Perhaps this has been discussed in a previous thread, though I have not come acr oss it. I would be interested to hear opinions on development by inspection -- b oth from its practitioners and detractors. What are the tricks? Does it work bet ter with some film/developer combinations than with others (I assume it does). J ust how accurately can one monitor densities, etc.
Thanks, Paul
Development by inspection is the only wat to go. See my article from View Camera on our web site at www.michaelandpaula.com under "Writings". this from someone (Bruce Turner) who e-mailed me:
I want to thank you again for that ABC formula. Just wonderful negs!!! I look forward to developing these days. Before I was using PMK--and the results were just too flat and not contrasty enough. I talked to Patrick Jablonski about that, and he use to have the same troubles. So, he doubles the amount of recommended A and B, keeping the water amount the same. Works for him--but, alas, he does not inspect. How can anyone not want to inspect!!????!
Michael A. Smith
FWIW, Galloping Caveats, IMHO yadda yadda yadda.
There are as many approaches to photography as there are roads to Valhalla, Grasshopper. Personally, I think D.B.I. is the only way to go, but then I have a more "cook-book" approach than some. A pinch of this, a smidgen of that, and season to taste. My most expensive lens cost me $400.00 and the most recently manufactured one cost me $25.00.
Read here:
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Inspection/inspection.htm
and here:
http://www.michaelandpaula.com/devinsp.html
and that covers most of it. In short, if you don't like the idea of standing (or sitting) in the dark with your hands (maybe gloved) in chemistry, shuffling your film, counting the seconds as the metronome clicks them off, then maybe you should invest in a JOBO or a Besseler color drum. Seriously though, it is easy! If I can do it, anyone can. Whether it's to your liking or not.....
All film/developer combos work well, but the staining developers have the advantage of making the film less sensitive to light faster than your standard D-76/Rodinal, etc. etc. developers. I would recommend using a 15 watt bulb instead of the little 7.5 watt one I started out with - that was too dim. Also, it'd be nice if I had a sink in my darkroom, but I don't, so developer drips down my arms, onto my shoes, the floor, etc. when I hold the film up to inspect.
You write: "Just how accurately can one monitor densities, etc."
This strikes me as the wrong attitude entirely. It's more like how you cook your steak, or bake a cake. How can you tell when they are done? Al Dente! Anywho, good luck. I can scan and e-mail you some articles on the topic from some more arcane sources if you like
p.s. Aaron Siskind, Wynn Bullock, Andrea Modica, Douglas Busch and Harry (not Dirty) Callahan, as well as the Westons, all D.B.I.'d
Anyone can name any others?
I would not go with inspection development. I have fine-tuned my developing (not by inspection) with a bunch of tests and a densitometer. Now, when I run a test and check the density with a densitometer, I find my results remain consistent. It seems to me that developing by inspection is the lazy-man's way to practice zone-system developing. Do the testing!
Why? To appease your puritan work ethic? If D.B.I. works, and it does, and it's easier, why make "a bunch of tests"? You have to re- test your system continuoosly to make sure it stays in calibration, no? With D.B.I. you can make adjustments "as you go" in the second most important part of the entire process - the film development. You are not held to one time and can compensate for any changes or variations. Have you tried D.B.I. Mr Marderness?
sorry, I just don't buy the notion that dbi is very accurate. Your (no one in particular) idea of accurate may be very different than mine. I would have to see it to believe it. and don't show me with a film you have used for years, show me by picking up a film you only know the asa for and do it with that---only then would it be true dbi.
oh my god! testing once rather than sweat over every single developing session to try to see densities by a dim green light? how silly-- better yet how about when I do multiple time development for normal/n+ /n-
since when did anybody get more accurate than a densitometer?
please don't throw names at me, it means nothing...
the end....thanks for coming to my show
ps
I also can "make adjustments as I go".
The beautiful, long-scale negatives and prints of Michael Smith, Paula Chamlee, Edward and Brett Weston, Sean Yates, and others are proof in themselves how effective the DBI technique is when applied by a skilled practicioner. For myself, however, learning photography in the Kodachrome days when exposure must be exact within 1/3 stop, and years toiling in physics and chemisty laboratories, I am satisfied with standardised time/temperature/agitation proceedures. I time exposures with TTL metering, including a Horseman film plane meter for my Technika, which even compensates exactly for filter factors and the uncertain diaphragm setting of all five Dr. Stable Polyplast convertible lens combinations. Like EW, if the meter doesn't agree with my innards, I either ignore the meter, or make two negatives. And yes, I do my fair share of dodging and burning.
Hi Paul, I think a good way to get some DBI experience is to shoot a box of Ilford Ortho Plus. Being ortho, you can develop it under a red light. Just put your developer in a tray, and watch the image develop. After 25 you'll have a feel for the inspection method. Chose a contrasty scene. Expose for the shadows. Note where you expect to see the highlights come through. After development is over 1/2 through, the highlights will start to come up, and you don't want to let them get too dark. I mean, you will still have to do some testing, you have to know approximately where your development process is at, the inspection is a fine tuning thing. Caution, don't let your red light shine directly on the film, even ortho can be fogged. I don't know if DBI is the "best" way to go, but it can become a habit. And plenty of people have gotten just fine results using it. Best, David
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks