Steve is right about highly dilute reduced agitation development. It is what I do for almost everything. Ilford HC, 1:63, 75F, longer developing times with reduced agitation. I start off agitating as normal, then half as much, then half as much again.
I love HP5 simply because of the versatility. As Steve said, it is not the best film for increasing the contrast of a scene. But I am of the Learn One Film Backwards and Forwards Before Messing Around Too Much With Others Camp, and HP5 is that film for me. I find it more simple that way. To me, simplicity matters to some degree, even when using the zone system. I have 5 films "zoned" in my C33 in HC-110, and Tri-X in 4x5. Since I switched to Ilford HC instead, I have retested only with medium format FP4 and HP5, and switched to HP5 in 4x5. (I like it better than Tri-X for most things, and don't see myself using Tri-X again...no complaint against Tri-X, just a preference now that I have tried HP5 in sheets.) Eventually I will get around to getting all my old films down on the new developer...although HC-110 and HC have turned out to be very very close for me so far!
I'm sure that you have figured this into the equation. In an oxydation/reduction situation like development, the reaction will continue until either it is stopped or one of the components in the reaction is depleted. So if we dilute the developer way down, how can we be sure that there is sufficient reducing agent available to process the amount of film present? It seems to me that if we run out, it's over.
I'm no chemist; I suppose if I were I could figure it out. Otherwise, I suppose we could insure ourselves by using a large amount of developer. How do you deal with this?
Larry, I use an method similar to Steve's. I do, in fact, use a good bit of developer. When developing an individual sheet of 8x10, I use 1250ml of Pyrocat PC at 1:1:150 in a tube. If I were doing constant agitation in a tray, I'd use 500ml at 1:1:100. The amount for the tube development was simply what it took to fill the tube, but it has worked out well.
juan
I think Tim's problem isn't related to not using an "exotic" development method.
I think there is something more fundamental at work that needs to be sorted out, and that he needs to discover full control of his basic process rather than chasing after a magic bullet.
Processing nuances are fun, but Tim currently lacks a proper point of departure into that realm.
__________________
--J Brunner, The Prints of Darkness
When developing an individual sheet of 8x10, I use 1250ml of Pyrocat PC at 1:1:150 in a tube. If I were doing constant agitation in a tray, I'd use 500ml at 1:1:100.
juan
Juan,
I suppose that using the amount of developer one normally would use in a small tank, and using a larger tank instead, diluting proportionally to the tank size could be a safe way to go.
Thanks. Good information.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
I think there is something more fundamental at work that needs to be sorted out, and that he needs to discover full control of his basic process rather than chasing after a magic bullet.
I think so, too. Having the basic process under control and THEN applying the special methods would be the best of all worlds, but without the basic understanding of the scale, not likely to be successful.
I think Tim's problem isn't related to not using an "exotic" development method.
I think there is something more fundamental at work that needs to be sorted out, and that he needs to discover full control of his basic process rather than chasing after a magic bullet.
Processing nuances are fun, but Tim currently lacks a proper point of departure into that realm.
Yup. Walk first, run soon after!
Tim
__________________ If only we could pull out our brains and use only our eyes. P. Picasso
I'm sure that you have figured this into the equation. In an oxydation/reduction situation like development, the reaction will continue until either it is stopped or one of the components in the reaction is depleted. So if we dilute the developer way down, how can we be sure that there is sufficient reducing agent available to process the amount of film present? It seems to me that if we run out, it's over.
I'm no chemist; I suppose if I were I could figure it out. Otherwise, I suppose we could insure ourselves by using a large amount of developer. How do you deal with this?
Thanks,
Larry
I certainly am no chemist.
Dilutions and overall amounts of chemistry need to be consistent for sure. Developer exhaustion is paramount to the process. The frequency of agitation, length of agitation and style all play into the end result. I always used to say that developing film is the most boring part of film photography. This particular method of film development opens up so many creative possibilities it becomes challenging and exciting to determine development times and technique.
My starting point is 15ml A 10ml B 2000ml water 70F.
Thinking back to Tim's original question of how to attain a full range contrast negative from a very flatly lit scene of similar tonalities. In that sense Reduced Agitation Development is a magic bullet because no other wet process method will affect the end result Tim sited, let no one tell you otherwise. With twenty years under my belt, I spent 2 years and a lot of 7x17 film trying to shoot in flat light and make prints on Azo. I nearly gave up until I read an article by Sandy King where he described the possibilities and rewards of Semi-Stand development.
With all conventional forms of film development a negative can be measured from deepest shadow values starting at about .20 to a highlight density of between 1.4 and 1.6 for Azo. With exact exposure and careful development very flat scenes can be expanded to nearly these numbers. However, the print will still look like weak and flat because the micro contrast in the scene has not been significantly altered to give the impression of higher contrast. Basically, that is all hard contrast printing paper does, exaggerate micro contrast. Reduced agitation development doesn’t change the beginning point (.20) or the ending point (1.4 / 1.6) it dramatically alters the micro contrast which gives the impression of greater contrast and dare I say “increased sharpness”
However, I can't help but agree with Jason in that one must have a pretty thorough understanding of the B&W process before venturing off into very specialized processes.
As with most things, when you gain something most times it comes at a price. While for me, and my unusual methods of working the gain far out weighs the drawbacks. Certainly, the process isn't for everyone's style or subject matter. With respect to your vision it is by no means a magic bullet.
I am especially pleased that the term "increased sharpness" has not been mentioned in this thread prior to now. Progress is being made.
Cheers!
__________________ Real Photographs are Born Wet !
Thanks again everybody. Sandy, I'm linking to a thread on the LF site, if you don't mind. It has to do with your recommendations for dilutions for different types of reduced agitation (I posted a question for you over there pertaining to these recommendations)- It may be useful to those here who use Pyrocat HD. http://www.largeformatphotography.in...371#post367371
Tim
Tim,
No problem. In fact, as I recall there was a similar thread over on the LF forum that started about the same time as this one.
I thank Steve Sherman for his generous comments. He gives me a lot more credit than I deserve for the practical application of this highly useful film developing technique to low contrast scenes.
Curiously, most of my work with reduced agitation with very dilute developer solutions is at the other end of the scale, i.e. scenes of very high contrast. This method really seems to work for everything, if you have the patience to test your materials and learn from your experiments.
I really appreciate your willingness to share this experience of yours. I've long suspected that greater dilution and lots of patience has unknown benefits, but my areas of experimentation haven't given my much experience in that particular direction - in fact, sometimes directly opposite such as development with continuous agitation of 7 35mm reels in an 8 reel inversion tank so they move around violently, with temperature lowered, to suppress fog using 2475 recording film in Windisch pyrocatechin. That worked great, but it did NOTHING like what your methods do. It got me the result I needed. I think your methods may be a fruitful area for me to work with using some of my prior determined methods as foundations. I find them very attractive.
You may find this interesting, or just plain weird. A friend of mine had a studio sale to simplify his life, and probably about 100 people came. One fellow came up to me and handed me his card. I don't remember his name, but under it was his "profession": "Refrigerator Developer". The story was that he kept his developer in the fridge, and whenever he loaded a roll of film into a tank, he'd pour the developer into it, put it back in, and leave it for weeks. He described the results. They sounded like fun; lots of Mackie lines, bromide streaks, etc. I've never tried it, but maybe I will! Well, back to topic.
I am new to this forum; I've been avoiding online discussions for some time now for some unknown reason. I am blown away with the incredible knowledge and generosity that I find, nearly every time I log on. This is just absolutely great.
Linear Mode
