photography on Pictorial Planet Blog

Geoffrey Crawley's FX 2 Acutance Developer

Fri, 03 Oct 2025 18:15:46 +0100

FX 2 introduction

Whereas FX 1 was based on Beutler’s formula and enhanced to be a sharpness first developer, FX 2 was uniquely formulated for more pictorial results.

The objective of this formula is to give less biting sharpness and more balanced mid-range tonality. When dialled in to your personal EI and development time FX 2 gives easily printable negatives, especially with slow to medium speed films. FX 2 works well with modern emulsions, even tabular grain films like Delta and TMax. It also works with ISO400 films albeit with some obvious grain. Not a problem with 120 format but might be with 35mm.

FP4 Plus EI160 FX 2 1+1+8 10 minutes 20C.

Tip – Glycin used to be a more popular developing agent

Glycin, as a developing agent, used to be more popular but with the advent of metol and the increasing expense of making photographic glycin its popularity waned.

Some formulators saw its benefits and perpetuated its roll, such as Barry Thornton with his Dixactol, and Geoffrey Crawley, here with FX 2.

Compressed tonality

Acutance developers can often tend towards soot and chalk contrast¹. Their inclination is to compress the mid-tones and this can be seen in FX 1, Beutler², Rodinal at strong dilutions, and D-76 1+3 (if these developers are not carefully tested and used). One of the main reasons for this mid-tone compression is over development. By allowing the developer to push up the highlights, with excessive development times, the contrast quickly becomes too high and can make printing delicate mid-tone gradation difficult, especially if delicate highlights are not to be burned out. Another way of describing the above named acutance developers could be 'hard developers' as opposed to 'soft developers' i.e. hard contrast rather than soft contrast.

Crawley knew this and designed FX 2 acutance developer to use the softer photographic glycin³ as its main developing agent. Glycin is known to provide soft, long tonality with finer grain⁴, together with good sharpness under certain conditions and resistance to bromide drag.

This latter property, resistance to bromide drag, is very useful for stand development, something FX 2 is good at.

So, by choosing glycin Crawley achieved a more pictorial tonality whilst maintaining his requirement of high sharpness. This combination is particularly useful for landscape photography, especially when using miniature format 35mm films that need higher enlargements and therefore lose sharpness quickly.

Stand development

Using FX 2 for stand development enhances sharpness even more and could not be easier. By doubling the dilution (using 1+1+18) you can, after an initial minute’s agitation, let the developing tank stand for up to an hour or more. This achieves even sharper negatives with enhanced micro-contrast.

Tip – Keeping Glycin Fresh

Glycin is expensive so keeping it from oxidizing is important. I found that freezing it, in it’s original packaging and then inside a freezer bag with the air squeezed out, keeps the chemical fresh for a long time.

Thinner negatives are better
negatives

To get the very best from FX 2 and other acutance developers Geoffrey Crawley encouraged us to make thinner negatives than was traditional⁵. There was (and still is) a common misconception that optimum negative density is achieved when negatives are quite rich and “well developed”. It was taught that you should just be able to read newspaper print through the thickest part of the negative (sky for instance). This, it was said, was a negative of good density. This is far too thick! Thinner negatives will always provide better sharpness and finer grain. This idea of thin negatives is still controversial today with some photographers, especially in countries that didn't follow, or even know of Crawley's philosophy.

There's no doubt to me that Crawley's advice was correct! My best prints have always come from thinner negatives.

So, why do thinner negatives make sharper and less grainy negatives?

When light tries to pass through the thicker negative it bounces around the silver grains and becomes diffused. By the time it leaves the negative and heads towards the enlarging paper the image is softened reducing print (or scan) sharpness. This problem is exacerbated by grain clumping that longer development encourages, especially with solvent developers.

The idea of thick negatives might have been great in the early days of photography, when negatives tended to be large format, needing higher contrast, and often contact printed, but now, with smaller formats, thinner negatives are to be much preferred. With their inherently smaller, less dense grain there is less diffusion and so they are sharper.

So, the best negatives are the thinnest negative that print on the optimum grade of paper for your film size, that is grade 2 for 120 and larger, and grade 3 for 35mm.

When tabular films were released Crawley suggested they needed a slightly thicker negative than classic cubic grain films, "slightly thicker"! If your using a newspaper you’ve cooked them.

Tip – Why Grade 3 for 35mm

*Apparent grain increases with longer development times due mainly to clumping. Longer times also increase the likelihood of infectious development and physical development. Conversely, developing negatives for less time reduces their apparent grain and reduces sharpness-killing infectious/physical development.

35mm negatives by their nature need higher enlargements. So anything that can reduce apparent grain and increase sharpness is useful. However, reducing development reduces contrast in the negatives.

That’s why making grade 3 your standard contrast grade for 35mm makes total sense. Less development, less obvious grain and sharper prints!*

The impact of the print

FX 2 with FP4 Plus EI160. 120 size. 2 minute agitations for 12 minutes (30% increase from normal).

100% enlargement of above. Showing the acutance Mackie lines (light lines around the gate edge. Note also how the gap between the two gates is lighter than the background where the Mackie lines met.

