Develop and Inspect

I

Ian-Barber

Admin
Registered User
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
1,713
I read somewhere about how Edward Western used to inspect his negative during the development stage which allowed him to either increase or decrease his time accordingly.

This got me thinking, is it possible to develop negatives in trays under some form of subdued lighting or was is because back in the days when Edward was alive, the films were different to what they are today. ?
 
Early films were only sensitive to blue light Ian so development by inspection was possible under dim red or green light. When orthochromatic film arrived on the scene (sensitive to blue and green light) it was possible to use a very very dim red light but it was usually so dim it wasn't worth it. Then when panchromatic film that is sensitive to all colours came it even that went out of the window and it was into total darkness. I seem to recall reading that someone was using infra red goggles but how that works in practice I have no idea.
 
IR goggles are mentioned in this thread.

Orthochromatic film is still available (or was, when I last looked a few weeks ago) from people like Ilford, and this would allow a red safelight to be used. The Ilford direct positive paper was/is ortho, and developed under a red safelight. N.B. Ilford did specify a particular safelight, so any old red may not do.

I have a vague recollection of a monochromatic dark green (not a typo) filter/light source that could be used for brief inspections being made by Ilford. I could be wrong. It's probably buried in one of the technical sheets for one of their films.

I just reread the relevant paragraph in Ilford Monochrome Darkroom Practice which contains the following:

Furthermore, it has been found that much more predictable results can be obtained by developing a film for a specific time at a given temperature, rather than by attempting to assess the quality of the negative images by fleeting glances under an extremely dim light.
 
Last edited:
In fairness (and highly relevant) I should perhaps go on to quote the opening words of the next paragraph in the book:

With orthochromatic or merely blue-sensitive materials, there is every reason to take advantage of the useful level of safelighting they permit.

It then continues with specific recommendations. The earlier quote was referring to the more usual panchromatic films.
 
Thanks for the link Stephen, I knew I'd read it somewhere. :) I tried the inspection method during tutorials many years ago and couldn't get on with it, I suppose it comes with practice and could be useful in rescuing an otherwise doomed neg.
 
The practical difficulty would come from assessing the negative. It's not always easy to do when you're in the light, let alone in a dark room and under pressure. I have a vague recollection that it was found most useful in watching the shadows, to ensure that they had enough density. And I suppose, if the negative is large enough, the old darkroom print dodges of developer concentrate or hot developer could be used, although I'd be more wary of scratching a negative than I would be of a (replaceable) print.

Personally, I'd try IR goggles or a safelight as a means of making dip and dunk simpler, but not development by inspection of a single negative.
 
Unless you're using ortho film; after all, if you can develop under a safelight, you can load your darkslides under one. I am interested in trying ortho film, if only because it's supposed to render foliage well. I think it was in one of Ansel Adams' books with an illustration (I can recall the photo but not the book!), and since foliage plays a large part in my photography it would be worth a try. I've sometimes wondered if I could experiement with a blue filter, but that would only be an approximation at best.
 
I have just posted in the thread about Ortho films. Regarding development by inspection, I can add that I used a Duka 50 safelight with the red filter on, and the output turned quite far down. That worked without fogging the Ilford material. Actually assessing the progress of development is quite difficult. I could not have seen changes taking place to any significant extent. It's not like watching the image form on a print. The shadows are largely fixed by the film exposure, and won't change significantly with altered development times. Extending, or reducing the time would be most useful as a means of controlling negative contrast, and watching the highlights would be necessary for that purpose. For future use of this film, I will probably use a tank. I would be keen to here from anyone, however, who has found inspection to be useful. Like so many other things in photography, it may be that there are certain techniques required to successfully develop by inspection.
Alex.
 
FWIW...many photographers (look up Michael A. Smith) DBI (develop by inspection) with ABC Pyro as their routine film development method. You have to keep the viewing fairly brief, but it works well because pyro hardens the emulsion as development progresses. I used and most others use a dark green Kodak Wratten filter, 15 watt bulb, about 4 feet from the development tray. I have developed many sheets of 8x10 HP-5+ using this method and all have been fine as far as any exposure to the light.

That said, however, I finally gave it up for a couple of reasons: 1) I found it difficult to judge high value density (this is what you look for) as the negative developed and couldn't really see any difference between, say, 10-11 mins., and 2) all pyro developers are toxic and tray development is generally a messy business; wearing gloves I still occasionally got developer on my skin.

If you're interested, see: http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/devinsp.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top