Adjusting development time for contrast

Ben johns

Ben johns

Messages
957
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
I’ve come across it before but this evening I was reading a book by ansel Adams in which he talks about a few of his photos and the equipment and the development he used to make them, i forget the name of book. In one of the photos he said he did the same, shortening the developing time to make an easy to print negative.
I was thinking about trying it but as I only use roll film I would have to develop all photos on the roll this way. Is there a downside to cutting the development? I thought surely if it makes easy to print negatives why wouldn’t all negatives be developed in less time.
 
Important first point: Ansel Adams is talking in the context of darkroom prints. That makes a difference.

Second point: within reason, development time controls contrast. The longer you develop, the higher the contrast of the negative.

Third point: darkroom printing papers can't cope with anything like the full contrast range you can get on a negative.

Fourth point: some scenes have inherently high contrast.

Putting it all together, it's possible to have a scene that will, with normal development, give a negative that's too contrasty to "fit" onto a normal printing paper. The other side of the coin is a scene that's so lacking in contrast that you can only get a muddy print. Hence decreasing/increasing development times.

You don't hit the problem as much if you scan and inkjet print, because you have greater control over the contrast.
 
P.S. If you have interchangeable backs, you can swap backs depending on the contrast so that all frames can receive the same development.

And just to make the implied explicit: if you cut development for every negative, you'll make the low contrast ones harder to print.

Scanning introduces another dimension to the problem/situation.

And on a personal note - I've always admitted to being slapdash. In almost 60 years of developing I've never altered development times...
 
Last edited:
Ben, I'm not sure which of his books you were reading, but it sounds like it was talking about the Zone System which he is linked with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System This is not to be undertaken lightly, but it might be worth reading the section on development and the one further down on roll film. However, I've tried it in the past and have even been on a full day training course to establish the "N" time for my Bronica SQ with FP4+, and it came out as box speed! This means I'm pretty much with Stephen that you shoudl leave this type of experimentation until you are fully conversant with the manufacturer's speeds and times, and only then might you start to see where tweaks might just make a differnce. Of course you could have progressed to sheet film by then, and that makes for individual changes in time. ;)
 
when I used glass plates it was worth tailoring development to individual images.
With large format cut film that was rarely the case, but certainly possible, but I rarely did it as I would process at least 12 sheets at a time .
With roll film it is virtually pointless.
However if all the images were to be taken in identical lighting it might be worth the effort. however it would still be hit or miss unless a test was done first.
Processing to a standard gamma is the best way of working, and it is very rare that a suitable paper and contrast filtration can not be found. Burning and dodging with suitable contrast filtration settles the rest. almost no professional makes straight wet prints with out any manipulation.... though these days few make any prints at all.
 
There's also reducing or increasing the agitation during development. The less the agitation the more the darkest parts of the negative (lightest parts of the print) exhaust the developer locally, i.e. get less developed, an effect rather vaguely like HDR.
 
chris malcolm said:
There's also reducing or increasing the agitation during development. The less the agitation the more the darkest parts of the negative (lightest parts of the print) exhaust the developer locally, i.e. get less developed, an effect rather vaguely like HDR.
Click to expand...

This is the principal of high accuance, high dilution, stand development. It increases shadow detail and also the edge contrast. but is grain neutral.
 
Peter B said:
Ben, I'm not sure which of his books you were reading, but it sounds like it was talking about the Zone System which he is linked with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System This is not to be undertaken lightly, but it might be worth reading the section on development and the one further down on roll film. However, I've tried it in the past and have even been on a full day training course to establish the "N" time for my Bronica SQ with FP4+, and it came out as box speed! This means I'm pretty much with Stephen that you shoudl leave this type of experimentation until you are fully conversant with the manufacturer's speeds and times, and only then might you start to see where tweaks might just make a differnce. Of course you could have progressed to sheet film by then, and that makes for individual changes in time. ;)
Click to expand...
it was the book Examples the making of 40 photographs. I have read up on the zone system but never really paid too much mind to it as it is really for sheet film. It wasnt just the book that made me think of it though. There is a video on youtube (cant think of the title atm) but he basically suggests cutting dvelopment time in half and if i remember he mentions roll film...but I cant be sure. Ill be honest though it didnt occur to me about making already low contrast photos far too low contrast, i just leapt at the idea of controlling highlights!
 
Quick question - are you happy about interpreting characteristic curves?
 
Asha said:
Really??

Sourced at Wikipedia:

"Although it originated with black-and-white sheet film, the Zone System is also applicable to roll film, both black-and-white and color, negative and reversal, and to digital photography. "
Click to expand...
The Zone System depends on altering development to control the contrast. It does not work at all with digital as there is no development to alter. It only works partially with roll film as you must develop every frame on the roll the same.

Wikipedia is useful but frequently inadequate.
 
In one sense the zone system is. As it is to a large extent about pegging exposure. To fix tones where you want them.

Though a simpler way to achieve that is to use an incident light meter. In digital the raw file can be processed to what ever contrast you wish, using curves, which are very like characteristics curves, but adjustable.

When making movies (the ultimate roll film) it was normal to do clip tests and "rushes"


john.margetts said:
The Zone System depends on altering development to control the contrast. It does not work at all with digital as there is no development to alter. It only works partially with roll film as you must develop every frame on the roll the same.

Wikipedia is useful but frequently inadequate.
Click to expand...
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
In one sense the zone system is. As it is to a large extent about pegging exposure. To fix tones where you want them.

Though a simpler way to achieve that is to use an incident light meter. In digital the raw file can be processed to what ever contrast you wish, using curves, which are very like characteristics curves, but adjustable.

When making movies (the ultimate roll film) it was normal to do clip tests and "rushes"
Click to expand...

Well I would have thought Olympus and Canon T90 solved the problem by letting you take 8 spot readings of your subject and then averaging them out before you press the shutter button.
 
Exposure is only one part of the problem. If the subject brightness range of a scene is very high, correct exposure (meaning in this case pegging a given subject tone to a specific density in the negative) might not be much use if the end result is a negative where the density range is too great to "fit" onto a printing paper. Or the DMax is beyond the scanner you're using. Changing the development time basically means that you're pegging the film DMax to a lower value (if decreased development) or higher value (if increasing development for a low subject brightness range) resulting in a printable negative.
 
StephenM said:
Exposure is only one part of the problem. If the subject brightness range of a scene is very high, correct exposure (meaning in this case pegging a given subject tone to a specific density in the negative) might not be much use if the end result is a negative where the density range is too great to "fit" onto a printing paper. Or the DMax is beyond the scanner you're using. Changing the development time basically means that you're pegging the film DMax to a lower value (if decreased development) or higher value (if increasing development for a low subject brightness range) resulting in a printable negative.
Click to expand...

Not quite... It is rare that anyone develops film to arrive at a solid Dmax. the Purpose of varying the development to to control the Gamma, (the slope of the characteristic curve. by doing so you can always fit the brightness range of any printing paper. however the usual intention is to produce a negative that will give a good representation on normal grade paper.
The old saying was .. to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. the Zone system is a modification of this.

The brightness range of scenes has not changed with the advent of Digital.
However the tonal range of a Sensor is closer to that of a colour transparency than to a black and white film or colour negative. though that is far less true than a few years ago, and with correct exposure there is never a need to burn out highlights.
With this in mind, exposure can set the tone values where ever you want. the method you choose to use is up to you. An Incident meter does it very well, as does a combination of histogram and blinkies, or in most cases leaving it totally up to the algorithms in the camera firmware works perfect well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top