PDA

View Full Version : Developer for Portraits



Pawlowski6132
12-Jul-2010, 17:00
Currently using TMY2 or TXP for portrait work. Developing in Xtol. Using Ilford MG FB Warmtone. No real complaints but wondering if I can gain some more tonal gradation (I don't think I'm articulating this correctly)? In other words, I'm not interested in maximizing contrast range or sharpness but, want beautiful tones.

I'm willing to try to mix my own if you have some good forumulas.

Jay DeFehr
12-Jul-2010, 18:52
510-Pyro is my favorite portrait developer, and until recently, I would have recommended it without hesitation, but...GSD-10 might be a better option for printing on VC papers. GSD-10 is a simple, glycin-only developer formulated for stand (or low agitation frequency) development of modern films, but it also works very well with standard intermittent or rotary development. Expose at box speed, or a little higher for best results. I'm afraid the only LF example I have online is not a portrait, and not my work, but that of Jim Byers. It demonstrates the sharpness, grain structure and gradation of the film/developer combination very well.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_vQiBpnvmQMY/TDKYZ8w8AVI/AAAAAAAAAgw/DH41eW8zMbg/s1600/GSD-10+Forte+200+1-30+56min+6+agiit+77+dec+002n+crop3+1200dpi.jpg

Film: Forte 200
Developer: GSD-10
Dilution: 1:30
Time: 56 minutes
Temp: 77F
Agitation: 10 seconds/ 9 minutes

GSD-10

Distilled water 750ml
sodium sulfite 50g
sodium carbonate 75g
distilled water to 1 liter

Dilute 1+4 - 1+29

Scott Davis
12-Jul-2010, 19:20
I've been very happy with Pyrocat HD. Soup at 1:1:100.

Pawlowski6132
12-Jul-2010, 19:50
I heard Pyro is very toxic/caustic to mix. True?

GSD-10, stand developer, do you know how much developer is needed per 80 sq in? I'm wondering how many 4x5 hangers I can use in my old hard rubber kodak tank. That's the method commonly employed for stand developing?? Or, usually one of the Yankee variety of tanks so I don't have to sit in the dark for an hour.

David de Gruyl
12-Jul-2010, 19:53
Jay,

How do you determine developing time on GSD-10? It seems to me that 56 minutes is a meaningless distinction from, for example, 60 minutes. (I know, it is not your work).

I just realized that I have all of the chemistry in my closet at the moment, so I might try it. It is just that film testing is so expensive and time consuming without a starting point.

David de Gruyl
12-Jul-2010, 19:56
For 4x5, I use a daylight tank (HP Combiplan) for stand developing. For 8x10, I have been using BTZS tubes, but I have been slowly transitioning to dip and dunk.

I will let Jay reveal his method.

Jay DeFehr
12-Jul-2010, 20:52
David,

Jim derived his 56 minute development time in a very practical, methodical way. He chose the 1:30 dilution for economy, and determined 9 minutes as the minimum safe agitation frequency for that film, so: 1 minute initial agitation + 6 periods of 9 minutes development + 6 10second agitation intervals = 56minutes. He previously determined his development time at 70F, but it was too long for his liking, so he increased the temperature to 77F, and knocked off one or two of the development periods, thus arriving at the above. There is more developing info at the blog:

http://gsd-10.blogspot.com/

Pawlowski,

I'm not sure of the absolute minimum requirement of GSD-stock/ 8x10, but I know 30ml is safe. While I've had very few problems with stand development, I have seen streaking with some films, as in Jim's example at the blog. Stand development is always risky, and its benefits should be weighed against these risks. For instance, Jim could see no compromise in sharpness with 9 minute development periods compared to stand development, and this low frequency agitation was enough to prevent any streaking or uneven development. I've always used GSD-10 one-shot, but it might make a very nice large tank developer, too, since glycin solutions are known to resist oxidation and have very long shelf/tank lives. Since GSD-10 contains no bromide, one could theoretically use the stock solution to replenish the working developer, but I haven't worked out a replenishment rate.

I think David is referring above to my very low budget method of developing single sheets in black plastic bags. Essentially, I put a negative in one of the black bags my film or paper are packaged in, pour in the developer, fold over the top, and float the black bag in a tray of tempered water. This method is very safe, regarding scratches, etc, and economical, as it requires a very low volume of solution, once all the air is squeezed out of the bag. I'm working on evolving this primitive method into a practical technique for general use, but it's not quite ready yet.

