ramiro_aceves

Hello B&W fans.

 

As I promised you, I present the ID11 and D76 aging tests PART II.

Sorry for the delay but I had little free time for experimenting, and

the more the time, the better for the test. An error in one of the

tests, delayed the tests even more. I use a radio controlled clock

for measuring time, reseting it for the tests so that it starts from

0 hours. Unfortunately, the clock adjusted its time automaticaly via

radio during the first test, invalidating the test :-(

 

Introduction: As published before here, I experienced disapointing

results when I encountered big activity increase in ID11 developer

when stored for one month in PLASTIC bottles and TAP WATER. The

increasing activity was shown as early as 15 days from the developer

mixing. So I wanted to know the reason of that, was the water? the

bottle? the developer?

 

 

Test procedure: I mixed 1 liter of D-76 and 1 liter ID-11 with

DISTILLED WATER so that I filled 2 beer GLASS bottles and 2 PLASTIC

bottles for each developer.(Bottles were 250 cm3 each). Beer Glass

bottles were closed with corks.

 

I used inmediately one plastic bottles for each developer for the

first test at 1:1 dilution. That was published one 2 months ago here,

so the developer was fresh.

 

Now I have repeated the tests 2 months later using the GLASS bottles.

As you can see in the graphs, the activity of both developers has

slightly DECREASED, both in the same extent. Again, ID11 seems to

develop to a slightly higher contrast than D76.

 

Conclusion of PART II test:

 

Two months later, with Glass bottles and Distilled water, the

increase of activity has no longer appeared. Indeed, a slightly

DECREASE in activity is noticeable. Both developers were CLEAR. When

I had the problems before, developer was slightly yellow.

 

The strong activity Increase noted before, could be caused by two

factors:

 

-The plastic bottles.(I personaly doubt that)

-The Tap water. I think strongly that tap water at home can

affect developer. Indeed, my tap water smells and tastes very bad,

like swimmingpool water :-)

 

Another conclusion is that ID-11 appears a bit stronger than D76, so

development times should not be the same for both developers.

 

 

The PART III of these test will be with the PLASTIC bottles. If

contrast rises with that bottles, it means that the plastic is the

culprit. If contrast mantains unaltered, the culprit is the water.

 

I hope to finish the tests in the following days.

 

I hope you liked this test, and you can extract your own conclusions.

I will appreciate you comments.

 

See you soon.

 

Ramiro.

Hello B/W crazy-men,

 

I always have used the Spanish Paterson tank clone with 500 ml of solution, 5 inversions/minute with no problems(D76 1:1 and Rodinal 1:25, 1:50 1:100). I use plenty of solution to avoid the problem Lex said and to avoid developer exhaustion when high dilutions are used.

Developer is cheap and I do not want to ruin my images saving some cents in developer.

 

Hope this helps.(Sorry for my bad english :-) )

Hello Garry and friends. Nice to here that you are waiting for my test. I have not forgotten you, now I am busy with my exams at the University. I plan to do the aging test in the middle of july, so sure you will have it!. The more the aging time the better for the test.:-)

Happy summer.

I rate HP5+ at EI280, in Rodinal 1:50 for 10 minutes, agitation 5 inversions/minute.

I have sent the density graph. Difussion enlarger and Ilford grade 2 RC paper.

Hello friends,

 

I think the last thing one should do is changing film or developer when results do not please you. One must play with them until gets the desired results. If results are flat, increase development time or use a higher grade paper (or higher contrast in photoshop). For example, 100 TMAX and ID-11 1:1 delivers here a pretty densitometric straight line at EI 70, 7minutes 20C, 5 inversions/minute.No blocked highligths in grade2 Ilford Ilfospeed RC .

For me, your pictures look well for the lighting you used, perhaps a slight increase in contrast will help.

 

 

Just my two cents.

Hi my friends.

 

In order to compare D-76 and ID-11 keeping capabilities and

strenghts, I have done a test, this is the part I of this test. I

have mixed stock solutions, for each developers, using distilled

water and dividing the stock in four bottles filled to the brim, two

glass and two plastic. This first test was made one day after

developers were mixed, to let them stabilized.The film used was

Ilford HP5+ in 35mm format. Exposure index was EI 280. A white card

evenly lit was shoot to get zones from 0 to X. Development time was 9

minutes, with 5 vigorous inversions/minute agitation, using the

plastic bottles. The results are very close, but it seems that ID-11

develops to a higher contrast than D-76, so, If there were not

errors, I would say that they have not got identical properties as we

always asume (that whould require more tests to apply some

statistical confidence tests, but no time and money to do that).

Indeed, when I mixed stock solutions, they have different smells.

