[Leica] Re: Divided D76

[John Brownlow <deadman@jukebox.demon.co.uk>]

on 22/2/00 4:26 pm, Frank Knapik at fknapik@MAIL.NYSED.GOV wrote:

> Hello. Can you give me any details with regards to your "bastardized" Divided
> D76? Thanks. Oh, bye the way, I really enjoy your site.

Thanks -- I'm still looking for the original post, but for you and everyone
else who asked privately all you do is:


D76 stock       3-4 mins
Kodalk 1.5-2%   3 mins

Stop/Fix as normal

IMPORTANT! Transfer to the second bath WITHOUT rinsing or stopping.

Borax or Sodium Carbonate can be substituted for Kodalk (sodium metaborate).
Borax will give marginally less contrast in the shadows, Carbonate
marginally more. (I bet you can't see it, however).

This process is famously temperature independent but I use 68 deg F

I rate TX @ 320 ASA for this process, but others get speeds from 200 - 800
depending on your taste in shadow detail, so I recommend running tests. In
any case, you should expose for the shadows when using this technique,
unless the contrast is truly terrifying, in which case you could stop down
one or two clicks from the shadow reading.

For more contrast, increase the time in the first bath (anything beyond 4
minutes looks identical to straight D76 to me).

Increasing the time in the second bath has almost no effect.

Agitate 30s + 5s/30s in the first bath, and how you like in the second.

BTW, in the last year I have run fully controlled tests of this process
versus --

D76
Xtol
D23 (both straight and pseudo-divided)

My conclusions were that it produced sharper and snappier negs than D23
without blocking highlights as D76 tends to, and I preferred the tonality to
both of them.

It was, however,  not as good as Xtol 1+1, which was what I switched to.

The pseudo-divided Xtol process I described in the previous post would be my
choice for extremely contrasty light. For example, bright winter sunlight on
a crowded street where there are strong building shadows.

Normally this is an almost hopeless exposure situation if you are grabbing
shots, as one moment you're shooting for sun (say 1/250@f1/16 or f/11) and
the next for deep shadow (say 1/250 @ f4 or even f2.8).

However, with a split developer you can relax (a bit). In the situation
above I would shoot at, say, 1/250 @ f5.6 and rely on the strong
compensating effect to keep the highlights sensible, plus the extra 1/3 to
1/2 stop of speed Xtol provides to look after the shadows.

There is a lot of film developing voodoo out there but I have found split
and pseudo-split developers do provide as useful degree of contrast control
beyond simple overexposure and underdevelopment.

If you have a spare afternoon and the inclination, try it for yourself and
let me know what you think. It has the advantage over most homebrew
processes that all you need to buy is the alkali, which is dirt cheap.

For more info, I recommend Antscherl & Troop's wonderful THE FILM DEVELOPING
COOKBOOK (Focal). It doesn't talk about pseudo-divided developers (I
invented the term, I think -- the process I nicked from Roswell Angier) but
it does go into why divided developers work like they do.

The 'real' formula for Divided D76 and various other splits can be found in
Antscherl's previous meisterwerk THE DARKROOM COOKBOOK (Focal).

Finally, don't try divided developers with thin emulsion films as the
mechanism relies on developer soaking into the film emulsion, and there just
ain't enough there on TMX and its friends and relations. Believe me, I've
tried it.

- -- 
John Brownlow

       photos:    http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
        music:    http://www.jukebox.demon.co.uk