# development help



## lane (Dec 24, 2012)

Hi, I've been jumping hurdles here and there slowly trying to figure out a process that works for me. I took a class on b&w photography and got hooked months ago. I actually took way better photos in class and didnt have the issues I have now, even though I'm following the same instructions and ****. My first issue was that I started getting purple negatives, which I then corrected by fixing longer and pre-washing, photo-flo, etc. That helped even though I still get an annoying tint, but they are printable/scannable now.

I now have a new issue which I'm having trouble figuring out. I pretty much only get muddy gray images now. To me its weird, I wanted to blame the camera initially because I used a canon eos-1 in class and now I use a canon ae-1 but I doubt that's the case. I'll fill you in on my process.

I currently use tri-x at 400

i first pre-wash for 30sec-1min

then develop with t-max for 6.5 minutes

then use stop bath (simply water)

fixer (ilford rapid fixer) 5 minutes (usually 10 min now to fix the purple tint) dunno if thats a good choice.

I then wash for 25 minutes, and hang dry for 45-1hour.

I never have this issue with my digital camera, but I returned it cuz I prefer film 


ill also get varied results when I push to 800 iso and overdevelop to 8.5 minutes, sometimes I'm more likely to get true blacks. Been researching the zone system and all that but im still confused, maybe someone can explain it in layman.


----------



## dxqcanada (Dec 24, 2012)

Hmm, sounds like developer ... what developer are you using ?
Is it one-shot or replenished?

[Opps ... just realized you are using T-Max developer]


----------



## KenC (Dec 24, 2012)

There are so many variables it's almost impossible for anyone to solve this for you without watching you, but I'll just throw out a few questions that may be useful.  Are you controlling the temperature?  You don't mention temperature at all and that is critical for the development phase.  How are you agitating during development?  What are you photographing and has that changed since the earlier rolls that were OK?  By muddy gray to you mean no dark areas and no light areas in the negative, but just something in the middle?  Are you re-using developer? (always a risky proposition)  Have you always used TMax developer for Tri-x?  I never heard of anyone using it for anything other than TMax film, but if you've done it before I guess it's OK.

I never did a pre-wash, but I doubt that hurts development.

As for pushing to 800 and overdeveloping, that raises contrast significantly, so I'm not surprised you're getting good blacks when you do it.  Basically, underexposing makes the shadows lighter in the negative and increasing development time won't bring out detail that isn't there, so you push a lot of the shadows into black by underexposing.  The highlights will also be less dense when underexposed, but increased development will produce a lot more silver and give you dense highlights in the negative and thus lighter highlights in the print.


----------



## Mully (Dec 24, 2012)

Always got good results with D76 and never a per wash


----------



## dxqcanada (Dec 24, 2012)

What is your chemistry dilution/mix ?


----------



## lane (Dec 24, 2012)

sorry about not mentioning that earlier, I dillute developer 1-4, and yes I thought about buying XTOL or D-76 because I noticed that tmax is obviously for tmax film but I used the tmax developer in class, so yah. Temperature is at 68 degrees for everything, my bad on that too.


Yes, I purposely push because one of my goals is for high contrast and for sharpness, and I'm fine with extra grain. However, I notice that even those prints come out muddy and under an enlarger even at 30-60 seconds ill wet print and they will come out stilly all gray, with no true blacks. I'd say all my prints stay at Zone V and nothing goes any darker than that, which I cant figure out is the problem.

The developer I use is brand new and I never re-use it, I assumed all were not reusable until i researched a couple recently.

btw, I know ill lose shadow detail from pushing but I have been doing that under diffused lighting conditions so I thought it was not a big deal, I'd maybe lose highlights after a while but my main goal was to test if I could get contrast how I wanted it, but I'm not even getting any blacks so far, and it makes me sad lol


agitation is 30 seconds in the beginning, then once every 30 seconds. I dont know what to call it, but i use an agitator that i twirl the reels inside around for 5 seconds every 30 seconds. I'm doing street photography, but I did take photos of inside buildings at first.


the only thing that has changed is that im using tri-x more and that I use a different camera. These are the only changed variables because im following my class notes.


----------



## lane (Dec 24, 2012)

sorry if these upload huge, but heres examples


----------



## gsgary (Dec 25, 2012)

Agitate for the first minute and 7 every minute after that


----------



## gsgary (Dec 25, 2012)

Heres some times for trix and tmax
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Tri-X+400&Developer=TMax+Dev&mdc=Search
i use Rodinal for tri x


----------



## lane (Dec 25, 2012)

in my second post I mention I developed for 6.5 minutes


----------



## dxqcanada (Dec 25, 2012)

You are looking at the negative, right (not the print) ?
Over developing, plus over exposing the neg could muddy things up ?