FX 2 prints have significant impact. They possess a striking contrast between deep blacks and bold whites. The highlights are well rendered and can show a subtlety reminiscent of FX 55 or PMK. These prints impart a palpable sense of dynamism, a 3d quality, setting FX 2 apart from numerous other developers. This characteristic transforms ordinary days into sunny days or dreary days into pleasant ones.

If there was a developer that the famous FX 14 Acutol was based on then I think this would be it. Again though, I must stress, that you need to dial in the development. But this can be done through trial and error and through testing development times so shouldn’t put the prospective user off. If you find yourself consistently printing on too low a grade, dial back the development time by 20% and try again.

If you find yourself consistently printing on too high a grade (4-5), increase development time by 25% and try again. This can be done over a few films to perfect your personal print look and feel.

Tip – 25% Rule

*Changing your development time by 25% will change your grade by one step.

For instance, if my negatives keep printing at grade 2 but I want them to print at grade 3 reduce development time by 25%. This is an approximation but will get you in the ballpark.*

One thing I would strongly advise is not to over develop with FX 2. I develop my 35mm FP4+ for 8 to 9 minutes at 1+1+8. The lower time is for sunny, more contrasty days and the longer time for flatter lighting. With 120 FP4+ I find 9 to 10 minutes is a good time also at a dilution of 1+1+8. Crawley’s original times were for a different dilution (see later) so my times will get you nearer your optimum.

Experimentation and agitation

Crawley remarked that this was a developer designed with experimentation in mind. It offers a wealth of possibilities for photographers who are willing to delve deeper to uncover its remarkable capabilities. One of the ways you might experiment is with agitation.

Glycin’s resistance to restrained development by bromides enables a reduced agitation strategy. With this developer I usually agitate for 5 seconds every minute but this can be extended to once every two minutes or even every three minutes quite safely. Just remember to extend the development time by an appropriate amount to retain the recommended print contrast grade. Crawley suggests a 30% to 50% extension in developing time and this seems appropriate.

Stand development, both semi-stand and full stand, can be used to enhance edge effects even more. This also brings the added benefit of compensation. For stand development dilute the working solution 1+1 with water (i.e. double the dilution). With stand development I recommend you double the volume of developer so for a 35mm film use 600ml diluted working developer. For a 120 film use 1 Ltr. This ensures you have enough developing agent to fully develop the film and will provide the best results.

Experimentation is of the essence here, not just with agitation techniques but also with dilutions. Crawley originally suggested a dilution, for 35mm film, of 1/2 oz A + 1/2 oz B + 10 oz water with the addition of 1ml Pynacryptol yellow. This corresponds to 15ml + 15ml + 295 ml, considerably less than is recommended these days at 30ml+30ml+240ml. I tried Crawley’s dilution and the results were very thin negatives (even by Crawley’s standards I suspect) but very good prints at grade 4. So don’t be afraid to try different dilutions to make this developer your own.

Grain and sharpness

FX 2 with FP4 Plus in 35mm. Pentax MX with 50mm F1.4 lens. Full frame shown.

Using 35mm film I found the grain to be sharp, very even, and visually pleasing. It was not noticeable at normal viewing distances and even close inspection only showed grain in large areas of similar tone, such as the sky. The grain is of a similar size to PMK but not as fine as FX 55.

Using 120 film I could not see the grain in prints at all with optimum enlargement.

FX 2 with FP4 Plus in 35mm. Pentax MX with 50mm F1.4 lens. 100% enlargement of above scan showing grain.

As you can see above sharpness and detail are very good and the grain is even and pleasing. Compared to FX 1 this developer is not as bitingly sharp but the tonality is much improved and the grain is considerably more controlled. This 35mm photograph has less grain than a 120 format photograph with FX 1 (see page 10 in FX 1 section). Note also that this photograph looks decidedly more sunny than the FX 1 equivalent on page 21. The FX 1 examples were made later on the same sunny day but this look quite different with better contrast and rich tonality.

Impressive!

FX 2 Formula

The FX 2 formula is quite simple. The only tricky chemical to obtain is glycin but I have provided 2 places that sell it internationally. Put it in the freezer to extend its life to years. Let’s look at the differences in the two acutance formulas FX 1 and FX 2:

Differences between FX 1 and FX 2 working solutions

Chemical	FX 1	FX 2
Metol	0.5g	0.25g
Glycin		0.75
Sodium sulphite	5g	3.5g
Potassium carbonate Anhyd		6.2g
Sodium carbonate Anhyd	2.5g
Potassium iodide 0.001%	5ml
Pincryptol Yellow		3.5ml

