AntiLynd
Hello everyone,
I’m thinking of adopting a new workflow for medium format. Since shooting in this format is a slower process for me anyway, and as I mainly photograph urban landscapes, I can afford the luxury of re-measuring the subject for each shot using a semi-spot meter, setting the shadows to “Zone” III – and then developing the film with its 12 shots, which may be very differently exposed, in a way that means I don’t have to worry about the highlights.
That’s the plan. And this is where a two-bath developer might come into play, because precisely this (not having to worry about the highlights) is one of the key benefits attributed to many of these developers.
So, my question or suggestion is:
* Which of you use a two-bath developer? Only under certain circumstances, or even as your standard process?
* I’m not so much concerned with “I always use Diafine when I can’t remember whether I performed the exposure on the 400 film as 200 or 800?”, i.e. damage control for worst-case scenarios. What we should discuss is the potential suitability of (for example) D23 two-bath, Moersch MZB, Stöckler or Barry Thornton’s Two Bath for ‘serious’ work. And that naturally involves, as with single-bath processing, precise process control. I don’t think much of the idea that two-bath is great for people who like to work sloppily (that much I can say already).
* One concern of mine would be that a two-bath process is more harmful than helpful for shooting situations with lower-than-normal subject contrast. What are your experiences in this regard?
I’ve come up with this whole idea in the first place because my mentor, with whom I’m currently working on refining my workflow, says he’s been involved in development exclusively in BTTB for over 15 years, using the very same film and the very same camera for all his work. However, my work is not his work, and so naturally only my own practical tests will show to what extent, for example, BTTB is suitable for my work. Hence my interest in a broader exchange of experiences to help me form my own preliminary thoughts on such practical tests. ...especially as there doesn’t seem to be a thread on this topic here in the forum as yet.
Best regards
Nils
Renate
What is BTTB???
€
Best regards
€
Renate
AntiLynd
Hello Renate,
?
Sorry, that’s just the abbreviation for Barry Thornton’s Two Bath – much like Stückler’s or Ansel’s two-bath process, it’s ultimately a variation on the old split D23 method. Here’s the recipe as recorded by Parker Smith:
?
Bath A
85 g sodium sulphite
6.5 g metol
Make up to 1 L with water
?
Bath B
15 g sodium metaborate (Kodalk)
Make up to 1 L with water
[Thornton suggests controlling the contrast, if desired, via the amount of alkali, e.g. 7 g for less, 20 g for more negative contrast.]
?
http://www.parkersmithphoto.com/clientftp/docs/Barry%20Thornton%20Two%20Bath%20developer.pdf
and somewhere on barrythornton.com, and in his books.
?
Here are two articles on Divided D23 and its variants:
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/DD-23/dd-23.html
KlausWehner
I’ve been looking closely into the topic of dual-bath developers
?
My question to you, Nils: what specifically are you looking for in these developers (that makes you rule out other developers)?
?
Best regards
Klaus
AntiLynd
Hello Klaus,
?
‘Not considering other developers’? That’s not quite right. In my own case, like most of us, I’ve worked with various (single-bath) developers over the years and then, at some point, as is only natural, settled on one developer (or film, etc.) – for 35mm.
?
With medium format, it’s been different so far; I haven’t established such a fixed routine there yet, but am only just switching from having colour slides processed externally to processing black-and-white film myself. Here, I’m effectively in a phase of studying, which is intended to prepare me for experimentation. It’s certainly conceivable that I might transfer my existing 35mm working methods to medium format. Whether that makes sense is another question; I had already hinted that, as one might imagine, I use 35mm for ‘faster’, more dynamic photography, but that medium format is increasingly playing a role for me where I work in a more ‘static’ manner and can therefore afford to measure out the subjects more carefully... and for the development stage of the process, I am currently exploring possible options. I’m not ruling out single-bath developers. Rather, I’m also considering two-bath developers, which is why I’m looking to exchange ideas. And since there isn’t much on this topic here in the forum yet, I thought I’d set up a thread like this as (ideally) a knowledge resource not just for myself, but also for others who might be interested in the future.
?
What you’re surely getting at, among other things, is the question: what does the two-bath developer achieve that can’t also be achieved with one or other single-bath developer? As usual, there may be various answers to this, and of course there are certain people who have a very passionate love-hate relationship with the two-bath method. There’s no doubt that photo forum users can wage long-running ‘wars of faith’ over the two-bath process, too. I take a more pragmatic view: ‘whatever works’. And based on my knowledge so far and discussions with — at least one — professional who is very experienced in this field, my thinking is roughly as follows:
?
