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 > Site Forums > News and Announcements

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 6th October 2020, 04:43 PM
Martin Aislabie's Avatar
Martin Aislabie Martin Aislabie is online now
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stratford-upon-Avon, England
Posts: 2,080
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lostlabours View Post
B&M ? Do you mean May and Baker Suprol. I used to buy it in 25 litre drums. At 1+19 or 1+29 it was a very fine grain developer used by quite a few commercial labs. It was also used extensively for reversal processing and the 1970's data-sheet was very detailed, of course back then it was early days of UK colour TV and many programs and news items were shot on B&W film.

Suprol gave slightly finer grain than Ilford PQ Universal but both give (gave) grain little different to ID-11/D76. I think Suprol has been reformulated, at one time May & Baker made raw photo chemicals, and Colour developing agents. and Suprol supposedly us Chlorohydroqinone and Phenidone, rather than Hydtroquinone and Phenidone like the PQ Universal of that era.

These days PQ Universal uses Dimezone, and doesn't keep quite as well, this is for cost reasons.

Ian
Hi Ian

I knew there was a M in there somewhere

I cannot remember the name of the stuff - but I resolved never to use a universal developer ever again.

Since that very painful lesson (she was pretty, very cross and would not do a re-shoot), I have never strayed from ID11 since.

Martin
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 7th October 2020, 11:36 AM
Terry S Terry S is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Southend on Sea, Essex, England, UK
Posts: 3,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Aislabie View Post
...she was pretty, very cross and would not do a re-shoot...

Martin
Models eh?

As photographers we never have a tantrum when things go wrong, do we?

Terry S
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 8th October 2020, 11:38 AM
Terry S Terry S is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Southend on Sea, Essex, England, UK
Posts: 3,796
Default

Okay, I made my first attempts at developing some lengths of HP5+ film in Ilford Multigrade yesterday, at 1 + 9 dilution.

The first attempt was in absolute darkness, in my small working space, in my darkroom. In a 10 x 8 tray I laid out 3 small containers of the required liquids to process the length of film in.

Well, it was an absolute disaster. It was so dark I couldn't even see the luminous hands on the timer going around and definitely couldn't find the pots easily. In the end, the length of HP5+ film was over developed and scratched and my hands got covered in chemicals. To think that I thought that this would be the easy way to do it!

Second go, I gave in and put another length of film in a 35mm spiral. It was only then that I discovered that the amount of chemical required to cover the film was only slightly more than I had used first time, so I topped up and reused the chemicals above.

Starting slow, I developed the film for one minute and guess what? Success! The negatives look fine to my eyes, although only printing will confirm this.

As the second piece of film was only a couple of inches long, I loaded another six inches of the HP5+ in another dry reel, so that I had a good length of normal, +1f and -1f exposed film.

Over the weekend I'm hoping to get into the darkroom to print up something for this months PE, and I'll have a go at printing some of the above as well.

I'll report back with my findings, but am quite chuffed that it appeared to be quite easy to do the first test.

Terry S
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 8th October 2020, 01:56 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,968
Default

I sympathise Terry, I once tried to develop a whole roll of very old pre-exposed 116 film in trays via the "seesaw" method as I have no reels and tanks it would fit. It was a job I wouldn't wish on my worst enemies

Every time on another forum when the question of printing RA4 in trays in total darkness comes up there are always those who say it must be done this way. Anything else is not on, despite the evidence of others like me and John who say they have had success. Sorry a bit of a hobby horse of mine is this. Anyway there are those who say it can be doneand others who almost say: It's easy so what's the fuss

That always brings a wry smile to my face

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11th October 2020, 12:25 PM
Terry S Terry S is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Southend on Sea, Essex, England, UK
Posts: 3,796
Default And the test prints are ready for comparison.

Well, I've printed up two of the correctly exposed negatives, from two strips of about 7 frames each, of Ilford HP5+. These strips are from a 36 exposure film that I exposed on a sunny day, with 1 x correct exposure, 1 x -1f and 1 x +1f repeated over the whole length of the film.

Both of the film strips were developed separately in a Paterson tank, on a 35mm spiral. The first length of film was developed in the teaspoon formula of ID11 / D76 @ 1 + 1, for the recommended time of 13 minutes, @ 20C, as stated on the Massive Dev Chart, inverting the tank four times on the minute. The second length of film was developed in Ilford multigrade developer @ 1 + 9, for one minute, @ 20C, inverting the tank at the start and then 4 times every 15 seconds. Kodak stop and Ilford Hypam fixer were used with both films.

And... I was really surprised how well the negatives came out, although this conclusion was only based on holding them up against the daylight of the bathroom window.

Attached is a scan of a portion of the two prints, cropping the same area, to show the images at 100% size, from two 10" x 8" prints. They were both printed on Kentmere VC RC lustre and developed in a Nova slot processor, using Ilford MG again, at 1 + 9 @ 20C.

Both prints were scanned at the same time, to avoid any changes being added to either of the prints, by the scanner software, which might have happened if the two prints were scanned separately. The scans look good on my calibrated screen when viewed next to the prints, with all having a good range of tones and no visible grain at actual size.

I won't immediately say which print is which, so let me know if you think can spot any difference between the two, other than a slight variation in tone density...

Terry S
Attached Thumbnails
HP5+ in two devs test.jpg  

Last edited by Terry S; 11th October 2020 at 12:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11th October 2020, 04:52 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,968
Default

I think that overall I prefer the lower one. More shadow detail although the upper one conveys better that fact it was a brilliantly sunny day but pays for this in harsher highlights

If someone had said that it was the same negative in both I'd have thought that each print was done at a different grade by at least one grade and probably more

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11th October 2020, 05:34 PM
MartyNL's Avatar
MartyNL MartyNL is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: based in The Netherlands
Posts: 3,341
Default

The bottom print has my vote too because it has better mid-tone separation, in my view.

I'll also say, the bottom print is the tea-spoon formula???
__________________
MartyNL

“Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action
is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.”
- Minor White, 1950
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11th October 2020, 06:13 PM
MikeHeller MikeHeller is offline
Print Exchange Manager
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Wales
Posts: 1,280
Default

I couldn't tell the difference between the two wrt to grain size which I understood was the aim of the exercise which surprises me. Otherwise I found both acceptable although different but no preference for this wishy-washy indecisive liberal.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12th October 2020, 11:48 AM
Dave Hall Dave Hall is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Posts: 391
Default

Have developed 10 year old Tri-X at 3200 in Paper Developer with "lovely" grain
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 13th October 2020, 12:29 PM
Terry S Terry S is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Southend on Sea, Essex, England, UK
Posts: 3,796
Default

Well done to Mike O'Pray and Marty for choosing the bottom print, for yes, that is the one that was developed in teaspoon formula D72 / ID11.

Personally, like Mike Heller, I can't see any real difference between the two images on screen, or when looking at the actual prints in front of me. I can only presume that your two monitors show a slightly different set of pictures than my calibrated monitor does, or maybe my eyes just don't pick up on 'mid-tones' so well as yours? And I definitely can't see any harsh highlights that Mike O'Pray says that he can see...?

And as Mike Heller says, this experiment was mainly to try and get bigger (and more controllable) grain in the negatives. So, even though the MG did a good job, the grain it produced was surprisingly well tamed. But if I had a film that needed to be developed asap, and if I didn't have anything else to hand, I think that I would happily reuse the MG again. Before doing so though, I think that I would experiment with higher dilutions, to extend the developing time, to something a bit longer and easier to replicate and who knows, but the tones may be a bit more acceptable as well.

Now that I have done a lot more reading about what I am trying to do, a lot of posters over the years, have recommended print developer D72, for film and bigger grain. Having made up the teaspoon formula recently and liking the results of prints produced in my Nova slot processor, I am happy to mix it up again to try it. It's also good that recommended starting times are listed on The Massive Dev Chart:

https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchar...5Ilford+HP5%25 Developer=%25Dektol%25&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C&Time Units=D

If I am still not happy after trying the above, I will try Dave Hall's suggestion of an ISO 3200 film, but as I have an Ilford equivalent to hand, I will initially try that, rather than the Tri-X that he used.

Terry S
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
Developer suggestions for T-grain films TimoS Monochrome Film 28 15th June 2022 06:01 PM
Combined colour film and print developer Nat Polton Colour printing techniques 12 8th January 2020 07:09 PM
Tabular film grain technology cliveh Monochrome Film 19 7th February 2011 11:29 PM
Acutance developer or fine grain developer mark d Monochrome Film 18 7th September 2010 08:50 AM
First colour film developed . PMarkey Colour film 5 31st July 2010 07:06 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:48 PM.


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