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.

[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.

[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!