dilution for highlights

[Mark Kononczuk]

Hi,
I had an issue with blown out highlights. I was using ID11 developer at 1: 1 ratio with water , developing for about 11 minutes. Agitating for the first 20 seconds in the first minute and then for 10 seconds every 2 minutes. In trays.
So I decided to do 2 test photos and develop the first one the same way but for 7 minutes and the second one the same way but in a diluted developer of 1 part dev + 3 parts water for 20 mins.

Problem is, I really can't see the difference. Is it possible that this would give the same result? I think the diluted version has more grain.
219370
219371

[Michael R]

I will make the general comment that contrary to popular belief, highlight compensation is not a given when you dilute a developer and/or decrease agitation with extended development. For this to really work, you need to use a developer with certain characteristics.

ID-11 is not really going to do this, and going from 1+1 to 1+3 would not be enough of a dilution change.

I can’t comment on the accuracy of your specific test results except to say they are what I would expect.


Hi,
I had an issue with blown out highlights. I was using ID11 developer at 1: 1 ratio with water , developing for about 11 minutes. Agitating for the first 20 seconds in the first minute and then for 10 seconds every 2 minutes. In trays.
So I decided to do 2 test photos and develop the first one the same way but for 7 minutes and the second one the same way but in a diluted developer of 1 part dev + 3 parts water for 20 mins.

Problem is, I really can't see the difference. Is it possible that this would give the same result? I think the diluted version has more grain.
219370
219371

[Drew Wiley]

Likely overdevelopment. Lower the time. Also what Michael stated already. Can't say much specific because, other than the developer per se, you haven't related any specifics yourself (film, speed rating, scene contrast etc).

[Vaughn]

It would make sense the the diluted developer gave sharper grain. Diluting it lowers the action of the Sodium sulphite (?) in the developer that softens the edges of the grains a little (silver solvent action?).

PS -- are you sure you gave us two different images? Hard to figure out how you got the exact same branch movement in both negatives.

[Michael R]

Yup to me it looks like the same negative.

In any case that's why I only made a general comment about developer dilution and contrast with ID-11. When I look at posted images it's often difficult (for me) to figure out exactly what I'm looking at etc.


It would make sense the the diluted developer gave sharper grain. Diluting it lowers the action of the Sodium sulphite (?) in the developer that softens the edges of the grains a little (silver solvent action?).

PS -- are you sure you gave us two different images? Hard to figure out how you got the exact same branch movement in both negatives.

[paulbarden]

Hi,
I had an issue with blown out highlights. I was using ID11 developer at 1: 1 ratio with water , developing for about 11 minutes. Agitating for the first 20 seconds in the first minute and then for 10 seconds every 2 minutes. In trays.
So I decided to do 2 test photos and develop the first one the same way but for 7 minutes and the second one the same way but in a diluted developer of 1 part dev + 3 parts water for 20 mins.

Problem is, I really can't see the difference. Is it possible that this would give the same result? I think the diluted version has more grain.


I think you've presented the same scan, twice: you can see motion blur of the leaves on the stem in the jar, and there's little chance there would be the exact same amount/direction of motion blur on two different sheets of film.

Also, what Drew said is the best advise: to preserve highlight details in a contrasty scene, reduce development time, not change dilution (which will do very little). Shortening the development time is what Adams and his lot referred to as N-Minus development, intended to restrain the brightest zones and compress the scale a bit.

[Vaughn]

Yup to me it looks like the same negative.

In any case that's why I only made a general comment about developer dilution and contrast with ID-11. When I look at posted images it's often difficult (for me) to figure out exactly what I'm looking at etc.

And subtle differences are impossible to see online, unless exaggerated.

[Willie]

Pyrocat HD is a good developer for subtle highlight retention. Easy to use and inexpensive to mix.

[Bruce Watson]

Problem is, I really can't see the difference. Is it possible that this would give the same result? I think the diluted version has more grain.


Not the same result, no. But very similar. Vaughn is right -- the dilution of the sodium sulfite will give you somewhat sharper grain, which in turn might look like slightly more grain, but is not. In my experience you'll have a darn difficult time telling the difference between your two negatives (if both have the same highlight density) at anything under 15x enlargement. Which, for 5x4 film, is a heck of an enlargement (that is, a 75x60 inch print).

But here's the thing -- you are IMHO exhibiting 35mm thinking. Graininess is more or less a complete non-issue for LFers, while the 35mm crowd is very concerned about it (at least I was). But... we aren't in the age of Super XX anymore. With modern films, cubic or tabular grain, the grain clumps are just too small to worry about except under more or less extreme enlargements. Your standard 20x16 print from 5x4 will be almost completely grain free no matter how you develop it (I personally have screwed up and cooked film so dense (think "bulletproof") I could only print digitally because only a drum scanner could read through it, and it still made an objectively grainless 20x16 print) because it's only a 4x enlargement of the negative.

There are plenty of things to worry about getting right with LF; graininess isn't one of them IMHO.

[Drew Wiley]

Tri-X can look annoyingly grainy in a 16X20 print, or perhaps appealingly grainy to others - but grain will likely be quite perceptible in textureless areas midtone or above. HP5 can look a bit mushy-grained enlarged that amount. Super XX had visible grain of course. No big deal in LF work, but not completely a non-issue either. That's why I only shoot HP5 in 8x10, and for 4x5 use other films like TMax 400 or 100, or FP4, Acros, etc. But I still miss good ole Super XX and analogous Bergger 200 for 8x10 use - incredible scale!

