Brush Development—Recommended Brush Types

[Mark Booth]

I am working with a really great "brush-development" process with pyro chemistry and tray development of sheet film negatives. It offers all of the benefits of reduced agitation development with none of the unwanted problems of risking uneven development or streaking under the extreme exhaustion with tanning/staining developing agents like pyro—encouraging maximum gradation and even development. (see picture attachment)

This special non-handled brush retails for about $32.00 but I purchased it for half-price. The brush uses natural boar's hair that has just enough body and tooth, but not overly grab the negative or scratching delicate film surfaces. I find it to provide even coverage, dislodging of trapped bubbles, and to fluidly glide across the surface of sheet film with gentle tension. For very large negatives one would need a wider brush, but 5x7 negatives work well with 2" brushes and with a little practice even 8x10. Although a 3" - 4" coverage would work more easily with 8x10 format film. Having no handle (as shown) is perfect for holding near the film and tray, so that one can sense more acutely its responsiveness against the film's surface in relationship to the tray and to keep a low angle along the entire film surface. I use very thin nitrile examination gloves for protection against the chemistry and then eagerly "drink" the exhausted developer for added energy! haha!

Another great brush type is the Hake brush, pronounced "Hay-Kay"—goat hair being most common. Hake brushes are available in wider sizes as a rule and spread alternative process chemistry very well also. Like all things, it takes practice in how to gently hold the negative or optimize brush strokes during darkroom use by tray. My first thought when I started using a brush was "panic" at first, for it felt odd and my coordination was barely adequate as I tried to feel my way on the negative. Bottom-line, take your time and do several test first. I am planning to create a YouTube video of my process within the next few weeks. I'll keep you posted!

[Jay DeFehr]

Mark,

It is a great method! I recently suggested this very method to a friend in Oxford, though I always use cheap, dollar store foam paintbrushes! Yours looks far more sophisticated, and artistic, and there's a lot to be said for the feel of a quality brush. Thanks for posting, and it's good to see you here.

[John T]

Great information, except Hake is pronounced Ha (as in ha ha) Ke (as in the spanish pronunciation "que")

[cdholden]

Jay,
Other than cost, is there any advantage in using foam over a *-hair brush?
Chris

Mark,

It is a great method! I recently suggested this very method to a friend in Oxford, though I always use cheap, dollar store foam paintbrushes! Yours looks far more sophisticated, and artistic, and there's a lot to be said for the feel of a quality brush. Thanks for posting, and it's good to see you here.

[BetterSense]

Its seems to me that with a hair-type brush, you stand at least some risk of the brush shedding hairs onto your film.

I talked with a lady that had years of experience with astrophotography and in her opinion, the ONLY way to achieve truly even development was through brush development, and they tried it all.

[Jay DeFehr]

Chris,

I don't know that there is any advantage other than the price, and the fact that I happened to have a foam brush handy when I first tested the method. I'm sure a quality brush would provide a much different experience, even if the results were identical.

[Mark Booth]

John, thanks for the correction on the pronunciation for Hake. Jay, GOOD to hear from you!

My thought on brush or foam is really a matter of personal preference, and I would certainly not argue too much with one method being superior—find what works with the budget and is of most interest, then put it to work.

What I would say, is that scratching should not be a problem with a quality brush or foam. I especially like the natural hair brushes when wetted with paint media, so that is why I migrated to the natural hair approach and happened to have a little more money in my pocket that day—feeling rich I suppose! Also the nap is different and the drag across the surface differs somewhat, but by all means use what makes sense and be willing to experiment.

Materials behave very differently when wet and surface tension is minimal between the surfaces with a good natural hair brush, but the tension is just enough to draw off the exhausted developer as a silky glide with full and gentle exchange. Also, a quality brush is generally hand trimmed at the tip so when wet it will not be prickly but smooth and supple. Brushes made from artificial hairs do not form a "belly" as well as natural hair, which is where most of the liquid is held within the brush (think mid-section of the brush). A brush will either have a seamed ferrule or preferably a seamless ferrule. The ferrule is the metal ring that holds the paint brush hairs in place and is secured to the handle with crimping. The beauty of a quality natural hair brush is how it behaves when wet for it will absorb as beautiful as it applies fresh developer.

