Personal Development Time Not Real???

[Pawlowski6132]

Can someone comment on my situation please?

I'm trying to determine my personal development using a method I learned from one of the Zone VI (Fred Picker) workshops. It involves testing for VIII print values. My concern is, my personal development time is around 40% less than the manufacturers recommended development time. Is such a variance to suggested published results normal or, is it an obvious sign that something is not right?

Background:

Film: Kodak TMY
Size: 120
PEI: 200ISO
Meter: Pentax Analog Spot
Camera: Yashica MG 124

Pre-rinse: 3min Tap Water (Well Water)
Developer: D-76 1:1 (Stock mixed with distilled water, brought to working mix using tap. I have well water)
Stop: 30s Kodak Stop (mixed wityh distilled water)
Fix(a): 2min Kodak Fixer (mixed with distilled water)
Final Rinse: Tap (Well water)

Enlarger: Omega Dichroic 0M, 0Y
Paper: Artista VC RC
Paper Developer: Dektol 1:2/ 1m
Stop: Kodak 15s
Fix: Kodak 1m



(a) fix for about 5min for normal printing situations

Thanx in advance.


I'd like to run some more tests as soon as I have time but it may be at least week so, thought I'd check here first to see if that's even necessary.

[BarryS]

The recommended development times are only starting points; they don't take into account your own variables, like agitation, actual tank size, metering techniques, water quality, etc. If you can achieve good shadow detail and the correct highlight density for your process--you're done.

[Ken Lee]

Only 1 minute in the Dektol ?

[Pawlowski6132]

Only 1 minute in the Dektol ?

I'm pretty sure that's Kodak's recommended time at 68 degrees. Lemme check...

However, the fact that you're asking is leading me to believe something's amiss there.

[MIke Sherck]

Only 1 minute in the Dektol ?

For a developer-incorporated RC paper, that would be Kodak's recommendation.

I have no idea whether that particular paper incorporates developer or not, though.

[Louie Powell]

My experience is that when you do a careful Zone System test, it is not uncommon to find that your personal film speed is about half the manufacturer's published rating, and that your personal development time is shorter than what is called for in manufacturer's literature. In fact, I found that to be a real challenge - if your development time is too short, you can get uneven development.

In my darkroom, I rate TMY at 200 and process it in HC-110 dilution B for 4 1/2 minutes. I believe that the recommended time is around 6 minutes.

When I process 4x5 sheets, I intentionally go to dilution H in order to extend the development time. I use Efke 100 rated at EI 50 and processed for 11 minutes in dilution H (dilution B with twice the recommended amount of water).

[ic-racer]

A slow shutter speed on the Yashica making the zone VIII exposure could cause you to under develop with that testing system.

The gold standard is to see how well the negatives print. Shoot a roll and see. If they print around grade 2 then you are set.

[Ken Lee]

Sorry about the Dektol question. I wasn't aware of the recommended time. I always use 2 minutes out of habit, from the days before RC papers.

Meanwhile, as Louie suggests, 1/2 the recommended ISO is fairly common, albeit controversial. I am among those who do the same, as outlined here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/testing.html#pinch) ("In a pinch... divide by two").

If you are judging contact prints, does the glass have any noticeable color ?

[Pawlowski6132]

Thanx all. I wasn't too concerned about the ISO. I'm just making a 1 stop adjustment. I was really concerned that at Kodak recommended development time for D-76 1:1 of 10' 15" I was getting paper-base white. And, it wasn't until that I reduced developing time by around 40% to 6' that I was getting getting Zone VIII print values. I was using contact printing but enlarging what was supposed to be a VIII negative.

I'm pretty sure print exposure time was appropriate.

[Stephen Benskin]

You are judging the negative through the print? Paper curve shape, lighting conditions, and your own eyes can have a large affect on how tones are perceived. I recommend having the negatives double checked using a densitometer.

[Lenny Eiger]

Can someone comment on my situation please?
Pre-rinse: 3min Tap Water (Well Water)
Developer: D-76 1:1 (Stock mixed with distilled water, brought to working mix using tap. I have well water)
Stop: 30s Kodak Stop (mixed wityh distilled water)
Fix(a): 2min Kodak Fixer (mixed with distilled water)
Final Rinse: Tap (Well water)


I think TMY is a little better than going to half of the ISO, I just edge it down a notch. However, I am using sheet film, which might be very different. Xtol 1:1 for me, at 7 mins/ 72 degrees F, for normal, at the moment, if that's any help...

You don't need stop for film development.... and I fix for 5 mins in fixer from PhotoFormulary. I think their products are great....

Lenny

[Pawlowski6132]

You are judging the negative through the print? Paper curve shape, lighting conditions, and your own eyes can have a large affect on how tones are perceived. I recommend having the negatives double checked using a densitometer.


