paper development process and contrast impact

[Torquemada]

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?

[Huub]

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.

[MartyNL]

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.

[John Layton]

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!

[jnantz]

make sure your developer is fresh when you do your baseline tests, your results will change as your chemistry is used ..

[Tin Can]

Some snatch OUT developing paper

when they see what they want

However I only do that when processing ancient paper

and plates

[Jim Noel]

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).

[Doremus Scudder]

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

[LabRat]

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

[Michael Rosenberg]

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

[neil poulsen]

In my view, this discussion really misses the point.

If one needs additional contrast in the image, it should have been manifested in the negative. I try to get the contrast needed close by managing development in the negative, and then use variable contrast paper to fine tune the contrast in the paper.

[jnantz]

In my view, this discussion really misses the point.

If one needs additional contrast in the image, it should have been manifested in the negative. I try to get the contrast needed close by managing development in the negative, and then use variable contrast paper to fine tune the contrast in the paper.

sadly, sometimes we aren't that lucky ...

[Doremus Scudder]

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

If you use a weaker-than-standard dilution of developer, then you'll need a longer time to achieve the same result as with a stronger dilution and less time. Making sure you have enough development time for Dmax to be achieved in the print and for the curve shape to reach its final shape is really important when using diluted developers. Three to four minutes is not at all too much.

The OP is still wrestling with the basics, but this refinement shouldn't be ignored. It's often worth doing a few tests just to make sure one is developing for long enough. Simple enough to do, develop a few prints longer than standard and see if there are any improvements that can't be attributed to the paper speed being increased by developing longer. Find a time that does the job and use that as your standard.



In my view, this discussion really misses the point.

If one needs additional contrast in the image, it should have been manifested in the negative. I try to get the contrast needed close by managing development in the negative, and then use variable contrast paper to fine tune the contrast in the paper.

Neil,

I think the OP is wrestling with the variables and uncertainties in how paper contrast works (filtration, developer and developing time, filters vs dichroic heads, calibration for speed matching, etc.) and not so concerned with negative development at this juncture.

But, you make a good point, one which I mention a lot too: if your negatives are consistently to flat or too contrasty, you need to adjust your negative development.

Being a Zone System user, I was trained to match the negative development to the subject luminance range for each scene, targeting a consistent overall density range on the negative that would print well on grade 2 paper. I no longer do this nearly as religiously, since I've found that extreme contraction developments often leave mid-tones without needed separation and extreme expansions result in more grain than I would like. Using VC papers and the local contrast controls available with split-printing techniques allows a much larger target for overall negative density range these days.

Still, hitting that window is important. As is proper exposure. I think the largest jump in improvement for most beginners in black-and-white photography is finding a metering strategy and personal film speed that delivers adequately-exposed negatives and then finding development schemes that give them negatives that print well at intermediate grades/contrast settings.

Best,

Doremus

[Michael R]

sadly, sometimes we aren't that lucky ...

We all make mistakes and occasionally negatives are more difficult to print than they might otherwise be, but altering print development time is at best a poor control. There are plenty of other more effective and repeatable controls. Developing prints should be trivial. Follow the directions and voila.

I also wonder what criteria people use when they say increased development time increases contrast…

[jnantz]

We all make mistakes and occasionally negatives are more difficult to print than they might otherwise be, but altering print development time is at best a poor control. There are plenty of other more effective and repeatable controls. Developing prints should be trivial. Follow the directions and voila.

I also wonder what criteria people use when they say increased development time increases contrast…

I know ! terrible negatives are a great way to learn how to print. ;)

[Drew Wiley]

Contrast IS to a distinct extent controlled by length of development. I depend on that fact every session. But premium papers tend to have more development time flexibility than lesser papers. I NEVER standardize on a single development time, but always determine it in relation to the specific image itself. It might go anywhere from one and a half minutes up to four or so. Two or three minutes is the most common. Of course, final image color and toning properties can be potentially affected, especially if the printing time is too short. But one has to experiment to determine their own boundaries; and that can indeed vary negative to negative. So test strips are always recommended.

I am not stating this in competition with what VC papers provide, but as a valuable supplemental tool, regardless of whether the paper is VC or actual graded. It can fine-tune the image contrast and final tone in a manner just changing the light balance can't.

[Torquemada]

Ive been self taught with the support of horenstiens little brown book of black and white photography, 3rd edition. Yes i have found factual errors in it on my own. And various bits i can get from online forums. However the internet forums are not the greatest as there is a massive tendency to either delete my accoutn when i ask something that a moderator considers "every one knows it, its on a cereal box" or doesnt under stand. Or i just get pages of responses about D min when i ask something simple like "why does delta 400 always seem to lead to blown highlights when taking photographs in extremely bright scenes or scenes with massive differences between highlisghts and low lights?"

[LabRat]

Ive been self taught with the support of horenstiens little brown book of black and white photography, 3rd edition. Yes i have found factual errors in it on my own. And various bits i can get from online forums. However the internet forums are not the greatest as there is a massive tendency to either delete my accoutn when i ask something that a moderator considers "every one knows it, its on a cereal box" or doesnt under stand. Or i just get pages of responses about D min when i ask something simple like "why does delta 400 always seem to lead to blown highlights when taking photographs in extremely bright scenes or scenes with massive differences between highlisghts and low lights?"

It's in the negative development + metering... Overdevelopment of the neg will start to block up the highlight region (where there is the most light/chem activity) and make it difficult to easily print the full range of the print together...

The testing phase of your journey will be to find the EI speed of your film (usually film is more exposed at a lower speed), but given slight underdevelopment that opens the highlight region and makes it much easier to print the entire range of the neg with a normal grade of paper + development, and much less burning/dodging...

The next step is calibration...

Steve K

[Michael R]

The best thing to do is start with the manufacturers' directions. Set your meter to the film speed indicated by the maker (usually ISO - at least for Kodak/Ilford/Fuji), meter carefully, develop based on the directions, print by eye using test strips/prints, develop the paper based on the directions, and don't be afraid to work on your prints. Then, with time/practice, based on results, perhaps change your meter setting and lengthen or shorten film development time.

It is not more complicated than that. You don't need snake oil chemicals, arbitrary pre-emptive tests, re-invented wheels or other miscellaneous nonsense.


Ive been self taught with the support of horenstiens little brown book of black and white photography, 3rd edition. Yes i have found factual errors in it on my own. And various bits i can get from online forums. However the internet forums are not the greatest as there is a massive tendency to either delete my accoutn when i ask something that a moderator considers "every one knows it, its on a cereal box" or doesnt under stand. Or i just get pages of responses about D min when i ask something simple like "why does delta 400 always seem to lead to blown highlights when taking photographs in extremely bright scenes or scenes with massive differences between highlisghts and low lights?"

[Torquemada]

I dont have alot of time to play around with my equipment or my cameras..

I shoot my film at box speed, i develop per manufacturers recommendations or what are considered the best options on mass development chart.

Ive never tried playing around with under developing negatives, i havent tried doing any old developer formulas, i havent tried do alot of things because i cant get consistent results with the film im using at this time, or with my printing means.

IVe only managed to shoot 50 foot of delta 400 this year, and ALOT of it was fried due to being shot outside, in high light, high contrasty scenes. Scenes of grapes on grape leaves hanging on the vine.. the prints.. i can get a slightly fuzzy image of the grape stem to print out with texture, and a partial outline of grape leaves, but anything that was in bright light is just PAPER...

sure, i could flop down a sheet of 11x14, do a print on it, take it off, trim off the white, do a new print on a fresh sheet of paper, put the cut up portion on the stem and leaf outline of second print, and burn the hell out of the high lights with a 1 filter... but is that actually going to solve anything for us?

[jnantz]

IVe only managed to shoot 50 foot of delta 400 this year, and ALOT of it was fried due to being shot outside, in high light, high contrasty scenes. Scenes of grapes on grape leaves hanging on the vine.. the prints.. i can get a slightly fuzzy image of the grape stem to print out with texture, and a partial outline of grape leaves, but anything that was in bright light is just PAPER...


you might consider using your favorite print developer until the image peeks through the veil and then transfer the print to a tray of spent developer or caffenol, and then after 1 or 2 minutes agitating,letting the mid tones come out go back into the print developer for a few seconds and repeat, or use expired photo paper, the fog will help cut the contrast in your contrasty negatives.

[Torquemada]

Im one of those funny guys who has no real room for equipment set up... so ive been using ilford paper printing tubes. delightful little things.. and the water savings is HUGE.

[jnantz]

Im one of those funny guys who has no real room for equipment set up... so ive been using ilford paper printing tubes. delightful little things.. and the water savings is HUGE.

using tubes may save water, but it sounds like a really frustrating way to learn how to print.

[Torquemada]

using tubes may save water, but it sounds like a really frustrating way to learn how to print.

its actually a better one for me.. i started printing in trays in the bathtub.. had the safe light on the sink, about 6 feet from the tub itself. Somehow it was still bright enough to screw up my prints.

it is nice to have my chemicals in small bottles, not huge ones. Having a 12 ounce bottle of developer spill is a pain, but its nothing to having to deal with a gallon jug that flipped over.

