Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: [OT?] DD-X (1+9) was Jaw drop'in time

Subject: [OM] Re: [OT?] DD-X (1+9) was Jaw drop'in time
From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 07:18:08 -0800 (PST)
Johan wrote:
> Maybe I don't pay attention all the time but your information
> about B&W processing is so interesting! Digitaltruth list a 
> processing time for Delta 100 of 12 min with DD-X(1+4). Would
> you say that going to 1+9 is generally a 15-20 % more time?
> 
> For instance is DD-X(1+9) and HP5+ about 10.5 min instead of 9
> min with 1+4?

No, not necessarily.  There are far too many variables to lock
in on any one thing.  What I did yesterday was a combination of
experience, frustration and an educated guess.

When using a constant agitation method you have to subtract
15-20% development time.  Still, contrast will go up and
highlights will run into the shoulder pretty hard.  So,
therefore, my development times were totally screwed up as
compared to spiral-tank development.

I actually did two runs:  First one 1:4 and the second 1:9.  1:9
is 1/2 the concentration of 1:4.  You would think that 1/2 the
concentration means you need to double the development time. 
No. I'm not sure what the exact ratios should be (somebody else
did the DDX 1:9 research for me), but looks to be around a 65%
increase in development time.

An eyeball comparision of the negs showed an increased tonal
seperation and a preservation of highlights.  The shoulder is
different, but I haven't proofed them to determine just how
different.  However, the shadow detail is very much different. 
Zone III-IV cleaned up and isn't muddy, but it appears that the
toe has disappeared.

Another apparent benefit of 1:9 is an increased acutance. 
However, I'm looking at 4x5 negs here.  What works in larger
formats may not translate well into 35mm.  And further more, my
development times for the drum roller were about 20% shorter
than what I would do in a spiral tank.

I don't have my chart in front of me, but I think I normally
process 35mm HP5+ in a spiral tank with DD-X 1:9 for 15 minutes
at 68 degrees (F) with once per minute agitation.  The HP5+ is
shot at ISO 400. (If memory serves me, HP5+ in DD-X 1:4 is 9
minutes)

Digitaltruth has lots of times, etc., but they do make some
assumptions that I don't agree with--like downrating the film to
320 or 200.  Overexpose/Underdevelopment is a generic
recommendation that doesn't always pan out.  I use Ilford's
published data (get it off the website) and only vary for
specific quantifiable reasons.  For paying customers, I am
pretty strict about using Ilford's specs, with the exception of
HP5+ development which is much better 1:9.  For my own stuff,
I'll experiment till the cows come home.

BTW, Anthony wrote in this months issue of the
fineartphotosupply newsletter that it is better to have soft
negatives and use a harder setting with today's variable
contrast papers.  This is due to the paper's inability to get a
good solid DMax with low contrast settings (Grade 00-2).  I
completely concur with this assessment.  However, what works
well with medium and large formats does not always translate
well with 35mm negs.  Before everybody starts jumping on the
bandwagon and underexposes/underdevelops their 35mm film, you
need to remember that any increase in paper grade WILL increase
apparant grain and any and every physical flaw in the neg.

I highly recommend that you visit Ilford's website and download
the PDFs having to do with film devopment.  Their DD-X times are
extremely close.  With DD-X, I would not recommend over-exposing
your film.  The only exception would be for those odd times when
you have a tricky shadow detail you are trying to capture and
don't mind sacrificing some high-value tonal seperation.  But,
heh, that's why I like my old silvernosed, single-coated lenses
for B&W photography--much better shadow detail.

You knew I was going to bring it back around to Zuiko lenses
sooner or later.

BTW, thank you for the kind comment.

AG


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe

To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus 
List Problem"

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz