Developers for better shadow detail

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by Flotsam, Jan 30, 2004.

  1. Flotsam

    Flotsam Member

    Messages:
    3,221
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    S.E. New Yor
    I'm doing some tests with some new (to me) 35mm films (Efke 100 and JandC Classic 200). I'm using D-76 1:1 in a JOBO processor. Using the long JOBO recommended pre-soak and cutting the suggested dev, times by about 25% in order to bring my high densities down to where they print properly on a#2 paper. My problem is that my shadows are coming up thin and lacking detail. I hate to drop my film speed on these films in order to bring my shadows up.

    I'm wondering if the folks here can suggest a developer that. in their experience, is more active in the low densities that might allow me to stick with the normal film speeds. Also, although it would drop my developing times to below what I would like, I am curious if using the D-76 at full-strength would tend to enhance the lower densities.

    Just as an aside, I process Tri-x in FG7 under the same conditions and get good shadow detail at the rated 400. I hope to try Classic 200 in this developer tonight and see if my speed comes up. I'll post the results.
     
  2. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    17,922
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I would just drop my EI, but try a developer like Acufine or Diafine to get a real increase in film speed and more shadow detail.
     
  3. sanking

    sanking Restricted Access

    Messages:
    4,813
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Location:
    Greenville,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
     
  4. Jorge Oliveira

    Jorge Oliveira Member

    Messages:
    614
    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Location:
    Brazil
    Shooter:
    35mm
  5. Ole

    Ole Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    9,284
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Location:
    Bergen, Norw
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    FX-2 works great with EFKE 100, giving a slight speed increase (about 1/2 to 3/4 stop). It is also great for stand developing, I have used 90 minutes at 20°C with impressive results.
     
  6. MikeK

    MikeK Member

    Messages:
    558
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2003
    Location:
    Walnut Creek
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Neal, I have been using a fair bit of Classic 200 and have souped it in D76, D76H, PMK and Rodinal and with these developers and my technique I need to rate the film at an EI of 100 for my best results. This is true for both 120 roll film and sheet.

    You could use a developer which gives you a speed gain like Microphen or just try pushing the film by extending the development time. But I just do not like the grain structure with these developers. Classic Pan 200 Developed in PMK 10+20+1000 for 14 minutes is a magic combination.

    - Mike
     
  7. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    17,922
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Extending development time usually only increases contrast by increasing the highlight density without improving shadow detail.

    A developer like Microphen or Acufine really does boost shadow detail, which is a real film speed increase. There are also methods like exposing the film to acid vapor or hydrogen peroxide vapor described in Anchell's _Darkroom Cookbook_, but I've never tried them.
     
  8. Jorge Oliveira

    Jorge Oliveira Member

    Messages:
    614
    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Location:
    Brazil
    Shooter:
    35mm
    There is also the almost forgotten water bath method.

    Lynn Jones, professor at the Austin Community College, has a paper on it.
    But it's a real PIA.

    Jorge O
     
  9. Flotsam

    Flotsam Member

    Messages:
    3,221
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    S.E. New Yor
    Last night I did a test with Classic 200 in FG-7, (which gives me the rated speed of 400 with Tri-X), and although somewhat over developed, (I had to try to extrapolate the time), the shadows were still thin. Along with the knowlegable responses that I've gotten to this thread, I think that the best solution is to drop the EI when I use these films. I'm bit reluctant to use "Fine Grain" developers with these medium speed films for general use. It makes you wonder what these film companies used to establish these speeds in the first place. :confused:

    While the JOBO works well in the humble, slapdash, running-water-in-the-adjacent-bathroom, darkroom set-up that I am currently using, I've always been dubious about rotary processing B&W. I would bet that intermitant agitation would allow the shadows to build up a bit more while holding down the highlights.

    Thanks to all for the responses.
     
  10. Ole

    Ole Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    9,284
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Location:
    Bergen, Norw
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Any "real" acutance developer will give a speed increase. FX-2 I've already mentioned, FX-1 is a little too harsh for 35mm. Neofin Blue was made for the ADOX films which the EFKE films are based on.

    If you inist on using D-76, increase the dilution to reduce the solvency which is damaging your shadows.

    You don't know what these films are capable of until you've tried them with an acutance developer!
     
  11. sanking

    sanking Restricted Access

    Messages:
    4,813
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Location:
    Greenville,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
     
  12. Eric Rose

    Eric Rose Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,327
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Location:
    Calgary AB,
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    What is the address for this AZO forum??
     
  13. sanking

    sanking Restricted Access

    Messages:
    4,813
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Location:
    Greenville,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
  14. Paddy

    Paddy Member

    Messages:
    338
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Location:
    Vancouver, B
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Aside from utilizing some of the aforementioned "stand developing" techniques/developers, shadow detail is obtained primarily through the exposure, not development. So for determining my effective E.I. with a given film, I always want to know if I've acheived a threshold density in Zone I of at least .10 above FB+F. If I have then I'll also know what the E.I. is for that film. Truth be told, my "normal" E.I. for FP4+ is 25, ditto for J&C Classic 200, and 100-160 for HP5+. I've simply accepted the fact that when the Winter Olympics come to town in 2010, I won't be doing anything even remotely motor driven. ;-)
     
  15. Flotsam

    Flotsam Member

    Messages:
    3,221
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    S.E. New Yor
    I'm on the third roll testing this stuff (JandC 200). Like you, I think that I'm going to wind up around EI 125 or 160. My developing, though I've cut it quite a bit, is still over the top, pushing the highlights way too high. It's also pretty grainy but I hope that nailing down my exposure and development will improve that.
     
  16. Flotsam

    Flotsam Member

    Messages:
    3,221
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    S.E. New Yor
    B.T.W. I love "Nicole". A wonderful portrait of a lovely model. A bit bored, a bit defiant, but an open expression, full of life and personality.
    Weren't we all at that age?
     
  17. Ed Sukach

    Ed Sukach Member

    Messages:
    4,519
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2002
    Location:
    Ipswich, Mas
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Hah! Small world!

    My grand daughter-in-law just enlisted in the Marines.

    I think she is in for an instant "reality check".
     
  18. Poco

    Poco Member

    Messages:
    653
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I just developed my first negs with D76 with .4 gr/liter potassium bromide as additive. The idea is that the p b gives lower base fog and a corresponding increase in shadow contrast. I haven't printed yet, but there's no question the B/F is lower than negs developed yesterday without the additive, so I expect it will make at least a subtle difference.