Developer temperature adjustment

[costa43]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all

I’ve developed around 30 rolls now since picking up this hobby recently. My developer of choice is Xtol and I currently use it at stock. At this time of year, it’s relatively consistent at around 22 degrees in my house where my chemicals are stored. Currently I do not adjust the development time from the recommended guidelines of the film manufacturer based on 20 degrees. My question is, should I reduce my development time for those extra 2 degrees. When I first started developing at home, I was reducing the temperature of my developer to 20 degrees but I forgot to do it once and I couldn’t really notice a difference so I just use it as is. I seem to be getting acceptable (to me) results regardless. 

Thank you

Costa

 

[Tmx]

vor 30 Minuten schrieb costa43:

My question is, should I reduce my development time for those extra 2 degrees

Yes, you should if you wish constant results. One can easily use the temperature compensation chart of Ilford:

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Temperature-compensation-chart.pdf

[250swb]

With XTOL you should be safe because it's a relatively slow working developer, the risk of shortening development times too far is uneven development with agitation and timing becoming super critical to get consistency. And consistency in development is everything because it's the only thing you have to compare with if any other questions come up, like technical issues with the development or is the cameras light meter reading properly, etc. where you can look back for similar situations and know for sure you've got a datum point. I would tend to carry on at 20c but if the next thirty rolls and beyond are all done at 22c that's ok, just don't flip flop back and forth.

[hansvons]

1 hour ago, costa43 said:

My developer of choice is Xtol and I currently use it at stock. At this time of year, it’s relatively consistent at around 22 degrees in my house where my chemicals are stored. Currently I do not adjust the development time from the recommended guidelines of the film manufacturer based on 20 degrees. My question is, should I reduce my development time for those extra 2 degrees.

Theoretically, two centigrades Celsius hotter is about a one-stop push. How that pans out depends on your agitation scheme, the developer used, film stock, and, of course, the quality of the development you compare with. You will see little noticeable differences if that has already been slightly pushed. Often, a mild push with Xtol is a good idea, as your assessment corroborates, because Xtol tends to flatten the gamma curve (resulting in less contrast compared, e.g., to Rodial), and a mild push steepens the gamma enough for easier digitisation and editing. This is particularly true with HP5 and, to a certain extent, Tri-X and Kentmeere 400. Stocks like Delta 100 and Kodak Double-X 5222 don't benefit from a mild push. Delta's blacks become inky, especially when the push goes along with a stop of underexposure. Double-X is already a pretty contrasty stock (super nice for portraits!).

Ok. I totally see the 22-degree setting in a summerly household. I have 23 right now in my atelier.

Here's what I do: I dilute the Xtol stock solution into 1:1 and use 24 degrees. Why? Xtol becomes even more compensatory. Acuity increases a bit (maybe not, already pretty high), and grain becomes as less obstructive as possible. In a way, Xtol turns into even more Xtol. 

• You cut down costs by half.
• Developing times become longer, which is annoying.
• Using 24 degrees instead of 20 degrees compensates for that. 

I defaulted to that workflow after using Xtol replenished (it works nicely but requires some discipline). Please note that I'm an Xtol guy. By default, I want full speed, good acuity, and tamed grain. Xtol delivers that, plus it uses an environment-friendly formula. When pushing Xtol by one stop, you get into Rodinal territory (still shoot at box speed or lower). 

Hope that helps. 

PS: for comparison, Tri-X at box speed and Xtol stock solution and 20 degrees require 6:30 minutes of dev time. 6:30 is desirable dev time because it's long enough to compensate for (little) errors in time and temperature. Diluted to 1:1, you get the same 6:30 minutes at 24 degrees, providing the same leeway.

Edited August 29, 2024 by hansvons

[costa43]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

With XTOL you should be safe because it's a relatively slow working developer, the risk of shortening development times too far is uneven development with agitation and timing becoming super critical to get consistency. And consistency in development is everything because it's the only thing you have to compare with if any other questions come up, like technical issues with the development or is the cameras light meter reading properly, etc. where you can look back for similar situations and know for sure you've got a datum point. I would tend to carry on at 20c but if the next thirty rolls and beyond are all done at 22c that's ok, just don't flip flop back and forth.