Crawley lowered the metol amount, from FX 1 to FX 2, but this was probably because he used glycin as the main development agent and less metol would be required. However, as we know, high alkalinity from the carbonate and low metol levels means the metol may help create more sharpness through edge effects.
Also of note is the fact metol and glycin are not supper-additive. Neither agent regenerates the other the way hydroquinone regenerates metol for instance. This lack of regeneration might also enhance sharpness because we don’t want the developing agents being regenerated.
This might be also why the sulphite is kept so low. Sulphite, in higher concentrations, can support metol as it oxidizes so keeping it low enhances sharpness.
The carbonate level is higher in FX 2. This supports contrast with glycin which had been shown in the early part of the 20th century (or even earlier) to give good sharpness when used with carbonate alkalinity.
Finally, just as FX 1 used potassium iodide as a super dilute restrainer so FX 2 uses pinacryptol yellow. It’s a sensitive anti-fog chemical, restraining the development of halide crystals that have not been exposed to light. This property improves definition of fine detail and could also help contrast at boundaries of light and dark. This yellow dye, Crawley said, is better at discerning between exposed halide crystals and un-exposed crystals therefore helping stop infectious development. Pinacryptol yellow’s use with tabular grain films is debatable and if I used T-Grain films I’d test its effectiveness or not use it at all. I’ve been continuously using it with cubic grain films and there’s been no adverse effects. As always, I recommend you test if you are not sure of its efficacy with your particular film.

⠀

Although FX 2 can be made as a working solution as required it’s usually made into a concentrated stock. This stock should last 6 months in a sealed bottle, similar to D-76.

The concentrated stock is made in three parts. Part A containing the developing agents as well as some preservative. Part B is the alkaline accelerator. Part C is the special restrainer, pynacryptol yellow.

Chemical	Amount
Metol *	2.5g
Sodium sulphite	35g
Glycin **	7.5g
Water to make	1 Ltr

FX 2 Concentrate A

* Remember to add a pinch of sulphite first so as not to oxidise the metol.

** Available internationally from The Photographer’s Formulary, Montana, USA. ~https://stores.photoformulary.com/glycin/~ and Fototechnik Suvatlar, Hamburg, Germany Email: ~fotosuvatlar@live.de~

Chemical	Amount
Potassium carbonate Cryst. *	75g
Water to make	1 Ltr

FX 2 Concentrate B

* I use 62g potassium carbonate anhydrous. Crawley thought crystallised was best but don’t let this put you off. The prints are still excellent!

Chemical	Amount
Pinacryptol yellow (1:2000)	`</td>`

FX 2 part C

Available internationally from The Photographer’s Formulary, Montana, USA. ~https://stores.photoformulary.com/pinacryptol-yellow-solution/~

Making the working solution

To make working solution for regular agitation dilute from concentrate 1A + 1B + 8 parts water.

Part A	Part B	Make up to w/w	Amount of part C to add
30ml	30ml	300ml	1ml
40ml	40ml	400ml	1.4ml
50ml	50ml	500ml	1.75ml

FX 2 Dilution amounts

For stand development

FX 2 can be used as an effective stand or semi-stand developer. Crawley encourages experimentation here. Using the dilutions below try agitating for the first minute and then letting the tank stand, completely undisturbed, for 1 or 2 hours. You might want to agitate half way through or even twice, once at 30% of the time and once at 60% of the time. Experiment to get the negatives you want.

Part A	Part B	Make up to w/w	Amount of part C to add
15ml	15ml	300ml	0.5ml
20ml	20ml	400ml	0.7ml
25ml	25ml	500ml	0.9ml

FX 2 Dilution for stand development

Conclusion of FX 2 testing

I’ve really enjoyed this developer with Ilford FP4 plus. Once I had dialled it in to my process it became a first class acutance developer. I’ll admit, I’ve had poor negatives with it in the past, but it’s clear to me now what I did wrong. FX 2 doesn’t give up its secrets easily until dialled in properly to ones workflow. Then good things happen.

I’m definitely going to use this developer more. To me it’s a better developer than FX 1. Yes, it’s not as sharp but plenty sharp enough and FX 2 has far more attractive pictorial rendering than FX 1 any day. The tonality of FX 2, and its bold contrast, are pleasing to the eye in both 120 and 35mm with grain being very well controlled. 35mm negatives enlarged to 10 x 8 inches make high quality prints with grain that’s barely noticeable, even inspected in the hand. Not at all bad for an acutance developer!

Strong highlights and deep shadows but poor mid-tones creating too much contrast ↩
The two bath is less prone to soot and chalk contrast than the single ↩
See ~https://tinyurl.com/2nw6u446~ for suppliers of photographic glycin in the USA and Europe. ↩
Possibly used in Thornton’s Dixactol for this reason. ↩
I can’t find my reference for this statement but it’s corroborated by the likes of The Film Developing Cookbook and others. ↩

Slower is better than faster

Wed, 27 Aug 2025 10:13:58 +0100

FP4 Plus EI 160 FX 2 1+1+8 10 minutes 20C. Using FP4 in FX 2 gives more easily printed and higher quality negatives, than HP5 in a standard developer like D76.

Use a slower film speeded up, not a faster film slowed down

An often forgotten statement by Geoffrey Crawley is always worth remembering with our film choices. Crawley, writing in the British Journal of Photography, stated that in his testing a slower film always provided higher quality negatives than a faster film inadvertently slowed down by common fine grain developers. For instance, in my darkroom printing, FP4 Plus gives me a personal EI of 64-80 with Crawley's FX 5 or Kodak's D23 (and little more with D76) whilst PanF Plus gives me a personal EI of 64-80 with naturally speed enhancing developers such as FX 15 Acutol S or FX 55. As we see, both films now deliver the same EI, the same shadow detail, and can be used in the same way, but the PanF will deliver better quality negatives than the FP4.

Crawley went on to say that even if you push a slow film to match EI, such as increasing development time of PanF in D-76 in order to reach the EI of 80, and you accept the inevitable increase in grain size of the pushed negatives, you will still get higher quality negatives from the pushed slow film.

This concept by Crawley has informed the way I view my developer/film combinations, leaning me toward slower films in energetic developers.

Getting the best quality at EI 80.

Film | Developer | Speed | Quality

FP4 Plus | FX 5/ D23 | EI 80 | Good

PanF Plus | D-76 Pushed to | EI 80 | Better

PanF Plus | FX15/FX55 | EI 80 | Best

A slow film, pushed or naturally speed enhanced, will always be better than a faster film.

An Introduction to Geoffrey Crawley (10 Dec 1926 - 29 Oct 2010)

Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:00:00 +0100

Geoffrey Crawley has always been a hero of mine! To me he was one of those rare amalgams of artist and scientist. His remarkable FX developers were a literal manifestation of his aspirations, those aspirations to set new standards in photographic prints. Those aspirations also informed his view; that there was a precise intersection between art and the technical aspects of photography. Where other “photo-scientists” were making developers to efficiently reduce silver halides and minimise grain Crawley was researching how we see photographs and how his formulas could lift the look of our prints, raise them, to a higher level.

I’ve always admired Crawley greatly and used his formulations for most of my photographic life. I wanted to share some of that experience and excitement with you in some blog posts.

I did not personally know Crawley, and never met him, but through using his formulas for so many years I feel I have worked with him in some way.

So, as you read these blog posts please know I offer this knowledge that I have gleaned over many years from Crawley’s, and others, writings.

Geoffrey Crawley (1926–2010) was a towering figure in the photography world, known particularly for his rigorous scientific approach to photographic chemical formulation, and his balance between the artistic and technical aspects of photography.

For sixty years, Crawley’s work transformed the craft for amateur and professionals alike, with his pioneering methods and new chemical processes in developing film. This lead him to provide high performance developers both for home use and commercial formulations for Paterson; such as his the famous Acu range.

Crawley also became editor of the British Journal of Photography from 1966 to 1987 and contributed to Amateur Photographer magazine. Through this work he brought new and class leading formulations to the masses. But, despite all this fame, he was a humble man. As an example of Crawley’s humility, someone who worked with him said that, as famous as he was, he didn’t want to use his full name in his published Amateur Photographer articles.[1]

Crawley’s innovations were never merely the technical exercises of a scientist but instead were the direct responses to fellow photographers’ practical needs. Crawley’s developers enabled amateurs to achieve professional-grade results, previously reserved for experts.

His photographic formulations remain benchmarks in analog photography, used by practitioners many decades after their introduction and still as relevant today as they were when Crawley first created them. Crawley did, as just one man, create professional, class leading developers that the giants in photography such as Ilford, Kodak, and Agfa spent many millions trying to do.

In this blog, and on my website www.pictorialplanet.com, I will be describing many of the Crawley developers that I’ve used over the years, that can be easily made today, providing advice and practical tips on their formulation and application.

Researching this work, in the latter half of last year, brought back many fond memories of how excited it was to make the formulations again and use them for my craft. It reminded me how ahead of the game they were, and I believe still are, with some formulations still being used regularly on many peoples' films. I hope to pass that excitement on to you so that these wonderful developer formulations can give you the pleasure they have given me.

Please subscribe to my blog to follow this fascinating journey.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/nov/15/geoffrey-crawley-obituary

I don't always want sharpness

Tue, 15 Jul 2025 13:16:58 +0100

Softness of an image can sometimes be more important than sharpness. I’m sure many of you know this already but the concept wasn’t always one I accepted easily. My early work was, for many years, about squeezing every ounce of sharpness and tonality out of my films as possible for maximum impact. But, slowly I learned that there’s a time when softness is best.

The Orchids

The most obvious example is with portraits. To me they will often look better when slightly soft. This hides a little detail in the skin and covers up some blemishes. I’m sure we’ve all seen those Hollywood black and white films where the beautiful actress is always shot with a soft filter (or a piece of a woman’s nylons) over the lens. I also find Some still life can look better too when slightly soft such as with The Orchids, above.

Location

The flowers were kindly given after my mother’s funeral last year. They are quite beautiful and I wanted to capture them on film before they deteriorated. They are pure white with that spot of black in the centre - quite delicate in the way they hang on the stem. To capture this vulnarability and beauty was my work to make this image.

The first thing to think about was the lighting. I wanted to show the flowers at their best and my initial idea was to have a dark background. This, I thought, would make the flowers stand out. But when I placed them against a dark backdrop, I could see it took something away from their gentle nature. They looked stark, defined, and harsh, not what I wanted. Maybe I was being emotional, because of my mother’s recent death, but I felt somehow that a light background would be more suitable, more gentle, more peaceful. When I placed them against a mottled white background the feel of the photograph changed; now it felt right.

