Barry Thornton's two-bath question about time and temperature

[retina_restoration]

In this case, he appears to just be re-stating something Thornton himself talks about - that you can increase contrast by using 20g of sodium metaborate instead of 12g in bath B, and you can decrease contrast by using 7g instead of 12g.

Finch tends to exaggerate the virtues of some of the techniques he advocates. Therefore, it’s advisable for those consuming his content to critically evaluate what they’re being told and thoroughly research it before accepting it as absolute truth.

 

[BHuij]

Finch tends to exaggerate the virtues of some of the techniques he advocates. Therefore, it’s advisable for those consuming his content to critically evaluate what they’re being told and thoroughly research it before accepting it as absolute truth.

Good advice regardless of the source, I think

 

[retina_restoration]

Good advice regardless of the source, I think

Oh, absolutely!

 

[BHuij]

Gave BTTB a first try yesterday. It was a roll of HP5+ rated at 320. Nothing particularly contrasty on there since I generally shoot in overcast or shady conditions. I wanted to see if I could get away with using it at room temp in my darkroom (which hovers around 75 F or so, it's kind of a warm room). But more than that, I'm just very curious to see whether the "definition" (acutance + the right amount of grain, if Thornton's claims are taken at face value) is noticeably better than my results in Instant Mytol. Particularly whether I can detect edge effects, as I don't think I've ever used a developer that is specifically good at producing those.

Gave 5 mins in Bath A with normal agitation (~10 seconds per minute), then 5 mins in Bath B with the same agitation. Stopped and fixed normally. Negs are drying now and I should be able to contact print tonight.

Overall... they seem super dense, even in the shadow areas. FB+F seems normal in the rebate though. My guess is, the relatively high temperature had a pretty big effect. I may also be agitating too much. Online I see a lot of "standard agitation for ~5-10 seconds every minute," but IIRC, Thornton's book that I just finished reading specified doing more or less as little agitation as you can get away with.

But I'm not particularly great at divining things by looking at negatives. A max black through FB+F contact print of the roll at grade 2 will tell me if my suspicions are right about how contrasty these images probably ended up.

More tests are in order!

 

[Romanko]

My guess is, the relatively high temperature had a pretty big effect. I may also be agitating too much.

Yes, both.

 

[retina_restoration]

Gave BTTB a first try yesterday. It was a roll of HP5+ rated at 320. Nothing particularly contrasty on there since I generally shoot in overcast or shady conditions. I wanted to see if I could get away with using it at room temp in my darkroom (which hovers around 75 F or so, it's kind of a warm room). But more than that, I'm just very curious to see whether the "definition" (acutance + the right amount of grain, if Thornton's claims are taken at face value) is noticeably better than my results in Instant Mytol. Particularly whether I can detect edge effects, as I don't think I've ever used a developer that is specifically good at producing those.

Gave 5 mins in Bath A with normal agitation (~10 seconds per minute), then 5 mins in Bath B with the same agitation. Stopped and fixed normally. Negs are drying now and I should be able to contact print tonight.

Overall... they seem super dense, even in the shadow areas. FB+F seems normal in the rebate though. My guess is, the relatively high temperature had a pretty big effect. I may also be agitating too much. Online I see a lot of "standard agitation for ~5-10 seconds every minute," but IIRC, Thornton's book that I just finished reading specified doing more or less as little agitation as you can get away with.

But I'm not particularly great at divining things by looking at negatives. A max black through FB+F contact print of the roll at grade 2 will tell me if my suspicions are right about how contrasty these images probably ended up.

More tests are in order!

At that temperature, you need to reduce both time, and amount of agitation. Better to correct temperature next time (no warmer than 70F) and aim for 4.5 minutes with gentle agitation for no more than 3-5 seconds per cycle. In bath B, one inversion per minute is plenty.

 

[pentaxuser]

I'm using Multitone RC pearl which I believe is by Inkpress, though the name isn't shown anywhere on the box and envelopes. This paper is naturally punchy, I had to alter a few things to get the contrast just right with working with this material. With using the two-bath development this seems to be proving good with this particular paper.

I switched to Multitone due to price. I am saving 2 to 2.3 times the amount of money for the same quantty of paper from the other brand that I was using.

