Develop -N2

[PatrickMarq]

I found local a beautiful scene, a pound in the forest with a old rusty metal boat.
It’s quite dark, but with a lot of licht spots of the sun.

The first time I took an image of this the highlights where complete blown-out, the scene has to mutch contrast. I came back several times when there was less sun, whiteout the light spots it’s not the same.

I don’t want to do bracketing. But I’m going to try it with development-N2 this should save the highlights.
I have never done this, so pointers how to do this would be fine.

The film, Ilford Delta 100 developed in DD-X

Thx
Patrick

[Peter De Smidt]

I would use divided Pyrocat instead.

[PatrickMarq]

Peter, My store does not sell Pyrocat.
The time for Dd-x is 10:30 in a 1:4 dilution. so with -N2 I was thinking: around 7min ? Or less

[ic-racer]

the highlights where complete blown-out, the scene has to mutch contrast.

Even with 00? I have never both flashed and used 00 but you could try that if it is an image you can't re-photograph. You might try reducing the negative too.

[Jim Noel]

I would use D-23. The chemicals (2) are easy to obtain and develop. It is by design a soft working developer and easy to control.

[Ulophot]

I would guess your 7 minutes may be close enough, though I would probably tend toward an extra half-minute and handle the added highlight density with print flashing, as mentioned above. I have not used DDX, so I can't comment on it directly. Success, as perhaps you already know, will depend in part on the nature of the luminance range in the scene and the exposure of the negative. If important shadow detail fell on Zone III, you will almost certainly get a negative in which these values are rendered with at least a stop less density, significantly reducing detail and making it tricky to revive in the print.

Regarding D-23, which I use exclusively, this is the case, both with 1:1 and the often recommended 1:3, which drops low values very significantly though it can yield a beautiful negative whe used appropriately. I had only limited success with low-value preservation in N- developments with so-called divided D-23; according to a number of sources, this worked much better with the "thick" emulsions made into the 1970s or so.

[Peter De Smidt]

Remember to give more exposure when minus developing.

[Doremus Scudder]

Remember to give more exposure when minus developing.

This is very important.

Since you have access to the scene anytime you like, you can use this as your test for N-2.

Here's how I'd go about it. Meter your shadow value and place that where you want it. Meter the important highlight to make sure it really falls two stops higher than you want it to (if not, then adjust your target development).

Now, give another stop more exposure than your meter reading. This is to compensate for the loss in film speed from reduced development. It might be a bit overexposed, or a slight bit under, but should be enough to get you close for the first exposure.

Make your exposure and develop your negative for your 7 minute time (that's where I would start as well). Develop, print, see what you get and make whatever changes you need for your next try, if any.

Another thing to try:

If you can set up to photograph your scene on a day when clouds are intermittently covering the sun, you can make a double exposure. Make one exposure without the sun for the shadow value exposure time. Make a second exposure when the sun is out placing the highlight value where you want it (e.g., Zone VIII). If water and leaves are moving around a lot, this may not work, but I've made some good exposures this way. Develop normally.

Have fun,

Doremus

[PatrickMarq]

Thank you all,
As the scene is about 6km from my home and this week there is sun and clouds I can go several times.
I had no idea of more exposure when minus development, your never to old to learn.
It will be a lot of km with my bike, and lot’s of film.
But it will be fun, and I’ll keep you informed and put up some images

[Peter De Smidt]

Good luck!

[Vaughn]

Good advice about adding to exposure for minus development! I hope you get some magic light on your scene! In this case, thin fog or clouds and just enough direct sun to throw distinct shadows...like when the fog is just lifting.

[Drew Wiley]

Delta 100 is capable of very good highlight gradation, but quickly builds high contrast. So it sounds like you overdeveloped it.

[Michael Kadillak]

Peter, My store does not sell Pyrocat.
The time for Dd-x is 10:30 in a 1:4 dilution. so with -N2 I was thinking: around 7min ? Or less

Catchetol, the primary ingredient in pyrocat has a unique ability to manage extreme N- and N+ when used in reduced agitation procedures. There is an extensive body of work on this topic online. Bottom line. Conventional developers don't do it worth a damn. You can overexpose, change the developer ratios and reduce development time etc. with DDX and shortly you will figure out this is not a productive course of action. DDX does an excellent job in a very narrow bandwidth. Try to take DDX outside of its comfort zone where it does not want to be and it falls short. Don't ask it to do what it is not supposed to do. But in the process you will gain some valuable experience. Why rely upon your local store if they can't get you the tool you need for the task at hand.

