Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Monochrome Work > Monochrome Film

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 30th March 2009, 06:48 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,969
Default Primates, Perceptol and D3200

OK I sort of lied about the relevance of primates. We did however go to Twycross Zoo yesterday( it specialises in primates and used to supply the chimps for the Tetley Tea ads in the 1970s) and I used up a roll of D3200. The light conditions meant that EI 1000 was fine. Allegedly that about its true speed anyway.

I'd like to have a go with Perceptol at stock solution. Ilford gives times for 800 and 1600 which are 13 mins and 15 mins respectively. As a finger in the air for 1000 and erring possible slightly on the generous side I thought that 14 mins might be about right.

Anyone with experience of Perceptol and D3200 at EI 1000 out there?

My main concern in asking for help is to rule out the need for the DDX rule with D3200 which is to use the development time for the next speed up so develop for the 1600 time after exposing at EI 800.

I haven't seen any mention of the need to do this with Perceptol but then again I haven't seen much mention of Perceptol with D3200. Regualr uses of this combo seem thin on the ground

I have used it once but at EI 3200 and with the Ilford 3200 time but it was a friend's film and I didn't do more than one test print. It looked fine and grain was very fine with Ilford's time but it was a while ago and I want to be sure that the DDX rule doesn't apply.

So in summary my plan is 14 mins- slap bang in the middle of the Ilford 800 and 1600 times.

Any help and especially experience of this film and Perceptol will be gratefully received

Thanks

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 30th March 2009, 08:06 PM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

Well I have just been testing D3200 with several developers. Not printed anything yet as I was really trying to find which gives the best speed for which microphen is easily the leader so far. A whole stop faster than DDX. Will look at print results in future.
Perceptol being a developer which loses speed seems pointless for D3200 but I tried it and only got EI800. I could get EI1600 with more development but also higher contrast so only 3 stops either side of metered but I won't bother nailing that one as I can do the same with Delta 400 and microphen.
Will do some testing with ID11 soonish I hope.

EI3200 Microphen Stock 20deg C 9 minutes.
Agitation continuous 30 secs, then 2 inversions after 30 secs and then 2 inversions every minute.
This gives 4 stops either side of metered value and prints exactly only condensor setup. You could give maybe 20% more dev for a diffusion enlarger.

EI1600 DD-X 1+4 20degC 18 minutes
gives 4 stops either side of metered value. Any more development and you will make the neg high contrast and shorten the range. That is, I wouldn't use DDX for faster than 1600 unless I wanted only 3 stops either side of metered value.

EI800 Perceptol stock 20degC 21mins
Gives 4 stops either side of metered value.
Frankly you would be better off pushing D400 rather than using perceptol with this film.


HC110 not a good combination with D3200. Curve upswept and low speed which is not what D3200 is for.


In flat light indoors you might want to try Delta 400 rated at 1250 and deved in microphen stock at 20degC for 12 mins. This will give you 3 stops either side of metered value.

All tests were targetting my condenser head which requires density 1.3 for pure white.
__________________
An old dog learning new tricks
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 30th March 2009, 08:50 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,969
Default

Thanks Rob for your findings. Presumably at EI 1000 my negs wouldn't be that much different as it is only a 1/4 of a stop faster than your development in Perceptol at EI800?

However I must admit to being nervous about increasing the dev time by 8 mins(60%) from 13 mins to 21 mins or maybe even more from the Ilford standard times.

I note that your DDX times are 125% of Ilford times or 95% if we go with the DDX "rule" of developing for the next speed up.

I have tried D3200 at EI1600 in DDX but developed for the Ilford time for EI 3200 and didn't think the negs were bad. I note that your inversion and the one I use are different. I use the Ilford recommended agitation of 10 secs in first mins and 10 secs for each subsequent minute but would this make up for the shorter Ilford time of 9 mins and 30 secs?

The strange thing is that despite the large increase in dev times you found were right for DDX and Perceptol compared to Ilford's, your findings with Microphen is exactly in line with Ilford's time. I am assuming here that only in Microphen was D3200 exposed at EI3200 as you don't mention the EI speed in Microphen where as you do in DDX abd Perceptol

I confess to being now very nervous.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 30th March 2009, 09:19 PM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

They were all exposed at 3200 but having charted them all I can read off the actual speeds to use them at which is what I have given you.
For perceptol I used the Ilford development for 3200 which was 18mins but that needs correcting with a little additional dev to push the highlights up a tad. The density of the resulting metered value of the negative is important. It needs to be around the 0.6 value to print in the middle of the range and it only does that at EI800 with 4 stops above and below. If you exposed at 1000 then I would give a little more dev than I suggested so around 26 mins and since that is a long time you may want to convert to 24deg C which would give you 16 mins at 24deg C.

