Development Charts - film by film : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread

Jim Vanson wrote me recently to suggest that I add pages to my web site containing development data for various films from various individuals, like I did for Delta 3200 ( A page for each film. I can't say that I haven't thought of it before, but wondered if it would really be of any great use, considering that the Massive Development Chart already exists. Upon reflection, I can see some benefits, particularly if people provide additional data. For instance, the Massive Development Chart typically provides only one time for each developer; however, there is a lot of ancilliary information that would be useful, such as times for different temperatures, types of enlarger, sheet or roll film, circumstances under which one developer or film might be preferred over another, normal-plus and normal-minus development times, agitation techniques, special additives for speed or fine grain, various developer dilutions, personal comments, and the e-mail address of the recommending person so you can write and ask them questions.

I guess I've decided I'm willing to do this--to attempt to harness the collective wisdom and experience of the members of this forum--but first I need some assurance of interest and support. Would this information be useful to you? Would you be willing to contribute your development data?

If I decide to do this project, I'm thinking I had better do it one film at a time or I will be overwhelmed with data; so, if there is enough interest, I will probably proceed by film speed, starting with the slow films and working my way up, film by film, manufacturer by manufacturer, until all the major (and minor) black and white films have been covered.

-- Ed Buffaloe (, March 21, 2001


I think a series of annotated development charts might be very useful. In general, the big tables just cite time/temp data for each film/ developer combination, without variations and tweaks that tend to be discussed in this forum. For example, some combinations need specific agitation methods. I had difficulty getting even negs from XTOL development until one of the kind contributors here pointed out the Kodak recommendation for vigorous 5 sec agitations at 30 second intervals in small tanks for XTOL (thanks again John Hicks!). I had been using the gentle 5 sec per minute that had worked for me for years with HC110. It made a big difference for me, at least. The caveat is that the info for such tables would be anecdotal, with datasets contributed by a combination of individuals who might have very different techniques and expections as regards quality of results. I doubt that we all agree on what constitutes an ideal or even acceptable negative. Ideally, you'd want to test each combination under standard conditions--not too practical. But, hey, that's the nature of the web-- we find all kinds of info, and it's up to us to sort the grain from the chaff....

-- Tim Nelson (, March 21, 2001.

In order to keep it manageable, I'd suggest you list only "odd" combinations for which recommendations may be difficult to find.

For example, it's awfully easy to find recommendations for TX in D-76, while recommendations for HP5+ in D-25 or TP in Burton 195 are pretty obscure.

-- John Hicks (, March 21, 2001.

John - That sounds reasonable. Almost any film data sheet will give you times for D-76 or ID-11. But I would also include special purpose developments, such as HP-5 at N-1 in Rodinal 1:100. What made the Delta 3200 page work was that times for that film were hard to come by.

-- Ed Buffaloe (, March 21, 2001.

Steve Nicholls wrote and suggested I include a section on rotary development for each film. Excellent suggestion.

-- Ed Buffaloe (, March 21, 2001.

> include special purpose developments, such as HP-5 at N-1 in Rodinal 1:100

Yes, that would qualify as obscure too. (G)

Let me know when you're ready and I have an odd assortment I'll send along.

-- John Hicks (, March 22, 2001.

I might be able to add a couple since I'm the only person who uses Ilford LC29! Actually, I've added a couple to the M.D.C.

-- Nigel Smith (, March 22, 2001.

Not sure this is appro-poetic to this thread or not.

I never claimed to be the cripiest fry in the basket, but I could NEVER understand why Ilford instructions packaged with developer and tech sheets have the same goofy TIME/TEMP conversion chart/graph.

Blamed thing is useless IMHO - too small and vague - leaves you guessing. Why can't they just publish T&T like Kodak does in their B&W Darkroom Dataguide - i.e. Tri-X Pro at iso 320 in D-76 1:1 @ 65 68 70 72 & 75 degrees or whatever?

Then I came across a conversion method in Aaron Sussmans book from the late 60's "Amatuer Photographers Handbook".

You take the given time at ANY given temperature for whatever combination you've got and can calculate the given time at any other given temperature fairly quickly and certainly with a finer degree of precision than with the aformentioned graph.

I know this may seem hypocritcal coming from a guy who develops by inspection and "eyeballs" exposures with an incident meter but I find it re-assuring to have something that seems at least a bit less of a SWAG than the chart.

It goes like this:

"Given the developing time at 68 degrees, you convert to the time at any other temperature by multiplying the given time by the desired temperature factor T. To convert from the time at any temperature other than 68 degrees, to any other temperature, you divide the time of the given temperature by its own factor and then multiply by the factor of the desired temperature."

Here's the chart:

Temp in Farenheit followed by factor

64 deg factor 1.23 65 1.16 66 1.10 67 1.05 68 1.00 69 .95 70 .90 71 .85 72 .81 73 .78 74 .75 75 .72 76 .69 77 .66

This is on page 382 of the edition I have. Hopefully the times and factors will line up when I "send" this to the forum. FWIW Sussman has all kinds of neat info in his book. It would definatley behoove us to look over old photo manuals at yardsales, library used book sales, etc. etc. etc. My copy came with an enlarger my wife bought me a while back.

-- Sean yates (, March 24, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