Is this Multitone RC Pearl the paper that is sold by Adorama and is it made by InkPress?There was a thread on what this was and who makes it that was as confusing as could be. What little info that had been gathered seemed to suggest it was Inkjet paper that could be used under a safelight ???? The ínference from this would appear to a Inkjet paper that doubles as a darkroom paper. Sounded crazy to me

What is the other brand that you were using that was over twice as expensive?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[BHuij]

At that temperature, you need to reduce both time, and amount of agitation. Better to correct temperature next time (no warmer than 70F) and aim for 4.5 minutes with gentle agitation for no more than 3-5 seconds per cycle. In bath B, one inversion per minute is plenty.

The agitation thing makes sense. If the whole point of this 2-bath compensation thing is that the developer exhausts itself in the highlights quickly between agitations, then the idea of agitating 5s per minute is kind of suspect in the first place. Should have gone with my gut on that - especially since the book itself says you should try to get away with as little agitation as possible before getting bromide drag, and never mentions anything about 5s per minute.

I consulted a handful of time/temp charts and calculators, and they all generally agree that if a developer is meant to have 5 mins at 68F, then bumping the temp to 75F should shorten development time to about 3m20s or thereabouts. Other than the normal things associated with sub-5 minute development times (harder to do consistently, small time errors have a more substantial effect, etc. etc.) is there any argument against developing at room temp? The convenience factor is huge compared to remembering to refrigerate my chemicals for 30 minutes prior to developing the film.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I consulted a handful of time/temp charts and calculators, and they all generally agree that if a developer is meant to have 5 mins at 68F, then bumping the temp to 75F should shorten development time to about 3m20s or thereabouts.

My feeling is that this mathematical logic doesn't apply to two bath developers.

In his article on the subject, Barry Thornton stated that two-bath developer formulas "are not fussy about time and temperature within reasonable limits." He doesn't dive further into the subject, but it's clear that the "withing reasonable limits" is important for both time and temperature.

I always use TTB at room temperature. In normal conditions, that oscillates between 19ºC, 20ºC and 21ºC. Haven't seen any differences between negs at my normal time of 4:30 for FP5+.

This summer, however, room temp went up to 24ºC. The negs I did that day showed very high contrast, but normal development (or at least very close to). I didn't want to waste negatives on experimenting with lower development times — my feeling it that too short a time would cross the "within reasonable limits" threshold, and I would end up with high contrast, underdeveloped negs —, but it's something I might do next summer.

At that temperature, you need to reduce both time, and amount of agitation. Better to correct temperature next time (no warmer than 70F) and aim for 4.5 minutes with gentle agitation for no more than 3-5 seconds per cycle. In bath B, one inversion per minute is plenty.

From what I understand from Barry Thornton's writing is that you need to have little agitation as possible (or rather, as necessary) regardless of the temperature, especially in bath B, where the development takes place. The whole point of the two bath process is to let the developer itself control contrast. If you agitate too much, you short-circuiting this effect.

This is what he wrote on contrast and agitation :

What two bath development does is to try and compensate for these variables in each individual negative automatically to produce full toned negatives that print more easily for high quality. This means that a negative of a low contrast subject continues to develop up to produce a good printing contrast, while, more importantly, negatives of high contrast subjects have the highlights held back while the shadows continue to be built up so that detail can be printed easily at both ends of the scale... The film is developed in Bath A with agitation every half or full minute—its not critical. Actually little development takes place. Mostly the film is becoming saturated with the developing solution.

However, some development does take place and agitation is important to prevent streaking. The solution is then poured off and saved. Drain the tank well but don't rinse or use a stop bath. Then pour in Bath B, and after a quick rap of the tank on a hard surface to dislodge any air bells, let the tank stand still with no agitation for three minutes or so when all development has ceased. Note, though, that while no agitation is ideal, and usually works well for unsprocketed roll film (120/220), there can be streamers from 35mm sprocket holes. This seems to vary with different kinds of tanks, different films, and the local water characteristics. Do your own experiments to determine the minimum agitation you can achieve without streaking before committing a crucial film to the process.

 

[BHuij]

Fair point... "within reasonable limits" is a fairly meaningless phrase here when push comes to shove.

In any case, I definitely overdeveloped this past time, and I suspect that rating my HP5+ at 320 was also a marginal overexposure.

I'm going to try again and see what happens with a 3:30 time in both A and B at my standard room temp of 75° F, knocking agitation way down in B. Perhaps that short time is outside of "reasonable limits," but I am willing to potentially sacrifice some non-critical films to find out. I'm very incentivized to see if I can get it working at my above average room temp.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I'm going to try again and see what happens with a 3:30 time in both A and B at my standard room temp of 75° F, knocking agitation way down in B. Perhaps that short time is outside of "reasonable limits," but I am willing to potentially sacrifice some non-critical films to find out. I'm very incentivized to see if I can get it working at my above average room temp.

