Developing paper - always for a fixed time or not?

OK, asked this in some thread but probably was way too off-topic here.


Basically - do you develop your papers always for a fixed time or not?

If fixed - what time do you use? I find Ilford's paper documentation a bit
confusing on this - in the same datasheet (for MG IV RC) they once say 60s
@20C (in the general process overview) and a few paragraphs later they
specify 46s @20C (in the detailed time vs. temperature breakout table).

If development was meant to be processed until the end of the process, this
could be OK (maybe they added some safety in the first barebone overview).

But to my understanding, only stop and fix are done this way, development is
meant to be performed to some *exact* stage.


Can anyone shine a little light on this for me please? Maybe a sentence or
two on whether temperature variations have any impact on development except
different timing?



If this may have some impact on the recommendations - I have a tray
processor with tempered and temp-stabilized water bath.


Thanks so far

--

deejay

Tomas Daniska wrote:

OK, asked this in some thread but probably was way too off-topic here.

Basically - do you develop your papers always for a fixed time or not?

If fixed - what time do you use? I find Ilford's paper documentation a bit
confusing on this - in the same datasheet (for MG IV RC) they once say 60s
@20C (in the general process overview) and a few paragraphs later they
specify 46s @20C (in the detailed time vs. temperature breakout table).

If development was meant to be processed until the end of the process, this
could be OK (maybe they added some safety in the first barebone overview).

But to my understanding, only stop and fix are done this way, development is
meant to be performed to some *exact* stage.

Can anyone shine a little light on this for me please? Maybe a sentence or
two on whether temperature variations have any impact on development except
different timing?

Paper is developed to completion, no more no less.
It's important not to use too short a time (46 sec.
seems a bit short; I would develop RC paper a minimum
1 minute and probably 90 secs. If you develop longer
you will simply increase the apparent contrast but
not real contrast (i.e., the paper curve as a whole
moves but overall density is not increased.) My times w
ould be minimum 90 seconds for RC and 2 minutes for
fiber in dektol 1:2; usually I develop 2&1/2 minutes
with fiber. This is merely to ensure full development
in _fresh_ developer.

Any variations have more to do with (1) developer
dilution (since dektol can be diluted up to 1:8 and
still produce acceptable results) and developer
exhaustion. Greater dilution requires a longer time
until completion. But even at a standard dilution
the more prints you process the longer you will need
to develop in a given tray of print developer (i.e,
the developer simply loses strength and activity.
The Factor Method as described in Adams' book The
Print can help you determine the additional length
of development time needed as print developer gets
used up in order to develop to completion.


If this may have some impact on the recommendations - I have a tray
processor with tempered and temp-stabilized water bath.

Thanks so far

--

deejay

In article ,
"Sam G" wrote:

Since it is difficult to control all the variables--temp and developer
freshness--I'd recommend starting with looking for the first emergence of
any image. Then leave in the developer 5-6 times that # of seconds. As an
example, when I use MG IV RC for work prints, I usually see the first
emergency of an image at 10 sec, so my dev time is 60 sec. As the developer
tends to chill a bit or get a bit worked, the emergence time may drift a
bit.

When I switch to FB for final prints of the same MG IV, I often find the
emergence time is more like 30-40 sec. Consequently, the time in the
developer is usually about 3+ minutes.

The "drift" your seeing I suspect is the difference between RC and FB
papers.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Almost always, because paper is developed to finality. Film is not.

Tomas Daniska wrote:
OK, asked this in some thread but probably was way too off-topic
here.


Basically - do you develop your papers always for a fixed time or
not?

If fixed - what time do you use? I find Ilford's paper documentation
a bit
confusing on this - in the same datasheet (for MG IV RC) they once
say 60s
@20C (in the general process overview) and a few paragraphs later
they
specify 46s @20C (in the detailed time vs. temperature breakout
table).

If development was meant to be processed until the end of the
process, this
could be OK (maybe they added some safety in the first barebone
overview).

But to my understanding, only stop and fix are done this way,
development is
meant to be performed to some *exact* stage.


Can anyone shine a little light on this for me please? Maybe a
sentence or
two on whether temperature variations have any impact on development
except
different timing?



If this may have some impact on the recommendations - I have a tray
processor with tempered and temp-stabilized water bath.


Thanks so far

--

deejay

While it is usually stated that prints are developed to
"completion" rather than to a specified contrast in fact to some extent
development can be used to compensate for exposure. The contrast is not
variable over much of a range if full blacks are to be obtained but
some papers allow perhaps a half grade from development time change.
Also, some papers, particularly warm tone papers, change image tone a
little with variation in development time. Warmer for shorter times,
cooler with longer times.
At some point extending development will begin to increase fog
more rapidly than the image.
The time needed to develop full black wtih normal exposure depends
somewhat on the emulsion and developer. Warm tone papers generally are
developed for longer than neutral or cold toned ones. Active
developers, like Dektol, develop more rapidly than less active ones
like Selectol Soft.
Most modern RC papers contain a layer of developer under the
emulsion. This is to permit their use in rapid access "activation"
processors but it also affects the development time in standard
developers. These papers show an image quickly, perhaps 15 seconds, and
develop fully in 60 to 90 seconds. There is little variation possible
in development. Papers without incorporated developer show the first
image more slowly, typically at around 30 seconds and usually take from
2 to 3 minutes to develop fully. The instructions for the paper will
usually give a recommended time. Too short a time will give blotchy
blacks or light blacks despite increased exposure, overly long
development, more than about 5 minutes, may generate fog or poor blacks
despite the long development. My target time for fiber and
non-developer-incorporated RC papers is around 2 minutes, for developer
incorporated papers around 75 seconds.
I've found that judging print appearance during development to be
difficult so I generally developed for a fixed time and decide if the
print got the right exposure or is the right value of contrast in white
light after the print is fixed. Many papers change appearance when dry
so that is another complication.
"Development to completion" is simply development until the blacks
are at or near the maximum density the material is capable of. Film
OTOH, is usually developed to a specified value of contrast. The
exposure may be adjusted to keep the maximum density at a certain
value, but it will most often be well below the maximum value the film
is capable of.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
PGG wrote:

I typically develop until I see no more change in image and wait another
10 seconds or so. Is this a mistake?

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:58:49 -0800, Richard Knoppow wrote:

e needed to develop full black wtih norm

If your looking at the no change from the stand point of this is what
I want, I think it is a mistake. Why you ask? Well,... because of dry
down.

In my opinion dry down (as with Richard's comment about
using development times to achieve a change in image
contrast/paper grade), should really be controlled through
exposure, while development time (excluding adjustments
for emergence time) to achieve that print contrast should
be as consistent as possible. The reason seems obvious:
the working strength of developers is not a constant and
not predictable.

Most papers, however, do have fairly consistent dry down
factors expressed as a percentage of the exposure.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article , Tom Phillips
wrote:

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
PGG wrote:

I typically develop until I see no more change in image and wait another
10 seconds or so. Is this a mistake?

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:58:49 -0800, Richard Knoppow wrote:

e needed to develop full black wtih norm

If your looking at the no change from the stand point of this is what
I want, I think it is a mistake. Why you ask? Well,... because of dry
down.

In my opinion dry down (as with Richard's comment about
using development times to achieve a change in image
contrast/paper grade), should really be controlled through
exposure, while development time (excluding adjustments
for emergence time) to achieve that print contrast should
be as consistent as possible. The reason seems obvious:
the working strength of developers is not a constant and
not predictable.

Most papers, however, do have fairly consistent dry down
factors expressed as a percentage of the exposure.

I agree, I was trying to make the point that the time to remove is the
time to remove. :-)

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article , Tom Phillips
wrote:

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
PGG wrote:

I typically develop until I see no more change in image and wait another
10 seconds or so. Is this a mistake?

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:58:49 -0800, Richard Knoppow wrote:

e needed to develop full black wtih norm

If your looking at the no change from the stand point of this is what
I want, I think it is a mistake. Why you ask? Well,... because of dry
down.

In my opinion dry down (as with Richard's comment about
using development times to achieve a change in image
contrast/paper grade), should really be controlled through
exposure, while development time (excluding adjustments
for emergence time) to achieve that print contrast should
be as consistent as possible. The reason seems obvious:
the working strength of developers is not a constant and
not predictable.

Most papers, however, do have fairly consistent dry down
factors expressed as a percentage of the exposure.

I agree, I was trying to make the point that the time to remove is the
time to remove. :-)

Well I'd agree he should just pick a time w/adjusted
exposure and then use a factor method. OTOH 10 seconds
post completion won't matter much, especially as you
develop longer to comensate for emergence time. The
weaker or more dilute the print developer, the slower
working it is.

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article , Tom Phillips
wrote:

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
PGG wrote:

I typically develop until I see no more change in image and wait another
10 seconds or so. Is this a mistake?

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:58:49 -0800, Richard Knoppow wrote:

e needed to develop full black wtih norm

If your looking at the no change from the stand point of this is what
I want, I think it is a mistake. Why you ask? Well,... because of dry
down.

In my opinion dry down (as with Richard's comment about
using development times to achieve a change in image
contrast/paper grade), should really be controlled through
exposure, while development time (excluding adjustments
for emergence time) to achieve that print contrast should
be as consistent as possible. The reason seems obvious:
the working strength of developers is not a constant and
not predictable.

Most papers, however, do have fairly consistent dry down
factors expressed as a percentage of the exposure.

I agree, I was trying to make the point that the time to remove is the
time to remove. :-)

Well I'd agree he should just pick a time w/adjusted
exposure and then use a factor method. OTOH 10 seconds
post completion won't matter much, especially as you
develop longer to comensate for emergence time. The
weaker or more dilute the print developer, the slower
working it is.

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

Well I'd agree he should just pick a time w/adjusted
exposure and then use a factor method. OTOH 10 seconds
post completion won't matter much, especially as you
develop longer to comensate for emergence time. The
weaker or more dilute the print developer, the slower
working it is.

I always anticipate the last 10 seconds as my timer counts down
audibly at 10. So I begin "attempting" :-) to pull the paper out during
the last ten. Sometimes I have been known to pull part of the sheet out
and massage the stubborn parts of the image for up to a minute to get
perfect contrast in a portion of the image,...takes a lot of care
and I prefer "good exposures" to that technique by far.

Hey maybe "I" should claim to be the world's greatest printer, LOL.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918