Well, this is the end of part I, part II will come after one or two

months, will see wich one keeps better, and if plastic bottles work

worse than glass ones. I will let you know.

 

I hope you liked this test.

 

Enjoy!

 

Ramiro.

Hello friends

 

I was reading "The Negative" by Ansel Adams (I have read it several

times trying to get more and more information from it), and studying

the film densitometer curves at the end of the book, I realize that

Ansel´s Zone IX target is around 1.50 over base&fog (Ansel supposes

that zone IX is the first shade of gray different from white on the

paper). At home, with my Durst M601 color head enlarger(which is

suposed to be a difussion enlarger), and Ilford Ilfospeed Grade2

paper in Agfa Neutol developer at 1:15, any density over 1.15

produces full white in the paper (using of course the minimum time

for maximum black in the enlarger).

 

Had that old grade 2 papers a longer exposure density range than

modern papers? Have you got any data about the papers Ansel used at

that time?. (I do not have "The Copy" and I do not know if he tells

that in that volume). Indeed, Ansel says in the book: "manufacturers

are reducing gradually the exposure range of modern papers, so the

density values target should be revised" (this is a bad free

translation as my book is written in Spanish)

That will confirm that everybody should test for his own density

numbers, and that trying to use Adams numbers, which is done by many

people who tryes Zone System the first time, is a nosense.(As I did)

 

 

Thank you.

Ramiro. (crazy-testing-man)

Thanks Severi. Sorry, I posted my first 1:100 test with FP4+ and it was overexposed and overdeveloped, as you can see. I am looking for a normal contrast test.

Thank you.

Sorry Evan,

 

I did not read your posting carefully. As others said, the first perceptible density on the film IS NOT 0.1 over fog. In my testing experience, the first shade of gray on the film is usually Zone 0. Our target Zone I is considerably darker and should be 0.1 over base and fog.

 

Ramiro

Hello,

 

You should tell us what film, developer,dilution, agitation, development time you used. If you overdeveloped the film too much you get also an increase in the low values. The old sentence "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" is ok in general, but development time also affects the shadows(although less than the highlights) ( I have many densitometer graphs that show that). Also certain developers are good for gainning true speed. In your case EI800 seems too much speed gain.

 

For me, HP5 is rated around 280 in ID11 1:1 9 minutes, 5 inversions/minute

 

But no problem, if your meter is a bit mistuned now you now that EI800 works for you. That is the reason of the EI test. I have learnt that the important things are the results and not the numbers. EI800 is your number, EI280 is my number, but our results are ok.

 

 

Just my too cents.

Ramiro.

Dear friends:

Sorry for my response delay, not too much free time this week.

I want to thank you all for your very interesting responses. I have seen the web of the cheap scale, I think I am going to buy one, it is really cheap indeed and seems acurate enough.

 

This weekend I am going to do a controlled aging test. I think it is very important to do a test with the variables well controlled. I have just bought a D76 bag and a ID-11 box to compare. I am going to use demineralized water(I do not know the right word) and two kinds of bottles, glass and plastic for the two developers and marbles. I am going to mix today, let stand 1 day and develop tomorrow. Then, I will do the same one month after, with the glass and the plastic(always same batch of film)Then measure with the densitometer. I will tell you. We´ll see...

 

We´ll keep in touch.

Ramiro.

Thank you my friends for your valuable responses. I will tell you news when happen. indeed, 1:50 curve has got the same lack of contrast in the shadows. The best curve shape is for 1:25. I have attached the graphs for you.

Hello my fiends.

 

As I posted months ago, I got my first inconsistent results with ID-

11 developer when I stored in half filled bottles and showed an

incresing strenght over the fresh solution. I improved developer

storage and bought 4 cheap plastic 250ml bottles and divide the 1

liter stock in the four bottles and added some marbles. Well, I have

done a test today with a 1 month stock solution, and the strenght

increase is very noticeable, unacceptable for consistency and

repetable results.

The last chance for ID-11 will be to try glass bottles and distilled

water,and if it does not work, I will have to say saddly goodby to

ID-11, even that I like very much the results I get at 1:1 dilution

and HP5+ (density curve is a near perfect straight line). I know it

will be ideal to mix it from scratch and use inmediately but at the

moment I do not want to buy an scale and chemicals. (If the

manufacturers ensure me that there will be film in the rest of my

life, sure will buy it ( I am 32)) :-)

 

Well, talking about developers,in the photo store they do not have

many developers, I remember they have T-MAX, HC-110, D-76, ID-11 and

Microphen. I was thinking about HC-110, as it is said that keeps

well. I read it have coaser grain than ID-11/D-76 but I would like

to hear you opinion about the HP5+/HC-110 combo in 35mm format.