Looking forward to reading about the results. I didn't want to do the higher temp/lower time test this past summer as I needed these films for a project I've been working on — waited till this fall to develop them —, so I'm hoping your findings may indicate that I can use TTB in the middle of summer with the same results as now.

 

[snusmumriken]

I don't want to fall into the trap of suggesting that I know The One True Way with BT2B. But I have used no other developer for 15-20 years now, and have been very happy with the results, so perhaps it might be forgivable, even helpful, for me to make a few observations on the last few posts?

First, you should not be getting very dense negatives with this developer. I don't know how to illustrate this in thread, but mine quite typically print on Ilford Multigrade #2. For instance, I expose HP5+ at 400 ISO and develop for 4.5 + 4.5 min at 23 deg C (73 deg F). One warning: don't develop film on the same day that you mix bath A, as it can be a little 'hot'. Wait until the following day at least.

Second, whatever BT himself said, temperature does matter. All chemical reactions proceed faster at higher temperatures. I stick with the development time that I have established for my habits and equipment, but adjust it using a time/temp chart if I'm unable or too lazy to match my preferred temperature of 23 deg C. (I don't know why I standardised to that temperature, but it works for me.)

Third, agitation is an inflammatory subject here on Photrio, and perhaps just a matter of personal conviction. But FWIW, I give continuous gentle inversion agitation in bath A, and as little as possible in Bath B. I mention this only because I don't get very dense negatives despite that maximal agitation in Bath A. So if you are getting very dense negatives, I don't think excessive agitation in Bath A is the culprit.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I don't want to fall into the trap of suggesting that I know The One True Way with BT2B. But I have used no other developer for 15-20 years now, and have been very happy with the results, so perhaps it might be forgivable, even helpful, for me to make a few observations on the last few posts?

First, you should not be getting very dense negatives with this developer. I don't know how to illustrate this in thread, but mine quite typically print on Ilford Multigrade #2. For instance, I expose HP5+ at 400 ISO and develop for 4.5 + 4.5 min at 23 deg C (73 deg F). One warning: don't develop film on the same day that you mix bath A, as it can be a little 'hot'. Wait until the following day at least.

Second, whatever BT himself said, temperature does matter. All chemical reactions proceed faster at higher temperatures. I stick with the development time that I have established for my habits and equipment, but adjust it using a time/temp chart if I'm unable or too lazy to match my preferred temperature of 23 deg C. (I don't know why I standardised to that temperature, but it works for me.)

Third, agitation is an inflammatory subject here on Photrio, and perhaps just a matter of personal conviction. But FWIW, I give continuous gentle inversion agitation in bath A, and as little as possible in Bath B. I mention this only because I don't get very dense negatives despite that maximal agitation in Bath A. So if you are getting very dense negatives, I don't think excessive agitation in Bath A is the culprit.

Thanks for your imput, snusmumriken. Your process and results are very close to mine, albeit that I rate my HP5+ at 250 ISO. I develop in both baths at somewhere around 20ºC (room temp is pretty stable here three seasons out of four) for 4:30. I rarely go for a specific grade but work with split grade printing, and their contrast works well for this. I'd be curious to compare my negs with yours.

 

[BHuij]

I don't want to fall into the trap of suggesting that I know The One True Way with BT2B. But I have used no other developer for 15-20 years now, and have been very happy with the results, so perhaps it might be forgivable, even helpful, for me to make a few observations on the last few posts?

First, you should not be getting very dense negatives with this developer. I don't know how to illustrate this in thread, but mine quite typically print on Ilford Multigrade #2. For instance, I expose HP5+ at 400 ISO and develop for 4.5 + 4.5 min at 23 deg C (73 deg F). One warning: don't develop film on the same day that you mix bath A, as it can be a little 'hot'. Wait until the following day at least.

Second, whatever BT himself said, temperature does matter. All chemical reactions proceed faster at higher temperatures. I stick with the development time that I have established for my habits and equipment, but adjust it using a time/temp chart if I'm unable or too lazy to match my preferred temperature of 23 deg C. (I don't know why I standardised to that temperature, but it works for me.)

Third, agitation is an inflammatory subject here on Photrio, and perhaps just a matter of personal conviction. But FWIW, I give continuous gentle inversion agitation in bath A, and as little as possible in Bath B. I mention this only because I don't get very dense negatives despite that maximal agitation in Bath A. So if you are getting very dense negatives, I don't think excessive agitation in Bath A is the culprit.

Always happy to get great advice from someone more experienced than me.

From what you're saying, my problem was almost definitely overagitation, more so than the temperature. It all seems to make sense - almost no development is taking place in Bath A, so I think you'd have to agitate really excessively or go way more than 5 or 6 degrees F above standard temp.

In theory, if my understanding is correct, the agitation for Bath B ends up being the bottleneck in the development of the highlights. If I drop into bath B at 68°F and don't agitate for 2 minutes, the developer in the highlights will exhaust. If instead I drop it into bath B at 80°F and wait without agitating for 2 minutes, the highlights will still exhaust. They might do it sooner, but that doesn't really change the overall contrast after 2 minutes, right?

At any rate, maybe I'll try 4.5 minutes as my base instead of 5, and focus on getting really minimal agitation with bath B instead of cutting time down with a chart. I also had no idea that bath A benefited from a day or so to "stabilize." I definitely did my first test using a bath A mixed at room temp 5 minutes before I used it. That quite likely had something to do with my bulletproof results as well.

I'd love to know exactly what your bath B agitation looks like for HP5+ (as little as possible makes sense, but what does that end up being in real terms?). And if you're up for sharing your time/temp conversion chart as well, it would be good to have on hand. I also target Grade 2 Ilford Multigrade fiber paper with my diffusion enlarger as a standard.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I'd love to know exactly what your bath B agitation looks like for HP5+ (as little as possible makes sense, but what does that end up being in real terms?).

Out of curiosity, I'd also like to know what snusmumriken's agitation pattern is.

I follow exactly Barry Thornton's advice for bath B with 120 films : three strong taps of the tank after pouring (to dislodge air bubbles) followed by three minutes without agitation (I do two inversions at the 3:00 and 4:00 minute mark, that's it).

Works like a charm. Yesterday, I developed 12 120 films in TTB in a Paterson tank that can hold three 120 rolls at a time. Used the same bath A and bath B throughout, at room temperature (20ºC). Cannot make the difference between the first batch of three and the last one. All were HP5+ @ 250 ISO, except one Delta 400 (@ 250 ISO) that I inserted in there. It came out as nice looking as the others.

@snusmumriken I'm also curious to know if you get good results with Tri-X with the same development time as HP5+.

 

[retina_restoration]

First, you should not be getting very dense negatives with this developer. I don't know how to illustrate this in thread, but mine quite typically print on Ilford Multigrade #2. For instance, I expose HP5+ at 400 ISO and develop for 4.5 + 4.5 min at 23 deg C (73 deg F). One warning: don't develop film on the same day that you mix bath A, as it can be a little 'hot'. Wait until the following day at least.

Second, whatever BT himself said, temperature does matter. All chemical reactions proceed faster at higher temperatures.

Agreed. If you're getting overdeveloped negatives, there's something not right here. I suspect the combination of warm developer, time in both baths, and too much agitation added up to overdevelopment. Many practitioners recommend 4 minutes as a starting point, and only add more time if your negs are too flat. I think that a temperature of 75F is going to have significant influence on the outcome, so I would suggest getting that temperature down to at least 70F.

 

[snusmumriken]

I'd love to know exactly what your bath B agitation looks like for HP5+ (as little as possible makes sense, but what does that end up being in real terms?).

Basically, I pour in Bath B, start the clock, twiddle the stick for 10 sec (I use Paterson tanks) and give a couple of taps, then put on the lid. Invert at 30 sec, then at 1 min (from start), then at 1 min intervals until the end (which obviously varies with temperature).

And if you're up for sharing your time/temp conversion chart as well, it would be good to have on hand.

To all practical purposes, time/temp charts don't differ very much. There's one available on the Ilford website, for instance. But there was a discussion here on Photrio a while back about how different developing agents have different responses with temperature, from which I created a metol-specific chart. If you are really perfectionist, you might use that for BT2B. I have a copy on my darkroom wall, but quite often I forget and use the standard Ilford one.

@snusmumriken I'm also curious to know if you get good results with Tri-X with the same development time as HP5+.

Tri-X is un-competitively expensive over here in the UK, so I don't use it any longer. I do use Double-X, rated at 320 ISO, and I give that 4 + 4 min at 23 deg C. That works out pretty nice. Here's an example, but I'm going to ring the changes a bit to see what it does to the tonality.

