I'm becoming more and more aware of the importance of proper negative development. I've always thought "yeah, I can somehow fix this with split grade printing, dodging and burning and such in my darkroom", but I've found that it's much easier to print from well developed negatives! And *how* to do that is what I learned from you. Sometimes friends ask me, if i've teached me all that stuff myself. And yes, somehow, i already did it the self-taught way, but in reality i had many lessons with this great teacher Mr. Finch I think, i will place an order for your book next month. I am already looking forward. Thank you and greetings from the Black Forest
Nicely done John. The old ways are still be best. My PanF is rated 32EI but then dev'd in my own 2 bath formula. Works for me. Best wishes from The Rhondda.
Thanks for your comment, Eric. Lovely glow on the upside down boats. I was surprised too by that. I expected a better exposure and a much easier print to make but the separation in the shadows was lovely. I think I'm going to "overexpose " my shadows for a while and see what else I can get. PanF is a wonderful film and it might also be something to do with that too. Anyway, I'm going to play with this for a while.
Thanks John, another great series ! It really adds to you previous series on Matching Your Film To Your Developer. I'm just in the process of optimising FP4 with D23 myself, having been forced to move on from Orwo UN54, but that's by the by, I really appreciate you sharing all this information in ways that are so easily digestible. Steve
Thanks, Steve! D23 is a lovely developer with FP4. Really nice tones. Doing zone 1 and zone 9 tests are important to get the right contrast or it can look flat but when you get them nailed down it's gorgeous. I use it with replenishment which improves it even more I think. You need to test it after around 10 films to get the new speed and time. By then it's pretty stable, at some sort of equilibrium.
@@PictorialPlanet That's really good to know John, my developer has only just been replenished after 4 films, so although I think I'll continue with the testing, I'll throw in some checks when the developer is a bit older to see if theres much change. Thanks again !
Great idea. You're going to love that developer when it gets fully ripe. Don't worry about the bits that float around too much but you can filter it through some cotton wool in a funnel if it gets too skanky.
John, thank you again for bringing such fantastic content. This is another very useful video series. I used s similar technique with HP5 but I was developing with a 25% shorter time and still having some problems with the highlights. Next time I'll use the 30% "discount" 😀. Cheers!
@@PictorialPlanet it is all about Zone 4, all about math and the straight part of the curve Bruce Barnbaum talked all along about, I believe you knew the result before you printed, you just placed the shadows in the sweet spot. Breathtaking indeed…!
@photozen8398 I've been photographing and developing film since I was eight. Yes, I'd done this before. I hope you learned something though. I didn't have this resource when I was learning. In those days you read everything you could to glean any information you could. You tried everything until you started to get good results. I try to teach how these things work. There's a lot to learn but, in 10,000 hours of practice, you eventually get it. Keep watching.
@@PictorialPlanet i am learning thank you. If you help me knowing if i got it right: I test my film ISO eithe the accurate way or the easy way. I go out to the scene dial in my meter the real iso from test , check my shadow , put settings including my real iso in camera , stop my lens one stop to put my shadows in zone 4, 2 stops for zone 3....did i get it right? If did get it right. What about next film of same brand same box speed? How do i know that this batch of films is the same as the one i tested? If the difference is one stop from box to real iso why should i assume that 2 rolls of film from different times or vendors are going to behave the same way?
@photozen8398 Once you know the real iso you get from a film by a manufacturer then that's what you use, over and over again , only doing a quick spot check occasionally. Manufacturers are very good at keeping their film consistent otherwise no one would use it. For instance, Ilford ensures that every batch of FP4 plus is exactly like the previous batch. They do this by using extremely tight tolerances in their manufacturing process. If you bought an Ilford FP4 film that didn't perform exactly like the last one you used it would be pretty bad for your photography. You'd never know how to shoot it or how to develop it. Don't worry about the manufacture not making their films the same batch on batch. Instead you should concentrate on getting your own photography consistent photograph to photograph. That's where the errors are made. Manufacturer consistency is the least of your worries.
I would suggest that, depending on the mood and appearance the worker seeks, any of these three exposure/development combinations might be preferred. For a mood of depression or danger (like a horror movie scene, perhaps), the duller shadows might be preferred; the blocked-up sky and other highlights might be desirable in order to "paste" in a more dramatic sky from a different negative or to convey a mood of surrealism or dissociation, while the final combination of one stop higher exposure and N-1 development could be seen as a "baseline" desirable for most subjects and moods. What's important here is to *know* what result to expect so you can produce the negative and positive *you* intend. My own preference is to run my shadows deeper than you do, which (along with my compensating development technique) might be a major reason I'm happy with box speed even with films commonly considered nowhere close to their rating (like Foma 400).
Good point. Indeed, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that "beauty " might well be the darker more ominous feel. My preference is to do pretty much as you do but use a staining developer to tame those highlights. I did want to show the easy zone system though which I hope I did. I like your input though, any if the exposures could be used for different looks or preferences. Thank you!
@@PictorialPlanet You've done a very fine job of simplifying the Zone System to the point anyone who's willing to shoot short rolls or has the equipment to shoot sheet film will find it easy. I've been using essentially this same method (with my own development process instead of increased exposure and reduced development) for almost twenty years.
Ilford used to have a chart for the development v ASA ratings. In the 70’s and 80’s when we still used film for commercial work we always overexposed Pan F and FP4 by one stop and developed in ID11 or D76 for 8O% of the normal time. However, we used more diluted developer so that the initial development time was longer as more concentrated developer with short times could lead to streaking and uneven highlights!
Nice comment. I remember those Ilford development charts. Actually I think they still do a simplified version. I used 1+1 for this demonstration. What dilution are you meaning?
Ilford also used to give rate the film a stop lower than today, as they called it a sort of safety factor.. really the main problem is that ISO standards don't give 10 stops of dynamic range, and some developers are worse for it than the (essentially) D76 formulation they used. A large gripe for me with digital stills cameras is that their iso standards put middle grey only 3 and 2/3 stops below pure white, which is a darn shame when there's up to 11 stops of USEFUL dynamic range. Cinema cameras usually actually put it smack dab in the middle and have a "base" iso of 800, which would give you 6-7 stops over middle grey instead of less than 4. Either way, rant over.
Thanks again John fab video, I've been waiting all week for this. last weekend I was in London shooting some HP5, I rated it at iso 250, so would I be correct in reducing development by 20 % ?
Hello. I am shooting the same. John hit the nail on the head by dividing suggested development time by 1.4 . I stumbled upon this after reading John's book. The results are stunning.
Is that for different ISA films in same developing container developed to same time with the same developer/fixer ? ( by the way Sarkisian was a very well known photographer with huge lab from seventies, there were other Armenian great photographers from early sixties in Damascus / Syria, like Leon in Shuhada , I noticed you are from Aleppo?)
@@photozen8398 I am Armenian Greek, and was born and raised in Aleppo, I don’t know those Armenian photographers in Damascus, but I do know those famous ones in Aleppo, in general most photographers of that era were Armenians.
Thank you for this very informative series. Very helpful and educational. I was wondering what you thought of using a compensating developer like Diafine to protect those areas that might tend to be overexposed. I’d be very interested in your feedback.
I like compensating developers, check out my video Ansel Adams in your Developing Tank for the one I write about in my book. Of course, you can't do the Zone System if you use one of these two baths but they are useful if you have a roll of varying photographs with different exposures.
Mr. Finch, Thank you so much for this excellent series of videos! I've recently begun using Ilford's Microphen to push HP5 to 1600. I am really enjoying how this developer maintains HP5's fine grain while being pushed. Ilford says that this developer yields an increase in film speed. My question is....how is this possible? How can a developer increase the sensitivity of a film emulsion to light? My understanding is if detail doesn't make it onto the negative it cannot be recovered via development. My educated guess is that perhaps it is able to pull more detail from the shadows out of the latent image than a standard fine grain developer.Thank you so much for any insight you are able to provide. :-)
Developing agents are 'reducers'. They reduce the silver halide to silver, the metal that makes up the grain, the photograph. Some reducers, or mixtures of reducers , are better than others. That's how you get different film speeds with different developers. Crawley's developers are famous for getting more film speed. Try FX15 or FX55.
