farngarten
Hello,
Has anyone ever tried developing the same film using different concentrations?
So, I’d use Adonal dilution xy for the first 10 minutes, then drain it off and, as with a two-component developer, leave it for another xy minutes in a completely different Adonal dilution. ???
Would it be worth experimenting with this?
Regards, Martin
Lichtjahr
Give it a go and then decide whether the experiment was worth it for you.
In the early days of photography, people also experimented with urine.
€
Fortune favours the brave.
€
Best wishes, Edi
Wolf_XL
... what's the point of that? It's just like drinking – whether you start with beer and then move on to spirits, or the other way round, it doesn't really matter – once you've had a certain amount of alcohol, you're drunk... ;-)
AchimBauer
Hi Martin,
I’ve no idea if this will work, but when I was searching online for information about two-bath developers, I came across a page that I unfortunately didn’t make a note of; someone had been experimenting with two different developers on it.
Perhaps you’ll find the page if you have a look.
?
Best regards, Achim
HenningH
Wolf_XL
...well, that’s just a run-of-the-mill two-bath development process – you take two different developers – based on base substances that act differently – and hope that the positive properties of both types of developer complement each other... In fact – there are combinations where this works reasonably well... However, I consider it out of the question to bathe a film in the same developer at different dilutions in order to achieve a significantly better result. The same substances are at work – the second, different dilution can only continue what the first has started – but never change or even reverse it...
TR
positive characteristics
But these should be identified first. What is the aim? Perhaps to ‘subdue’ the highlights whilst fully developing the shadows? In this case, one should actually use a dual-bath developer designed for this purpose, or at least ‘interpose’ water baths. Ultimately, an
impressive image can only be achieved through targeted, individual processing in the positive process. Such an image rarely emerges on its own from the negative tray.
Lichtjahr
A print like that rarely comes out of the developing tank on its own.
?
You’re mistaken there;
apart from the correct exposure, only the development of the negative is decisive for the result.
In the positive process, you can only adjust the gradation.
What isn’t present in the negative cannot be achieved by any magic in the positive process, not even with a two-bath development.
In other words, if, for example, the shadows lack definition, you can never, ever achieve that in the positive process. The same applies to the highlights; what’s blown out stays blown out, and the next level would then be grey – i.e. grey mush. The sort that so many here are so proud of...
?
Edi
?
?
sputnik
I think you’ve misunderstood something there.
T.R. wasn’t talking about a technically perfect image (in terms of full tonal range), but rather an ‘impressive image’, which often involves giving different weightings to various areas of the image (not just in terms of brightness, but also in terms of contrast).
This is only possible in the positive process.
Of course, a “perfect negative” provides the best conditions for this, but nobody has disputed that either. ;-)
The statement “apart from the correct exposure, only the development of the negative is decisive for the result” is, in any case, inaccurately worded,
because the result is the final print. ;-)
TR
as regards the different weighting of various areas of the image (not only in reference to brightness, but also in reference to contrast).
Yes, that is exactly what I meant. There are indeed situations where everything is just right: the distribution of light, the inherent brightness of the foreground in relation to the subject, the texture of the sky, the local contrasts between elements. In almost all my shots, however, I always have to intervene afterwards to make it look ‘impressive’, so that the image becomes something more than just a mere copy of the subject. Of course, film can’t do that. There are rarely any shortcuts here. Incidentally, I’d recommend the excellent book ‘
Larry Bartlett, John Tarrant: Workshop Black and White Printing
’ at this point. I’d always describe the negative as a ‘blank canvas’ that absorbs all the information like a sponge. The ‘carving’ then takes place during the positive printing process.
In other words: you can’t achieve this with
a magic potion
.
jochen53
If you value good shadow detail and limited density in the highlights, combined with good sensitivity utilisation, then go straight for a two-bath developer. Its mechanism of action is essentially based on the limited amount of developer substance that the emulsion has absorbed in bath 1. It is used up in the highlights, whilst there is still enough left in the shadows for further development in bath 2.
Renate
Hello,
?
A book by Weidner suggests the following: After the full development time has elapsed, drain off the developer and then pour in a borax solution. Borax is alkaline and ensures that the developer still present in the emulsion can continue to develop the film until it is used up. This allows the shadows to darken slightly further, whilst the other areas remain virtually unchanged. I think this is somewhat similar to developing with two concentrations and is roughly the principle behind two-bath development.
?
I have bought borax, but I have never tried the recipe. Enhancing the shadows also means reducing the partial contrast in that area, and I don’t like that.
?
Best regards
?
Renate
Bonderer
I have to admit, unfortunately, that I prefer taking photos; developing film is OK too, but then...
I’m a bit of a lazybones. A good developer, Heiland’s Splitgrade, and some good multigrade paper, and it usually works out fine. Two-bath development is too much hassle for me, and if it doesn’t work out, tough luck. Unfortunately, I haven’t come across any little green men yet. But sometimes, wishful thinking is the father of the thought.