I think this is my underlying concern with reducing the time, the risk of underdevelopment. Thank you, your point on consistency is spot on. I need to have a barometer moving forward as I get more involved, I'm keen to experiment some more, which is why I thought it best to get a sense check.

[costa43]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

Theoretically, two centigrades Celsius hotter is about a one-stop push. How that pans out depends on your agitation scheme, the developer used, film stock, and, of course, the quality of the development you compare with. You will see little noticeable differences if that has already been slightly pushed. Often, a mild push with Xtol is a good idea, as your assessment corroborates, because Xtol tends to flatten the gamma curve (resulting in less contrast compared, e.g., to Rodial), and a mild push steepens the gamma enough for easier digitisation and editing. This is particularly true with HP5 and, to a certain extent, Tri-X and Kentmeere 400. Stocks like Delta 100 and Kodak Double-X 5222 don't benefit from a mild push. Delta's blacks become inky, especially when the push goes along with a stop of underexposure. Double-X is already a pretty contrasty stock (super nice for portraits!).

Ok. I totally see the 22-degree setting in a summerly household. I have 23 right now in my atelier.

Here's what I do: I dilute the Xtol stock solution into 1:1 and use 24 degrees. Why? Xtol becomes even more compensatory. Acuity increases a bit (maybe not, already pretty high), and grain becomes as less obstructive as possible. In a way, Xtol turns into even more Xtol. 

• You cut down costs by half.
• Developing times become longer, which is annoying.
• Using 24 degrees instead of 20 degrees compensates for that. 

I defaulted to that workflow after using Xtol replenished (it works nicely but requires some discipline). Please note that I'm an Xtol guy. By default, I want full speed, good acuity, and tamed grain. Xtol delivers that, plus it uses an environment-friendly formula. When pushing Xtol by one stop, you get into Rodinal territory (still shoot at box speed or lower). 

Hope that helps. 

PS: for comparison, Tri-X at box speed and Xtol stock solution and 20 degrees require 6:30 minutes of dev time. 6:30 is desirable dev time because it's long enough to compensate for (little) errors in time and temperature. Diluted to 1:1, you get the same 6:30 minutes at 24 degrees, providing the same leeway.

Thank you. So by diluting it to 1:1 for you compensates for the 4 degrees variance (circa 2 stops)? on that basis, if I diluted it by 50% it would work in the same way?

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

23 minutes ago, costa43 said:

 I need to have a barometer moving forward as I get more involved,

I would rather recommend a thermometer...haha

I think the advice is very good. Keeping things consistent is very helpful, but ultimately it does not really matter much whether you do things at 22 degrees or 20 degrees. It will certainly depend on the film, but I would say it is unlikely to see a huge difference with a slower speed black and white negative film. You can run tests, but ultimately the judge will be looking at the final negatives and seeing how they appear. The only other thing I would say is to not take things like the Massive Development Chart or datasheets as written in stone. They can be extremely helpful (especially the datasheets), but they cannot perfectly replicate your conditions. I would also say that the Massive Dev Chart has had some times and combos in it that I have found to be pretty suspect. It is kind of like Wikipedia only with lower stakes and no curation. The datasheets on the other hand are made by photo engineers at Kodak and Ilford, and are a much better guideline. Still, all are better regarded as a starting point. For example some people agitate very gently, others go crazy, some time when they start pouring, others when they are finished etc. All these little quirks can affect development time.

[hansvons]

1 hour ago, costa43 said:

on that basis, if I diluted it by 50% it would work in the same way?

From my mathematical understanding, 50% dilution is 1:1. Don't change your routine if you get satisfying results. The negative is fat, and the scanning is as easy as possible. Assessing the dev (and film stock) is relatively easy. Buy a well-known film stock, shoot an evenly lit subject (portraits work best) with a wide range of contrast, measure the key light with an incident meter, and expose the shot not at the box speed but at a one-stop lower ISO EI. That way, you ensure the negative saw enough light for a dense negative. Now, develop according to the manufacturer's recipe, evaluate the negative and take it from there.

I cannot agree more with Stuart and 250SWB, as I grew up as the son of a chemist. Lab hygiene and precision that facilitate a repeatable outcome are essential for scientific research or film development. Only then can you assess your exposure habits, everything that is naturally imprecise in your workflow.

That said, film development happens within certain specifications, including push and pull times. However, there is less leeway for optimisation in the chemical process, as one might anticipate when listening to dark room buffs. Developers' "personalities" do have a range, but that basically stretches from Rodinal to Xtol. Everything else is somewhere in between, excluding experimental formulas like Coffee-based developers, of course. And there is no magic bullet, a secret uber-developer providing the look of Rodinal and even less grain than Xtol.

I think it's useful to experiment within your standardised routine with dev time to flatten or steepen the gamma. However, with HP5 being the notable exception, I stick to the manufacturer's data sheet recipes. As @Stuart Richardson pointed out, it does make sense to have a look at Massive Development Charts (I use their app for the dev and fixing times) if the stock you are using lacks data from the manufacturer (e.g. Kodak 5222), but as this is uncurated crowd wisdom, a larger pinch of salt is advisable.

Edited August 29, 2024 by hansvons

[costa43]

20 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I would rather recommend a thermometer...haha

I think the advice is very good. Keeping things consistent is very helpful, but ultimately it does not really matter much whether you do things at 22 degrees or 20 degrees. It will certainly depend on the film, but I would say it is unlikely to see a huge difference with a slower speed black and white negative film. You can run tests, but ultimately the judge will be looking at the final negatives and seeing how they appear. The only other thing I would say is to not take things like the Massive Development Chart or datasheets as written in stone. They can be extremely helpful (especially the datasheets), but they cannot perfectly replicate your conditions. I would also say that the Massive Dev Chart has had some times and combos in it that I have found to be pretty suspect. It is kind of like Wikipedia only with lower stakes and no curation. The datasheets on the other hand are made by photo engineers at Kodak and Ilford, and are a much better guideline. Still, all are better regarded as a starting point. For example some people agitate very gently, others go crazy, some time when they start pouring, others when they are finished etc. All these little quirks can affect development time.

Thanks Stuart. I've been using the times from the film developers but amending the massive dev app with them as I like the timer system it has. I currently agitate for the first minute and then 10 seconds every minute thereafter. Not overly aggressive. I feel like I do not have full control of the outcome yet but I'm sure, with time, I will get a better understanding as to how the small changes I make affect the outcome. To be honest, I'm surprised at how much latitude a scanned negative has in post, I thought it would be worse.

 

 

[costa43]

Just now, hansvons said:

From my mathematical understanding, 50% dilution is 1:1. Don't change your routine if you get satisfying results. The negative is fat, and the scanning is as easy as possible. Assessing the dev (and film stock) is relatively easy. Buy a well-known film stock, shoot an evenly lit subject (portraits work best) with a wide range of contrast, measure the key light with an incident meter, and expose the shot not at the box speed but at a one-stop lower ISO EI. That way, you ensure the negative saw enough light for a dense negative. Now, develop according to the manufacturer's recipe, evaluate the negative and take it from there.

I cannot agree more with Stuart and 250SWB, as I grew up as the son of a chemist. Lab hygiene and precision that facilitate a repeatable outcome are essential for scientific research or film development. Only then can you assess your exposure habits, everything that is naturally imprecise in your workflow.

That said, film development happens within certain specifications, including push and pull times. However, there is less leeway for optimisation in the chemical process, as one might anticipate when listening to dark room buffs. Developers' "personalities" do have a range, but that basically stretches from Rodinal to Xtol. Everything else is somewhere in between, excluding experimental formulas like Coffee-based developers, of course. And there is no magic bullet, a secret uber-developer providing the look of Rodinal and even less grain than Xtol.

