Developing Times

[lmans]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I thought D76 and Ilford 11 were the same, or close enough but development times differ between what the carton says and what Digital Truth states...for instance

When shooting TriX 400:

When working with Ilford ID11...the development time 1:1 is 11 min for the TriX as listed on the Ilford carton.

When looking at Digital Truth. it shows 9.75....

When shooting Formapan 400:

This is not listed on the Ilford carton...but Digital truth has 10-13 with D76 and 12-13 with Ilford ID11

information? jim

 

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Pyrogallol]

I think Digital Truth is made up from a lot of different sources. At one time I sent in an amendment for using pyro developer, so just use it as a good guide.

i would start with the times given by the film or developer manufacturer, they seem to be about 10 to 12 minutes so just use whatever gives you the density and contrast that you prefer. If you cannot find a time for a particular film in the developer you want look at the time given for another film of similar ISO.

i believe D76 and ID11 are the same for all practical purposes.

Edited December 13, 2020 by Pyrogallol

[250swb]

Times are only guides, and very rough guides at that. The times on the film carton or the developer bottle don't take into consideration how you metered the film, the light conditions when the film was exposed, what type of negative you want (so maybe a low contrast one for scanning, or higher contrast for darkroom printing), and it doesn't take into consideration your own preferences for more/less grain etc. 

I never develop Tri-X at the recommended times because it gives me negatives that are too dense, and this is because I meter from the ground, grass, and mid tones and not the scene in general which would contain far more highlights. So what you need to do is remember how you metered the scenes on the roll and take an average guesstimate and develop nearer the longer of the recommended times if you feel the shadows are going to be weak based on how you metered, or the towards the shorter of the times if you feel the highlights are going to be too dense. Standardising how you meter starts to make sense now because it is the first link in the chain. When you get the sort of negatives you like stick with that regime.

[RayD28]

It seems odd the same film and stock has two development times suggested. 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Tom R]

Consistency begins with planning, patience and careful note taking.

Going back many years, I kept a little notebook in which I recorded data about each exposure. Specifically, I noted the film, of the film, the hand-held meter readings of ambient light and I would then bracket -1, 0, +1 exposures. Bear in mind, back then I would load my own cartridges from 100 foot rolls and I was processing everything myself. I also had the time to do these things. Anyway, I'd then note the developer, dilution, temperature, and agitation intervals (30 or 60 seconds).

(I also did this for the printing process ... Hence I had a notebook for printing paper manufacturer, paper developer, dilution, etc.)

Once I had what I needed, I would repeat the procedure for any new film or developer as needed. As you might imagine, I stuck with one or two films and one or two film (and paper) developers for the vast majority images (... still do).

In summary: I learned pretty quickly that standardizing my process translated into more time to focus on the task of making photographs instead of agonizing over unexpected results. In other words, technicalities were no longer an excuse for poor results and photography became some more relevant to me than a lab experiment.

[lmans]

TomR....you have a life's work in those notes....did you keep em? ...  I say that for I was an elementary teacher and I had many notes, lesson plan books thru the year and while I didn't keep them for 'that life is gone'...in many ways I wish I did.... How about your notes?

RayD28....I noticed that too...if you click on the 'notes' to the far right, it states that the times for the 'old' version was was listed. Not sure what the old version is though or when the split occurred. jim

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, RayD28 said:

It seems odd the same film and stock has two development times suggested.

Not really.

As Steve says, DigitalTruth is crowd-sourced. A compilation of different photographers' experience with different subjects, lenses, cameras, meters, thermometers - and above all different tastes for what constitutes a good negative.

Would you consider it odd if two or three or five recipes for lasagna all recommended different baking times?

This applies to the original question as well.

It is also the case that "Tri-X" has gone through numerous generations - today's Tri-X is not the 1960s Tri-X or the 1990s Tri-X, any more than today's Porsche 911 is the 1990s or 1960s version. The most recent "revision" (that I know of) was on 2007, when the designator changed from TX400 to 400TX. Silver content reduced; Kodak's own processing times revised.

[Tom R]

Interesting. I taught in Public High School (in Maryland) for about ten years before moving over the University. I, too, kept a book of lesson plans which proved helpful in a variety of settings ... such as mentoring new teachers. I found legacy lesson plans perhaps more helpful with University classes for a variety of reasons that are not too interesting to a general audience.

I think that I kept some of those notes about developers.  I did not keep printing journals because most of those papers have disappeared and very few people ask for fiber prints. Because I am retired, I have less space for a complete darkroom but I do have the time and resources to send films to labs, and because I have very few requests for large prints it's less expensive to farm that out to a lab as well. This being said, I do keep track of how several labs have processed my films and prints.

The good news in all of this is that I have a regular work week to spend my time on photography as opposed to splitting my time between work (teaching) and photography.

As we likely have other educators in this Forum: I could not imagine going back into ANY classroom, whether it's 30 or so students in a public school or 200 or so students in a lecture hall in this time of Covid-19. My best wishes and undying admiration go out to those classroom teachers who must get on with the show. 

[Charles Morgan]

1 hour ago, adan said:

Not really.

As Steve says, DigitalTruth is crowd-sourced. A compilation of different photographers' experience with different subjects, lenses, cameras, meters, thermometers - and above all different tastes for what constitutes a good negative.

Would you consider it odd if two or three or five recipes for lasagna all recommended different baking times?

This applies to the original question as well.

It is also the case that "Tri-X" has gone through numerous generations - today's Tri-X is not the 1960s Tri-X or the 1990s Tri-X, any more than today's Porsche 911 is the 1990s or 1960s version. The most recent "revision" (that I know of) was on 2007, when the designator changed from TX400 to 400TX. Silver content reduced; Kodak's own processing times revised.

Very true, and some recipes on it fill me with horror. However, I did check both Kodak and Ilford's recommended times from their datasheets and the Digital Truth ones are as per manufacturer. Of course, there are different agitation times and philosophies, and I have read there are slight differences in the formula. Apart from really short times, my experience is similar to Steve - too many blocked highlights that I would rather live without. 

[RayD28]

1 hour ago, adan said:

Not really.

As Steve says, DigitalTruth is crowd-sourced. A compilation of different photographers' experience with different subjects, lenses, cameras, meters, thermometers - and above all different tastes for what constitutes a good negative.

Would you consider it odd if two or three or five recipes for lasagna all recommended different baking times?

This applies to the original question as well.

It is also the case that "Tri-X" has gone through numerous generations - today's Tri-X is not the 1960s Tri-X or the 1990s Tri-X, any more than today's Porsche 911 is the 1990s or 1960s version. The most recent "revision" (that I know of) was on 2007, when the designator changed from TX400 to 400TX. Silver content reduced; Kodak's own processing times revised.

Thanks for pointing out that it's crowd sourced and developing times changed as the film changed.  I thought it was a compilation of recommended "factory settings".  

[bags27]

The app that uses this data--Massive Development Chart--will automatically tell you (for every film/developer combo I've ever tried) to agitate for the entire first minute and then for 10 seconds at the beginning of every subsequent minute. Nothing necessarily wrong with this. But Ilford says 10 seconds/minute with its film, and Kodak (IIRC) says 5 seconds every 30 seconds with its film.

.Probably better to start with the maker's recommendations.