Development of films designed for a normal pictorial characteristic curve, should begin with the manufacturer's recommendation. Most microfilms do not fall in that category and require modified development schemes to achieve the full grayscale associated with pictorial photography. Although I have had excellent results with Kodak's recommended Technidol developers for Tech Pan, I have found Rodinal with sodium sulfite provides me with more control and much shorter development times. Since Rodinal is a reasonably active developer and will produce VERY contrasty results with normal development, higher than normal dilutions and limited agitation, are needed to produce a normal contrast index.

The traditional spiral developing tank in which developer flows through narrow passages between layers of film creates serious problems for high energy developers when limited agitation and/or high dilution is used to control contrast. Special care is required with the agitation pattern, especially with 35mm film to avoid streaks from developer swirling through the sprocket holes. Several solutions have been proposed for a 35mm developing tank. The simplest, the "golf tube", proposed a number of years ago by an author to whom I wish I could give credit, is inexpensive and works quite well. The only disadvantage of the "golf tube" is the need to work in the dark because of the absence of a light trap.

Kodak is quite specific in their directions about the agitation method to be used with Technidol - different for the solid version than for the liquid. Both involve carefully lowering the loaded reel into the developer rather than pouring the developer into the loaded tank.

The developer volume I use results from noticing that Minox rolls developed in a 250cc tank looked much better than 35mm rolls developed in the same tank. I concluded that the actual amount of developing agent was a factor in the degree of reduction of silver halides. Negatives developed with too much developer, regardless of dilution seemed to have a better tonal distribution. I chose as a minimum, the amount of developer in a 1:25 dilution in a 250cc tank, for a 36 exposure 35mm roll of film. Thus, for such a roll, 10 cc of Rodinal concentrate should be present in the tank, regardless of dilution. A Minox roll, with approximately 1/10 the exposed area, would require 1cc. In practice, I use less (6.5cc) for 35mm and more (2.5cc) for Minox. The Minox negatives still look better! Remember that these are MY results, with MY equipment, and MY procedures, AND MY EXPECTATIONS. Your results WILL be different.

I generally develop film with either Rodinal or PMK Pyro, each of which produces negatives expressively and physically different from the other. So, with the variables of scene luminance and film selection, as well as choices of developer, dilution, and development time, the possibilities are endless - and that's what makes it FUN!

My Rodinal Development System The description below is based on the exposure of Technical Pan film at a personal EI of ASA 25 - Using an EI of 25, a Zone I exposure will, with the following processing, produce 0.1 density above film base plus fog. IN MY DARKROOM! Yours WILL vary! A bit of History - Credit where credit is due! I use Rodinal diluted 1:100 with a solution made with 56g of sodium sulfite (anhydrous) per liter of distilled water (one LEVEL teaspoon of sodium sulfite is approximately 7 grams). The use of "anhydrous" sodium sulfite is important because it assures the correct amount of the compound per unit of weight. I usually mix a gallon at a time and keep it under the counter with a jug of plain water for a 1 minute presoak. Both solutions are thus at the same temperature which I use to determine the development time. Currently, for N (normal) development, I use the equivalent of a 6 minute total time at 20 deg. C. I presoak Tech Pan for 1.5 minutes in distilled water of the same temperature as the developer. I don't remember why a minute and a half, something in the distant past, but it seems to provide a more even development. It probably also lowers the contrast a bit since it takes time for the developer to displace the water in the emulsion. I consider pouring the developer into the tank (already loaded with film) to be an agitation cycle, so carefully put sown the tank without further agitation. The remaining agitation is provided at 1 minute intervals with Bill Hoy's method described above. With these short development times, both the agitation scheme and interval have a major influence on negative contrast and density Because the limited agitation contributes to the lowering of negative contrast, it is the periods between agitation (similar to "water bath" development procedures) that supply the build-up of shadow detail. My best results are obtained near 20 deg C, both the time AND agitation interval being critical to the shape of the curve. I have never tried temperatures less than 20 deg. and have read somewhere that the characteristics of developers significantly change with lowered temperatures. Perhaps someone near the arctic circle can contribute advice here.

Gordon Hutchings' PMK Pyro Developer Rodinal has been my developer of choice for years. It replaced a magic brew of the distant past, "Perfection", which made enchanted images with Kodak High Contrast Copy Film (SO 5069). I have not seen negatives, or prints, with that velvet sharpness and tonality since their demise - until now. The first film I have found of the caliber of 5069 is Fiji Super HR (about the same speed - ASA 3-6?) developed with PMK Pyro. Of course Pyro is not new, having been one of the first developing agents used. I have used ABC Pyro (Edward Weston's favorite) but never with small negatives. I have, for years, thought about trying Pyro as a tool to tame the extreme contrast of the super fine, high contrast, films I like, but Pyro has NOT had a reputation for fine grain. I finally got around to it and am now lamenting the wasted years. The chemistry and Gordon Hutchings' book "The Book of Pyro" are available from the Photographers' Formulary The credit here goes to Gordon Hutchings. It is a one-shot developer, and the best results are obtained by following HIS directions. If it is as good for me as I suspect it is, he deserves my praise and gratitude. If you are going to try this, buy his book! The only disadvantages I have found so far are the time necessary to develop a roll, and the inability to intensify individual roll-film frames with selenium toner. Negative toning with Kodak Rapid Selenium toner is an excellent way to adjust the contrast of individual frames of roll film. With Kodak Tech Pan developed in Rodinal, I have achieved an N+2 increase in the slope of the characteristic curve. So far, I see very little density increase with selenium, FP4, and PMK, a confirmation of Mr. Hutchings observations. I can tell you that it is possible to get a good print from a negative that looks TERRIBLE! Also the look of the negative is not necessarily an indication of the appearance of the final print. This is just the beginning but I have the best prints I have had from the Minox in years! But be sure that this is NOT a cookbook solution. It is an experimenter's delight with what I think is a worthwhile payoff. For my critical Minox work, I use Fuji Super HR developed with PMK! Oliver Pyper writes from Berlin: Tech Pan film, 25 ASA 100 ccm, PMK developer in beaker, Minox developing tank 6 minutes at 20 deg C. Presoak 1 min with water and photoflo Empty presoak solution Add PMK solution until the tank is filled For agitation, every minute (takes about 8 seconds) Pour out about 20 ccm of the developer from the tank into the beaker, then fill up the tank again from the beaker. I put this label on all of my bottles of PMK It can also apparently be absorbed through the skin.One should scrupulously follow the safety directions provided with the materials.

RETURN HOME