Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / August 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Awful short developing times

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
JJS - 17 Aug 2004 22:25 GMT
looking at the recommended development times for Efke 25 and Neofin Blu and
see: "with constant agitation 3.75 minutes, othewise 8 minutes." So much for
using a Jobo Expert - or not?  Fill and empty time would seem to be terribly
critical with 3.75 minute development time.

Of course, I may find that I hate the outcome of constant agitation... but
the question remains  - fill time w/jobo Expert 3010?

In the meantime I will tray develop using the frame, but the Jobo question
is hanging.
Frank Pittel - 17 Aug 2004 22:32 GMT
: looking at the recommended development times for Efke 25 and Neofin Blu and
: see: "with constant agitation 3.75 minutes, othewise 8 minutes." So much for
: using a Jobo Expert - or not?  Fill and empty time would seem to be terribly
: critical with 3.75 minute development time.

: Of course, I may find that I hate the outcome of constant agitation... but
: the question remains  - fill time w/jobo Expert 3010?

: In the meantime I will tray develop using the frame, but the Jobo question
: is hanging.

Try a five minute pre-wash and then the recommended 8 minutes.

Signature

Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

JJS - 17 Aug 2004 22:35 GMT
> : looking at the recommended development times for Efke 25 and Neofin Blu and
> : see: "with constant agitation 3.75 minutes, othewise 8 minutes." So much for
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Try a five minute pre-wash and then the recommended 8 minutes.

You da Jobo man!  Okay, seems reasonable.
Nick Zentena - 17 Aug 2004 23:11 GMT
> looking at the recommended development times for Efke 25 and Neofin Blu and
> see: "with constant agitation 3.75 minutes, othewise 8 minutes." So much for
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> In the meantime I will tray develop using the frame, but the Jobo question
> is hanging.
 
 
 People use those drums for C-41 at 3'15" so they can't be all that bad.
How much liquid do they take? From memory it's not very much.

   The other thing where did you get those times? Personally the only times
worth having are those you get from testing yourself. The 3.75 time is less
then half. Normally the claim is 15% less and some film and developers need
even quicker times but more then 50%? BTW isn't tray processing considered
constant agitation?

    http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rotary/rotary.html

     Nick
jjs - 18 Aug 2004 02:03 GMT
>     The other thing where did you get those times?

"The Massive Development Chart" which I think has to be an enormous
compromise based on ... what, I do not know. Sure, I make my own tests but
3.75 minutes  to 8 minutes is hugely strange, as you pointed out. I have to
believe the Massive Development Chart is largely an extrapolation of figures
having very little to do with the real world. I'm calling Bullshit on them.
Here and now.
Donald Qualls - 18 Aug 2004 02:26 GMT
>>    The other thing where did you get those times?
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> having very little to do with the real world. I'm calling Bullshit on them.
> Here and now.

Most, if not all of the times on the Massive Dev Chart are contributed
by users of the listed films and developers -- for instance, I've
contributed times for HC-110 Dilution H and EI for Diafine with diluted
Bath A (on microfilm emulsion).  Like any other times there, they're
dependent on timing methods, agitation regimen, and personal preference
for "good" negatives; my times tend to be much shorter than those of
others with the same film and developer in order to produce negatives
that I find work well with my (currently, digital darkroom) workflow.

No time you get anywhere will ever be more than a starting point -- but
I agree with you to the point that the huge difference between normal
agitation and constant agitation is odd.  It might be explained if the
film you're using is one for which the sheet (tray or Jobo development)
and roll (normal agitation) emulsions differ significantly in thickness
or hardness.  Some films have considerably different times for sheet
film compared to roll -- and others don't.

Signature

I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
                                                    -- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages  http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages     http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

jjs - 18 Aug 2004 02:33 GMT
> > "The Massive Development Chart" which I think has to be an enormous
> > compromise based on ... what, I do not know.
> [...]
> Most, if not all of the times on the Massive Dev Chart are contributed
> by users of the listed films and developers  [...]

Oh great. Probably with the exception of your your good work, Donald, the
Massive Development Charts looks rather like a network Gang-Bang. I can get
the same gross figures by extrapolating. See, we simply have no source of
authority. Now if a combination could be tagged with the source, like yours,
it would be more valuable.
Donald Qualls - 18 Aug 2004 05:17 GMT
>>>"The Massive Development Chart" which I think has to be an enormous
>>>compromise based on ... what, I do not know.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> authority. Now if a combination could be tagged with the source, like yours,
> it would be more valuable.