T-MAX developer data sheet 
1:4 dilution @ 68 C

Tri-X pan = 6min (same time for 800ISO)
Tri-X pan Pro = 4min
Pro Tri-X = 4.5min


----------



## lane (Dec 25, 2012)

yes, the negative, so should I just develop for less time? I plan to use D-76 from now on. I'm kinda confused as to how overdevelopment would achieve this if developing more is suppose to bring out contrast.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 25, 2012)

lane said:


> in my second post I mention I developed for 6.5 minutes



But you only agitate for first 30 seconds an 1 inversion after that you need to do it for full minute the i do 7  inversions every minute


----------



## lane (Dec 25, 2012)

I agigate for 30 full seconds, then after that I agitate/invert for 5 seconds for every 30 seconds. I do this because im followin my class notes, but im also under the impression that I'll increase grain heavily if I agitate for too much, and I must minimize it to prevent blowing out highlights.


----------



## ann (Dec 25, 2012)

dxqcanada said:


> You are looking at the negative, right (not the print) ?
> Over developing, plus over exposing the neg could muddy things up ?
> 
> over developing plus over exposing will increase the contrast, if one over exposed they need to underdevelop and if you under expose you over develop. not both together.


----------



## lane (Dec 25, 2012)

i always try to get an exposure thats in between and isnt over or under exposed. With a standard development time like 6.5 min, if I kept it pretty much in between are the photos I got normal result? I just feel like if I expose correctly or near correctly, and develop for a standard time and then use a enlarger for high contrast printing I should get something different. Btw, I use ILFORD MGIV RC DELUXE paper if that helps...


----------



## ann (Dec 26, 2012)

correctly or near correct or not the same thing.

You need to test your camera equipment to discover how to adjust the metering system.

For example, in one of my classes i had everyone take a meter reading off a spot on the wall in the class room. 18 people, 2 had the same reading.
Does that mean everyone else was wrong. Not necessarily so, as one adjust developing times and determine specific EI for the camera.

That is why it is hard to just throw out a number on the internet and say this is going to be the best combination for an individual.

Meters these days are much better, however, when ever i get a new camera I also test them to discover just what changes I need to make to get the results I want.


----------



## timor (Dec 26, 2012)

Those pictures you did show us are scans from negs or paper prints ?


----------



## amolitor (Dec 26, 2012)

Those photos look like you might have some light leaks or a lens with massive amounts of flare (damaged, possibly?) or both.


----------



## lane (Dec 27, 2012)

ann said:


> correctly or near correct or not the same thing.
> 
> You need to test your camera equipment to discover how to adjust the metering system.
> 
> ...



So, youre saying im not choosing the right settings for my aperture/shutter? I always go by the blinking red light which tells me if I need to increase or decrease shutter speed, and I tend to think that 1/250 of a second is gonna work in diffused lighting conditions and in brighter conditions 1/500 1/1000 works (shutter priority)


as far as condition of the item, it was bought from KEH used, it was described as 90% close to new so I'd expect no issues, dunno bout lens flare..might be it. I am using a different film camera soon hopefully it was just the camera, but I dunno. it probably will end up being so and I dont think thats me trying to find an easy excuse cuz it makes no sense I follow the same process and when I used a different camera this never happened.


----------



## ann (Dec 27, 2012)

When I suggested testing, it is not to see if it is working. but is the information  correct for YOUR needs.

For example; when I use Tri X i rate it at 160 in one camera body and 200 in another and the box speed is 400. The recommended development time is 7.5 minutes. With my equipment I have to develop at 6 minutes or my negatives are bullet proof.
Both of these bodies are high end cameras, but they read differently.

I make all of my negatives to print on grade 3 paper, and to do this I have to test them and adjust for my working conditions etc.


----------



## lane (Dec 27, 2012)

what do you mean by bullet proof?


Also, thanks I think this is probably the problem. So, should I just test rolls until I get the desired results im looking for? How would you suggest I test them adequately? Especially since I got like 6 undeveloped rolls, some at 400, some at 800, and 2 rated at 1600 iso lol.

im gonna use d-76 from now on, any suggestions to start?


----------



## ann (Dec 27, 2012)

bullet proof, over developed, the negatives are very dense and beyond printing (at least for my work)

There are a variety of methods of testing, the easiest and simplest would be to take a roll of film. Let's say one with an ISO of 400, shoot the same subject matter at the box speed 400 about half of the roll, then change the ISO to 200 and shoot the same subject matter again. Developed at the recommended times for the specific developer you using. 

Make a contact print of the results and check the shadows for detail. there should be a difference. If 400 is showing you detail in both shadow and highlights, then that is your EI, if not then changes are 200 will.

We use HC110 solution B for my classes. It can be used as a one shot developer and will last a long time.

If you know someone with a densitometer you can do a more in depth film test.