Its your call on what you actually use but if you use Ilfords figures for 800 which is 13 minutes and you get blocked shadows, don't be surprised. Your highlights should be printable though. Only you can know whether the highlights should be favoured in the images you took or not or whether the shadows were important too.
I've only done the one test but that is what it told me.
__________________
An old dog learning new tricks
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 30th March 2009, 10:56 PM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike O'Pray View Post
The strange thing is that despite the large increase in dev times you found were right for DDX and Perceptol compared to Ilford's, your findings with Microphen is exactly in line with Ilford's time. I am assuming here that only in Microphen was D3200 exposed at EI3200 as you don't mention the EI speed in Microphen where as you do in DDX abd Perceptol
I think D3200 was designed as a very fast film and from what I can see Microphen is easily the fastest of Ilfords developers. I suspect their target was 3200 and they achieve that with Microphen. Hence the Microphen figures being the most accurate. All the other figures are also rans in the speed stakes which is what this film is about. Pay no attention to ISO speed. It means nothing accept as a guide. The ISO speed was worked out with ID11 and not DD-X or Microphen which both give a speed increase. Microphen a stop more based on 4 stops either side of metered.
Perceptol is known to be a speed decreasing developer and it gives less speed than ID11 so it is in no way surprising that it only gives 800 speed with 4 stops either side of metered. And it also not surprising that it needs so much development to get it to 800 when it normally gives a stop less speed than ID11 depending on film.
__________________
An old dog learning new tricks
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 30th March 2009, 11:19 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,969
Default

Rob Did the negs in Microphen look any grainier than those in DDX and was it 35mm film you tested? I have a thing about grainy negs, having developed D3200 at box speed in ID11 in my early days and found that even at 5x7 prints the grain was quite obtrusive. Both Perceptol and then DDX were a revelation in terms of being less grainy. If there had been nothing else than ID11 for D3200 I think I'd have abandoned any thought of using it as other than a last resort film in 35mm.

DDX, given its improvement over ID11 in terms of grain and ability with D3200 at up to EI1600 would be a good choice for me but as I was able to use EI 1000 at Twycross and have Perceptol doing nothing in a box I want to have a go to see how much or little better it is than DDX for low grain negs.

I'll be interested in your findings on the subsequent prints from the various negs in Perceptol, DDX and Microphen when you get to the print stage.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 30th March 2009, 11:32 PM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

DDX definitely gives finer grain than Microphen but it's also a stop slower. So its really a question of how much speed you need. If 1600 is plenty then DD-X is good but for max speed then Microphen. All tests have been done on 35mm film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike O'Pray View Post
Rob Did the negs in Microphen look any grainier than those in DDX and was it 35mm film you tested? I have a thing about grainy negs, having developed D3200 at box speed in ID11 in my early days and found that even at 5x7 prints the grain was quite obtrusive. Both Perceptol and then DDX were a revelation in terms of being less grainy. If there had been nothing else than ID11 for D3200 I think I'd have abandoned any thought of using it as other than a last resort film in 35mm.

DDX, given its improvement over ID11 in terms of grain and ability with D3200 at up to EI1600 would be a good choice for me but as I was able to use EI 1000 at Twycross and have Perceptol doing nothing in a box I want to have a go to see how much or little better it is than DDX for low grain negs.

I'll be interested in your findings on the subsequent prints from the various negs in Perceptol, DDX and Microphen when you get to the print stage.

Mike
__________________
An old dog learning new tricks
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 31st March 2009, 02:10 PM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

Mike, I will be interested to hear how you developed these negs and how they turned out.
__________________
An old dog learning new tricks
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Perceptol Formula pentaxpete Chemical formulae 49 25th December 2018 07:29 PM
Fuji Neopan 400 and DDX or Perceptol Mike O'Pray Monochrome Film 7 9th October 2009 09:30 AM
D3200 - Longevity beyond expiry/process by date? Mike O'Pray Monochrome Film 3 18th March 2009 09:27 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.