How does development time change the image?

[Mikael Siirilä]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use Tri-X 400 and Delta 400/100 and have been developing my films "by the book" using Rodinal (R09 One Shot).

 

Could somebody explain/demonstrate with images what happenes if I over/underdevelop with a minute or two? Does this change grain? Contrast? Details?

 

Here is a recent filmscan. Is it possible to tell from the image if the film has been properly developed?

 

 

(click image for larger on black)

[andybarton]

"Under-developing" will hold more detail in the shadows, while keeping the highlights if you expose properly.

[Pintpot]

Andy is right, the old fix - 'over expose & under develop' still holds true.

But there is no 'correct' development time ie. one fits all solution, you need to decide, by trial, the correct development time - for you, one that suits your way of working and will give you the negs you want. The same holds true for exposure times, you need to find out what suits you.

A good place to start is the above 'over and under', by the equivlent of half to one stop.

but beware that over development can increase the contrast.

Find a copy of Ansel Adams 'The Negative' - this will give you a clear indication of exposure and development variations.

[Xmas]

Hi

 

It is best to scan the negative as a positive this allows underexposure to be more easily monitored, it is instead simpler to light box the negatives with a jewelers loupe.

 

If you wanted to see detail i.e. you visualised how the print would look as you took the shot and it is not on the negative, you underexposed.

 

You need to read data sheets from supplier...

 

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010628953322222.pdf

 

This is not totally helpfull although it does show how contrast varies... note the speed normally varies less then contrast.

 

But the contrast varies differently with the three Ilford Devs.

 

The grain will vary differently as well with time, & the grain will vary with ID-11 neat, or 1+1 or 1+3, neat is finest, when ID11 is a nice fine grain dev, 1+3, more coarse but sharp detailing of edges, (enhancing lens performance!) the film speed is near constant! Neat the ID-11 is dissolving the silver grains as they appear...

 

Get a copy of a big thick book on photo chemistry is you want to know gory details.

 

I use D100 and D400 also in Rodinal, if you are scanning you may want to reduce the time say 15% or so. Reluctant to say what I use as I stand at 1+100.

 

Back to the shadows if you are doing still life shots (i.e. have time) and you have the lighting set up as you want it, then you probebly need to take a reflective reading of your shadow detail area, and expose as though that is zone 1, using Westons zone system. google Weston + zone. You decrese the exposure by 4 stops, note I dont memorise the 4, I use a Weston meter with the rules on the meter scales... Note the 4 stop factor would be dependent on developer, film and time.

 

But you need to look at e.g. Citizen Kane for the shadows used, a deep black with no detail is a usefull tool in kit bag. The photog will have set up the lighting with the director with a stand in for actor... the cine guys were real photogs.

 

Noel

[pico]

Here is a recent filmscan. Is it possible to tell from the image if the film has been properly developed?

 

It appears to be quite underexposed, developed normally.

[Stealth3kpl]

It appears to be quite underexposed, developed normally.

 

 

I think mscore is interested to know why you think this is the case rather than it being exposed correctly but under/over-developed.

Pete

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think mscore is interested to know why you think this is the case rather than it being exposed correctly but under/over-developed.

Pete

 

If you look at the upper left corner you will see that the wall is almost (or actually is) pure white, while the upper right is darker - something that indicates to me that the image is underexposed.

 

There is no contrast to speak of in the shadows. (Shadows develop to completion first.) Faces are usually light grey. His is all shadow, undifferentiated from the rest of the shadow area. Greater exposure would have brought out more detail, texture and tones in the shadows. Of course, the background would be quite bright, but flashing the paper or split toning (if wet printing), would take care of that and if using PS, then adjust-shadow/highlight or using curves would fix that.

 

If you take that image into PS and try to bring out shadow detail you will find there is nothing but noise. A proper exposure even if underdeveloped would not have such noise. Adding extra contrast layers doesn't help the noise, either.

[otto.f]

It is just a simple case of metering influenced by backlight > underexposed, that is, it also depends on how you pre-visualized the scene/image, what you wanted to convey; the lighter background is perfectly exposed. Might be a bit underdeveloped because the background is a bit flat. If it was cloudy however, I can't tell, it could be a normal development. If you'd have developed a little longer, or rather agitated a bit more, it would have been more contrasty/graphic, more grainy, with more * impression * of detail (which is not the same as more resolution). You can still reach this effect by manipulating the curve and/or binding in the histogram a bit more

[pico]

[...]You can still reach this effect by manipulating the curve and/or binding in the histogram a bit more

 

Show us. I got nada from the shadows.

[otto.f]

pico:

I did not mean to say that you can recover differentiation in the shadows. Below is a result of PP in Ap3, the way I said it above. To me it looks less flat, and there's more impression of sharpness coming from more contrast. It is a more graphic image, but that's the way it is, because it's exposed like that. It has very little to do with development.

[pico]

Here's the best I could do.

 

OK, now I understand. Thank you.

[otto.f]

This is what I could with with LR3, this, however, like pico's, is not what you call a good curve.

Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights, is the rule in film. The actual exposure here however is mostly determined by the highlighted background

[Mikael Siirilä]

Thanks for the replies. I did intend the image to be close to a silhouette with some shadow detail. For the melancholy of his character.

 

But in scanning the grain seemed different in this shot and other. Got me thinking about the film development and how it might change the image.

 

I would like to see more contrast in my b/w shots in general. I must experiment...

[otto.f]

I see that this was Delta400. If you want more contrast, TriX would be better, if you use Rodinal even more. You get deep more defined differentiations in the shadows which can be manipulated better also. Delta400 often becomes flat in the shadows

[Xmas]

Hi

 

If you are scanning then your biggest problem is capturing the high lights and you may need less contrast.

 

If you wanted detail in the mans jacket you underexposed, you need to look at the negative if it is clear with no silver traces, there is nothing you can do.

 

If you wanted fine graduation of shadows in the coat you need even more exposure.

 

If you were wet printing you would use two grades of paper e.g. one for the coat one for the rest of the print, by burning and dodging and using variable contrast paper, similarly for the high lights, if you wanted.

 

With a scanner you need to avoid blocking the highlights too much. And photo shop for a similar effect.

 

So reduce dev time, meter the shadows,... swapping films and devs risky, you will need some familiarity to get to the fine art printing stage. You may need a still life, and keep records and several cassettes...

 

Noel