----------



## lane (Dec 28, 2012)

ann said:


> bullet proof, over developed, the negatives are very dense and beyond printing (at least for my work)
> 
> There are a variety of methods of testing, the easiest and simplest would be to take a roll of film. Let's say one with an ISO of 400, shoot the same subject matter at the box speed 400 about half of the roll, then change the ISO to 200 and shoot the same subject matter again. Developed at the recommended times for the specific developer you using.
> 
> ...




so lets say 200 is my EI. If I shot most of my rolls at 400, 800, and 1600. Is there a way I can develop them so they come out satisfactory?


----------



## ann (Dec 28, 2012)

Each would have to be developed using different types, and to get the best results you would test at each EI and figure out what is giving you the best results. There isn't a best answer here.

Rule of thumb for extending development when changing ISO, 25% for each pushed stopped.

However , just don't blindly assume your EI is 200, you need to  test to be sure, it could be 400. However, those images you posted look underexposed which is one clue.


----------



## lane (Dec 28, 2012)

ann said:


> Each would have to be developed using different types, and to get the best results you would test at each EI and figure out what is giving you the best results. There isn't a best answer here.
> 
> Rule of thumb for extending development when changing ISO, 25% for each pushed stopped.
> 
> However , just don't blindly assume your EI is 200, you need to  test to be sure, it could be 400. However, those images you posted look underexposed which is one clue.



ok, so ill first develop the one roll at 200 and 400 so i can check and if not exposed well, I'll increase development for the following rolls at 800, 1600. Did you mean different times? I dont get what you mean different types. I figure you mean adjust time based upon how underexposed the first roll is.


----------



## ann (Dec 28, 2012)

sorry can't type, i did mean different times.

If these rolls have already been exposed you aren't going to be able to shoot at 200/400. that is for the test roll.

If these are already shot , then i would start with the one at 400 and check it out and go from there, increasing the development types 

Since i am guessing your new at this it may take some time to learn to "read" the negative to see just what the contrast level and detail level is being captured. Just keep at it, keep some good notes so you can remember  just what you have done. (folks think they will remember, but you just don't !)


----------



## bsinmich (Jan 5, 2013)

forget the presoak.  That has the effect of dilutinig the developer that comes in contact with the film right at the start.


----------



## photozs (Jan 14, 2013)

Actually presoaking works well for short develop times like those for T-max or for pull processing using another proprietary brand.


----------



## photozs (Jan 14, 2013)

lane said:
			
		

> yes, the negative, so should I just develop for less time? I plan to use D-76 from now on. I'm kinda confused as to how overdevelopment would achieve this if developing more is suppose to bring out contrast.



More development = less contrast. The longer the development the more the silver is activated. 

Pushing film (ie shooting 400 as 1600) will give you more contrast but require more development as the film has been exposed to less light.


----------



## Jhorneva (Jan 14, 2013)

"Yes, I purposely push because one of my goals is for high contrast and for sharpness, and I'm fine with extra grain. However, I notice that even those prints come out muddy and under an enlarger even at 30-60 seconds ill wet print and they will come out stilly all gray, with no true blacks. I'd say all my prints stay at Zone V and nothing goes any darker than that, which I cant figure out is the problem."

I am kinda of wondering what grade of paper or what variable contrast filter are you using.  The prints are very low in contrast.  Going to a higher grade of paper, say at least 3 would help, or if you are using a VC filter try something about 3 or 3.5, or even 4.


----------



## lane (Jan 18, 2013)

photozs said:


> lane said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



um, this is the first time I've ever read someone tell me overdelopment decreases contrast....err.

I know the second part, thats been addressed.



Jhorneva said:


> "Yes, I purposely push because one of my goals is for high contrast and for sharpness, and I'm fine with extra grain. However, I notice that even those prints come out muddy and under an enlarger even at 30-60 seconds ill wet print and they will come out stilly all gray, with no true blacks. I'd say all my prints stay at Zone V and nothing goes any darker than that, which I cant figure out is the problem."
> 
> I am kinda of wondering what grade of paper or what variable contrast filter are you using. The prints are very low in contrast. Going to a higher grade of paper, say at least 3 would help, or if you are using a VC filter try something about 3 or 3.5, or even 4.



Im using ILFORD MGIV RC deluxe paper, and I usually use the high contrast filter at 4.


----------



## ann (Jan 18, 2013)

photozs said:


> lane said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




More development =less contrast is not correct. More development = more contrast, that is why one pushes, to add contrast which also increases contrast. Basically pushing means underexposing, which means one has to over developed.


----------



## timor (Jan 19, 2013)

Iane, maybe this would help:
Advanced Digital Black & White Photography: Amazon.ca: John Beardsworth: Books
Nothing like a good read.


