changes in developing time. Printers who use these papers use developing time as a tool for controlling image tone. That's another can of worms entirely and something I don't do much.
Bottom line: use a standard developing time for all your prints. Deviate only with good reason (meaning you know what you're doing and why, or experimenting).
Best,
Doremus
The other unexpected effect from overdevelopment of FB prints is unexpectedly dark dry-down when fully dry...
If you extend development, shadow areas can look open wet, but due to the amount of shrinkage to the thickness of the emulsion upon drying, these grains can block up as the grains mat over each other (like leaves under a tree) and form a solid black... The dry down will continue for days until prints are hot pressed flat...
RC should be pulled before full development, as the emulsion is very thin and highlights just barely develop to the max, and shadows tend to over print, and extended development tends to loose acutence and blob edge sharpness...
Contrast is not controlled by development, but other controls... Extended development will start darkening highlights (reducing contrast), and shadow detail will be compressed until just black...
Steve K
When I was making darkroom prints I did what Doremus described, but I would develop for 3-4 mins based on my developer dilution (Dektol 1+4). This was based on minimum exposure time to get full blacks, and then for highlights to become fully developed. Pulling a print before full development of blacks can result in muddy shadows with little contrast. Shadows will develop faster than highlights, so if there are delicate highlight tones you want to capture you need to fully develop the print.
Contrast is controlled in exposure, and what developer/dilution you use. This is why some use two part developers.
Mike
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks