Two bath development

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread

Hopefully this will look like a question not a monologue. My substantive experience of black and white development stems from decades ago when I thought I got good results from FP4 and ID11 and slightly less pleasing results from HP5 and ID11. Looking back now I can see the prints lacked the punch I can see in the best printers work. Recently I have started to dabble in B&W development again but recently DD-X. I just don't have time to test thoroughly so I'm looking for short-cuts. It occurs to me that a large part of the trick is to get a really good negative to start with and trying to do adjust ths development time of each film to match the brightness range doesn't work for me. I'm attracted by the idea of divided devlopment to enable full detail to be developed in the shadows without blowing out the highlights; also not having to get time/temperature right seems even better. However I don't want to mix powders up, let alone raw chemcals, so what options are there. Diafine isn't available in the UK, but I know I can get Tetanol Emofin and Dixactol (which sounds a bit toxic). Which will give me best combiantion of fine grain, sharpness and separation of tones? I have been using Delta 100 and occasionally Tech Pan and Delta 3200.

-- Nigel Craig (Nigel_ Craig@btinternet.com), January 28, 2002

Answers

Sorry, Ignore the fragment "but recently DD-X" in the above

-- Nigel Craig (Nigel_ Craig@btinternet.com), January 29, 2002.

Emofin is good for higher speed and push developing. For the slower films I would use another developer. For TMZ @ 3200 try +/- around 13 minutes in each bath at 20 degrees. This works ok for me.

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), January 29, 2002.

I've been playing a lot with Emofin and Neopan 1600 and 400. I'm very happy with the results. I use this combination in low light/night situations where you often have huge contrast ranges due to artificial light sources. With Neopan 1600 used at 1600 I can print 8x10 or 8x12 without noticeable grain, nice tonality.

Emofin is indeed relatively easy to find in the UK.

-- Xavier C. (xcolmant@powerir.com), January 29, 2002.


Divided D76, a 2 bath developer is beautiful. Typically (older emulsions) you will soak your film in Bath A for 3 minutes and then Bath B for 3 minutes and then fix. Fine grain, compensating developer that is beautiful. I have the recipe (very simple) and a Diafine replacement, that I can send you a PDF if you want. Cheers

-- Scott Walton (scotlynn@shore.net), January 29, 2002.

There was a long discussion about the toxicity of pyrocatechol, after a question I posted a while ago. The verdict was not bad, I think that in general everyine agreed that although it is more dangerous than metol, it is not as toxic as some people imagine and could be handled safely if some basic precautions are taken. You can try and find the original thread in this forum's archive. I handle Dixactol with gloves on and try not to breathe over the tank that contains it. The results that I get are very satisfying, with most films. It failed developing Tri-X correctly, though, and this was explained on this forum also by Barry Thornton (the "father" of Dixactol) as a result of a bad combination (two bath Dixactol and Tri-X don't go toghether). The classic Ilford films that you mention (FP4, HP5) come out great. Sharpness is very good and so is grain. Pyro users (I mean Pyrogallol) say that it is not as good as their baby, but Pyro users would rather be burned alive by the Spanish Inquisition than say that something is even almost as good as Pyro (I don't use Pyro, but I have seen results of Pyro development and they are REALLY good). I would recommend you to use Dixactol, since you don't want to mix up powders and Dixactol is really easy to mix and very convenient to use. Barry Thornton's advice is to use it as a single bath formula, though (which is an option that you can take), losing some of the compensating action but still getting all the rest and some more security on the result (the two bath fomula can give you some unpleasant surprises...).

Emofin is good for push processing without losing so much shadow detail. You can also use it for correctly exposed negs, but you should dilute it with two times more water to obtain normal density and contrast. Don't stay on the dev. times recommended by Tetenal, experiment a bit and you shall be satisfied.

-- George Papantoniou (papanton@hol.gr), February 04, 2002.



To bad about Diafine availability in the UK. Diafine is great, as you mention, no more development failures due to temperature, agitation, time, dilutions and exhausted chemicals. Tech pan can be developed in diafine by limiting the B solution time to 45-60 seconds depending on how contrasty you like your negatives. Also increases the EI to 80.

-- Gene Crumpler (hasssieguy@att.net), February 04, 2002.

I dont know about diluting emofin with twice the water as George recommends for normal EI negatives. I use it at the normal 1 liter mixture with normally exposed negatives and have no problems. In fact it is my preferred developer now. But he is correct în that you can throw away the recommended times. You have to experiment at bit to find the right times for you...

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), February 05, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