The next decision was the film. Ilford FP4 Plus is my go to film, it,s just a great all-rounder. The other films I use are PAN F Plus and sometimes HP5 Plus. All three are excellent films but FP4 Plus has a wonderful sharpness with a classic analog film look. I find Delta 100 very good too but it looks a little clinical to my eyes, a bit digital. The tonality of FP4 Plus is also really full and rich. This was the film I’d use.

I set up my Pentax MX camera and chose the 50mm f1.4 lens. This would give me the soft bokeh I wanted. At the time it was one of my best ‘bokeh’ lenses but I’ve since obtained an older Pentax 55mm 1.8 which betters it a little. The older design of this standard 55mm lens seems to optimise the bokeh while keeping a lovely sharpness to the image. If you have a Pentax this is definitely a lens I’d recommend in the standard range.

Metering

Photographing high-tone subjects can be a challenge but it shouldn’t be if we have tested our film and developer combination. From our testing for personal EI and development time we know the true iso of the film to set on our meter - therefore allowing us to place any zone accurately on our paper print. With this information I metered the lightest part of the flowers and place them on zone 8. Zone 8 is white with a little detail, perfect for a flower like this.

Development

My planning needed one more decision. Which developer to use.

Many of the developers I use are acutance developers. They make my photographs sharper. These are FX 55, FX 15, Rodinal, and Pyrocat. They all have their own look and work well with different photographs but there’s one developer I use that isn’t about sharpness but more about tonality and that’s D23. It’s soft, pleasing tonality works very well with this subject as it does with portraits and the many still life subjects I’ve photographed in the past. I used the replenished version because it adds a little more sharpness but without increasing local contrast and fine detail.

The Orchids print exactly as I envisaged, soft and gentle, a lasting memory of a very special person in my life.

Edit: Typo

A lovely post by my friend Dave.

Thu, 12 Dec 2024 12:30:41 +0100

[davewhenhamphotography.wordpress.com/2024/12/1...](https://davewhenhamphotography.wordpress.com/2024/12/12/q-quiet/#like-12505?page_id=12505)

My new book is now available world-wide

Mon, 02 Dec 2024 17:26:05 +0100

My new book The Art of Black and White Film Photography is now available. For more information go to:

[www.pictorialplanet.com/Book/book...](http://www.pictorialplanet.com/Book/book.html)

Photographing Myself

Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:01:48 +0100

As my eyes scan across moor and mountain, I do not see land, water, and sky. I see me.

I am all these things.

Every atom in my body comes from here, from the earth, from the sky, as did my parents, as did all my ancestors. Every creature, plant, and rock, will be me or has been me. What I see in my viewfinder is my past and my future.

So I capture it on film and make another self portrait.

Fixing Film and Paper: when long is too long

Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:10:44 +0100

I’ve been reading a couple of threads recently that have covered aspects of fixing. It seems to be a rather difficult part of the process because of those widely spread internet myths. For instance, it was stated to fix for ten minutes to remove the anti-halation dye! Another statement said that a minimum of 5 minutes was needed to fix a modern films properly. Unfortunately, this advice will damage your film.

Fixing has been well researched for decades and so I dug out a couple of books to check on this.

I have the Ilford manual of Photography 1951 and in it it says about fixing with Hypo (Sodium Thiosulphate):

“Hypo itself has a weak solvent action on the silver image and while this action is negligible during the time required for fixation, prolonged immersion in the fixing bath results in considerable reduction in density, and the effect will be very marked where fine grain negative emulsions and printing papers are concerned”. Here it refers specifically to slow to medium speed films and chloro-bromide paper, both of which are fine grained.

Also, from the Gevaert Manual of Photography, 1962

Talking about rapid fixers containing the now common fixing agent Ammonium Thiosulphate:

“Prolonged immersion in a rapid fixing bath will reduce the silver image, paper emulsions may also change colour, and fine grained emulsions are particularly susceptible to their reducing action. If, for convenience, one of these rapid fixers is used the instructions should be followed carefully.”

The instructions are the same for both fixers. Fix for twice the clearing time. A good rule of thumb is that if it takes a rapid fixer more than two minutes to completely fix the film (one minute to clear the film of milkiness plus one minute) it’s time to change your fixer for fresh. This is because the fixer is carrying to much of the dissolved silver by-products and has reduced capacity.

Finally, the most modern tabular grain films may well be affected even more. These films have fine, flat silver halide crystals that present even more surface area to the dissolving powers of thiosulphate.

Practical Zone System

Sun, 18 Apr 2021 10:38:04 +0100

Loch Duich is one of Scotlands most magnificent sea lochs. With mountains towering above the inlet and the most photographed (real) castle in the world, Eilean Donan, on its shores this lake is a photographer's paradise.

I found myself there a couple of years ago and enjoyed loads of great photography with my Nikon FM2N. In this post I wanted to talk about this particular beautiful scene.

Cottage- Loch Duich, Scotland

We'd walked along the far shore of the loch, opposite the famous Eilean Donan castle for a few miles. It felt as though we had the whole loch to ourselves. As we rounded a small headland, I saw this house and jetty complete with sailing boat moored in the background. The peaceful scene called out to my camera, but the lighting challenged any automatic meter.

