Deciding on paper development time

[cowanw]

"Until then you are wasting your time experimenting."

Hah, I wonder if someone said that to Daguerre or Talbot

[Willie]

Experimenting to find something new or that works is fine. Experimenting when you don't know what is going on is chasing your tail.
Your question shows you don't understand what is going on yet. Learn the materials so you have them down cold and can get excellent results. Then you can experiment a bit and see if what you do is an actual improvement.

[koraks]

Better follow it blindly then.

Fortunately, I'm monumentally stupid and will continue experimenting and using all sorts of materials in one big messy mixup. And learn a gazillion things in the process.

[Doremus Scudder]

Back on topic...

Paper should be developed fully or, as many say, "to completion." That means that the paper has developed to the point where all the tones possible are there, from deep black on up, and the built-in contrast of the paper has been reached. (Unlike film, we don't control paper contrast with development.)

The point where a paper is "fully developed" varies depending on the type of paper you use. RC papers typically have shorter developing times than fiber-base papers. Most RC papers are fully developed in 1-2 minutes. For fiber base, 2-3 minutes is more the norm.

After the point of full development has been reached, extending development time essentially speeds up the paper. Many graded papers of the past used to change contrast a bit with extended development, but that characteristic has largely been designed out of modern papers, especially VC papers.

What you want to do is choose a developing time based on the type of paper you use and the developer you are using (i.e., read the instructions and find the range of times listed by the manufacturer) and choose a developing time based on that, somewhere middle to high range of times. This should then become your standard time. For example, my standard time for all fiber base papers in the developers I use is 2.5 minutes.

Then, you can use changes in development time as an added control. Lengthening time in the developer is basically the same as giving a slight bit more exposure. I often make a couple of prints at different developing times, say 2, 2.5, and 3 minutes (and even more at times) and compare them. It is a lot easier than playing around with tiny changes in print exposure time, especially when I have lots of manipulations to do.

For warm-tone papers, extending developing time also shifts the image tone to cooler. If you want the warmest tone from your warm-tone paper and developer combination, experiment at bit to find the sweet spot that gives you the best image tone while still developing fully.

It's usually better to err on the side of more development with papers. Too little development and the deep blacks don't have time to appear and the contrast of the paper is not fully developed. If you have muddy looking prints with no good blacks, you may be developing for too short a time (this is also a sign of exhausted developer).

Unless you are shooting for an optimum developing time for warmer image tones, extending development can be a good tool. Theoretically, you can extend development with no ill effects until the paper starts showing some fogging. Often (and if safelight fog isn't an issue with longer exposure) you can develop up to 10 minutes without fog; it depends on the paper and developer combination. However, shorter developing times are usually better for the workflow. That said, I'll develop a print for 4-5 minutes if I think it will get me the print I want without my having to change what I'm doing with print exposure time and manipulations. Conversely, pulling a print a bit earlier, but still in the development-time range, can work the other way. Sometimes, if a print is just a bit too dense for me, I'll pull the next one at 2 minutes (instead of my usual 2.5 minutes).

Hope this helps,

Doremus

[Tin Can]

Film I use a fresh water 'stop bath', but for any paper I use citric acid stop bath which stops the development right now.

I mix fresh powder citric acid for each session of 4 prints and toss it.

Somebody once taught me to snatch prints when I thought it was time and into acetic acid. No thank you.

Just develop fully in as short of time as everybody has so far recommended.

Stop bath is part of the entire process.

[Hans Berkhout]

I'll briefly explain a bit for those who are interested in exploration of things unfamiliar..

I was looking to get a subject printed a bit warmer (not warm enough on the wt paper I favor), so I mixed up a hydroquinone based developer. Certainly warm but developing time about 8 minutes. Too shorten this (and likely cool the image somewhat more or less)I could add some stock MH or PH developer or some straight Phenidone solution, try a few different amounts. I vaguely remember having read somewhere (?Lootens?) that multiplying the first image appearance time by a certain factor would arrive at a useful ball park developing time- but I don't remember the factor. I am not inclined to spend too much time trial and error, re invent the wheel etc- hence my original question.

A combination of comments and suggestions (apart from those who advise me to stick with one paper/development combination!) from all of you will get me on the right track thank you, and I believe we can now move on.

[Pere Casals]

get me on the right track

Hans,

I'd recommend you take a look at chapters 7 and 8 of The Darkroom Cookbook. There it's explained very well how to control print tone.

Basicly overdeveloped silver is colder and underdeveloped silver is warmer, with a neutral spot in between, but there are several techniques to obtain that. But just read those 7/8 chapters of the DRCB...

Just using a developer that nears exhaustion it will be unable to fully reduce the silver halide in the emulsion so you obtain warmer tones...

This is the way I practiced. What it can be considered waste, by adding a bit of fresh developer may be a excellent warm tone developer. This technique is specially good with Ansco 130, and other glycin developers. Photographer's Formulary has A130...

I have been experimenting by obtaining a very warm tone with exhausted developer and then moving the print to a tray with diluted fresh developer until the print lowers the warm look to the point I wanted, it can be tested with strips to know the time in the (diluted) fresh developer, dilution allows a longuer time in the fresh developer, better for control.


Also see this: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...8204-Ansco-130

[interneg]

From time to time the argument of "stick to one film/developer/camera/etc" pops up, but it always confuses me. Knowing that experimentation is essential in the process of learning, what is to be gained by eradicating it from our practice?

Nothing is to be gained from such limitations - at least until all possible films & papers have been tried for the one that suggests potential for your work. Then it's a matter of refinement to zero in on what you need the material to do. Far more useful than the often silly 'testing' that all too often goes on. Same with cameras - if it fits your way of working & seeing, that's what matters. If it doesn't, try another. It may well be that you end up with a preferred camera/ lens/ film/ paper, but that is because you've done due diligence, not made yourself suffer at the hands of materials & equipment that don't speak to you.

To the OP, you might want to warm the developer up a bit to speed it along & possibly adjust the alkalinity slightly. Or possibly try the old overexposure & underdevelopment routine too, possibly with something a bit faster than a pure hq dev. Anyway, if you've ever lith printed, you'll know that 8 minutes dev isn't a big pain really. You're also referring to 'factorial development' where total dev time is a multiple of emergence time - unfortunately all of these times are empirical...

[Bernice Loui]

Two minuets in Dektol (or similar) . Adjust exposure / paper grade as needed to achieve a visual acceptable DRY print.

Always account for dry down as the wet print will look quite different once it is dry.

Use the same lighting for print evaluation as display lighting. Different light sources and light intensities will also affect print quality and visual presentation.


Bernice

[koraks]

> I vaguely remember having read somewhere (?Lootens?) that multiplying the first image appearance time by a certain factor would arrive at a useful ball park developing time- but I don't remember the factor.

I don't remember the factor either, but it's in Adams' The Print. If you have a copy, you might have a look there.