Something that might be worth suggesting to the maintainer.  I know he's
linked some work with Mike Scarpitti (oddly enough, given the overall
opinion of his work here), concerning densitometry tested zone
contractions and expansion of, IIRC, some Agfa films.  Other that that,
unless a time matches a film or developer manufacturer's figures,
there's just no telling where it came from.

Even with my times, the ones for HC-110 (other than the monobath, which
is pretty much self-regulating) are probably significantly shorter than
you'd use for the same contrast -- most likely because, lacking extra
hands and a proper darkroom timer, I have to start my time after filling
and capping the tank, and I don't compensate by pouring out early
(though this should add only a minute or so, at most, while some of my
times differ by a factor of two).  OTOH, I've also seen enough contrast
variation with the same time, and an agitation difference from fifteen
seconds once a minute, to ten seconds every three minutes, to account
for a 50% increase in time to restore the contrast with the lower
agitation; I may simply agitate more or more vigorously than others
(though I don't think I do -- once a minute, five inversions, sometimes
the same inversions less frequently when I'm after reduced contrast or
want to help the shadows a little by extending development and want to
keep the contrast in control).

In any case, if you get acceptable results by extrapolation, more power
to you.  Otherwise, if you're dissatisfied with published times, might I
suggest testing each new combination rather than relying on the times
other publish?  First, clip an exposed leader and put it in developer in
the light; time until it just starts to darken.  Multiply by (IIRC) 20
to get a starting time (you can verify the factor by comparing against a
combination for which you know a good time), then clip a few frames and
develop at that starting time to evaluate contrast, and adjust as
necessary with the second clip or remainder of the test roll (which
should be all the same subject and exposure, with normal contrast range
of five to seven stops, and metered with an incident reading or by Zone
metering).  Once the normal or "N" development is established, a
ring-around test will let you set your working EI -- and with two rolls
of film and, at most, four or five development cycles, you've
established your EI and normal development time starting from knowing
nothing about the combination.  You should be able to do the work in an
afternoon, if you have few interruptions.

Signature

I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
                                                    -- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages  http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages     http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Michael Scarpitti - 18 Aug 2004 14:47 GMT
> >     The other thing where did you get those times?
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> having very little to do with the real world. I'm calling Bullshit on them.
> Here and now.

The times are simply collected from manufacturers' data. I have found
them useless. That's why I went to the trouble to test the Paterson
developers (my facvorites) and send my results to the site, which
differ substantially from theirs.
Richard Knoppow - 18 Aug 2004 01:38 GMT
> looking at the recommended development times for Efke 25 and Neofin Blu and
> see: "with constant agitation 3.75 minutes, othewise 8 minutes." So much for
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> In the meantime I will tray develop using the frame, but the Jobo question
> is hanging.

  This is too large a difference in time. Typically the
difference between intermittant agitation and continuous
agitation is around 20%. Given a time of 3-3/4 minutes for
continuous agitation I would expect something like 5-1/2 min
for intermittant. Something is wrong.
  The use of a presoak will increase the time a little but
it affects mainly the induction time, that is the time it
takes between immersion in the developer and the time the
image begins to appear. When the emulsion is saturated with
water the developer must displace the water and is a little
diluted at first. Presoaking is useful where the developer
can not be brought into contact with the surface of the film
evenly because it slows down the uptake of the developer and
tends to make the initiation of development more uniform.
  I don't know how Neofin Blue behaves when diluted.
Generally, when a developer is diluted 1:1 the time is
increased about 1.5X but some developers change properties
when diluted so this trick can't be used. Maybe this
combination should be developed in an invertible tank with
intermittant agitation.

Signature

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Michael Scarpitti - 18 Aug 2004 02:17 GMT
> looking at the recommended development times for Efke 25 and Neofin Blu and
> see: "with constant agitation 3.75 minutes, othewise 8 minutes." So much for
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> In the meantime I will tray develop using the frame, but the Jobo question
> is hanging.

Neofin is an acutance developer. Under NO circumstances should you use
a Jobo continuous-agitation automated machine. It will defeat the
whole purpose of using an acutance developer, which work best with
MINIMAL agitation.
Michael Scarpitti - 18 Aug 2004 02:17 GMT
> looking at the recommended development times for Efke 25 and Neofin Blu and
> see: "with constant agitation 3.75 minutes, othewise 8 minutes." So much for
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> In the meantime I will tray develop using the frame, but the Jobo question
> is hanging.