The natural hair brush may drop a couple stray hairs at first, but will offer more gradual distribution than the synthetic brush. A good brush will not continually loose hair but will actually become better with use. I've never had a problem this way. For a synthetic brush a good fine art varnish brush can work, or a Sceptre Gold (sable synthetic blend) or Cotman (golden taklon). For a natural brush a Hake brush (white goat or boar) works well. Resources: http://www.winsornewton.com or http://www.danielsmith.com or http://www.utrechtart.com/

Most importantly when in the darkroom don't panic when you begin the film developing process, (agitate initially in the tray then begin the strokes) Don't become paranoid that you're missing a spot, because you won't. Relax (grab a beer or your favorite drink) and think methodically as possible, but most importantly intuitively. Have fun!

[Jay DeFehr]

Mark, I hope you won't mind another observation that hasn't been mentioned here; brush development permits the use of very minimal solution volumes- just enough solution to cover the film during rest periods is necessary. A flat bottom tray floating in a tempering tray is self-leveling, and requires very little solution to cover a sheet of film. Developing one sheet at a time, with one shot developer and brush development is, in my opinion, the surest, safest way to get repeatably excellent development results with sheet film, but it can become tedious when multiple sheets are to be developed.

[Mark Booth]

Jay, your absolutely right about the minimal solution volume required. I became curiously aware of this when using my one shot pyro solution and seeing first hand the efficient coverage gained by the brush method. Great comment about a flat bottom tray floating in a tempering tray. This would encourage both efficiency and precise control. Jay—next time in Seattle area, MY TREAT for coffee! Look forward to coordinating something together.

TRAY CONSTRUCTION & SET UP:
I've included a few snapshot pics to illustrate my very basic tray set-up. The 8x10 tray pictured is clean, but well used and stained from frequent use over the years. I've divided the tray into two sections for 5x7 negatives and I have a separate tray for 8x10 use, and another tray with four divisions for 4x5 negatives. I would normally have two gloves on and no watch as seen in the attached photos. I have included a pic of the spiral wrap material which was cut to size and used for the tray divider. I simply used an epoxy glue (in this case, Liquid Nails adhesive worked well). What I like about the spiral wrap is that it allows some flow of liquid through the spiral material while keeping negatives separate from each other. One can really customize this material for it bends and can be cut to any size.

PROCESS METHOD:
In terms of processing technique, I don't really worry about precise rate of speed or the counting strokes, but establish an acceptable pace with consistency. I just set a countdown timer for 8 minutes with my Tri-X in 72ºF dev. solution and slowly and gently (systematically) brush from left to right two complete times over the negative, then move over to the other negative on the other side of the tray and repeat the same process. During this time the opposite negative is resting in the solution as the developer works toward exhaustion. Then I go back to the other negative and continue until my time is up. I also enjoy a metronome which I use for many things. I find this method immensely creative and satisfying which is one of my chef ways of encouraging consistent and repeatable processes. If one enjoys something they are prone to do it again, and to do so with dedication, as a habit that serves them well.

FINAL OBSERVATIONS & TIDBITS:
If one assumes a 6-12 minute development period with most developers and film, sufficient passes and coverage over the negative are almost assured with uniform development. Some photographers will brush in different directions (cross strokes) which is fine, but I find that brushing parallel and toward myself works well with one hand free to gently maneuver or navigate the brush over the film. My free hand is never head on the film in one place for long and is always applied gently if at all. One finds improved dexterity with repeated experience.

While I generally use TXP 320 or FP-4 Plus film, even using the very soft emulsion of Efke film will not scratch this way. I find scratches to occur far more easily when the film is "sloshing" around the tray hitting everything during general methods of agitation or when floating around loosely along with other negatives during careless rinsing. (scuffing each other) Thus, the value of common sense and perfected use of repeatable "good" habits.

By brushing the film properly one will almost assure no air bubbles being trapped and extremely even development, unlike what can be a problem with general tray agitation if not done with care. Don't get me wrong... normal tray agitation is just fine, and some photographers might want to do a combination of agitation and brushing as well.

I am sure others have different or better methods, but this has worked well for me. I am currently doing this method almost nightly for a commissioned historical documentary photographic project involving the relationship of historic architecture and urban culture in Seattle, Washington. So I am taking great care in my work and place full trust in this method, particularly once one has a little practice in place.

[R Mann]

Anyone using night vision goggles with this method?