Why don't more people use two-bath developers?

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

I shoot mainly 35 mm B&W film which has images of various contrasts per roll. I used a divided bath developer and actually was very satisfied with the results. Why don't more people use this technique. Are most doing single exposure development on this forum? What problems have you encountered with the split developers. This is a great forum and I have learned much by frequent visitation. Thanks. Don

-- Don M (maldos@home.com), February 21, 2001

Answers

I always try to keep some Diafine on hand just in case I need to tame some contrasty situation. I've also messed around with using water baths as well, but prefer the Diafine. The problem I think you'd have with using this for everything, is that you can't actually control your contrast this way. So, if you're in a flat lighting situation, or have certain tonalities like white on white, you may get into some serious separation problems. Whenever I've shot film specifically to run through Diafine, I've tried to be conscious of getting some nice raking/modeling effects on my shots. i.e. not direct lighting. It's can be a great dev. sometimes though, and can even save the day if you've messed up your exposures somehow. There are other two bath developers as well, but I think Diafine is the most readily available one there is, short of mixing it up yourself.

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), February 21, 2001.

Today I mixed my first batch of Diafine. Photographers' Formulary has 2 bath D-76, which Anchell highly recommends. As to why it's not more popular, convenience and marketing, I'd guess.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), February 21, 2001.

Bill, I think Divided D76 has been around for a long time as a formula, just not pre-packaged. I have an old David Vestal book where he talks about it. Actually Camera & Darkroom magazine (now gone) had an issue that dealt with divided dev., I can't remember if Anchell wrote that article or not, but he used to have a column in that magazine as well. Cachet has a dev. called AB-55 that's a two-bath one as well, but I've never used it. I think you can make a 2 bath version of D 23 too. I've gotten the best results from older emulsions, not necessarily the T-grain films. But, I've used alot of TMZ, and TMY in Diafine with modest speed increases. But, like I said, it's not a great combination for certain kinds of lighting, so I don't see it as a universal dev. It's great to have around for emergencies though, like if you shoot a roll of Plus-X at a stop or two under by accident(in bright sunshine), not that this has ever happened to me...

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), February 21, 2001.

I'm playing around with this Emofin from Tetenal. It's a 2 bath developer. The exciting thing is that they claim to increase speed by up to two stops! My first rough tests seems to comfirm this with HP5+. And the compenstation seems to be there too. I'll have to make more precise tests now... Yes, I have the same question: why dont more people use this 2 bath technique? My exposures are all over the place (almost sunny 16) so I'm happy with the compensation effect and if I can get some speed in the process then so much the better

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), February 22, 2001.

Two bath developer are great, but sometimes I'm just lazy and use Xtol. One bath developer are easier for the industry and do you know any lab doing two-bath development?

I'm not that happy with Emofin, I shoot a roll HP5+ at the morning @1600 and one roll in the evening@1600. The one developed in Emufin looks less sharp than the one in Tmax 1:4.

Currently I'm playing with a two bath developer for sharpness based on pyrocatecine and by adding a second developing agent it seems to work up to push two. Unlike Emofin it is not finegrain.

It is hard to convice people to do their own development, is to convince them to two bath twice as hard?

Regards,

Wolfram

-- Wolfram Kollig (kollig@ipfdd.de), February 22, 2001.



I to have tried Xtol and many others. Yes they are easier in one since but fussy in another. The 2 bath seems to be almost "fool- proof"...I suppose that only a fool can use them..I'm simple minded. I see many comments related to "speed increases" of developers. I have yet to fully understand the principal. Anyone care to try a simple explanation? Also, how would I know if my negs exibit a loss or gain in speed while looking at them on the light table.

Thanks for all who have posted, Don

-- Don M (maldos@home.com), February 22, 2001.


I have been mixing up DD76 for years and will put it up to any other developer as far as fine grain developer beauty. I do like Diafine (at film speed) also because of its sharpness (acutance) is a bit more than DD76. I think, to answer your question about more people using 2 baths... well so many people are into Xtol and the newer developers but that is not to say the older developers have more of a sparkle to them over and above the "new developers" ect. It does tickle me to hear some people rave about the satifaction and great results they are getting but truth be told, most of the new developers aren't as nice a look!

-- Scott Walton (f64sw@hotmail.com), February 22, 2001.

Don, To answer your second question about speed loss... If you developed a roll (perfectly) in thus said developer X and then developed in a finer grain film developer like Microdol-X your second roll of negatives would look thinner. A speed decrease would lend itself to finer grain for the most part. A developer with a speed increase like Diafine, due to it's chemical makeup would give you a slightly higher density especially in the shadows. The great thing about Diafine... it is a high acutance developer (on top of a speed increasing) making the edges of the grain sharper there by making your print look sharper! Hope this clears things up. Cheers

-- Scott Walton (f64sw@hotmail.com), February 22, 2001.