[Mark Kononczuk]

ok,
hope these are clearer now:
219432219433219434219435
The film is Fomapan 100, 4x5
f/45 , can't remember the time, probably a quarter of a second or something like that
old graflex camera with aposironar 150 lens
my cable release stopped working so i tied a bit of dental floss to the shutter release, as it is what i had on hand , image seems sharp enough?

process-

pre-wash: 1 minute in distilled water
Ilford chems:
ID11, 1:1 developer:distilled water, solution filtered thru cotton wool, 7 mins at room temperature, around 19 degrees C
stop bath: distilled water + a splash of spirit vinegar, 1 minute
Ilford rapid fixer, 1:5 with distilled water, fiktered thru cotton wool,15 mins
now I had a problem with the rinse as I didn't have enough distilled water so I filtered tap water through a coffee filter for half an hour but I don't think coffee filters are designed for that volume of water.

Before hanging up to dry I always have little white specks on the neg, I don't know what this is so I will buy a proper mains filter and photoflo tomorrow.

I don't know if you can see the difference on the photos, I can on my laptop screen. the second image is more contrasty so I'm guessing that is the 7 minute 1:1 dilution.
The project i'm doing at the moment i'm hoping to exhibit as 1 meter x 1m 20 (or thereabouts ) prints so that's why i'm being a bit fussy about the details.

thanks

[Mark Kononczuk]

aha,
and the other neg was developed for 20 mins , a dilution of 1+3 developer to distilled water.
same temperature
agitation every 2 mins

[Mark Kononczuk]

and the scene for the test photographs i chose especially for it's contrast as i have a whole load of negs to develop where there is a massive range, maybe 6 or 7 stops difference between lights and blacks. i exposed for the blacks or one stop above thinking i would make up lost highlights in developing the negs and in printing as the information seems to be there, hidden.
generally i exposed for 2 seconds where the light meter showed 4 seconds for the darkest parts and 1/8th of a second for whites

[Michael R]

My opinion - I don’t think you need any compression procedures, especially for the luminance range you are describing.


and the scene for the test photographs i chose especially for it's contrast as i have a whole load of negs to develop where there is a massive range, maybe 6 or 7 stops difference between lights and blacks. i exposed for the blacks or one stop above thinking i would make up lost highlights in developing the negs and in printing as the information seems to be there, hidden.
generally i exposed for 2 seconds where the light meter showed 4 seconds for the darkest parts and 1/8th of a second for whites

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah, six or seven stops is easy, if that's all that's really involved, provided exposure level and development itself is reasonable.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

I had an issue with blown out highlights. ...
219370
219371

I don't see a problem at all. You have nice, powerful highlights with texture. Zone VII is supposed to be just like that.

With Fomapan, you have more of a problem with Zone II and III, which usually come out too dark. That's why people develop longer. This leads to brighter highlights. Perhaps you should actually develop shorter and lower the effective ISO ... But then you get even more into long times (Schwarzschild).

The solution is a decent film, like Ilford FP4+ ... Or to use Fomapan only when you really have enough light. Or to live with dark shadows.

By the way: if you work on the computer, you can't judge how the big print, which you want to produce, will come. I don't know any photographer whose computer produces textured highlights and shadows as well as real Splitgrade.

[Mark Kononczuk]

ok,
thanks for your feedback.
bearing in mind that the shots have already been taken on Fomapan and i need to continue using the same film for continuity of the project, what dilution of ID11 would you recommend?

[Michael R]

ok,
thanks for your feedback.
bearing in mind that the shots have already been taken on Fomapan and i need to continue using the same film for continuity of the project, what dilution of ID11 would you recommend?

1+1 or stock

[Doremus Scudder]

Just stating the obvious here, which, however, hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet:

If your highlights are consistently "blown out" (I really dislike that term, though), the first logical recourse would be to reduce your development time. In other words, not change agitation, dilution, formulation, etc.

There aren't that many situations that can be handled with standard developers used at the right time and the contrast controls available in the darkroom. Yeah, sure, there are things like the dimly-lit church interior with a nice sunlit scene out the window where we want to hold detail and contrast in both areas, but even in these cases exposing correctly and developing less coupled with darkroom techniques usually do the trick.

Compensating developers are great, don't get me wrong, but careful developing and printing with "standard" developers can accomplish the same thing.

Best,

Doremus

[Bernice Loui]

Information not recorded on film at the moment of exposure cannot be recovered during the development process.
What ISO was used for the light meter ISO reference number setting? Film "box" ISO or ?

Accommodating 6 to 7 f-stops on B&W film (aka n- exposure_development. Or over expose then under develop) into a very printable negative is not that difficult. It is much about understanding how B&W film and print making process works and how best to work within these limitations. As for scan-digital try fix up, again, if the information has not been recorded on film there is little to no ability to recover that information.

Pyro developers tend to have the ability to extend the films dynamic range by staining which works in conjunction with the printing papers as an additional contrast control element.

Again, key is testing for actual film speed as needed to achieve specific reference point density and gamma as needed to achieve the print goals in conjunction with the developer to be used and printing process to achieve the finish print.


Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

Consider this previous discussion:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?163962-Precision-and-Accuracy-in-LF-Photography-How-much-is-enough


Bernice