Neofin is an acutance developer. Under NO circumstances should you use
a Jobo continuous-agitation automated machine. It will defeat the
whole purpose of using an acutance developer, which works best with
MINIMAL agitation. I would dilute TWICE the amount suggested, and
develop for about 7 minutes, agitation ONCE PER TWO minutes.
A Concerned Contributer - 18 Aug 2004 13:10 GMT
The times "Greg Blank" worked out for Efke 25 for View Camera magazine
are as follows:

HC110B 4 minutes FB+Fog .07
D23 1+1 7.25 minutes FB+Fog .10
PMK 1+2+100 9.25 minutes FB+Fog .15
All tests according to him were done using the expert drum.

> looking at the recommended development times for Efke 25 and Neofin Blu and
> see: "with constant agitation 3.75 minutes, othewise 8 minutes." So much for
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> In the meantime I will tray develop using the frame, but the Jobo question
> is hanging.
jjs - 18 Aug 2004 13:30 GMT
> The times "Greg Blank" worked out for Efke 25 for View Camera magazine
> are as follows:
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> PMK 1+2+100 9.25 minutes FB+Fog .15
> All tests according to him were done using the expert drum.

Wow! Thanks for that, Greg.
Michael Scarpitti - 18 Aug 2004 21:08 GMT
> > The times "Greg Blank" worked out for Efke 25 for View Camera magazine
> > are as follows:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Wow! Thanks for that, Greg.

Again, the whole point of Neofin is the adjacency effects produced
with intermittent agitation.
John - 18 Aug 2004 16:52 GMT
>The times "Greg Blank" worked out for Efke 25 for View Camera magazine
>are as follows:
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>PMK 1+2+100 9.25 minutes FB+Fog .15
>All tests according to him were done using the expert drum.

    Do does the image stain count as fog ?

Regards,

  John S. Douglas, Photographer -  http://www.darkroompro.com
             Please remove the "_" when replying via email
JJS - 18 Aug 2004 16:56 GMT
> >HC110B 4 minutes FB+Fog .07
> >D23 1+1 7.25 minutes FB+Fog .10
> >PMK 1+2+100 9.25 minutes FB+Fog .15
> >All tests according to him were done using the expert drum.
>
> Do does the image stain count as fog ?

John, that's a rather alarming suggestion.  You mean strictly the PMK,
correct? I had planned upon trying the HC110-B forumla.
A Concerned Contributer - 18 Aug 2004 17:59 GMT
Yes that's what he means, only the PMK. It's an appropriate
question because in experience FB+Fog should not exceed
.10 but sometimes it does.....and is not a good thing.
PMK and Pyro in general is the exception.

> > >HC110B 4 minutes FB+Fog .07
> > >D23 1+1 7.25 minutes FB+Fog .10
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> John, that's a rather alarming suggestion.  You mean strictly the PMK,
> correct? I had planned upon trying the HC110-B forumla.
JJS - 18 Aug 2004 18:57 GMT
Why do you occasionally use fake IDs, Greg?
John - 19 Aug 2004 05:01 GMT
>> >HC110B 4 minutes FB+Fog .07
>> >D23 1+1 7.25 minutes FB+Fog .10
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>John, that's a rather alarming suggestion.  You mean strictly the PMK,
>correct? I had planned upon trying the HC110-B forumla.

    Exactly. Also I would still recommend Microphen over HC110.
HC110 was always slow and somewhat high in contrast. A good X-ray
developer IMO.

Regards,

  John S. Douglas, Photographer -  http://www.darkroompro.com
             Please remove the "_" when replying via email
A Concerned Contributer - 18 Aug 2004 17:55 GMT
The image stain is part of the .15

> >The times "Greg Blank" worked out for Efke 25 for View Camera magazine
> >are as follows:
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>    John S. Douglas, Photographer -  http://www.darkroompro.com
>               Please remove the "_" when replying via email
John - 19 Aug 2004 04:57 GMT
>> >The times "Greg Blank" worked out for Efke 25 for View Camera magazine
>> >are as follows:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>
>The image stain is part of the .15

    Boy ! It would be really bad on some dated, foggy film then !

Regards,

  John S. Douglas, Photographer -  http://www.darkroompro.com
             Please remove the "_" when replying via email
A Concerned Contributer - 19 Aug 2004 14:12 GMT
It is,.....very long process times 18-19 minutes to achieve
a grey card value .75 sheet film,......if that. That is
if one is trying to get full emulsion speed.

> >> >The times "Greg Blank" worked out for Efke 25 for View Camera magazine
> >> >are as follows:
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>    John S. Douglas, Photographer -  http://www.darkroompro.com
>               Please remove the "_" when replying via email
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.