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

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
  #21  
Old 5th December 2020, 05:31 PM
Alan Clark Alan Clark is online now
Friend
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 1,308
Default

There was a time when I never considered using Perceptol. As a Stock solution or at a dilution of 1+1 it was considered to be a fine-grain developer. Something in it ate away the grain, and also ate away the sharpness. And it gave reduced film speed. I didn't need any of these qualities, so never used it.
Then I read Barry Thornton's book Elements. He really rated Perceptol , but in a more dilute form. He said a 1+3 dilution gave even finer grain, and increased sharpness. And put the film speed back up to near normal. He seemed to think it was the best thing you could use, but complained that nobody believed him when he said how good it was. He also said that 1+3 development times were very long, but you could safely develop at 24degrees C. to shorten the time. And you could reduce the dilution to 1+2 with no visual difference from 1+3, and this resulted in shorter development times. I think he quoted HP5 times at 12 minutes for the 1+2 dilution.
So naturally I gave it a try. I found that 35mm FP4 was gorgeous in Perceptol 1+2 or 1+3. And that HP5 was very good, but I preferred it in ID11 at 1+2, though there was very little difference. Further trials have convinced me that Perceptol 1+2 is slightly sharper than ID11 1+2. Both work very well as compensating developers, with bright-mid tones and no mid-tone compression. So I plan to use Perceptol 1+2 exclusively when my stock of ID11 runs out.

Alan
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 5th December 2020, 08:24 PM
Svend Svend is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,066
Default

Alan, that's really good to know that you are getting those results with Perceptol at 1+2.

My impression of sharpness and grain at 1+1 is that with HP5 it is as sharp as ID-11 at 1+1, but with better fine detail rendering and significantly finer grain. I don't see any sharpness loss at 1+1, in other words. I have read that when the sulphite (which is the solvent in fine grain developers) gets below a certain concentration, the developer no longer acts like a solvent developer and the sharpness reducing action that using it full strength gives, is no longer in play. I can't recall the sulphite value, but perhaps it's in one of Thornton's books.

I will have to try it with FP4 at 1+2 and see how it works for me. I just know that I wasn't fond of how 1+3 looked wrt. to tonal depth, so I switched to 1+1 and am happy with that, at least with HP5 and PanF. TBH, I have struggled to find a good developer combo of any type to use with FP4...nothing I've tried has really clicked with me. Perhaps Perceptol at 1+2 is the answer. I will let you know how I get on with it. Thanks for the tip!
__________________
Regards,
Svend
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 6th December 2020, 08:48 AM
adrianlambert adrianlambert is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 54
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Aislabie View Post
Hi Adrian



Are you using a Jobo 3010 tank ?



If so, I use 250ml of ID11 at 1+1 (500ml total) and dump it at the end.



I value consistency over economy.



Running out of active developer prevents the films highlights from fully developing while increasing base fog.



Martin


Thanks Martin. As soon as I have my densitometer calibrated Iíll be able to report on these.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 6th December 2020, 08:52 AM
adrianlambert adrianlambert is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 54
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Clark View Post
And you could reduce the dilution to 1+2 with no visual difference from 1+3, and this resulted in shorter development times. I think he quoted HP5 times at 12 minutes for the 1+2 dilution.

Alan
Thanks.

Maybe if thereís no visual difference from 1+2 to 1+3 itís worth trying 2+3?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 6th December 2020, 09:44 AM
Alan Clark Alan Clark is online now
Friend
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 1,308
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svend View Post
Alan, that's really good to know that you are getting those results with Perceptol at 1+2.

My impression of sharpness and grain at 1+1 is that with HP5 it is as sharp as ID-11 at 1+1, but with better fine detail rendering and significantly finer grain. I don't see any sharpness loss at 1+1, in other words. I have read that when the sulphite (which is the solvent in fine grain developers) gets below a certain concentration, the developer no longer acts like a solvent developer and the sharpness reducing action that using it full strength gives, is no longer in play. I can't recall the sulphite value, but perhaps it's in one of Thornton's books.

I will have to try it with FP4 at 1+2 and see how it works for me. I just know that I wasn't fond of how 1+3 looked wrt. to tonal depth, so I switched to 1+1 and am happy with that, at least with HP5 and PanF. TBH, I have struggled to find a good developer combo of any type to use with FP4...nothing I've tried has really clicked with me. Perhaps Perceptol at 1+2 is the answer. I will let you know how I get on with it. Thanks for the tip!
Good luck Svend. Try it with 35mm then the differences will show up more clearly in normal size prints.

Alan
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 6th December 2020, 09:46 AM
Alan Clark Alan Clark is online now
Friend
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 1,308
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianlambert View Post
Thanks.

Maybe if thereís no visual difference from 1+2 to 1+3 itís worth trying 2+3?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Hi Adrian, yes, of course, do whatever you need to satisfy your curiosity and learn how the thing works.

Alan
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 6th December 2020, 02:11 PM
Svend Svend is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Clark View Post
Good luck Svend. Try it with 35mm then the differences will show up more clearly in normal size prints.

Alan
Will do Alan. I've been using it mostly with 120 films lately, as I haven't shot much 35mm in the past few years. That has to change, as I really miss the look of 35mm for certain scenes. And the quality of the prints from this format can be outstanding....makes me wonder why I bother with the big MF cameras so often.
__________________
Regards,
Svend
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 14th December 2020, 10:32 PM
adrianlambert adrianlambert is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 54
Default

I went with a 1+2 ratio. The negs looked denser than Iíd expected. Especially the Fomapan. I thought that was going to be really held back as Iíve been using supergrain which Robert Vonk reckoned was good for box speed exposures. Def not as much density in the shadows as the DD-X but not by that much. From the TMY2, the Foma200 and the HP5 Iíve settled on the HP5. And will be using DD-X for box speed and up. Hopefully no more than 640asa. And Perceptol 2+3 for 320asa and 1+1 for 250. The minimum quantity concerns that I had seems to have not been a problem at all. Bit gutted to be dropping Fomapan but I just canít seem to get a sheet out of the DD without catching the emulsion somewhere. TMY2 sheets looked surprisingly thin with both DD-X and Perceptol 1+2. Maybe I fluffed the exposure a fraction but itís proving harder to print than the others so itís out too. I need to take my mind off of all this now and just make some good negs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 15th December 2020, 12:21 AM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is online now
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 7,845
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianlambert View Post
. The minimum quantity concerns that I had seems to have not been a problem at all.
What was the minimum quantity you used and with which of the films , Adrian

Thanks

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 15th December 2020, 08:57 PM
adrianlambert adrianlambert is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 54
Default

@mike I used 100ml and 200ml to cover the 270ml requirement. I devved tmy2 Fomapan 200 and HP5. Also the same films in DDX. The difference wasnít as much as Iíd expected. Iím waiting on a calibration target from Stouffler now which I expect will arrive in the U.K. late dec or early January so I can get my Ihara t500 calibrated, then I can see whatís going on with a little more clarity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   Keyphoto   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   RK Photo   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies   Silverprint Ltd

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 minimum stock sol'n for one-shot dilutions Svend Monochrome Film 63 19th July 2016 03:31 PM
Contact printing 5x4: the bare minimum DaveP Monochrome printing techniques 16 2nd November 2013 04:41 PM
Kodak Film should I stock up just in case. GoodOldNorm Photography in general 73 8th September 2012 11:49 PM
New 5x4 stock film Dave miller Monochrome Film 30 4th November 2011 08:40 AM
Silverprint Minimum No More! Martin Reed New products and offers 11 1st February 2011 03:40 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.