I used my densitometer to judge my Zone I negatives because of the know standard of film base + fog. This was done during my Personal Film Speed test but, not sure what the right density would be for ZVIII. Never seen that published.

[ic-racer]

I used my densitometer to judge my Zone I negatives because of the know standard of film base + fog. This was done during my Personal Film Speed test but, not sure what the right density would be for ZVIII. Never seen that published.

You have to make a good print from a negative/deveoper combo and work backwards to get your Zone VIII value. I can give you my density for VIII, but it will be useless to you without my enlarger, my light source and filtration, my paper type, etc.

The best way to double check you 'Fred Picker' test (which is a reasonable one in my opinion) is to shoot pictures and process the negatives for the time you arrived at. If they need grade 5 paper to make good prints from those negatives then you have under-developed and you made an error in your test.

If they print fine at a paper grade around 2, then you are set.

(Ok if you really just want the value, see if your VIII frame is 1.2 density :)

[mikebarger]

Fred has you print the zone eight negative while covering one half of the sheet. One side will be base white, the other side should been just slightly darker.

After you do this, I think Fred recommends printing all eight zones separately and review.

Good luck, I like Fred's procedures

Mike

[Chuck P.]

I used my densitometer to judge my Zone I negatives because of the know standard of film base + fog. This was done during my Personal Film Speed test but, not sure what the right density would be for ZVIII. Never seen that published.

Going back to when The Negative was released in the early 80's you will find that a Zone VIII density of 1.3 is in the literature. It's entirely legitimate to argue that it is based off materials of that time, but...............

I have used that same value and it works nicely for me today (i.e., with MGIV FB/dektol/selenium/diffused quartz-halogen light source) in that it prints Zone VIII as the lightest zone that prints with "some" texture, not "full" texture that is a Zone VII exposure but it works well for an adequate VIII.

To judge it with certainty, using a uniformly lighted textured target, a Zone V exposure is made at the effective EI, then printed to match the tone of the gray card, then your Zone VIII negative, exposed at the effective EI, is also printed for the same time as the Zone V negative. If it's print value is satisfactory, then the next practical test would be to take pictures.

[Pawlowski6132]

As has been recommended a few times in this thread, I will probably shoot and print a Zone I through IX test for kicks at my PEI and Personal Development Time.

Can I contact print these or, will I need to print via the enlarger for meaningful analysis?

[Kevin Crisp]

The mistake I've seen made by several people is getting a little too enthusiastic about picking the time for "maximum black" as a prelude to coming up with the Zone VIII time. If you drive that black way, way down to deepest darkest black that can throw everything off. The exposure time is basically more than it has to be to be a nice, deep black in a print, which can easily make a decent Zone VIII placement look very grey, leading to upping the development time and very contrasty negatives.

I have a vague recollection of there being a newsletter where Fred P. commented on the mistakes he sees many people make when he tests their film and I think this one was near or at the top of the list.

[Ken Lee]

"Can I contact print these or, will I need to print via the enlarger for meaningful analysis?"

This is another subject where well-meaning and well-informed people, agree to disagree. :)

If your main method of printing is via contact printing, then of course you should test that way. If you always enlarge, then it seems reasonable to test that way.

If your enlarger gives identical results to contact printing (due to the light source, optics etc.) then there "shouldn't" be a difference. Some have found, decades ago, that a "cold" or diffused light source, will deliver equivalent results, via contact printing or enlarging - rendering your question... moot. For more information and empirical illustrations, consult The Negative (http://www.amazon.com/Negative-Ansel-Adams-Photography-Book/dp/0821221868/ref=pd_sim_b_3) by Ansel Adams, or Zone VI Workshop (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0817405747/qid=1075561755/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-7002570-7186453?v=glance&s=books), by Fred Picker.

[Stephen Benskin]

If you drive that black way, way down to deepest darkest black that can throw everything off. The exposure time is basically more than it has to be to be a nice, deep black in a print, which can easily make a decent Zone VIII placement look very grey, leading to upping the development time and very contrasty negatives.


I've attached two different paper curves that I think helps to illustrate your point. I've found that 90% of paper D-max correlates closely with 0.10 over Fb+f density in the negative when film processing is normal. As you can see both papers have the same contrast range (1.15), but there is a fairly substantial difference in the shoulders between the paper D-max density and 90%. Because of the higher contrast in the shoulder of the Ilford paper, you will be able to see any exposure differences easier making shadow placement potentially more precise. With the Oriental, there is a larger range of exposure in the shoulder before being able to see a perceived change in print density. I've put a reference point 1/3 stop down from the two D-maxes to compare the resulting density differences in the shoulder. With the just black type test, placement of the shadow density will affect the interpretation of the highlights.