Clayton F76+...It's good stuff.

[jeff voorhees]

Hello all. I read this forum regularly, but don't post much. It is always

informative and so in the interest of contributing to the knowledge base I

thought I'd post my experiences with Clayton F76+.

 

I generally use Ilford HP5+, processed it F76+, 1+14 dilution, 9 mintues, 68

degrees, with the recommended agitation. I have tried 10 minutes too and this

works well for me also. Even 11 minutes at the 1+14 dilution look real good

and would most likely print well with a diffusion enlarger. My scanner, Epson

2450, likes a bit lower contrast so 9 minutes at 1+14 gets me the negs that

work well for my equipment: remarkable shadow detail, good midtones and

controlled highlights.

 

The standard 1+9 dilution also works very well, the benefit being a shorter

development time. I've tried several rolls at 1+19, 11 minutes as well. The

negs are lower contrast, but that is the point. They scan very well too. It

has proved to be a versatile developer for me. F76+ also works well with

Ilford's FP4+.

 

If anyone is interested you can see some examples <a

href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffvoorhees/157723009/"

target="_new">here.</a>

[klix]

Thanks for the tip. I shoot HP5+ quite a bit as well, but I've pretty much settled on XTOL 1+1 (which I use for most things)

and HC-110, Dil B.

 

Just wanted to say -- nice shooting. I'm actually in SoCal as well, just east of Pomona, so I know those places you've captured in your images.

 

KL

[stephen sullivan]

Wow, thanks for sharing / tip Jeff. You make that film and developer combination as if, they were made for each-other.

 

I'll have to ask today, if the lab that I use, has on stock any F76.

 

Q: What EI did you rate your HP5+

[jeff voorhees]

Kl IX: thank you for the compliment. East of Pomona...Claremont or Ontario perhaps? I've been wanting to shoot in Pomona around the Art Colony.

 

Stephen I've been rating the HP5 at 250. Although it looks just fine at 400. As I mentioned, my scanner (maybe everyone's scanner) does not like dense highlights so I am doing just a slight pull in order to flatten out the curve just a bit. It really is true, the stuff on Flickr does no justice to the quality of the negs. In the photo of the blouse, there is detail into the deepest shadow areas in the lower right corner of the frame. I just darkened them in Photoshop. I have found that the negs I get with this combo allow me wide latidude in scanning and afford me the ability to control contrast and detail in Photoshop.

 

I no longer have a wet darkroom so I cannot speak from <i>current</i>

experience, but I'm sure the parallels would be similar in a wet darkroom. These negs should print easily with a grade 2 or 3 filter.

[mitchell_kirschner]

Nice results, Jeff.

 

Just curious, are you making prints from your 2450 scans?

[jeff voorhees]

Mitchell-

 

Yes, but only digitally.

[mitchell_kirschner]

Jeff, I print digitally too (Epson C86/MIS inks). I've gotten half-decent results from my Canoscan 8400F/Vuescan up to 8x10. But since I got hooked on B&W, I've gotten a Minolta Scan Dual IV, and results are noticeably better.

 

I always like to ask about flatbed scanning/printing experiences. It helps keep me primed for the possible scenario of dedicated film scanners becoming scarce and/or very expensive. :)

 

PS - I concur, this is a wonderful forum. I got up to speed based on information and queries here. I'm now souping Tri-X or Neopan at least once a week. I need to post an update of my own some time.

[jeff voorhees]

Mitchell-

 

Generally I'm happy with the results from the 2450. I did not want to have to buy a dedicated film scanner, especially since my wife has plenty of 6x6, 4x5 and 5x7 negs. I've read that the current Epson 4990 Pro is pretty nice. Of course by the time I'm ready for something new, even that will be obsolete.

 

Post some stuff, or a link. I'd love to see your work.

[spanky]

I've used this developer for the subway and marketplace shots in my gallery. Film was Delta 3200 and from several accounts F76+ is quite similar to Ilford DDX but less expensive. I still mean to try out Microphen but it's pretty scarce in LA these days so I picked up another bottle of F76+.

[mitchell_kirschner]

<p>Jeff, thanks for the interest. I don't have an online portfolio yet, but here are a couple of photos that I like. My favorite subjects (out of both desire and necessity) are my young children, but sometimes I can grab an interesting scenic when I'm out and about with them.

</p>

 

<p>

Apparently I can't use img tags with links to large images, so here are direct external links:

<br>

<br>

Tri-X in Rodinal, developed by my father (a long-time B&W afficionado), before I became interested in doing it myself.

<br>

<a href="http://stuff.kirsol.com/photos/021-18_Scan.jpg">Link</a>

</p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

 

My daughter, who rediscovered last year's Halloween costume months after the fact. Neopan 400 in HC110 (1+45), either 7 or 7.5 min at 68F (exact time is in my notes).

<br>

<a href="http://stuff.kirsol.com/photos/026-32.jpg">Link</a>

 

</p>

 

<p>

The Neopan has a crispness and vibrancy to my eye that I expected to find in the Tri-X, but so far haven't, at least in HC110. Maybe I've just had better light and developing times with the Neopan, who knows.

</p>

 

<p>

PS - Yes, there's always a newer and probably better scanner on the horizon. Epson already has the V700 and V750. They're positioned as professional upgrades to the 4990.

</p>

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

I'd like to recommend PC-TEA instead.

[jeff voorhees]

Dan-

 

Would you care to elaborate?

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

A lot has been said already, but PC-TEA is more economical, lasts forever, offers full film speed, and it's not that difficult to mix it yourself. It's better stuff. Google for it.