 

Thank you.

Here is the picture from my window in sunshine<div></div>

Hello friends.

 

I wanted to see how Rodinal 1:100 would work with minimal agitation.

I developed Tura P-150 film at EI 70 in Rodinal for 25 minutes (to

compensate for the low agitation) and only 1 inversion / minute. The

comparison is versus 20 minutes ,5 vigorous inversions/minute that I

used before(in a previous test I posted before). The tank inversion

is very slow, and take 10 seconds to complete. The procedure

I "invented" was: filling the tank with developer, apply one slow

inversion and hit the table 4 times, and turn the tank 90 degrees at

the same time. That procedure repeats each minute. Surprisingly

there is no uneven development, or sign of air bubbles as I thought

it could happen with this low agitation.Sharpness seems similar to my

eyes. Sorry, my scanner is very bad, I have also attached a picture

at sunshine from my window.

The good thing: film speed increased. As you can say in the

densitometer graph, I could have exposed the film half stop less, so

I can reach a true 100 EI speed for the low agitation method.

Also interesting, If you see the graph, you see that Rodinal at

1:100 dilution (also at 1:50) produces a curve shape that is flat

from zones 1 to 6, so less contrast in the shadows, and higher first

derivative from 6 to the higher zones. I expected a highlights

flattening for compensating effect at high values¿?¿?¿.

On the oposite, I have atached the same film developed in ID11 1:1.

You see more contrast in the shadows and less in the highlighs. What

do you think?

 

I am planning a stand development test to see what happens.

I hope you enjoyed the test.

 

Ramiro.

Testing is a drug! I know I shoud take more pictures but I enjoy

testing.

Mark Hansen , I think that your experience with ID-11 do not match with mine, you had to do something wrong. I agree with you that ID11 preserves very bad, and oxydises very quickly. But the efecct of that is that it gets STRONGER so film develops at higher contrast, no "blank negatives as you said". After 1 month stored into full bottles it gets yelow and stronger, due to the PH increase that activates the hidroquinone, inactive at the stock solution PH(The Film Developing Cookbook, page 42). And about highlights, if developing time is well adjusted for the paper, they do not block to the point of being unprintable as you said.

After ajusting my film developing times I do not know what blocked highlights are anymore.

 

Anyway, I am tired of the difficluty of getting consitency with ID-11, so I am thinking in using another developer. Rodinal, seems to be very reliable and I get very exact and consistent results.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Ramiro.

Hello Again.

 

For those who like tests. Here I send you a Rodinal vs ID11 test on

Tura P-150 film. Again, diferences are small but you can see the

smaller grain of ID11 stock vs ID11 1:1. Rodinal grain is bigger too.

You can make your own conclusions, but again, the differences are

small and can not make or break an image.

 

EI was 50 for all tests.

Development times

 

Rodinal 1:25, 1:50, 1:100 were 5, 11, 20 minutes.

ID11 stock, 1:1 were 7 and 11 minutes.

 

Agitation 5 inversions/minute.

 

I am planning making a future test with rodinal at 1:100 with less

agitation to see if I can see any compesating and adyacency efeccts.

I was thinking about Lex Henkins method with the supplied plastic

paddle for agitation( I am using the Spanish Paterson tank clone),

but I am not sure how consistent this method could be.It is difficult

to give the same amount of twist, I mean, how many degrees, what

angular rotation speed.... What about a full gently inversion/minute?

Thank you.

 

Enjoy.

Ramiro.

Thanks to all for your responses. Indeed, I can not see any differences in the real prints (sorry but my scanner is very bad). For Garry D. Lewis, sorry, I made a typo mistake, the film was Tura P-150 (it is made in Germany, people say it is an agfa film) expirated one year ago, I bought 20 rolls at 1 euro/each.

The full scene pictures were 5 x 7 prints , and the detailed pictures were made as 14x enlargements with the enlarger at full height (13x20 prints).

 

I am planning another test in a more contrasty scene at full sunshine to see if I can apreciate the compensating effect. Do you think a 5 inversions/minute agitation can ruin the compensatingor adyacency effects?, if so, what agitation rate do you recomend?

 

I indeed expected an apreciable diference between 1:25, 1:50 and 1:100 dilutions :-( (indeed I have a big headache after reding the film developing cookbook......)

 

I am thinking even in doing the tests again with other films, but It takes so long time and films wasted, that I have to have a break and relax. First, I have tuned the development time for the Tura P-150 film in orther to to have the same contrast with the three different dilutions, to make a good consistent test. I think that the cause of the mith, could be that people uses the time in the rodinal box, for example, for agfa apx100 is 8 minutes at 1:25, resulting in grainny and contrasty negatives ( remember I use 5 minutes for 1:15 dilution).Then, tired about big grain, they use 1:100 dilution at 20 minutes, and they will get of course less grain than the 1:25. They say :" 1:25 is grainier than 1:100" and what has happened is that they overdeveloped the film at the 1:25 dilution resulting big grain and contrasty negs.

 

I will tell you more news....

Sorry, my bad english can not say what I am thinking.

 

PS: Thank you Dag for your interesting densitometer curves, indeed there are not big differences.

Hello friends.

 

As I promised, for those who are interested in testing, I present a

test with Rodinal at 1:25, 1:50, 1:100 dilutions. I have shooted the

same subject on a 36 frames Tra P-150 35mm roll film at 1 meter

distance with my 50mm Pentax lens at f/11 and flash lighting. I have

cut in three pieces and developed at the same 0.57 contrast index

(aproximately) in Rodinal 1:25, 1:50 and 1:100 for 5, 11 and 20

minutes at 20C, 5 inversions minute, followed by a water stop bath

for 2 minutes and one water change, fixing in Agfa Agefix 1:7 for 7

minutes( temperature was 20 C for all solutions). All frames were

printed in Ilford Ilfospeed grade 2 glossy RC paper for the same time

at the enlarger. That shows that the exposure and contrast was pretty

the same in the three negatives. The prints were scanned at 600

pixel/inch resolution.(my scanner is very bad and it can not show tha

real grain, but I think you can see the diferences).

 

Result: I was deceptioned, I expected big differences!!!! I can NOT

see that grain size reduces with the higher dilutions. Indeed, the

grainier print was the 1:50 one, the finer grained is the 1:25,

followed by the 1:100. I do not see any sharpness changes! No

diferences in dark zones! The prints are indistingible!

 

What do you think? Is Rodinal dilution a mith?

Thanks

Film developing cook book questions.

 

I have just read my film developing cookbook, it is a great book

indeed but, I really miss some density graphs and a chapter

explaining how to get the right developing time. Perhaps in the next

edition if published :-).

I have two questions for you that are not clear to me:

 

1-What do they mean when they say: "slow films have shorter tonal

scale than fast films"

What is the exact meaning of "long tonal scale" talking in

sensitometric terms?. The curve is long before reaching the shoulder?

The curve has got high slope, and so more contrast?

 

2- They talk about "dichroic fog". What is dichroic fog? When it

appears?

 

 

Thank you.

Ramiro (Spain)

Thank you all, I will ask if they can do C-41 without making the prints and I will see what the price is.

Hello.

A photojournalist friend of mine who has gone digital gave me some

T400CN 35mm rolls that I do not want to process C-41. Is it posible

to process them in B&W chemistry? If you have done something similar

please tell me some starting points. If it is not possible I will

give them to another friend.

Thanks.

Thank you my friends for your help. If It helps you , I am using AFGA AGEFIX, wich I supose to be an acid fixer. Perhaps the weak stop acid I use do a little work. When I use it in prints, I can feel its action with my fingers when I change from the developer to the fixer at the beginning of the developing session, but it disapears soon. Another bad habit I learn 15 years ago is to use my fixer one-shot,It is suposed to be a waste of money. I must start to reuse it.

Thank you!!

I though I was using a stop bath untill two days ago I received my

copy of the Film Developing Cookbook. Very good book indeed, I never

thought that so much information about film developing could be

written. Great book!

 

Well, I have been using vinegar as a stop bath since I started

developing my B&W films, 15 years ago (I was a child). At that time,

I read in a book to disolve 25 cm3 of vinegar in 1000 cm3 of water,

to make a cheap stop bath. Certainly I did not understand anything

about photographic processing, and I developed my films like cooking

recipes. I abandoned film development until I was interested again,

one year ago, and I start reading too much about photography and Zone

System, making many carefull film tests and density graphs. I did not

pay attention to the stop bath....

Now, knowing that a stop bath must be a 2% solution of acetic acid in

water, and asuming vinegar is only about 5%, my 25cm3 of vinegar in

1000 cm3 of water results in a 0.12% ridiculous acetic acid solution!!

I have used this solution for film and paper development with good

results.

My question is:

 

Should I:

 

1- Continue using vinegar at that ridiculous dilution.

2- Mix vinager at 1+2 with water or buying a comercial stop bath.

(should my development time be lengthen?

3- Use simple water bath as the book recomends.

 

Many thanks and sorry for my bad english.

Ramiro.

Here is the second picture