----------



## lane (Jan 25, 2013)

timor said:


> Iane, maybe this would help:
> Advanced Digital Black & White Photography: Amazon.ca: John Beardsworth: Books
> Nothing like a good read.



Im talking bout film though, why link me a digital book.....loool


----------



## BlackSheep (Jan 25, 2013)

lane, I've been following this but not posting (ann is giving you the info you need already).
But, if you are interested in books here's a couple of recommendations that you might like:

Upton & Upton's Photography Photography: Adapted from the Life Library of Photography [ILLUSTRATED]: Barbara London Upton, John Upton: 9780673398420: Amazon.com: Books This was THE first-year college/university textbook for every photography program here in Ontario (at least) in the late 1980's.

I have not looked at this book yet, but have heard good things about it: Basic Photographic Materials & Processes by Salvaggio;
Basic Photographic Materials and Processes: Nanette L. Salvaggio: 9780240809847: Amazon.com: Books#_

Keep us posted on how you are doing.


----------



## BlackSheep (Jan 25, 2013)

Another thought - is your paper OK? As in, did it get exposed to heat, or fogged due to low levels of light during storage, and/or is it very expired?

And, are you developing your prints in trays or through a processing machine?


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 25, 2013)

lane said:


> Been researching the zone system and all that but im still confused, maybe someone can explain it in layman.



This page might help -> Zone System

Expose for the shadow detail and develop for the highlights
Assuming we are talking about negative film.

Zone System is best used on single frames ... such as sheet film, so each frame can be developed uniquely.
Harder to do when you have a roll of frames that all get developed the same.


----------



## timor (Jan 26, 2013)

lane said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > Iane, maybe this would help:
> ...


I don't know, why I did it. I must have taken wrong past and copy shortcut as I am not even interested in digital photography, lol. Sorry.
I rather meant this:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...sg=AFQjCNGoY-nStGfpiNx7rbHgz9lhRTp99A&cad=rja
which is a pdf edition of this:
Amazon.com: Black and White Photography: A Basic Manual Third Revised Edition (9780316373050): Henry Horenstein: Books


----------



## timor (Jan 26, 2013)

Also here 6 megs pdf:
Black & White Photography | Henry Horenstein | digital library BookOS
Actually here is a whole stash of photography books in pdf's. Apparently they are for free:
Download books "Arts & Photography - Photography". Ebook library Bookos.org


----------



## timor (Jan 26, 2013)

This "stash" however is mostly for digital folks.


----------



## BlackSheep (Jan 26, 2013)

Timor, thank you for sharing that link, there's a lot of good stuff there! 
FYI, they limit you to 10 downloads for free, then you have to register. Don't know what's involved with registering, I was happy with my 10 free books so stopped there.



timor said:


> Also here 6 megs pdf:
> Black & White Photography | Henry Horenstein | digital library BookOS
> Actually here is a whole stash of photography books in pdf's. Apparently they are for free:
> Download books "Arts & Photography - Photography". Ebook library Bookos.org


----------



## timor (Jan 26, 2013)

Your welcome. Power of Google (sneaky spy).


----------



## photozs (Jan 29, 2013)

ann said:
			
		

> More development =less contrast is not correct. More development = more contrast, that is why one pushes, to add contrast which also increases contrast. Basically pushing means underexposing, which means one has to over developed.



Ann, imagine what a negative would look like if you over-processed it by a stop or two. Is there more information in all areas of the neg or less? Hopefully you're thinking more!
You could keep processing until you end up with a solid black neg and on the way there your contrast decreases. More processing=less contrast (whether pushing the film or not.) 

The higher contrast in a push process comes from underexposing the film. As the film was exposed without enough light to activate the silver properly the shadows in your negs have less detail. The highlights in your neg are also underexposed but the push process adjusts for that. As a push process can't invent detail where it never was though, you will end up with less detailed shadows (strong blacks) and fewer tones between those and the highlights. Consequently the negs and prints will have less tonal range.  
Pushing neg film creates more contrast. Pulling neg film reduces contrast. 
Shorter processing time=higher contrast
Longer processing time=less contrast

If you want to push film but retain as much tonality as possible use a dilute processor with a longer processing time. Similarly, if you want to put contrast into pulled film go for a stronger ratio and/or shortened processing time. 

The same rules apply to correctly exposed film neg of course!


----------



## timor (Jan 29, 2013)

Interesting.


----------



## Helen B (Jan 29, 2013)

Photozs, would you mind defining what you call contrast before we go any further? You don't seem to be using the gradient of the characteristic curve. As you increase development both the contrast and the density range of the neg tend to increase.


----------



## ann (Jan 29, 2013)

photozs said:


> ann said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I know exactly what over processing looks like including the amount of detail., etc. etc. etc.

I understand why one pushes and pulls, but as Helen as asked we need to know your define your terms with regard to contrast


----------