I think it's useful to experiment within your standardised routine with dev time to flatten or steepen the gamma. However, with HP5 being the notable exception, I stick to the manufacturer's data sheet recipes. As @Stuart Richardson pointed out, it does make sense to have a look at Massive Development Charts (I use their app for the dev and fixing times) if the stock you are using lacks data from the manufacturer (e.g. Kodak 5222), but as this is uncurated crowd wisdom, a larger pinch of salt is advisable.

Thank you. Sorry by 50% I meant an additional 50% water.  So 1 litre of stock is equal to 1.5 litres of developer.

After the input on this thread, I'm going to dabble a little and see what gives. 

 

[BernardC]

The only temperature-critical step in black and white is the developer. The stop, fix, and wash can be off by a few degrees. In your case, I would standardize on a 22 degree developer, using hot water to bring up the temperature if necessary.

Consistency is key, especially when you are starting-out. Pick one film, one developer, one processing method, and stick to that until you know it inside and out. You can then change one variable at a time, but only if you think that something needs to change (or if a material becomes unavailable, as happens too often with film photography).

[M.Hilo]

In your case, if anything, I would just try to develop a little more gently. But not by much. This could just be about the way you move your tank.

I have traveled a lot to places with different climates. Sometimes you can't escape having to compensate. Short developing times make compensating more difficult. So, I had a plan B for that (diluting my develper more than usual). After doing that, changing developing time is less critical.

Most of all, I analysed my general constrast in the prints I made over the years. I am always somewhat more contrasty. I like contrast. That tells me something about what not to do. The general direction.

 

 

 

[250swb]

On 11/3/2024 at 7:50 AM, mark_s90 said:

Much ado about absolutely nothing. 

 

Right now on photrio is yet another diatribe topic thread about the evils of rodinal, and stand or semi stand development. 

I couldn’t agree more about Photrio, a fiefdom of big heads who know what they know and make sure other people to know it, and god forbid you disagree.

And it is a very interesting you say about agitation. Over the last few years I’ve been increasingly using copy films in 35mm, CMS20, Adox HR50, etc. and the key, other than the correct developer, is that agitation has the most consequential effect on getting a negative with a normal tonal range. For example one gentle ‘swish’ once a minute is enough, inversion isn’t necessary given the average dev times. So why wouldn’t it be the case with any other film? I’ve always been fairly gentle with agitation anyway but always use a different technique, swish, twizzle stick, or inversion depending on the film and developer and development time, and the results I want.

[hansvons]

13 hours ago, 250swb said:

I’ve always been fairly gentle with agitation anyway but always use a different technique, swish, twizzle stick, or inversion depending on the film and developer and development time, and the results I want.

Thanks for bringing this up. Great food for thought.

I’m not there yet. I’m stuck with the Ilford agitation scheme and Xtol, which is highly compensating. However, as Tri-X became more affordable, I tried the Kodak way of shaking. It did’t give me better results.

I tend to agitate the development phase relatively gentle with pronounced tapping because I tested once what tapping does by not tapping, and you can see that uneven, slight streaks can occur. The same can happen when you don't agitate the first minute straight or pour in the developer slowly, take time to close the developer bottle’s lid before starting agitation, etc. The moment the developer immerses the film, the developing process starts, and it does that with all its power, which slowly fades out as time passes. So, the first minute matters a lot and requires constant agitation.

I tend to agitate more rigorously when pushing a film for more contrast. I extend the time by one stop (often that’s a short minute), and the more vigorous agitation adds another half a stop or so. I find this particularly well working for HP5, which is by design flat and grey and benefits greatly. To a lesser extent, that also counts for Kentmere400 and its derivates AgfaAPX and RolleiRPX. Maybe only rougher shaking is already enough.

I recently did the same with Tri-X to compensate for thin exposure, but the results were too contrasty for my taste. So, next time, I’ll be extending development time by 2 stops (roughly 90 seconds), but agitate the film as gentle as it gets.

5222 (Double-X) comes out nicely in Xtol together with a gentle Ilford agitation scheme. I use the same times as with Tri-X. In the end, it's probably my favourite B/W film. But I use it mostky for people and event shoots. For B/W landscape photography, I like Delta100 a lot when resolution and details are essential. Again, Xtol does a brilliant here too, but even a very mild push will only harm the shadows. Delta100 requires a gentle hand. 

[andybarton]

The most important thing I learned when developing was to only change one variable at a time and write down exactly what you are doing every time.

When you get to a process that gives the desired results, stick to it. 

[hansvons]

@mark_s90, I do precisely what you suggest. It’s actually part of the manufacturers’ recipes.

@andybarton, a recipe is about the accuracy of everything, including timing and handling. Can’t agree more. Reproducibility is pivotal.

Edited November 6, 2024 by hansvons

[250swb]

3 hours ago, mark_s90 said:

When I first started out with film, i did the standardized methods of xtol and the AP tank from freestyle. Things were fine until the threads on the tank lid cross threaded and the thing would leak abou a tablespoon for every inversion. When you deal with a 600ml tank, and need to do 40 inversions minimum per processing time.. 

Switched to other developers, ended with Rodinal. It was nice, then I had some issues with some Ilford delta 400. I switched to using DD-X, still had same problems.  Then came across a writing somewhere about the use of slow agitation processes.  I tried, and Rodinal suddenly got  better negatives then DD-X. 

If you like Xtol and Rodinal you may like Adox FX-39II which performance wise is like a cross between the two, there's a review here

http://www.alexluyckx.com/blog/2020/12/22/developer-review-blog-no-12-adox-fx-39-ii/

[BernardC]

18 hours ago, 250swb said:

Over the last few years I’ve been increasingly using copy films in 35mm, CMS20, Adox HR50, etc. and the key, other than the correct developer, is that agitation has the most consequential effect on getting a negative with a normal tonal range. For example one gentle ‘swish’ once a minute is enough, inversion isn’t necessary given the average dev times. So why wouldn’t it be the case with any other film? For example one gentle ‘swish’ once a minute is enough, inversion isn’t necessary given the average dev times. So why wouldn’t it be the case with any other film?

Agitation and developer choice are critical with re-purposed microfilms, because you are trying to get them to do something that isn't in their nature. You sort-of paint yourself into a corner by using these films, and the only way out is to give them the most gentle processing imaginable. The results can be worth it, of course.

No need for such precautions with normal pictorial emulsions. They are designed to provide a full tonal scale with most developers, so you don't need to worry about uneven processing. You can, of course, give them the "ultra gentle" treatment, but they won't benefit much from it. The main benefit will be consistency: if you process all films the same way, you are less likely to over-agitate one batch or under-agitate another.

I personally favour strong agitation, for the same reasons. I shoot a lot of sheet film which is tube-processed (and thus requires constant agitation), so I use strong agitation with roll film in tanks. That way my negs are consistent regardless of format.

[PetPhoto]

development starts the moment the developer starts pouring into the tank.  And pouring out the developer is also part of development time.  and until you get the stop in, the film is still technically DEVELOPING...     clumsy clumsy system. 

 

There are automated systems that in theory give you a consistent fill and drain time. There are some people who have made a modification of the old Ilford cibachrome paper developing tanks to have film in it. SO its an almost instant fill and unfill. 

 

temperature of the developer should be warm as needed, however the noted issues as denoted by the talking heads of Photrio, state that the real issues will be in the temperature difference between the developer and the stop, the fix, and any rinse water done. 

 

I used to use a thermometer, but as  particular blogger pointed out, they are not accurate. The blogger in part pruchased a large number of th eidentical digital thermometer online and in stores. Put them in a large container of water, and tested them together.  If i recall, if the digital thermomenters were within 2-3 degrees of each other, it was a miracle.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear