Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / August 2004
Awful short developing times
|
|
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
|
|
|