Hi John, it means that by reducing the ASA from 50 to 25, you have placed the shadows in zone 4, and by developing -1N you have compensated the highlights by 1 stop to put it back from zone 9 to zone 8 again. Am I correct? By using 510 Pyro for instance, with your minimal agitation method, you just put the shadows in zone 4 and develop as normally. Am I correct? Cheers, Rolando
Sounds like you understood it perfectly! Yes, raise the shadows to zone 4 but pull down the (now) overexposed highlights with less development. Minimal agitation will also pull down the highlight whilst allowing the better shadows.
Hi John, when you say "halve the film speed and reduce the development by 30%". Do you mean set the ISO on your camera half of the box speed and then develop the negatives based on the box speed ISO reduced by 30% or reduce the development time by 30% for the halved ISO? e.g.: for Ilford HP5+, set the ISO on the camera to 200 ISO and then develop the negatives for 6' 20" (9' for box speed - 30%) in Ilford DD-X 1+4 at 20C OR set the ISO on the camera to 200 ISO and then develop the negatives for 4' 55" (7' for ISO 200 - 30%) in Ilford DD-X 1+4 at 20C
@@PictorialPlanetThank you so much. Does it make sense (or would it have any application) to follow the same method when pushing films? e.g.: for Ilford HP5, set the ISO on the camera to 400 (or 800) ISO and then develop the negatives as if it was shot at 800 (or 1600) minus 30%
When you rate the Pan F+ at half box speed, the shadows are full of enticing textures. I’m working on achieving negatives that are easy to print. With your help, I suspect I’ll achieve nirvana.
I'm confused about where you got your original development time of 8:30 at ISO 50 for that developer. Is that the manufacturer's recommended time? In order to apply the 1.4 (30%) factor you need the development time to apply it to, of course. Hope you understand my question. Thanks.
I think it was part 1 where I said "Uf you don't have a time from the manufacturer for your film use D76 time". Ilford say 8:30 at 1+1 (the dilution I used). Maybe you missed that?
Hi John thanks for this series, I would like to make my own Rodinol but having trouble getting P- Aminophenol base here in Australia, would there be a supplier in UK who would ship to Australia? Once again thanks for your excellent videos. John
Yes, but a little less, after the initial reduction for constant agitation, take another 20% off. Test on something unimportant until you find the best reduction.
Dear John, thanks for your very inspiring videos, they brought me back to the darkroom after 30 years. I am struggling with the 1st video in this series, how did you arrive at 25 and not at say 32 or 40? Did you bracket the first series to see which iso would bring the desired shadow detail?
I took a guess. Yes, I could have bracketed but, being the "EZ zone system" I remembered that, back when, we all halved the film speed which worked well. So that's what I did and again, back when, reducing the development time by 30% worked really well so I did that too. You'll have seen from my previous videos that I usually test test test but I wanted to show how good your photographs could be by just doing this simple thing. Try it, give it a shot, and let me know how you do.
Yes, it's similar to pulling the film but we're doing it for different reasons. 1. The film's ISO is not accurate with the developer we are using. Remember, the manufacturer didn't use your developer when ascertaining the film's iso, they used there 'standard developer'. Your's will give you a different film speed - usually lower. Therefore we shoot at the real iso the film is giving us with our developer of choice. 2. We reduce development to get the highlights to print on the paper more easily. With that in mind, yes, I suppose technically we are pulling, but not because we have the wrong film in our camera, or because we are doing it for purely aesthetic reasons. We are doing it because we are matching the film with our developer.
Adding a stop of exposure (halving the iso) is much more than pulling! N-1 would require about 1/3 stop extra exposure, N-2 about 2/3 stop extra exposure, etc. So no, pulling is something else my friend and for different reasons entirely.