[jnantz]

Sounds like I had the wrong safelight . It’s important to see the print come up that’s how you know your exposure is close. Do you know any public darkrooms where u live? It might be easier to rent an hour in a darkroom just to figure out what you are doing. Not saying it isn’t do-able with ilford tubes and utoob videos but you’ll be wasting more than 1hours rental fee’s worth of paper, chemistry and time, not to mention it will take you 10x as long with sealed tubes

[esearing]

Then after you standardize for each print - you can still experiment with pre-flashing with blue or green filters to control contrast further. Bleach redevelopment can also change contrast. Analogy, There are many screwdrivers in the the tool box that look similar but one always seems to work better than the others for a given job. You just have to experiment by changing one variable at a time and take good notes. What works for one image may have little impact on another. Print the same image a year later and you may want it to look differently than your initial prints.

[Torquemada]

since im using RC paper... and according to the internets...

RC has a set development based on chemicals.. developing it by visual inspection is NOT going t make good prints. They say an RC print can show a "final" image after 20 seconds of immersion in developer.

[jnantz]

what website says it takes 20 seconds to develop an rc print?

[Vaughn]

since im using RC paper... and according to the internets...

RC has a set development based on chemicals.. developing it by visual inspection is NOT going t make good prints. They say an RC print can show a "final" image after 20 seconds of immersion in developer.

Perhaps this is old info -- some RC papers had developer incorporated into the emulsion, I believe.

[Drew Wiley]

Back when stabilization roller-processors were popular for pre-press applications, if I recall correctly. Those were fast.

[Torquemada]

alot of papers still say they have developer chemicals added into the emulsion, I believe Foma still makes that claim.

for RC paper.

What i was saying if youd read the text... the interwebz states in many places that the normal RC paper, in developer, will show a "final print image" on the emulsion side inside of 20 seconds in the developer. But it wont be fully developed. So why bother with the whole "watch the image appear in the developer" hooey?

[Vaughan]

So why bother with the whole "watch the image appear in the developer" hooey?

Hooey? No need to be disrespectful. It's with orthochromatic plates and sheet film that pulling development was an essential darkroom technique, in the days when emulsion speed could vary from batch to batch and there were no accurate light meters with which to judge correct exposure. Older papers that didn't incorporate developer can also be pulled, but most people would agree that if it's overexposed the pulled print will not be the highest quality and should be printed again.

Modern RC enlarging papers almost universally have developer incorporated into the emulsion, this makes them more suitable for machine processing as it shortens the development time which both allows the machine to be made smaller and improves throughput. Modern fibre multigrade papers probably are developer incorporated because they are based on the RC papers.

[LabRat]

No, papers are not developer incorporated anymore... The last one was Kodak Polycontrast rapid III from the '90s... It was developer incorporated so when the paper hit the activator (a strong lye based alkaline solution), the image would develop in a split second, followed by a strong stop bath dip, then into a stabilizer or rapid fix, then a rinse in the processor...

The reason some papers print faster than others is like film... They have larger grains that are much faster/sensitive than other types... RC was made for rapid access printing where the exposure time was as short as possible for machine processing, for news, graphic arts etc... (I made 10's of thousands of processor prints in commercial photo labs, but now process is obsolete as no developer incorporated papers any more...)

Fun fact/ Colder tone papers are faster, even in FB as the paper grains are bigger/faster and make a deeper Dmax, warm tone papers are slower and the smaller grains below a certain size start reflecting different wavelengths of light color starting from black to blue, green to smaller grain mixes to sepia, yellow and smallest reds... Reductive toning shrinks grains to these sizes, additive toning adds smaller metals that reflect secondary wavelengths of color on top of the silver image...

Steve K

[Michael R]

alot of papers still say they have developer chemicals added into the emulsion, I believe Foma still makes that claim.

for RC paper.

What i was saying if youd read the text... the interwebz states in many places that the normal RC paper, in developer, will show a "final print image" on the emulsion side inside of 20 seconds in the developer. But it wont be fully developed. So why bother with the whole "watch the image appear in the developer" hooey?

That’s why I suggest you follow the directions. Emulsions have various components. It’s not as simple as just AgX so images might appear at different times relative to the complete development time. If the RC paper instructions say develop for X minutes in developer Y, just do that. It isn’t complicated. Few contemporary papers respond well or in any meaningful way to altered development times. It’s a poor control and is a superfluous one anyway. Control your contrast under the enlarger.

As for whether or not a RC paper has a developer-incorporated emulsion, yes Fomaspeed has it. Ilford - I don’t know if the current versions do or don’t. You can test it fairly easily - out a drop of sodium carbonate solution on the paper and see if anything happens.