if this is a halation effect, no development can reverse it. The film is locally exposed due to stray light thru the film base. How does this bleeding look like? "Bleeding" is usually an effect where highlights are "washed out" in one certain direction. If that happens in any direction, it is most probably a halation effect. You may do the following:
- Try another film. E.g. T-Max is a good performer in this case. Avoid film with clear base
- Use a larger film format. The effect of halation is absolute depending on the amount of light. I.e. for a certain amount of light, the circle of halation is e.g. 1mm. This has less effect on the print the larger the negative is (i.e. the lower the mag-ratio is).
d-23 straight for 5 or 6 minutes and 2% solution of Kodalk (this is balanced alkali... 20 Mule Team will work also as it is borax) for 4 or 5 minutes. Give an extra stop worth of exposure to support the shadow area and hope. If I read your post correctly you are talking about that seen you posted that was washed out in the outside part of the scene. Is that correct? Someone mentioned using a larger format and that will help. Also, if you don't have the ability to mix d-23 use Microdol-x and Kodalk.
I started this message as a reply to Ole in the rotary development thread but it is clearly more appropriate here.
In my opinion halation and infectious development are related phenomena in the type of situation described earlier by Aggie.
Halation is light scattering either through the emulsion, or off the base of the film or glass support and back into the emulsion. However, the immediate result of halation is a latent image that is only made visible by the action of a reducer during develoment. For that reason it is correct to veiw these two actions as related since type of develoment can either decrease or increase the effects of halation. So the bottom line is the type of development can actually increase or decrease the effects of halation by limiting the extent of infectious development.
There is some literature which shows that Pyroc developers, which harden the gelatin more than other developers, and thereby establih a barrier to the migratin of silver halides, are more effective than non-hardening developers in redcuing the effects of halation through infectious development. Gordon Hutchings says something about this the his Book of Pyro.
I don't understand why Aggie's friend recommended againt the use of a Pyro developer in the type of situation extreme highlight/shadow situation she described since most of the literature, including Hutchings, suggests that staining/hardening developers actually work better than traditional developers in this type of situation.
Aggie, your problem is very common with settings that have a great contrast range and testing has not been done for this type of situations. When you take this kind of pictures if the develpement is not right on. As you experienced the highlights get grossly overdeveloped and infectious development occurs.
There is nothing outside of testing that will help you for this. I am guessing you needed something like N-3 or so to render the window correctly. So next time you might want to try lowering your EI to half or even 2/3 less and dvelop for 40% less time. IOW, if you use an EI of 400, lower it to 200 or 120 and develop for 40% less. What this does is record the shadows and gives less time for the developer to act on the highlights.
The best way I have seen this done is by the BTZS method. Dick Arentz in his book has many prints made of negatives with extreme contrast range and this is the method he uses. I have been succesful in a couple of situations similar to yours using this method. OTOH, I kind of like the "halo" effect......good luck, hope this helps.
I was kind of hoping Les McLean would show up here... He has some beautiful examples in his book. He even shows the same negative (well - three different frames with the same exposure) developed in three different developers. No difference in the "spillover" from what I can see!
The factors contributing to this are:
3: Hydroquinone acceleration.
3 is related to infectious development in that both are caused by the reaction products of hydroquinone being more active than HQ itself, but that's as far as the similarity goes. Infectious development would lead to totally featureless, blacked-out highlights; which is not what's happening here (got a scan, Aggie?).
Since the spillover is seen with all developers, not only those containing hydroquinone, I assume this is a minor factor.
Halation and flare are more difficult to control by chemistry...
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (OleTj @ May 12 2003, 05:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I was kind of hoping Les McLean would show up here... He has some beautiful examples in his book. He even shows the same negative (well - three different frames with the same exposure) developed in three different developers. No difference in the "spillover" from what I can see!
The examples that Ole refers too are;
Compensating development, where a normal developer is very much diluted and development extended. Bruce Barnbaum uses this for many of his interior or slot canyon photographs. In the example in the book I didn't feel that it was too successful.
Pyro development, better than compensating but still not my ideal answer to the problem.
Tetenal Neofin Duku, a genuine soft working film developer which achieved what I set out to do, that is, produce a very soft negative both to deal with high contrast and to help me make the soft delicate print I visualised.
To be fair in answering the problem that Aggie has presented us, I think that the examples Ole referred too are somewhat different although I would still be tempeted to use the soft working developer and compare the results with Pyro development and I believe that the soft developer would produce a better result. I am not knocking Pyro but for me the jury is still out on the benefits of using it exclusively. I intend to spend some time working with it now that my house move is behind me, but at the moment I reserve judgement.
Aggie particularly said in her post that she wanted to solve the problem using film development only and not in printing. Can you tell us why Aggie? Perhaps you only wish to make digital images from the negative and don't have the luxury of making a traditional silver print. I think there are situations in traditional silver photography where problems are solved by using a combination of techniques and this is one. I don't believe there is a developer available or even invented that will deal with the problem of flare that Aggie has described and had to deal with when exposing the film. Consequently we have to use a developer that we believe in but also plan how we will sort the problem when we make the print. This is all part of the previsualisation process. We all have our favourite developers that we trust and know and that should be the starting point and then go on to try different solutions suggested by other photographers only when we cannot achieve the result we wish using ur own favourite methods. One of the great strengths of a forum such as this is that we have a group photographers who willingly share experience and ideas and we are almost certain to eventually arrive at the answer.
My solution to the problem would be to use the soft working developer to help minimise the flare, at the same time recognising that the problem is only part solved. In the darkroom I would make the print on VC paper and when I'd produced the contrast and tonality I wish in the remainder of the print I would burn in the window using a number 5 filter and then post flash it as described in the book, page 135 Entrance Antelope Canyon, and page 137 Slate Quarry. Both negatives display the intense light that Aggie describes.
A soft working developer may help reducing the halation effect, but will it yield a better negative? Judging this by the window light will probably distract from the essential.