My intention has always been to take good photos; technical perfection was never my goal. Well, maybe once or twice, but that was quite a while ago.
Wolf_XL
... I feel the same way – but shhh, to be honest, I can’t see any difference between Rodinal 1+25 and Rodinal 1+50 either... ;-P
?
I just pop a standard roll of KoAgFuIlfo film into a standard developer following the instructions on the bottle, and that’s that. I’ve been doing it that way for over forty years – whatever’s missing, the Saviour (Splitgrade) brings out...
?
I do have Densi and Sensitizer to hand as a backup – and St Anselm’s *Das Negativ* anyway – but honestly – I do dust them all off regularly, but I’ve never actually needed them...
?
And now you can all have a go at me... ;-)
Lichtjahr
I would always describe the negative as a ‘blank’, which absorbs all the information like a sponge. The positive is then ‘carved’ during the process.
What I mean is: you can’t do that with a magic wand.
€
€
€
I’d like to see an example image... preferably in the gallery.
€
I’ve never seen chiselled positives before, nor have I ever come across the term.
€
Edi
€
€
€
Renate
Hello,
?
Then just have a look at John Sexton’s photographs. They are absolutely stunning prints. He uses the same materials as the rest of us. But he knows how to use them properly, and he takes the time to work through a print. He doesn’t wait for the roasts to fall from the sky; instead, he makes the most of the opportunities he has. His pictures are, figuratively speaking, ‘finely chiselled’.
?
Despite our niche existence, we have a great many opportunities. I don’t just think the glass is half full; I think it’s actually still quite full, and I admire Mirko’s efforts to keep it that way for us.
?
I’ve taken a lot of pictures for exhibitions this year, and I’ve had the feeling that I can draw on a wealth of resources. There are plenty of good films, negative developers for every purpose, various high-quality papers that you can use depending on your mood, and a wide selection of toners. You just have to take the time to experiment with them. Good pictures are crafted, both during shooting and when printing. This also involves picking up a piece of cardboard and dodging or burning. Split-grade only makes sense when you’re working with different gradients within a single image.
?
I don’t wait for a wonderful casting machine to supply me with chamois paper either. Instead, I take a weak tea infusion and soak the paper in it until it has the right tone. It’s not for the lazy, but you get the result straight away.
?
I don’t rely on the promises made by developers and film manufacturers. I test them out and reliably end up with good negatives, from which you can then produce decent positives.
?
Best regards
?
Renate
Lichtjahr
Hello Renate,
I’ve had a look at John Sexton’s photos – brilliant work, he really knows his craft!
Everything is perfect, from the shot itself to the finished image. There’s no trickery or magic involved.
It’s simply down to the best ‘tools’ – superb lenses both on location and in the darkroom – a thorough understanding of the physics of optics, and a mastery of the technique.
He probably works according to Ansel Adams’ Zone System as well.
That’s exactly what I look for in a technically perfect photograph.
For me, everything else falls into the ‘experiments’ category (tea bags, coffee developers, etc.) or I simply can’t do any better.
Experiments are important, they’re fun and can be educational!
Best regards, Edi
TR
Lichtjahr, on 16 Dec 2015 - 01:08 AM, said:
Could you please provide an example image... preferably in the gallery.
?
I’ve never seen chiselled positives before, nor have I ever come across the term.
It was just a metaphor ;)
Here’s an example. The text is below it, as it comes from my final year dissertation at university.
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
Lichtjahr
Hello,
I took the liberty of playing around with your sample image a bit.
Here is the result, attached below.
€
I would increase the exposure on the paper using a hardener and work with a two-bath developer.
The darkest areas – the furrows in the field – must appear black in the dark sections, but must not run into one another overall.
The brightest parts of the image, in the sky, must be white but not blown out.
In this case, I would slightly overexpose the sky down to the horizon, develop, use a fixer and then, again in the sky down to the horizon, clarify the highlights in diluted Farmer’s toner.
Basically, given this low contrast in the subject, a different negative development would have been required. Then everything would have been much simpler in the positive process.
€
By the way, at our Munich State School of Photography, the specialist teachers used to hold the finished positives up to the light to check whether there was still detail in the shadows.
€
Regards, Edi
mattes
I don’t think using different developers one after the other will lead to anything good.
It’s quite likely that you’ll simply exacerbate undesirable characteristics.
People often discuss such techniques, but you rarely see results backed up by clear documentation – let’s not even get started on that.
There is a suitable film/developer combination for every conceivable scenario. If the range available in shops isn’t enough, you can fall back on a wide variety of recipes. With the right expertise, you can even adapt these.
I’m curious and enjoy experimenting, and four developers have won me over. One is a simple recipe you can make yourself, one is no longer manufactured, one is a two-bath developer and the other a universal developer.
I achieve the best results with the two-bath developer.
Matthias
