Further question on developing Ilford B&W film

[peter_roberts4]

I would like to ask again for advices to my problem on developing

Ilford B&W film.

 

I shoot FP4+ (rated at ISO 125) and HP5+ (rated at ISO 400) films.

The opinion here is to cut the ISO rating by half in order to get

details in shadow area. So now, what can I do for my exposed films?

 

Should I increase development time? if yes, by how long? I am

going to use HC-110 developer.

[macgregor_anderson]

The problem is that highlight areas respond more to increased development time than shadow areas. So you really need to increase development time a lot to bring up the shadows. By then, your highlights will be so dense and your negs so contrasty that you'll have a whole new problem.

 

I'd say develop as you normally would, and try to fix things in the printing stage. Your "zone III" will still have some useable detail, even if a straight print shows black in those shadows. A little dodging (or a lot) can help fix this.

 

And you may need to accept a little loss in shadow detail. Not ideal, but maybe not such a big deal. Depends on the shots.

 

I've done some film testing myself with those films. I shoot them at 100 and 320. That's where my zone I was slightly lighter than my pure black. By visual inspection. Lately I've felt maybe I should shoot a little slower on these, like 80 and 250. But it's just so the prints take less work in the darkroom.

 

It's fine tuning for the most part.

 

Somebody with more experience can probably offer advice on using a compensating developer (I think that's it) or some other approach that helps your shadows without making the highlights too dense. Listen to them before listening to me. I'm a total amateur here.

 

But I wouldn't just increase development time in HC-110.

 

Good luck.

 

Mac

[rogan]

Don't know where this thread started or why its here in the "large format photography" forum? If you're shooting on sheet film you don't indicate if this using tank or tray processing, etc.???

 

From my understanding of these things, HC-110 is/was great for 35 mm film and one-shot development. Was also excellent for push-processing films in that format - the imperative part being "HC" as in "high contrast". Moved over to Ilfotec as a replacement when that came out. Have since moved on XP2 and C-41.

 

About the only time I heard much good of HC-110 on large format was using the juice at higher dilutions and longer dev times. For the most part have either run with ID-11 or Perceptol to get working results. But, like all else out there, there's always a variation on some theme - be it HC-110 or any other chemistry.

[sinwen]

If you exposed your shadows the way you should, there is no reason to cut ISO rating by half for normal printing. In B&W expose for the shadows, means raise them up a bit. Now, HC-110 might not be the best developper for the result you are looking for.

As you don't mention what you are expecting, I take for granted you want to obtain a well balanced neg, then go for ID-11 and use a 1+1 dilution and stick to the parameters given by the manufacturer. Straight forward and simple is often the best.

[ronald_moravec1]

Give enough exposure to get whatever you consider adequate shadow detail. This personel film speed will take into account shutters that are off in speed and other variables in your equipment.

 

Now develope the film so the highlights are printable with the proper detail. Develope 6 exposures at a time and print them. If you make the darks the proper density and the whites are pure white with no detail, retest and develope less. If the print has grey highlights, develope more.

 

First test for speed and after that is established, test for time.

 

I find Ilfords`s time very close, but all my equipment is perfectly calibrated including the thermometers for developing temp.

[john_layton]

Peter - I usually expose FP4+ at ISO 64 - but on top of this make sure that those shadow

details which are important are no more than two steps below middle grey (falling no

lower than zone 3). Normal development should give good results, unless the highlight

values (with the important shadows on zone 3) would then fall more than 3 values above

middle gray. In this case you might place your important shadows up to zone 4, but

also cut your development time by 30% or so. The reason this works is that shadow values

develop more or less fully within the first half of a "normal" development cycle, and the

highlights take a bit longer but keep going. So by "overexposing and underdeveloping"

you allow important shadows to develop fully and yet hold the highlights back to printable

levels. I hope this helps.

[john_shriver]

If you really think you underexposed your film, use a speed enhancing developer like Ilford Microphen or DD-X. The DD-X faucet is flowing again, I just saw a bottle at the Cambridge, MA Calumet store, who had been out of it for a few months. Not a cheap solution for processing sheet film, but a very fine developer.

[r_hofland]

I think the FIRST ISSUE TO RESOLVE is what the brightness/contrast range of the scenes were since that really must determine both your exposure and your development.

 

IF they were quite contrasty, then you might consider using a well diluted developer with MINIMAL agitation, which would also require extended development times. IF the scenes were flat, then less dilution and more agitation are called for. However, keep in mind that your film choices inherently have a lot of latitude unlike the very slow or the tabular grained films, so picking the middle road could be just fine so long as you aren't on the extremes of the contrast ratios.

 

Your film format is also a determining factor for developer choice. If you are using 35mm, then HC110 probably is not an ideal choice, but it is OK for larger film sizes. And in my opinion, one of the best ways to deal with contrast issues (and zonal expansion/contraction) is through changes the developer's dilution and agitation during processing, and so you need to choose developers that work well in that capacity.

 

Fortunately there are many that do work well although they may not have been well explored yet, but HC-110 is at least somewhat explored. The Massive Dev Chart (http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html) lists two dilutions, A & B for Ilford's FP and HP series films, but I'm certain others have tried other more dilute options. Personally, however, I'd try other developers such as Rodinal,TFX-2 ID-11 and even XTOL.

[adrian_seward]

I say develop them and see what you get. I'm sure it won't be too bad. Then adjust in the

future. If you're worried it's always better to err on the side of too much development. It

will increase contrast, but that better than getting a negative that's too thin.

 

I use HC 110 for FP4 4x5. I'm very happy with it. I get nice-looking negatives at about 8

minutes, but I usually go for 10 minutes (dilution B). That is because I an using printing-

out-paper which demands high-contrast negatives. I expose at 100ASA.

 

I wouldn't worry about switching developers. If you know that you want a specific

characteristic that HC 110 is not good for, then switch. Otherwise, I think it's just a matter

of working with what you've chosen and learning how it's going to work for you. That

learning process will be part of any developer that you choose.

 

Once you develop a few sheets you will be able to start picking out whether any problems

you see are due to exposure or due to development.

[peter_black1]

Got to agree with John Layton. When you reduce the film speed (iso/asa) you give it more exposure, so therefore your film is OVERexposed and should then be UNDERdeveloped to get shadow detail. Increasing development is the worst thing you can do to an overexposed film!

[r_hofland]

Given Mr. Robert's dilemma: "So now, what can I do for my exposed films" I think I'll stick with my original prognosis above:

 

"However, keep in mind that your film choices inherently have a lot of latitude unlike the very slow or the tabular grained films, so picking the middle road could be just fine so long as you aren't on the extremes of the contrast ratios."

 

In doing so, and UNLESS YOU ARE CERTAIN YOUR IMAGES WERE OF LOW CONTRAST SUBJECTS, pick the more dilute option and be gentle on the agitation-- no more than once every minute and doing so in a not overly vigorous manner- one or two gentle inversions if in roll film tank followed by several gentle taps on the countertop to disloge bubbles. You may find after developing your first roll that you need to extend development time by 5 or 10% when being so gentle, but then again-- the latitude of your film is very forgiving. Probably better to be a bit underdeveloped than overdeveloped.

 

This will inherently provide the best separation in the highlights and opportunity for the shadows to develop. It must be made clear that well diluted developers will quickly exhaust in the highlights between the agitations, but still be working on the shadow detail, thus reducing overall contrast in the negative. On the other hand, undiluted developers and strong agitation do just the opposite-- build up highlights and increase overall contrast in the negative.

 

There are extremes on both ends of this scale (such as my favorite developer Rodinal used at 1:25 or 1:300, and with or without regular agitation), and a whole lot of in-between methods. HC-110 offers similar if not quite so extreme options, as do many other developers. Time for testing and skill building!

[haziz]

I would develop for the recommended time and would not try to overdevelop. You may want to use a speed enhancing devloper as XTOL, Ilfotec DDX (yes availability is now better) or even Sprint "Standard" develper if you are in the US (I don't believe the latter is marketed much outside the Northeast US). Sprint is supposed to be a D76 1:1 clone but may have given me a higher true speed since it uses phenidone rather than metol. Using densitometer testing I obtained a true speed of 200-250 for FP4 in XTOL, DDX (diluted 1:9) and Sprint. I even didn't initially believe the result and retested using a different densitometer and a different lens and after recheking my meter, and rechecking my first densitometer against a calibrated step wedge. I still do expose at EI 125 and get good results.

 

I realize my testing reflects my meter, lens/lenses, developing technique (HP Combi tank for 4x5) and local water supply, but I don't think you significantly underexposed your negs if at all.

 

When you have a chance. You may want to do your own testing. You should be able to get info on how on the web.

 

Sincerely,

 

Hany.