Jay DeFehr
12-Jul-2010, 20:55
Thanks to KOG for catching a fairly critical omission from my posted formula! It should read:

GSD-10

Distilled water 750ml
sodium sulfite 50g
sodium carbonate 75g
glycin 10g

distilled water to 1 liter

Dilute 1+4 - 1+29

nolindan
12-Jul-2010, 22:06
Developer won't give you 'more beautiful tones'. Improving the lighting will. Portraiture is 70% rapport with the subject, 29% lighting and 1% technical stuff - of which 0.01% is the choice of film developer.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe I am overstating the importance of the developer...

Donald Miller
12-Jul-2010, 22:54
Developer won't give you 'more beautiful tones'. Improving the lighting will. Portraiture is 70% rapport with the subject, 29% lighting and 1% technical stuff - of which 0.01% is the choice of film developer.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe I am overstating the importance of the developer...

I agree completely.

Jay DeFehr
12-Jul-2010, 23:05
Developer won't give you 'more beautiful tones'. Improving the lighting will. Portraiture is 70% rapport with the subject, 29% lighting and 1% technical stuff - of which 0.01% is the choice of film developer.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe I am overstating the importance of the developer...

But then, the OP's question wasn't about a percentage breakdown of what makes a good portrait; it was about a good developer for portraits.

Ken Lee
13-Jul-2010, 05:57
In other words, I'm not interested in maximizing contrast range or sharpness but, want beautiful tones.

Could you show us an example of a portrait which has beautiful tones - your own, or someone else's ?

Keith Tapscott.
13-Jul-2010, 09:26
Developer won't give you 'more beautiful tones'. Improving the lighting will. Portraiture is 70% rapport with the subject, 29% lighting and 1% technical stuff - of which 0.01% is the choice of film developer.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe I am overstating the importance of the developer...

Cynic. :D

Agree with obtaining good lighting and rapport with the subject.

jnantz
13-Jul-2010, 10:54
DK50 was the staple developer for portrait photographers until the 70s or 80s,
if they shot large film ( you can still get a kit through the forumlary )
there is an article at unblinkingeye.com about harveys777 for portraits ( you can still get it at bluegrass packaging ).

i recently shot a portrait sitting with tri x processed in
caffenolC and ansco130, and my clients seemed to like it too ...

Robert Hughes
13-Jul-2010, 13:22
I need to get that cute model to like me... I tried wine, jokes, that funny little birdie thing, and developer too. Does anybody have an "iRapport" app for the iPad yet?

erie patsellis
13-Jul-2010, 21:36
I bet Frank has something better!

Gary L. Quay
14-Jul-2010, 00:15
Try this:

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Harvey/harvey.html

Photographers' Formulary sells it. Once their site is back up and running, you can order it directly from them.

--Gary

Ken Lee
14-Jul-2010, 03:13
"In other words, I'm not interested in maximizing contrast range or sharpness but, want beautiful tones."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the "best" developer/film combination (since developer on its own is meaningless) will be linear, with as little toe and shoulder as possible. That way, whatever we put in, comes out with no distortion.

If we put in beautiful tones, out they should come.

(If we wanted to purchase audio equipment for the most beautiful sound, we would choose equipment that reproduces sound with minimal distortion. It's the musician's job to put the beauty into the recording, and the engineer's job is to give it back to us, with as little noise as possible.)

It's often most helpful when someone touting a film/developer combination, provides illustrative charts which show the properties of the film - not just sample images. Sample images tell us more about the subject and lighting, than the film/developer combination. Here's a great example (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/pcat.html) of such an article. The author shows not only the basic contrast curves, but also show how changes in development times affect different film/developer combinations.

As you can see in the article, some films respond to changes in development time in rather surprising ways. Some are wonderful, but others are... less so.

Rick A
14-Jul-2010, 04:14
While I totally agree that lighting is number one in importance for portrait work, with lens choice a close second. Choosing a film based on fine grain is preferred. Hence, using a "high-accutance" developer would defeat the purpose of achieving long tonal gradation in the final print. When developing film, keeping grain to an absolute minimum with slightly soft tonal shifts (as opposed to crisp, hard edge shift) is desired, so choose a developer accordingly. Further softening effects are accomplished by using a softer acting print developer. This is as simple as diluting your favorite developer more than usual. With Dektol, a dilution of 1+4 instead of 1+2 will give a slightly warmer effect while lengthening developing time, allowing more subtle tonal gradation.

jnantz
14-Jul-2010, 06:32
Try this:

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Harvey/harvey.html

Photographers' Formulary sells it. Once their site is back up and running, you can order it directly from them.

--Gary

hi gary

i don't think bluegrass gave out the formulation to the PF,
and when i spoke with them the person who mixes it
told me the guessed-formula ( unblinkingeye article ) was "way-off" ...
why buy a guess, when you can still buy the real thing ? :)

http://www.bluegrasspackaging.com/

Philippe Grunchec
14-Jul-2010, 09:42
For my portraits (especially of women), I use Adox ATM49 (now Atomal, I think): beautiful tonal scale, sharp but not too sharp, fine grain.

CG
14-Jul-2010, 10:00
[I]... it seems to me that the "best" developer/film combination (since developer on its own is meaningless) will be linear, with as little toe and shoulder as possible. That way, whatever we put in, comes out with no distortion.

If we put in beautiful tones, out they should come.

(If we wanted to purchase audio equipment for the most beautiful sound, we would choose equipment that reproduces sound with minimal distortion. It's the musician's job to put the beauty into the recording, and the engineer's job is to give it back to us, with as little noise as possible.)
------------------------

... Choosing a film based on fine grain is preferred. Hence, using a "high-accutance" developer would defeat the purpose of achieving long tonal gradation in the final print. When developing film, keeping grain to an absolute minimum with slightly soft tonal shifts (as opposed to crisp, hard edge shift) is desired, so choose a developer accordingly ...

Isn't it possible these opinions are based on one aesthetic viewpoint? Not a bad viewpoint, but just one of many creative possibilities.

I'm thinking back to some of the old portrait films that had a very pronounced toe and shoulder. There were many hundreds of thousands, or millions, of wonderful portraits built on that arguably "distorted" tonal rendition. Many of them had a wonderful tonal quality that was the result of developer and film and lighting, and could not be easily achieved using film and developer to produce a linear rendition.

Tonal rendition is a creative choice, not a mechanical recipe. I'm not saying I don't like the linear or literal rendition, just that it is only one way to see. Photography is, or should be, a creative medium.

Since photographing anything changes it, one cannot really reproduce an original. The only possibility is to select a rendition that matches your intent.

Photography does not really allow literal rendition; it changes things in many ways. Photographing anything flattens the 3D world into 2D. The three dyes or single tone of B+W further reduce the world into an abstracted rendition. The loss of shadows below threshold and the loss and or flattening highlights beyond the limits of film and paper is a further change from the world of reality. Whatever tonal curve shape introduced by printing paper and the print developer abstract things more. Burning and dodging etc. take one further away from the impression of literalness.

The only possibility is creative choice. Photography is selecting which distortions, changes, or renditions that are appropriate for one's intent.

Jay DeFehr
14-Jul-2010, 11:18
Ken,

It seems you're assuming everyone's goal is maximum realism and a literal interpretation, but that's not always true for everyone, and it's rarely true for a portraitist. A portraitist's stock in trade is interpretation, and the best among them consistently render sensitive and original interpretations of their subjects, whether revelatory or flattering, or both, and not an objective, 1:1 reproduction.

While characteristic curves representing film/developer combinations can be informative, the kind of article you linked is a lot to ask for in a reply to a forum post! Example images show the characteristics of a film/developer/lighting/subject combination, and so are more intuitively interpreted, and I would say, more relevant, since H&D curves tell us nothing about grain or sharpness, and nothing very useful about gradation. H&D curves tell us about film speed, contrast, and curve shape, but that's far from a complete picture.

Rick,

I think you might be confusing gradation and acutance. Gradation concerns the way tones in the scene are rendered on the film and print, while acutance concerns the way edges are defined on the film and print. So, a negative/print can be both sharp-edged, and rendered with a long tonal scale. I think your statement, " When developing film, keeping grain to an absolute minimum with slightly soft tonal shifts (as opposed to crisp, hard edge shift) is desired...", is far from a universal consensus. For many photographers, grain is a part of their pallet, and not something to be eliminated, or even minimized.

Portraits represent a unique subset of photography, with its own specialized tools and techniques. There are portrait lenses, portrait papers, portrait films, portrait film developers, and portrait print developers. While there are few, if any unbreakable rules regarding portraiture, there is enough regularity to evolve a loose set of standards. Portraits are usually made in controlled lighting, even when made on location, in available light, since unlike many types of scenes, portrait subjects are generally portable, and can be moved into suitable lighting, which most often means normal to low contrast. Portraits are generally made with wide lens apertures to minimize subject movement, and portrait lenses are designed to render smooth tonal transitions. Portrait films are typically S-curve films, like TXP, with long toes. Portrait papers are typically warm tone, with matte surfaces. Portrait print developers are typically soft working and often formulated to produce warm tones on portrait papers. It seems reasonable that a portrait film developer should compliment the above set of conditions.

Traditionally, portrait developers were energetic, and soft working often based on pyro, glycin, or the MQ pair, though more exotic agents were used, too, and used a moderate to high sulfite content. Seasoned and replenished deep tank developers were popular among many portrait studios.

Most of us don't process enough film consistently enough to warrant the use of a large tank, replenished developer, so we're left to approximate the best qualities of these developers using one-shot development. In my experience, 510-Pyro and GSD-10 compliment the portrait imaging chain. Printing stained negatives on VC paper can be complex, and so I recommend the inexperienced use graded papers with staining developers, and non-staining developers with VC papers.

Scott Davis
14-Jul-2010, 11:18
I heard Pyro is very toxic/caustic to mix. True?

GSD-10, stand developer, do you know how much developer is needed per 80 sq in? I'm wondering how many 4x5 hangers I can use in my old hard rubber kodak tank. That's the method commonly employed for stand developing?? Or, usually one of the Yankee variety of tanks so I don't have to sit in the dark for an hour.

Pyro does have some toxicity but it is not caustic at all. The toxicity is an issue if you inhale the raw developer in powder form, or if you keep your hands soaking in the stuff for hours at a time. The simple solution is to wear gloves when handling pyro, just as you should when working with a metol/quinone developer - extended exposure to m/q developers will cause skin rashes and possible allergic reactions that can become permanent, preventing you from being able to use them again in the future. If you can refrain from soaking your hands in pyro, eating after use without washing your hands, or otherwise consuming the developer, it is no more dangerous than (and quite a bit less dangerous than some) most other darkroom chemicals.

Jay DeFehr
14-Jul-2010, 11:20
CG,

it seems we were typing simultaneously. I could have saved a lot of time and simply written, " I concur".

CG
14-Jul-2010, 13:50
Jay,

We have related but distinct points. Before all else I'm concerned about a tendency to define the range of acceptable photographic solutions too narrowly.

What I'll call a purist viewpoint - for lack of better words - produces wonderful work, but it is only a small subset of the vast potential of photography. One of the things I love about photography is it's limitless set of ways to see things. I'm not willing to give all that up.

Why should just one way of seeing be approved? To restrict photography to a small slice of it's entire potential seems a straitjacket and a loss. I suspect that a more or less rigid technical and craft based approach offers a comforting (and illusory) sense of control over process and results, but at a cost of losing a much larger and richer set of results.

C

Jay DeFehr
14-Jul-2010, 14:58
Jay,

We have related but distinct points. Before all else I'm concerned about a tendency to define the range of acceptable photographic solutions too narrowly.

What I'll call a purist viewpoint - for lack of better words - produces wonderful work, but it is only a small subset of the vast potential of photography. One of the things I love about photography is it's limitless set of ways to see things. I'm not willing to give all that up.

Why should just one way of seeing be approved? To restrict photography to a small slice of it's entire potential seems a straitjacket and a loss. I suspect that a more or less rigid technical and craft based approach offers a comforting (and illusory) sense of control over process and results, but at a cost of losing a much larger and richer set of results.

C

I agree completely.

D. Bryant
14-Jul-2010, 15:00
------------------------

Photographing anything flattens the 3D world into 2D.

Wow! I need to try that!;)

Don Bryant