My exposure technique has always been Ansel Adams "Zone System". I first heard of Adams when very young. My father talked of Adams' "Zone System". He'd complain at how complicated it was. At that young age I never understood the complex theory of zones and exposure but I'd gaze upon those Ansel Adams landscapes in awe. But, as I later found, the technique is not at all complicated! Ansel Adams left us a gift. He left us a method of exposing, developing and printing that all but guarantees good results. Through the years I've learned the beauty and simplicity of this system. It has provided me with the easiest negatives to print and an awareness of how we can fit so much light into so small a negative "space".

The Zone System, at its simplest, describes two photographic essentials. First, that your negatives and paper have very limited dynamic range and cannot reproduce the range of light we observe. Second, that we can expose and develop in a way that 'fits' what we see onto our imperfect negative and paper media. From Adams we learned that by taking care of the shadows we will print details in those darker parts of the scene and by using careful development for the highlights we will tame them bringing them down into a printable range.

The Zone System doesn't ensure that all the shadows will show detail or all the highlights will be nuanced, in fact, that would make for a rather flat and unpleasing print and I always print to have some true black and some paper white to provide a nice contrast.

Exposing for the shadows

My experience has always confirmed the teachings of Adams, that a negative with five stops between the shadows and the highlights will maintain enough important detail and be easiest to print. With that in mind, we first examine our scene and decide which is the darkest part that needs detail and which is the lightest. With black and white film you start with the darkest part, the shadows, these are the focus for your exposure. I looked at the scene above and decided the prominent shadows in front of the cottage needed detail. This meant they didn't become featureless black. With my camera's meter I measured the near shadows (I simply walked up to them to fill the frame for the reading). This gave me 1/320 @ F2.8. Now, this reading would render the shadows near medium grey, which is exactly two stops too bright for detailed shadow so I closed down the lens two stops from that reading to 1/320 @ F5.6. Now I knew the shadow detail would be exposed correctly and print well.

That's how to take your exposure, measure the shadows and close down two stops with either your aperture, your shutter speed or a combination of both.

Then I looked at the scene and examined the highlights. I realised the highlight problem would be detail in the roof of the house. The sun was bouncing off that roof and it could easily become burned out in my print. A featureless white roof would look awful. I therefore metered the roof and found it measured 1/1280 @ F16, six stops brighter than the shadow (1/320 @ F5.6 to 1/1280 @ F16 = six stops). I wrote this down in my notebook. The scene was presenting a six stop range which was too much for printing (remember the maximum is five stops) so I'd deal with that problem later, in the development of the film.

Develop for the highlights

At home I studied my notes from the day's shoot. This scene of Loch Duich was my focus for the film. In order to create a good print from this six stop scene I needed to bring the negative down to the 5 stop printable range. Put another way, I needed to reduce highlight development time by one stop. To achieve that I would use my D-23 stock and develop for 30% less than my normal development time. This contracts the six stops I captured in the five stops I needed. It would bring down the highlights only, without affecting the shadows, and help me achieve a good print. My book covers this in more detail and explains why and how this works. It also explains how to expand the contrast range of the film for flat days.

Conclusion:

Ansel Adams taught us that before taking a photograph we need to visualise the scene and understand the light. By understanding the range of light, from shadows to highlights and deciding where we want printable details to be, we can expose and develop effectively making our printing easier. By slowing down our photography at the point of capture we speed up results we get in the darkroom.

I invite you to comment below on your experiences with the Zone System, ask questions, or give feedback on my technique.

Beutler's High Acutance Divided Developer

Sat, 17 Apr 2021 08:00:00 +0100

Corner Shop - Miami, Florida

One of my favourite developers is D-23. It’s soft working nature is perfect for my more contrasty photographs, as well as the occasional portrait. Used replenished, its properties are enhanced and this is my preference. But sometimes I need more compensation that D-23 gives and more sharpness. For that I turn to a two bath like Thornton’s metol 2-bath (based on D-23, Stoekler and Ansco 17) or, for ultimate sharpness, a developer like Thornton's pyrocatechin or Beutler's divided developers.

Beutler's, the topic of this post, is another metol based developer, like D-23, but uses a quite different strategy to develop the film. It’s a high acutance surface developer, similar to Crawley’s FX-1, using very low levels of Metol and the high alkalinity of sodium carbonate. This produces well compensated, very sharp negatives, especially when used in its divided mode. Willi Beutler formulated this developer in the 1930s for the then new 35mm films. It’s not particularly fine grained, compared to say 510-Pyro or D-23 and maybe a little larger than D-76 1+1 but, due to the high resolution, the apparent grain is minimised.

This is one of the only true divided developers. Let me explain. Divided development, that is true divided development, is where the developer has been split between two baths. The first bath contains the developing agent and some preservative and the second bath the accelerator that kicks the developing agent into action. Don’t confuse this with two-bath development! Two-bath is where you use a “normal” developer in bath A and a further accelerator in bath B - there’s the subtle difference. You see, in a two-bath the negatives are actually developing in bath A and, in fact, will develop to completion if left long enough. Bath B is being used for contrast control only, to bring down excessive highlights into a more printable range.

