FP4+ @ 80 with Rodinal

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by nir_dvorai, Sep 22, 2008.

  1. I shot FP4+ at E.I. 80 and want to develop with Rodinal. At the "massive dev. chart" I only found time for 1+24.

    Can you please share your time and agitation for 1+50 and 1+100.

    Thank you.
  2. For FP4+ shot at EI 80 in Rodinal 1:50, I use 12 minutes- after a two minute pre-rinse in plain water. I agitate for the first
    35 seconds, then give the tanks 2-3 inversions per minute thereafter. Pre-wet gets the same agitation. This is all at
    68F/20C, of course. Sorry I can't comment on 1:100- I don't really use it.
  3. FP4 at 80 ASA in Rodinal 1+50, 20 C, 11.5 minutes: 6 inversions in the first 30 seconds and then one inversion every 30 seconds after that.
  4. Hi,
    I shoot FP4+ @100 and mostly develop in 1+25 for the standard time 9 minutes. Agitation is 20 sec the first min and then 10 sec (6 inversions) every minute This gives me healthy negatives.
    Since 80 is only 1/3 stop underexposure from 100 there should not be much trouble with this time.
    For 1+50 Ilford states 15 min in rodinal; more can be found here: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006216122447.pdf
    I don't use 1+50 because for me it seems to bring out more base fogging
  5. Thank you Andrew, Chris, Erwin.

    Andrew- Why you pre-rinse the film in plain water? did you do it before puring the developer to the tank?
  6. Some people do a pre-rinse to prevent air bubbles. Ilford state that this is no longer needed with their current films because they have a surficant applied in the production process that prevents bubbles. FP4+ is my primary film, I don't pre-soak the film, and I've never gotten bubbles, but there seems to be no detrimental effect from the rinse. If you do a pre-rinse, do so before the developer is poured into the tank.

    - Randy
  7. Randy,
    So this method should not effect the develop time that was given here? do you use the same time for 1+50?

    Thank you.
  8. I do a pre-rinse to remove the anti-halation coating on Ilford films. Try it- you'll notice the pre-wet water comes out green.
    The end result on the film is that the base fog is reduced and the shadow areas gain some depth.
  9. "Since 80 is only 1/3 stop underexposure from 100 there should not be much trouble with this time."

    That's actually about 1/3 stop overexposure.
  10. Keep in mind that if you pre-wet, pre-soak, pre-wash, pre-whatever, Ilford film, you'll need to test all of your development times. Ilford times are based on development without pre-soaks.

    Without specific, scientific testing I'd be reluctant to make any claims about *which* dyes are released either during a pre-soak or through normal development. I'd also be wary of making claims about whether this has anything to do with "base fog", until I see some data.

    Also, some developers appear to release these dyes more readily than others. Rodinal is very effective at this, which would seem to make a pre-soak redundant - assuming there is any advantage to stripping out dyes, or whether it simply gives people a re-assured feeling.
  11. There are some developers without sulfite that leave some dye in the used developer. If it's in the developer, it's no longer in the emulsion, so I don't worry about it. I was a little bemused the first time I concocted a vitamin C developer, thinking it would be only used as a substitute for sulfite. But that's a different story. Why do we have to get old?
  12. "Also, some developers appear to release these dyes more readily than others. Rodinal is very effective at this, "

    That's for sure. I'm currently developing with Rodinal and my film is coming out a lot clearer than with my previous XTOL.
  13. I was taught to do a pre-wet when I worked at a lab ten years ago. The lab owner's logic was that it swells the emulsion
    and prepares it to accept development more evenly. I expect this was more of a concern years ago with older film stocks
    but regardless of the relevance of the practice, I still do it sometimes- especially with some film/developer combinations
    which seem to give me better results with a pre-wet. Using Ilford FP4 and HP5, I pre-wet with a few developers- like
    Rodinal- because my negatives look better when I do it. But it's certainly not something I do all the time. I have found
    some combinations that don't seem to like a pre-wet- like Fuji Neopan 400 in Rodinal; this combo gives me much better
    results without a pre-wet. I'm certainly not saying anything like "You have to do it to get the best results"- I'm just
    proffering the technique by way of an answer to the OP as something that works for me.
  14. Oh, and BTW- I', not making "claims about *which* dyes are released"- I was told by the same lab owner (also the labs
    founder, and a highly accomplished film tech) that it was anti-halation dye. I had no reason to be suspicious of his
    "claims", and am only repeating what seemed to be a sensible answer.
  15. I pre-soak film prior to development. Going back about 15-16 years, I used to get occasional uneven development - streamers and mottling - so someone recommended pre-soaking. Since I started doing it, I've never had a problem with uneven development, so I continue to do it. I have run tests to see if it had any effect on development times and I could detect no significant difference with the films I use (FP4, HP5, Delta 100, TMX, Acros). My thinking is that with pre-soaking, the emulsion is filled with water which has to be flushed out for develepment to proceed, but, by the same token, the emulsion has already swelled and thus opened up to the developer.

Share This Page