Multigrade papers and developers at different dilutions and times
How often have you ignored the manufacturer's instructions regarding development
time and dilution for their own developer? Do they always know best what
it is that you want from their product? I am not implying that developer
manufacturers do not give correct information for their own products ­p;
of course they give reliable information, but it is only a guide.
When first using a new developer you should generally be guided by the
information given by the manufacturer, but why not try different dilutions
and development times to see the effect on the finished print?
Perhaps the final colour of the print can be manipulated be changing the
time or dilution. Contrast may be better controlled by using the same adjustments
to development. After all, these are two very important aspects of print
making, and we should use every means at our disposal to have the ultimate
control over them.
Test basis
I chose to test four multigrade developers ­p; Ilford Multigrade, Kodak
Polymax, Fotospeed DV10 and Paterson Acugrade FX31 ­p; together with
three RC variable contrast papers ­p; Ilford Multigrade IV, Sterling
Oyster and Agfa Multicontrast Classic Premium. In order to be consistent
I used the same negative throughout and printed it without any manipulation
at all. The same filtration and exposure was used for each paper, even though
I knew that Ilford Multigrade would print slightly softer at the same filtration
values as the other two papers used. My thinking here was to maintain the
same filtration density to try to ensure the same exposure throughout.
I used the Zone VI Cold Cathode Variable Contrast Enlarger with the Compensating
Timer to ensure that the exposures given were identical. The only variable
factors were the dilution of the developer and the development times, which
were the subject of these tests.
Each developer was diluted 1 part developer to 9 parts water as per the
manufacturer's recommendation, and two prints on each paper were made. The
first was developed for 1.5 minutes again as per the manufacturers recommendation,
and the second for 3 minutes. This procedure was repeated with the developer
dilution changed to 1 to 18.
In all, 48 prints were made, and to evaluate them I grouped them in sets
of four where the developer was the common denominator.
THE RESULTS (LARGE JPEG)
When I started this test I was uncertain as to the end result, although
I did expect the tonalities to be different with perhaps some shift in print
colour. When all of the prints were laid out in a huge grid on the floor,
the results were not as dramatic as I had at first thought.
The first significant thing was that the tonalities were not widely different.
Those prints made where the dilution was 1 to 9 with 3 minutes development
were not significantly darker than those prints made with 1.5 minutes development
at 1 to 18. Clearly, those developed for 3 minutes at 1 to 9 were slightly
heavy in the shadows but the skin tones were generally good. On the other
hand those developed for 1.5 minutes at 1 to 18 were slightly underdeveloped
in the shadows and skin tones but the mid tones were good. The best skin
tones were produced from the combination of a dilution of 1 to 18 and 3
minutes development.
The most significant change in print colour occurred with the dilution
of 1 to 18 and 3 minutes development. The above are general observations
so let us consider some more specific factors of the individual materials
tested.
Ilford Multigrade produced acceptable prints from Ilford's own Multgrade
IV paper with every exposure and development combination. Both Sterling
and Agfa prints, where the development and dilution were normal, were a
little heavier in tone but acceptable. Those prints given extended development
time with normal dilution produced blacks that were too heavy for my liking
but where extended development and increased dilution was used the prints
were again acceptable. The print colour was fairly neutral on Agfa and Ilford
paper but the Sterling was slightly warmer especially when the dilution
and development were increased.
Kodak Polymax, Paterson Acu-grade and Fotospeed DV10 all performed in
much the same way but the skin tones produced by Polymax were generally
not so good as the other developers. Fotospeed DV10 produced the warmest
tone throughout.
In my view the most tolerant combination was Ilford Multi-grade developer
with Multigrade IV paper. The tonal range produced by all combinations was
acceptable both in shadow and highlight detail. Whilst it is not a combination
that I feel produces the most exciting or delicate tonal range, it is very
forgiving, and will produce acceptable results even if the processing is
not as precise as perhaps it should be. Paterson were the only manufacturer
to suggest in the instructions that different dilutions could be used. Perhaps
other manufacturers should consider doing the same and it may encourage
photographers to experiment with different dilutions.
Conclusion
I did not carry out these tests to find the best paper developer combination.
That is a very personal choice which is governed by many factors. I have
always believed that we should explore the possibilities that materials
at our disposal offer us and if necessary, go beyond the boundaries laid
down by tradition and convention. That I have not done so with these tests
was governed only by the time required to explore, and the space needed
to report the findings.
I have discovered things about the various combinations tested that I
will find useful in my future printmaking, and hope that I may have motivated
some photographers to carry out similar tests for themselves. To achieve
excellence in Fine Print making we must travel down many roads. Some of
them will be cul-de-sacs, but we must not close our mind to try any means
of putting those gentle highlights and luminous shadows just where we require
them in the final print. The next time that you purchase the latest print
developer, read the instructions and promptly ignore them, for you may find
that the abuse that you subject it too will lead you to a different way
of putting that elusive glow just where you want it.