[ic-racer]

I had no idea of more exposure when minus development,
Nor does anyone else. Jones and Nelson showed that a fractional gradient speed (0.3G) correctly predicted the minimum exposure for an excellent print. This is the basis if ASA and subsequently ISO.
Extra exposure of shadows in zone I to meet the 0.1 density point when development is less than required to fit the ASA triangle is something someone made up. It is not needed but the extra exposure won't destroy your negative if you choose to do it.

205250

[Ian Gordon Bilson]

Another way to tame contrast is the use of what we used to call "Wink Flash". A strobe , close as possible to the lens, dialed back to just open the shadows. If you can see the secondary (flash) effect, you have used too much.

[Drew Wiley]

We don't even know his own specific definition of "normal" in this case, or where he placed the shadows and midtone values, or even the original contrast range, so how can we anticipate what -2 development will do? For all I know, he overexposed the film to begin with and blew out the highlights that way, although sheer overdevelopment is also an and/or possibility. So asking him to bludgeon the life out of a negative using flashing or gross compensation might not be the answer at all. My own tack with Delta 100 is to get it well off the toe by rating it at 50, and then reining in the highlights via pyro stain. But unless you overdevelop it (it does build contrast quickly), it should be able to handle a normal bright sunlit outdoor scene just fine by itself, without resorting to special tricks (but nothing like 10 or 11 stops of range - that does take a trick or two).

[Jim Noel]

Nor does anyone else. Jones and Nelson showed that a fractional gradient speed (0.3G) correctly predicted the minimum exposure for an excellent print. This is the basis if ASA and subsequently ISO.
Extra exposure of shadows in zone I to meet the 0.1 density point when development is less than required to fit the ASA triangle is something someone made up. It is not needed but the extra exposure won't destroy your negative if you choose to do it.

205250

Wrong! Anyone who began learning negative control in the 40's or earlier learned this very early on. Super XX was a highly controlleable film and + and - development was not uncommon, but meters were. We either depended on experience and memory, or a very unreliable extinction meter.

[Drew Wiley]

There ain't no Super-XX, not even any Bergger 200. Wish we still had them. The last "straight line" film left, Foma 200, isn't very amenable to development control, at least compared to the aforementioned. TMax films are as good as it gets at the moment if you want a long straight line, but are fussier than Super-XX. But at least TMax does go steeper into the toe than Iford's t-grain offering under discussion, Delta 100, which is why I have to rate Delta a whole stop slower in order to get it above the toe onto the straighter portion of the line for sake of an image reminiscent of TMaX 100 results.

[j.e.simmons]

I shoot a lot in lighting situation similar to the OP’s. I’ve found reducing agitation controls contrast better than reducing development. I second what Michael says about catechol.

[Drew Wiley]

I find that reducing tray inter-leafing frequency risks more air bubble halos and perhaps streaking too, depending on the specifics. HC-110 is a developer which works quite well over a wide range of dilutions; but again, not all film respond equally well to that approach. Basically, I tend to defer to films with the longest straight line to handle high contrast scenes, rather than overexposing and compressing less suitable candidates with longer toe sections. When necessary, I employ unsharp masking too, which is in certain ways the most elegant answer because it can do other things at the same time, like automatic dodging and burning, and microtonal enhancement as well.

[Michael Kadillak]

I find that reducing tray inter-leafing frequency risks more air bubble halos and perhaps streaking too, depending on the specifics. HC-110 is a developer which works quite well over a wide range of dilutions; but again, not all film respond equally well to that approach. Basically, I tend to defer to films with the longest straight line to handle high contrast scenes, rather than overexposing and compressing less suitable candidates with longer toe sections. When necessary, I employ unsharp masking too, which is in certain ways the most elegant answer because it can do other things at the same time, like automatic dodging and burning, and microtonal enhancement as well.

Forums work best when the respondents tend to selectively, specifically and briefly answer the original threads question. Second rule of thumb. Avoid "I do this and I do that" diatribes. The originator of the forum post simply does not care. Why? Because they are trying to formulate their own path along this journey and all they want is practical guidance. When they sign up for a photographic workshop, that is an indication that they have a divergence of opinion relative to this recommended forum rule of thumb. I have been on this forum since 1998 and 95% of the time if I have nothing to add substantively I defer. Just my $0.02.

[PatrickMarq]

Forums work best when the respondents tend to selectively, specifically and briefly answer the original threads question. Second rule of thumb. Avoid "I do this and I do that" diatribes. The originator of the forum post simply does not care. Why? Because they are trying to formulate their own path along this journey and all they want is practical guidance. When they sign up for a photographic workshop, that is an indication that they have a divergence of opinion relative to this recommended forum rule of thumb. I have been on this forum since 1998 and 95% of the time if I have nothing to add substantively I defer. Just my $0.02.

I’m a person that not always regularly check my email or forum posts, the digital world is already to time consuming.
The last day’s the weather here has changed, mostly clouds and a lot of rain. So it was not possible to go out and take some pictures.
Also we go to work come home in the evening prepare dinner and before you know it’s past 21:00 ...
I’ll try to post today the first image.
I’m taking pictures sinds 1979, from time to time I get in ‘trouble’ or I want to try something that I have never done before. Then I turn to this forum for guidance.
Most people here have more knowledge then me.
Also A lot of people here are well spoken, and that’s not me. I’m happy out there with a camera and away from everything

[PatrickMarq]

Delta 100 is capable of very good highlight gradation, but quickly builds high contrast. So it sounds like you overdeveloped it.
My development time was 10:30 as recommended in the Technical sheet of Ilford

[PatrickMarq]

https://www.marquetecken.be/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/1223.jpg

How dit I measure, with my seiconic, take a reading of the darkest - put in memory - take a reading of the lightest - put in memory - calculate the average, and check again the darkest to see if it falls into zone 3 or between 3 and 2. Adapt the time accordingly.
So this was 1/2 sec on f22 - Schneider-Kreuznach Super-Angulon 90mm f/5.6
Probably had to gone for 1Sec for the darkest, because I have lost some detail there.
The darkest -> the blacks on the boat
The lightest -> the right tree, just in the middle

[Ulophot]

Patrick, I think Doremus's suggestion will serve you well as a starting point for this scene, i.e., 7 min with an extra stop of exposure. If that takes you a bit too far, 8 minutes may be about right. The first is 70% of your original time, the second about 75%.

[PatrickMarq]

Patrick, I think Doremus's suggestion will serve you well as a starting point for this scene, i.e., 7 min with an extra stop of exposure. If that takes you a bit too far, 8 minutes may be about right. The first is 70% of your original time, the second about 75%.

Philip, Yes I will definitely try Doremus suggestion but for the moment there is heavy rain for the rest of the week.

[Dugan]

Patrick,
If you are making darkroom prints, print flashing might be an option to bring down the highlight on and around the tree. The tonal range in the rest of the image looks great.

[Drew Wiley]

There's no way over the web to tell what is actually renderable in the extremes. It's simply too crude of a visual medium. And I can't comment on the development time because it's not a developer I personally use. But pertaining to the film itself in a high contrast situation, the toe of Delta should be factored to give solid black around Z2. I prefer to rate it at 50 to boost it up the toe and little more, and thereby make Z2 the approximate threshold of perceptible shadow texture rather than sheer black (carefully metered and depending on the manner of printing of course - but some density variation should be detectable on the negative in the shadows themselves). Specular highlights should be around Z9, and the highest highlight texture around Z8. The exposure setting should therefore be relative to Z5 on the dial, and not necessarily an average between extremes! A lot depends on just how much life and sparkle you want to retain in the print, versus beating the negative into submission. In such cases, I'd personally rather switch to the slightly longer range of TMax than to do gross minus development. You can also explore just how far you can get via advanced VC printing techniques like split printing on a high quality paper, or even just going back in and selectively burning in with a green filter to tame the upper ranges somewhat. .. But Michael K., I recognize your own valid contributions; but in this case, you are welcome to a 2 cent refund anytime. I'll keep anything you post worth ten bucks or more. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and sometimes people do appreciate that a potential option exists.

[jtomasella]

Maybe try stand developing? That way the highlights will stop and be preserved some while the developer is still working on the shadows.