Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,280   Posts: 1,534,885   Online: 838
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26
  1. #1
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,231
    Images
    20
    Really short developing times can cause uneven development or mottling visible in areas like skies or inconsistent results from sheet to sheet, but if it's working for you, then I don't see any reason to change. If you're processing in daylight tanks, though, it might make sense to fill the tank and insert the loaded reels in the dark and use an acid stop bath.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  2. #2
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    The "Not under five minutes developing time" caveat has been discussed before.

    I'll restate two things to consider:

    In C-41 color processing - all the chemicals I've used require a development time of 3 minutes, 15 seconds @ 38C. Well under five minutes for this supposedly hyper-sensitive process. I've done - I don't know - a thousand or two films using this time - In JOBO tanks, with *no* "pre-wetting" - and with *no* unevenness or localized density / color problems.

    Irving Penn is his book, Worlds in a Small Room, describes his processing: "Tri-X film, developed in Ethol UFG - for three to five minutes." Either he hadn't heard of the "Not under five..." rule or he chose to ignore it.

    What about it gang? Has anyone here actually had adverse results from developing film for - gasp - less then five minutes?
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  3. #3
    lee
    lee is offline
    lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,913
    Images
    8
    I processed some new trix in HC110 and have pretty uneven development at 3.5 minutes. (streaks mostly) This was Dil B. I have changed to Dil H. Now it seems ok.

    lee\c

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    Jay - Can I ask a really dumb question here? When we spend so long lovingly getting a print to look just as we want it, why would anyone want shorter development times? OK now you know I'm really thick.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Düsseldorf, Germany
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,021
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    Has anyone here actually had adverse results from developing film for - gasp - less then five minutes?
    It would depend of course on the agitation procedure used. For example, with tubes, when one favours any of the stand or semi-stand development procedures (minimal or extreme minimal agitation) then a time of even less than 10 minutes is not desirable (uneven development, bromide drag etc..). However, using tubes with continuous but gentle agitation it is possible to have even development with times under 5 minutes. In fact for high contrast scenes (SBRs 11 or greater) my times for continuous-gentle agitation in tubes is on the order of 3 to 4.5 minutes.
    Francesco

  6. #6
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,231
    Images
    20
    I often do Tri-X and Classic 400 in Acufine at room temperature, where times may be around 3.5 min., and haven't had problems with it.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  7. #7
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,172
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by jdef
    I developed the prints in the same developer that I used for the film. When I made the first enlargement, I was startled by the sharpness of the print. I saw no evidence of uneven development, and the rolls were absolutely consistent in contrast, and printing quality. I don't know how much further this developer could be diluted, but I imagine that at some point it will begin to show a compensating effect. I will continue to work with this developer, and post updates in the Chemical Recipes forum.

    Jay
    ...and maybe share some scans of this miracle with us?
    Jim

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    Wasn't C-41 designed for machine processing in the time is money enviroment? The last time I did C-41 the night before I loaded the tank with film. Woke up with the worlds worst cold but that wasn't going to stop me. I turned on the heater and went to think about breakfast. By the time the chemicals had warmed up the worlds worst cold had gotten worse. I poured the developer into the tank and started the timer. I turned to walk away and get some extra wash water when I noticed the timer was already below the 1 minute mark. So I either blacked out for 2+ minutes. Maybe. Or I had the timer set for RA-4. I let the timer run and then added the time difference.

    Okay so you're going to ask if I could tell a difference. No but then I wasn't running control strips in the tank . So any error would have to been pretty bad for me to notice.

    Longer times let you screw up and not notice the screw up. Odds are I ended up giving the film almost enough extra time for a partial push. Not quite a full stop. If it had been B&W with my long 14 minute times an extra 15-30 seconds would have meant nothing at all.

  9. #9
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by TPPhotog
    Jay - Can I ask a really dumb question here? When we spend so long lovingly getting a print to look just as we want it, why would anyone want shorter development times? OK now you know I'm really thick.
    Why, because we're so anxious to get to that tedious work of making wonderful prints, of course.
    Gadget Gainer

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Rhine valley
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    107

    Development below 2 mins

    In 2002 I received a developing agent similar to Ascorbic Acid, he named it SEB, it is used for developing microfilms. Developing microfilms is something like 30 secs, his developer is high in Phenidone and SEB plus Carbonate.
    So I formulated my own film developer (named K2), using borax as alkaline and ended up around 2 mins, using a Jobo CPE, no problems, fine grain but poor sharpness. The second version (K4) used borax/boric acid like ID-68 and gave times of 4-5 mins, similar grain size and still sharpness too low.
    A high concentration of Phenidone gives high initial speed in developing, for normal film the minimum seems to be around 60-90 secs, even 2 g Phenidone could not get below these values with reasonable contrast. I read some eastgerman book that Aminfunctionality gets to the silver quicker than Hydroxyfunctionality, so based on that Phenidone attacks first and the time for this reaction might around 30-60 secs, than the Phenidone gets recovered by HQ and/or Ascorbic Acid. If the later reaction is slower, it would explain the low contrast below 60-90 secs, basically a Phenidone-only developer like XR-1 is pretty low in contrast, HQ etc. is required to build up contrast.

    So anything longer than 90 secs sounds reasonable to me, just let me know if sharpness is good, as I gave up on that K2/K4 developers and switched to a staining developer based on Catechol combined with potassium hydroxide diluted 1:1:90 developing times around 20 mins and great sharpness with 100 speed films but grainy with 400 speed films.

    Regards,

    Wolfram
    Colour? We can always use an airbrush later...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin