Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,000   Posts: 1,524,329   Online: 726
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    MurrayMinchin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Coast, BC, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,195
    Images
    15
    Being consistent in dilutions, temperatures, times, and agitation is really important for repeatable results. Another tip is when changing your methods, to change only one thing at a time and judge its effects compared to past results.

    Until you purchase an enlarger, you might want to get a local photo lab to contact print your negatives. There's no place for a poorly exposed and/or developed negative to hide on a contact print. Welcome to the dark side

    Murray
    Last edited by MurrayMinchin; 04-21-2008 at 09:09 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    _________________________________________
    Note to self: Turn your negatives into positives.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Quote Originally Posted by pierods View Post
    Hi,

    I am an engineer by day, a wannabe film developer by night.

    I bought "The film developing cookbook" and looked up dev times for delta 400 in ID-11.

    From the book:

    delta 400@400ISO, 20c, small tank:

    id-11 stock 7 mins
    id-11 1+1 10.5 mins

    From Ilford's data sheet (same conditions):

    id-11 stock 9.5 mins
    id-11 1+1 14 mins

    ????????????????

    Also, still from Ilford's delta 400 sheet:

    CHOOSING THE BEST ILFORD
    DEVELOPER FOR THE JOB

    Maximum sharpness (powder) ID-11 (1+3)


    When you go and look for dev times, IN THE SAME SHEET, for delta 400 with ID-11 at 1+3...UNLISTED!

    Either I'm missing the obvious, or this is a very large WTF situation...

    Ignore what "The Film Developing Cookbook" says about development times. The author wrote what worked for him. That is not necessarily what will work for you. Your best bet is to use the manufacturer's recommendations as a starting point. They know what they're doing, they engineered the film, and they have a vested interest in their customer having a positive result. They would,after all, like to keep you as a customer.

    Why no published development time from Ilford for Delta 400 in ID-11 1+3? There are a couple of possibilities here. Development times can run too long to be practical. There needs to be a minimum amount of stock developer, and development in a small tank might not be able to accommodate that amount. Remember too, that the manufacturers figure in a pretty large "fudge factor" to account for individual variances.
    Frank Schifano

  3. #13
    pierods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by fschifano View Post
    Ignore what "The Film Developing Cookbook" says about development times. The author wrote what worked for him. That is not necessarily what will work for you. Your best bet is to use the manufacturer's recommendations as a starting point. They know what they're doing, they engineered the film, and they have a vested interest in their customer having a positive result. They would,after all, like to keep you as a customer.

    Why no published development time from Ilford for Delta 400 in ID-11 1+3? There are a couple of possibilities here. Development times can run too long to be practical. There needs to be a minimum amount of stock developer, and development in a small tank might not be able to accommodate that amount. Remember too, that the manufacturers figure in a pretty large "fudge factor" to account for individual variances.
    Got ya!

  4. #14
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    I see no choice but to do a sensitivity analysis to find the effect of development time of ID-11 on the film of your choice. Average all the development times from other sources. Take the shortest, the average, and the longest times to develop each of 3 identically exposed pieces of film. The best scene to photograph for these tests will include a reflective gray scale. Whether you have a densitometer or not, you can tell by the image of the grey scale in a contact print or enlargement approximately (close enough for engineering work) how many steps you see between black and white. If you do both contact and enlarged prints, you will see the difference in development or paper grade that might be required.

    I do mostly roll film, so it is a simple matter to expose a whole roll identically. With 35 mm I brackett the exposure + & - 1/2 stop and cut off a strip at least 4 frames long to be sure of getting the bracketted series each time.
    Gadget Gainer

  5. #15
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,167
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Wallace View Post
    I have to disagree, respectfully.

    The reason that there are differences in the times for this film and developer combination is that different photographers look for slightly different things.
    Absolutely. And the film I use is very unforgiving so I'm pretty exacting. I only mean to say that engineers tend to get so wrapped up in the precision that they lose sight of the photograph.

    All you really need to do with film is get close. I've made great prints from absurdly thin negatives (as long as they were exposed enough) and from some that were so dense they took a 3 minute exposure.

    But, you need to find what works and then do it exactly the same way every time.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Plymouth. UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,400
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by pierods View Post
    Hi,

    I am an engineer by day, a wannabe film developer by night.

    I bought "The film developing cookbook" and looked up dev times for delta 400 in ID-11.

    From the book:

    delta 400@400ISO, 20c, small tank:

    id-11 stock 7 mins
    id-11 1+1 10.5 mins

    From Ilford's data sheet (same conditions):

    id-11 stock 9.5 mins
    id-11 1+1 14 mins

    ????????????????

    Also, still from Ilford's delta 400 sheet:

    CHOOSING THE BEST ILFORD
    DEVELOPER FOR THE JOB

    Maximum sharpness (powder) ID-11 (1+3)


    When you go and look for dev times, IN THE SAME SHEET, for delta 400 with ID-11 at 1+3...UNLISTED!

    Either I'm missing the obvious, or this is a very large WTF situation...
    The times given in the Film Developing Cookbook are for the previous version of Delta 400 and the latter times are for the current version which is now in it`s 3rd generation.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by fschifano View Post
    Ignore what "The Film Developing Cookbook" says about development times. The author wrote what worked for him.
    Aren't the times copied wholesale from the Massive Development Chart? So you have no clue as to the conditions or results of those times as they are put up by numerous volunteers. Kind of like trusting something like Wikipedia to completely right on everything...

    Use them as a guideline and develop a test roll first.

  8. #18
    pierods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Keyes View Post
    Aren't the times copied wholesale from the Massive Development Chart? So you have no clue as to the conditions or results of those times as they are put up by numerous volunteers. Kind of like trusting something like Wikipedia to completely right on everything...

    Use them as a guideline and develop a test roll first.
    Allrigthy, thanks to everybody.

    At this point I must draw the conclusion that between the massive dev chart and the amount of different opinions, my second hypothesis was true, i.e., this is a typical WTF situation.

    References:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=zrtIfdoJbrU
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=kbNkuK6X1i4


  9. #19
    eddym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,927
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by c6h6o3 View Post
    Absolutely. And the film I use is very unforgiving so I'm pretty exacting. I only mean to say that engineers tend to get so wrapped up in the precision that they lose sight of the photograph.
    True, which is why I once had a hard time convincing another engineer-turned-photographer that photography, and especially film developing, is SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. There is no "right" development. There is just the one that works for you, and makes the prints the way you want them to look.
    Eddy McDonald
    www.fotoartes.com
    Eschew defenestration!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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