Hi, Tim's answer gave me an idea.I have done all the testing to get my time of about 11 minutes. I use the BTZS system and plotter, etc. According to my tests, HP5+ DOES shoot at 400 when I use DDX 1+4.
But, a recent test with D76 1:1 showed a loss of film speed with that developer. So maybe I'll use d76 1:1 at a slightly reduced time for normal development and see how it goes.
--shannon On Oct 5, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Jean-David Beyer wrote:Shannon Stoney wrote:Hi, I accidentally shot some hp5+ at 125, because I thought I had fp4+in my camera. By about what percentage should I reduce the development times? I normally develop it in DDX 1+4 for about 11 minutes. I was thinking maybe...9 minutes?I would not shorten the times at all. Development time affects thecontrast of the negative. Exposure affects the density. So if you woulddevelop normally, then continue to do that. The negatives will takelonger to print and you will probably get a bit more shadow detail thanyou are used to.If you reduce the development time, the contrast will be lower than youprobably want.Shannon, Jean-David - I'm not sure I quite agree. Here's why:- Changing development *mostly* affects the upper midtones and highlights bychanging the gamma (contrast) of the H/D curve. But it does somewhat change effective film speed because it moves the threshold of where the film begins to respond to very low levels up light up- and down a bit (the left end of the H/D curve). The more extreme the development change, the more the effective ASA changes.- If you have accurate shutters, light meters, thermometers, and consistent/clean water for your chemistry, my consistent experience - verified both in practice and with a densitometer - is that pretty much every film I've used with pretty much any developer *is rated a full stop too fast*. For ASA 400 films, I expose them at 200 (under normal contrast conditions) and then *underdevelop* about20% from the published recommendation for that film/developer combo.(This varies a bit by developer, but as a rough estimate, it's a pretty good start assuming, as I said, that your exposure and measurement chain is clean.) The lowered ASA adds more details to the shadows. The decreaseddevelopment keeps the highlights from blowing out. So, having said that, let's inspect Shannon's situation: HP4 is nominally rated at ASA 400 Shannon's normal development time is 11 minIf you believe what I said above, the real ASA is more like 200 and properdevelopment time is more like 8.8 minutes.But ... Shannon exposed at ASA 125, almost a full stop more light than my nominal. (In zone system terms it's about N-1 - something you do when you need to contract the contrast range a bit when it's too long to fit on the film.) So further underdevelopment (from my nominal) would be indicated. It's hard to know howmuch, but I'd guess another 15% or so would be in order so: 11 * .65 = 7.15 min This should result in negatives with excellent shadow detail and a somewhat compressed tonal range (lower gamma or contrast). If, OTOH, Shannon develops for the full 11 min, the shadow detail will be strong, but the highlights will either be really difficult to print (very, very long exposure times up to and beyond the reciprocity failure of the paper) and/or the highlights will be blown out completely to bright white with no detail at all. P.S. These estimates of reduced ASA and development times do vary somewhat even for a particular film because different formats have a different film base + fog baseline. This is because 35mm, especially, uses a different base than 120 or 4x5. Still, when I don't have time to test a new film/dev combo, "Cut the ASA in half, and underdevelop 20%" has always given me very good results. P.P.S. It is a *really* good idea to do some "personal ASA" testing that will take into account YOUR thermometer, shutter, light meter, agitation style, water composition, and so forth. Both Ansel Adams describes this in great detail, but a very good crash course can be found in Fred Picker's introduction to Zone System. I'm not one that believes you need to measure things out to 0.000001%, but getting a basic personal ASA and development time calibration done is really helpful. P.P.P.S The calibration above does mean that you need access to a transmission densitometer. I have one and will do it for anyone that needs it done for $10 per neg - providing both FB+B and absolute density - plus shipping. I am not in this business, so I reserve the right to not spend the rest of my life testing everyone's negs - I have my own pictures to make :) IOW, I do this only if/when I have time ...-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/======================================================================= ====================================== To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
http://shannonstoney-twors.blogspot.com/ http://branguslane.blogspot.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/shannonstoney/ http://www.eyeballkicks.blogspot.com http://allfiber.blogspot.com ============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.