So, in divided development we have no development in Bath A (the alkalinity is too low). Bath A is only used to swell the gelatine emulsion and soak up the developing agent. When this is complete we pour out the first solution and pour in the accelerator. This starts the development reaction with the shadows slowly developing and the highlights quickly developing. The developing agent quickly runs out in the highlights but not in the shadows. What does this mean? Well, the shadows continue developing to completion but the highlights have stopped in a controlled manner.

Concentrate A
Water 400ml
Metol 5g
Sodium Sulfite 25g
Water to make 500ml

To make working solution A mix 1+2. For example 200ml of Concentrate A with 400ml water to make 600ml total. Discard after use.

Concentrate B
Water 400ml
Sodium Carbonate (anhyd)* 25g
Water to make 500ml

To make working solution B mix 1+10. For example 60ml Concentrate B with 600ml water. Discard after use.

To use Beutler 105 as a divided developer:

Pour in working solution A
Soak the film for 8 minutes with initial agitation of 30 seconds and then 10 seconds per minute
Empty the tank
Do not rinse the film
Do not stop the film
Pour in the working solution B
Agitate for 10 seconds and then each minute for 4 minutes
Empty the tank, stop with two fresh water baths of 30 seconds and fix the film as normal
All at 20C

Beutler divided development gives full film speed and produces thinner than normal negatives (the top negatives in the picture below) which are very sharp and should print at grade 3. It’s one of my most compensating developers.

Beutler negatives (top) have a thinner look

Using Beutler 105 as a single developer

You can also use this developer as a single bath. The formula remains the same and to make up your working solution mix it 1+1+8. For example 50ml A with 50ml B to 400ml water making a total working solution of 500ml. Agitation should be no more than 10 seconds each minute. Negatives will be thin but print at grade 2-3 nicely. If you find your negatives to be too contrasty (if you use a condenser enlarger for instance) then you can increase the dilution to 1+1+10.

Development times are around:

ISO 25-50 5-10 minutes
ISO 64-125 7-10 minutes
ISO 400 9-12 minutes

This is a compensating acutance developer with a nice tonal response and excellent sharpness. For ultimate pictorial qualities in a divided developer and equal sharpness look at Thornton's pyrocatechin divided developer in my book. When I first used that developer my mind was blown!

The Best Negatives are Surprisingly Easy! Ok

Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:10:00 +0100

The Best Negatives are Surprisingly Easy!

Snowy Chairs

If you want a guaranteed method of making great negatives just reach for Barry Thornton’s two bath metol developer. The man was a master of simple formulations providing this and his pyrocatechin 2-bath for our pleasure. This metol 2-bath is like an updated Stoekler, sharper, and with great contrast. His pyrocatechin 2-bath is maybe the sharpest pictoral developer I’ve ever used - bar none. Just look at the photograph above. The detail in the snow is beautiful, something many developers cannot easily attain and this developer did it automatically.

Bath A Metol 6.5g Sodium sulphite 80g Water to 1 liter

Bath B Sodium metaborate 12g Water to 1 liter (To make the metaborate use 8.4g borax and 1.8g sodium hydroxide)

Develop FP4+ for 4.5 mins in A agitating for the first 30 seconds then 5 seconds each 30 seconds. Pour back and pour in bath B and agitate for the first 5 seconds, then 10 seconds every minute for 4.5 minutes.

Stop and fix. Gorgeous negatives every time!

HP5+ needs 5 minutes A and the same for B
PAN F+ needs 4 minutes.
Unknown film? Give it 4.5 mins A and B.
Don’t rinse between A and B.
Don’t pre-wet
Don’t throw away the developer but pour back A into its bottle for reuse, same for B.
Develops 15 films

Casework Findhorn

Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:54:43 +0100

Casework: Sailors Warning

Sailor’s warning. Pyrocat-HD 1:1:100 12 minutes @ 20c Film: Ilford FP4+

Findhorn Bay and the surrounding beaches are some of finest in Scotland. Miles and miles of beautiful sands run along the coast of the Moray Firth. Occasionally, as on many beaches in the UK, the beach is interrupted by old weather-worn World War II tank traps and bunkers that present a fascinating insight into the past.

As I walked down the beach I spotted this warning sign. A warning to sailors of a hidden danger near the shore. It stood stark against the sand, the contrast of the sun etching it from reality and pasting it back again, almost as an afterthought.

Setting up the shot

I walked around the scene looking for the best point of view and set up my tripod and camera, fitting the almost obligatory yellow filter to darken the blue sky. I needed the white clouds to give that huge Scottish sky some interest and the yellow filter would set them off against the blue well.

Personal film speed

Running a personal film speed tests had given me very accurate exposure control and adding the compensation for each colour filter is easy, yellow being two thirds of a stop. To compensate I use the exposure meter which can be adjusted in third stop increments.

My personal film speed with Pyrocat-HD is 125 ISO for Ilford FP4+ film and of course that’s what I had on my meter. To adjust for the yellow filter which ‘steals’ 2/3 of a stop of light, I set the meter to 80 ISO, 2/3 less that 125 ISO. In effect, this is telling the meter that my film needs two thirds of a stop more light than normal. If the filter takes one stop of light I would have set 64ISO on the meter, and so on.

Exposing the scene

Exposing, for a scene like this is potentially difficult. I could see that the sky was bright, the sand was bright, pretty much everything is bright in this shot. Any regular meter reading would be too dark and under expose the film. As I’ve explained before, with black and white film, we need to expose for the shadows and control the highlights through development. “Exposing for the shadows” means placing the shadows correctly in the zone system. My usual way of getting exposure is to look for shadows that I want to have detail in and take a meter reading of them. I then close down two stops. In this scene I saw that the left side of the warning is in shadow and so I took a spot meter reading of those shadows, set it onto the camera, and closed the camera down two stops.That places the shadows in just right place! Let your development do the rest.

Results

I think the photograph works. It’s stark, just as the warning should be to he who ignores it. Yes, one of my better shots I think.

This is a blog post from a few years ago that I’m reposting.

3 tips to 'make' a photograph and not 'take' a photograph.

Sun, 16 Sep 2018 10:56:01 +0100

I think these are great tips that help slow down your photography and make great photographs.

When you see something you want to photograph:

Stop and think. Is this the best position? Moving just a short distance can sometimes make a much better picture.
Is this the best light? Following on from 1, is the light showing off your subject? Can you wait for a cloud to pass or move to capture shadows differently?
Is this the best time of day? People, traffic, even sun’s position might be improved by coming back at another time.

Think of these three things, when you next bring your camera to your eye, and you’ll ‘make’ great photographs.

Best, John!

I got style…You got style? One tip that’ll make your photography yours!

Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:20:00 +0100

I’d been taking photographs for ten years before I learned this simple lesson, here's my story...

For years I struggled to find my own style. I was copying other photographers well enough, learning the various techniques the photographers used, but I didn’t have my own look, only theirs. It just wasn’t me. I struggled to be the photographer I wanted to be. Oh sure, I took plenty of photographs and had the technique down-pat but I was a really only a photocopier. I would study the photographs made by the greats. Ansel Adams was a favorite, his black and white work blew my mind, and I would try, over and over, to copy his techniques. Basically I tried to look like Ansel Adams.

But Ansel Adams is not me.

I was a really only a photocopier

Eventually, I found what I wanted, my signature look, the me in my images and, in the end, it was so simple. After developing hundreds, no thousands of images, I realised I was creating something of my own look - a certain brand to my images that made them look like mine. I saw the me in my photographs and it was so simple. My me was soft focus! Look at the photographs on this page and you’ll see something of me in them. Each one has a softness, an almost pastel look that I have developed over the last forty years. The apples are soft and almost glowing. The landscape is softened by the lighting. These are the things I started to see and to enjoy in my work as I developed my style. Below is an image I made in the Lake District, England of an old oak tree in a field. Again, the softness of the image is my signature.

In the great words of Monty Python’s Life of Brian “You are all individuals!”.

Through working on thousands of my own images I learned what I loved in my work. And that’s what I’m telling you here, find your own style and make it you. Sure, study the masters, watch your favorite photographers work, but always think how you could make it yours, unique to you. In the great words of Monty Python’s Life of Brian “You are all individuals!”. Your style might morph over the years and I look forward to how mine changes in the future but, at least for me, I have my own look and feel. So that’s my story, how I found myself in my images, how, like a writer who strives for his or her style, I found my place in the world of photography. Start looking at your own work and see what makes it truly yours. Enjoy the “You" that you find, and know that this is your mark on the photographic world.

Be different.

Best, John!

Photography is like fishing. It takes time...

Tue, 19 May 2015 00:30:00 +0100

I remember trying to fish when I was a kid. I sat at the edge of the lake in Roundhay Park, little fishing rod in hand, watching the float bobbing up and down on the water. I seem to remember that I sat there for hours, patiently changing my bait when I thought it must have lost its "attraction", and waiting for that bite, that tug, that fish I'd one day catch. But it never happened. I never caught a thing on that lake!

I learned a lot that I still use today in my photography.

To catch the shot you have to be patient. You have to wait, and wait sometimes for a long time. And sometimes, if the gods of light are not playing that day, you might never get the shot. But other times, just now and again, you'll catch it.

Best, John!

photography on Pictorial Planet Blog

Geoffrey Crawley's FX 2 Acutance Developer

FX 2 introduction

Compressed tonality

Stand development

Thinner negatives are better negatives

The impact of the print

Experimentation and agitation

Grain and sharpness

FX 2 Formula

For stand development

Conclusion of FX 2 testing

Slower is better than faster

An Introduction to Geoffrey Crawley (10 Dec 1926 - 29 Oct 2010)

I don't always want sharpness

Location

Metering

Development

A lovely post by my friend Dave.

My new book is now available world-wide

Photographing Myself

Fixing Film and Paper: when long is too long

Practical Zone System

Beutler's High Acutance Divided Developer

The Best Negatives are Surprisingly Easy! Ok

The Best Negatives are Surprisingly Easy!

Casework Findhorn

Setting up the shot

Exposing the scene

Results

3 tips to 'make' a photograph and not 'take' a photograph.

I got style…You got style? One tip that’ll make your photography yours!

I’d been taking photographs for ten years before I learned this simple lesson, here's my story...

Photography is like fishing. It takes time...

Thinner negatives are better
negatives