 

[BHuij]

Surprised you're still agitating once per minute, that seems like a lot. I guess I was picturing something more akin to semi-stand.

Now I wonder how much of my bulletproof negs result from the first roll of HP5+ was due to using the developer immediately after mixing Bath A.

I'll report back next time I soup a roll.

 

[snusmumriken]

Surprised you're still agitating once per minute, that seems like a lot. I guess I was picturing something more akin to semi-stand.

Now I wonder how much of my bulletproof negs result from the first roll of HP5+ was due to using the developer immediately after mixing Bath A.

I'll report back next time I soup a roll.

If you stand Bath B for periods longer than 1 min, you'll likely find you get streamers. I did (with 35mm).

I'm curious about your results. If you get dense negs a second time, I'd suspect you might have mixed something up wrong, which of course is easily done. Or that you got the two baths switched round, maybe. Anyway, let's hope it was a freak, and the second roll is perfect. Best of luck!

 

[BHuij]

I haven't yet finished shooting the next roll intended for BTTB dev, but out of curiosity I did try making some prints from that first roll of HP5+ that came out looking severely overcooked.

Unsurprisingly there is plenty of shadow detail. Overall density is very high and it's pretty grainy (though I don't hate the grain, surprisingly; it's not quite as harsh or salt-and-pepper-y as, say, Rodinal). Chalk that up to slight overexposure and definite overdevelopment. Every time I've seen negatives this dense, they were too contrasty to use even at Grade 00.

And yet, these negatives are printable. They certainly don't hurt for acutance. So far I've been making 5x7s, and they look very sharp and very crisp. Depending on the frame, I'm getting prints with expectedly long exposure times, but tonality coming out great at grades ranging from 0 to 2.5. A few frames are hot enough that I can't burn in highlight detail in places where I know there should be some. So I managed to squeeze the highlight detail out past what even HP5+ can retain .

But all things considered, it seems pretty clear that there was indeed compensation occurring, and I think I can see evidence of the "hump" in the shadow area of the tonal curve that Thornton describes. Good separation in the shadows. I'm pleasantly surprised. I have a couple of the prints flattening in the hot mount press right now, hopefully I can scan and share some results tonight.

There's even one frame from the roll that I like enough to make an 8x10 and put in my portfolio, after I've worked out the dodging and burning I like for it. I do all my "workshopping" with 5x7 prints to save paper haha.

 

[snusmumriken]

I'd be curious to compare my negs with yours.

That would be interesting. Is there a way we could do that in practice?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

That would be interesting. Is there a way we could do that in practice?

Maybe I should plan a visit to Stonehenge...

 

[snusmumriken]

Maybe I should plan a visit to Stonehenge...

Excellent idea!

 

[What About Bob]

Is this Multitone RC Pearl the paper that is sold by Adorama and is it made by InkPress?There was a thread on what this was and who makes it that was as confusing as could be. What little info that had been gathered seemed to suggest it was Inkjet paper that could be used under a safelight ???? The ínference from this would appear to a Inkjet paper that doubles as a darkroom paper. Sounded crazy to me

What is the other brand that you were using that was over twice as expensive?

Thanks

pentaxuser

@pentaxuser: Sorry for the late response. I don't know how I missed the notifications for this thread.

The Multitone paper is made by Inkpress, in both pearl and glossy. Adorama and B&H sell this paper. When I first was looking up information for this paper brand there was talk about it coming from China. All that was shown on the Inkpress site, when I went there, was indeed inkjet paper. There was no darkroom paper to be found there. That was a real head-scratcher to me.

Inkpress Multitone paper was cheaper by about 2 to 2.3 times the cost of Ilford papers, with Kentmere papers priced in between the two. When I last checked out the differences between the Ilford and Inkpress papers: Ilford paper was around $130 to $150, depending on type, while the Inkpress paper was only $63 for the same quantity of 100 sheets of 8X10. At this time the 100 sheets of 8X10 of the Inkpress paper went up to $80, still cheaper than Ilford, with Kentmere still being in between the two for pricing.

 

[What About Bob]

Let us know how they come out. As I said, for some reason, I haven't been able to find a sweet spot for Tri-X in TTB, but neither have I for the same film in D-23 (very similar to TTB in many ways).

@Alex Benjamin: I intend to put some Tri-X through. I have been holding off using it until the Kentmere stuff is used up. I am excited to use Tri-X again. Anyone know if this film has changed during the years?