As far as the result is concerned, one might achieve the same thing by other means (many roads lead...). And there’s no question that the two-bath process isn’t suitable for every desired type of result. It’s also important to be wary of product claims such as “developer with built-in [!] contrast compensation”, as if what the user does during exposure and development no longer plays such a significant role. Where I see the potential of the two-bath process (subject to concrete testing) is in the process that leads to the result: for me, as a reasonably experienced user, it represents a very easy-to-use tool for ensuring sufficient shadow detail whilst preserving the highlights in a way that is indispensable for the subjects and lighting situations I prefer to work with. I was out and about the day before yesterday, here in Berlin, in very slightly overcast conditions, and, contrary to my usual habit, I made notes on each of my 12 shots: no subject contrast below seven stops; in some cases up to nine. Cobblestones in the shadow of a house: ‘Zone’ III, the stark white façade of the same building: ‘Zone’ XI, and so on. As someone who neither uses (nor wants to use) interchangeable magazines nor sheet films for customised development, you quite quickly come round to dual-bath processing as a possible option in the toolbox, don’t you think?
?
Best regards
Nils
KlausWehner
The difference between 35mm and medium-format photography isn’t that significant, as it would essentially require different developers.
It would make sense to me to continue working with the tried-and-tested developer for the time being.
?
If, for a specific reason, there is a need to look for a different developer with different performance characteristics, then it would be worth considering which developer can meet the new requirements.
?
To handle a subject with high contrast in terms of development, a ZB developer would certainly be a good option (alternatively, a stand development could be considered).
?
For subjects with normal contrast, however, I would personally prefer developers other than ZB (according to the formula mentioned).
?
Best regards
Klaus
jochen53
Hello Nils,
I perform the development on all my films using a two-bath D-76 process. The rated sensitivity is achieved, the shadow detail is good, the highlight blackening is controlled yet still retains detail (clouds against a blue sky are visible even without a filter). The contrast is normal; almost all negatives can be enlarged to the same gradient. The stability and usability are very good. Even severe overexposures still result in usable negatives. The developer is not sensitive to slight variations in temperature or times that are not strictly adhered to. Overdevelopment is practically impossible due to the principle of action.
€
Best regards, Jochen
TR
>> Cobblestones in the shadow of a house: ‘Zone’ III; the house’s stark white façade: ‘Zone’ XI
€
With negatives like these, I think a two-bath development makes perfect sense and is better than a purely reduced development. The problem is that if the film also contains subjects with a low contrast range – or even foggy shots – they’ll just come out as a ‘mushy’ mess. This should be easy to correct during computer processing, but in a black-and-white darkroom it becomes tricky (Grade 5 is still too soft).
€
A contrast range of 9 stops can also be achieved with a “normal” developer. When copying (enlarging/scanning), however, certain ‘workarounds’ then have to be employed, which would certainly not be necessary with a two-bath development. I would only use such a process if, for example, I were to perform the exposure on an entire roll of film solely with high-contrast subjects (e.g. night shots with street lights).
AntiLynd
Thank you all three for your input. As you’ve all basically pointed out, it cannot be emphasised enough: whether this technique is right for you ultimately depends on your own working style and the aesthetic you’re aiming for. In my case (though this is only a side note), for example, I usually perform the exposure for a roll of medium-format film in one go, i.e. under fairly constant lighting conditions. The expected problem – that despite (or because of!) the high contrast compensation, the normal contrast ranges of the subjects might appear too flat – would then be avoided.
?
It may be different for other people. Anyone aiming for a style in the vein of, say, Daido Moriyama, is unlikely to be advised to use a two-bath process. And, conversely, speaking of which:
?
Foggy shots
?
On the product page for the Moersch MZB
,
there is a
picture
that makes me think: surely the photographer achieved the result they wanted here, and that alone fully justifies the methods used. This approach – using a dedicated neutraliser, then increasing the contrast out of sequence by extending the processing time – was certainly not
necessary
.
?
I’ve found a brief, beginner-friendly introduction to the topic here:
http://www.fotolaborinfo.de/fotolabor/fsazwbe.htm
...m.E. You might have to take the author’s somewhat exuberant enthusiasm with a pinch of salt. Category: ‘jack-of-all-trades’ :)
grommi
In my experience, two-bath developers aren’t necessarily any easier to use. Various two-bath developers, such as Emofin, do perform significant development in the first bath, but the result is extremely soft. That’s why Emofin was (or is, for me) the first choice for push processing of highly sensitive films up to 3200 and above, because you can really ‘tweak’ the development by adjusting the time in the first bath without the negatives becoming too hard too quickly; I don’t know of anything better. Unfortunately, it’s no longer manufactured, but I still have enough powder for a few litres. I don’t know which current two-bath developer can do the job just as well.