I wonder about the "lazy" comments above. Diafine is truely the lazy mans developer. No need to deal with temperature, time or precise agitation. Works wonders with T-max. Dump it in and dump it out. Replenish when you feel like it. Plus it works with tech pan!

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@att.net), February 22, 2001.

In an earlier post I said that I'd just mixed my first batch of Diafine. Now that I've actually used it (on Tech Pan ala Gene Crumpler's advice) and all I can say about the negatives is WOW!!!!!!!! Such acutance! I can hardly wait to try it on some conventional films. (Now that I've discovered it I presume that, like every other product I love, it will soon be discontinued).

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), February 23, 2001.


Bill, I don't think you have to worry about that (although never say never??) Diafine has been around for ages. If it did disappear, I think it's actual makeup is similar to Divided D-23, although it's actual formula I don't know. I've just heard people say that it's similar. I found an old Camera & Darkroom mag. issue last night that had a big article by Steve Anchell (I think) about these types of developers. Any of you interested? I guess most of you all are shooting landscapes or something, but the problems I've had with Diafine have been around the fact that by it's very nature, you can't exactly increase your contrast at all. So, it really isn't a good choice for flat lighting or areas with subtle tonal changes. (i.e. white on white). It's what some people call "automatic development", it's really impossible to overdevelop in it. So, I agree with Gene, it really is hard to mess up with it.

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), February 23, 2001.

Yes I'm interested in Dinafine. Does anyone actually know the formula? Haven't been able to find formula on the net.

-- Don M (maldos@home.com), February 23, 2001.

Don, I don't think you will be able to find it, I'm not 100% sure, but I think it's a proprietary formula by the manufacturer, which is the same as the folks who make Acufine, LPD and all that stuff. I think Brandess-Kalt is the distributor of that now. I don't know if they're called Ethol, or what now, but that's who makes it. Probably the best place to look for formulas on something similar would be in one of Steve Anchell's books, or old issues of Camera & Darkroom magazine. I think Ansel Adams had a formula for Divided D-23 in one of his books as well.

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.sate.nc.us), February 23, 2001.

Hello again folks. Sorry about the piecemeal reporting, but I've now printed those fantastic TechPan negatives and wanted to report. These are not only the sharpest negatived I've ever seen, it turns out that they are also among the contrastiest, even though the time in Part B was only 45 seconds. I bracketed around EI of 64, and I'd say that half of the negatives were best at that speed, a quarter at EI of 80 (shadows too thin the rest of the time), and a quarter were best at EI of 50. I printed on Agfa Multicontrast RC with the VC head set on ZERO! and developed in Ansco 130. They are gorgeous! But deep shadow detail is definitely lacking. Now, to try some conventional film. Report to follow.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), February 24, 2001.

Bill, I haven't shot Tech Pan in ages, so I can't comment too much about that, but I'm curious about your results anyways. Why did you limit the time in the second bath to 45 sec.? With Diafine, you can sometimes increase contrast just a bit (not too much), by using more time in the first bath. But this would usually be 3-5 min. per bath. With really minimal agitation. I think the reason why your negs are contrasty probably has to do with the low time in the second bath, along with whatever your EI was. Because you say there is thin shadow detail in some of the shots. It may be hard to tell what the best EI for Tech Pan would be without going for a longer time in bath B. But, then again, that may be a good way to add contrast too. My experience with Diafine is centered more around trad. films, and some TMY/TMZ. Ocassionally we'll shoot exhibit documentation photos, and use Diafine to tame the excessive contrast of a dark gallery. We really just place our exposures at whatever the deepest shadow is that we want detail in, and just let the highlights fall in place. It works really well. TMY can be shot at EI 500, or even it's reg. speed. A thicker film, like Tri-X, can be shot much higher, like maybe two stops. I'd be curious to know what your film would like at say, 5 minutes in bath B. Good luck with your further experiments!

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), February 24, 2001.


My 45 seconds in Part B is purely based on Gene Crumpler's findings. Remember that TechPan is designed as a high contrast document film. Three minutes in Part B would look like a Litho picture.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), February 24, 2001.

Well, that answers my question I guess. When I have shot tech pan, I used it to copy old faded charts/maps- not necessarily a pictorial use I guess, so that's where I was coming from. I was using stuff like D-11 to boost the contrast. The concept of contrasty negs. with Diafine is new to me, but maybe I'll try some tech pan, and just see how it looks. Are you doing this in roll film? If any of you all are interested, the divided dev. article I was talking about was in the Dec. '93 issue of C&D mag. It was by Steve Anchell, so I assume all this stuff found it's way into his two books. Thanks again for reminding me of the nature of tech pan, let me know how your tests with other films play out.

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), February 25, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