Perhaps you’d be better off with a ‘normal’ developer for your purposes. But all this talk is of little help; you’ll have to try it out for yourself. I agree with Klaus on this: you can do it with cut-up KB and don’t need to waste a few 120s.
jochen53
€
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
I’ve found another short, beginner-friendly introduction to the topic here:
http://www.fotolaborinfo.de/fotolabor/fsazwbe.htm
...m.E. You might have to take the author’s somewhat over-the-top enthusiasm with a pinch of salt. It’s a bit of a ‘jack-of-all-trades’ :)
</blockquote>
Hello,
A comment on the formula for D-76 two-bath processing in the above-mentioned article: The amount of 50 g of borax per litre seems too high to me; in the formula I have from Fototechnik International, it is only 30 g. Presumably, 50 g would not dissolve completely.
Incidentally, two-bath developers are not balancing developers that flatten the gradation curve overall; they merely limit the maximum density achievable through their mechanism. Nor are they soft developers.
Regards, Jochen
AntiLynd
As is so often the case, everyone probably just uses (and shares) the recipe that has worked for them. In Anchell/Troop, we read:
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
grommi
"Incidentally, two-bath developers are not balancing developers that flatten the overall density curve; they simply limit the maximum density that can be achieved through their mechanism. Nor are they soft developers."
As already noted, this does not apply to all two-bath developers. The first bath of Emofin, for example, is an extremely soft developer, as is that of a homemade two-bath developer based on phenidone and vitamin C. Both of these developers very gently without additional alkali, which is present in the second bath and activates the developer further or at all. Anyone can test this for themselves with a film strip in bright light in the first bath of their two-bath developer to see if density builds up slowly in the first bath. These two-bath developers can be controlled very well via time and temperature.
Bonderer
Why keep it simple when you can make it complicated?
I didn’t notice any improvement in my negatives or prints when using Emofin. It might be down to my style of photography; I can’t say for sure. But there are now such good developers available that I just wonder why no one ever thought of concocting something like this in the past.
You can’t expect anything from the remaining major manufacturers. It’s the small workshops that put their heart and soul into tinkering with new formulas.
If anything, I’d still have some faith in Moersch’s two-bath developer; he knows what he’s doing, but for me it’s all a bit too hocus-pocus.
I prefer simpler methods, but to each his own. If you think you need a two-bath process, then go for it. Whether it actually makes a difference is another matter.
AntiLynd
Improving my negative images
?
good developers
?
Perhaps this is also a reason for your disappointment... the expectation that there is such a thing as good and bad developers, and that these could be primarily responsible for improving your negatives — without any reference to your personal working methods and the desired visual effect.
?
Metol 7.5g
Sodium sulphite 100g
Water to make up 1 litre
?
...is a good developer for me. It’s called D-23.
jochen53
Hello,
?
?
.......is a good developer in my opinion. It costs €23... and is also very well suited as the first bath in a two-bath developer process, followed by an alkaline bath as the second bath (see A. Adams).
KlausWehner
Personally, I distinguish between "true" and "false" two-bath developers.
?
By "false" two-bath developers, I mean formulations in which the bulk of the development takes place in Bath I.
Bath II then modifies the development that has already taken place to some extent.
(Almost) all well-known two-bath developers work on this principle.
If you omit Bath II and simply develop for longer in Bath I, you get a result similar to that obtained by using Baths I and II as specified.
?
"True" two-bath developers work differently.
Here, Bath I is a purely "physical" stage. No chemical reaction takes place.
Only the purely physical process of the developer penetrating the emulsion takes place in Bath I.
That is why the time spent in Bath I is irrelevant.
?
When the film is placed in Bath II, development begins.
Development can only take place using the developing agents that the film has absorbed into its emulsion in Bath I.
Once these are ‘used up’, development stops automatically (first in the highlights – only later in the shadows).
For this reason, the time spent in Bath II is also irrelevant.
?
Originally, I wanted to design my ‘Wehner developer’ based on this principle.
The difficulty, however, was finding a developer concentration in Tank I that provides the right amount of developer for all films, so that proper development can take place in Tank II.
?
But I haven’t quite given up on the idea yet.
Perhaps I’ll still find a solution to this problem.
?
Best regards
Klaus
?
