Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> Unintentional rescue remedy for under-exposed FP4+ |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Unintentional rescue remedy for under-exposed FP4+
I recently shot a roll of FP4+ at box-speed and inadvertently ended up closing down by 2 stops for 10/15 shots until I'd realised what'd happened. Oops. So, I thought I'd wasted most of the roll.
I developed the film in what I thought was ID11 1+3 for 18.5 mins (21C)(having found I didn't have enough of what I thought was 1+1, so I added extra water to make up to 1+3.) When I looked at the contact sheet, I was amased. The frames that should have been nearly black were a bit underexposed (~1/2 stop) but usable. The remainder of the frames looked fine, if a little contrasty. Upon printing, I didn't like the contrast so printed at 1 grade lower. I also noticed grain. I thought, 1+3 ID11 and FP4+ should be very fine grained. So, what had happened? I'd rescued the roll of film, got more contrast and grain, but neither contrast nor grain were excessive. I must have pushed the FP4+ unintentionally. When I thought about what I'd done, I realised I'd mixed stock (not 1+1) with 2 parts water: effectively 1+2 and pushed it to 18.5 mins dev time. So the lessons learned are: 1. Always read the label even if it's written by oneself! 2. 1+2 and 18.5 mins is a potentially useful rescue remedy for a 2-stop underexposure of FP4. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I always preferred ID-11 at 1+2 finer grain than 1+3 and sharper and with less drop in speed than full strenght and 1+1.
However I used to get similar results with replenishment with the advantage of very significant economy, but I was using deep taks. Perceptol and Xtol are also excellent at 1+2 you just need to plot a quick graph of the manufacturers recommendations for FS, 1+1 & 1+3 to get a good starting point for 1+2. I can't understand why no manufacturer gives this figure. Ian |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I think the interesting thing is whether with FP4+ at effectively EI 500 the negs were grainier and harder to print than say HP5+ at box speed?
If there is little to choose between them then if most of your light conditions suit FP4+ and it's your favourite you have a safety margin that allows a FP4+ to be used when light conditions become unexpectedly adverse without changing film midway through a roll. Especially useful if its MF. Certainly with my P645N there is no way to use the remainder of a roll once I have wound on from mid-roll - well not one I can think of. Mike |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I have had a long spell of developing 35mm HP5 in D76 at 1+2. I give it 15 minutes and like the results a lot.
Recently I tried 35mm FP4 in the same mix for 14 minutes. but had to print on grade 3.5. So 15 minutes may have been better, though this, of course, depends on how much exposure you give. For FP4 I think Perceptol at 1+2 is a much better bet. My negatives developed in D76 were noticably grainy. Little different to HP5, in fact, in terms of grain and sharpness. But FP4 in Perceptol 1+2 is much better; sharp and fine grained. I think HP5 is slightly better in Perceptol 1+2, in terms of grain. But if you don't mind a hint of grain D76 at 1+2 gives very sharp results with HP5,along with great tonality, and negatives that are very easy to print, in my experience. Alan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I forgot to add that D76 is much better for pushing if you need to do it. Perceptol doesn't do pushing, as everyone knows!
Alan |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Extract from Darkrroom Cookbook (Anchell).
Quote:
ID11 has 100g per litre of stock. 1+2 has 33.33g per litre of working strength. so for finest grain you should be using stock undiluted if that is what you want. same applies with Perceptol which also has 100g sodium sulphite in 1 litre of stock Last edited by Argentum; 7th December 2012 at 06:18 PM. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
More grain and more sharpness...
I have compared HP5 in D76 1+2 and 1+3, and can see very little difference, if any. But compared to 1+1, there is a definite increase in sharpness, and a very slight increase in grain. On a 10 x 8inch print from a 35mm negative the increase in grain is not really noticable from a normal viewing distance. But the increase in sharpness is. So,more grain and more sharpness, but not in equal proportions; in my experience. Alan |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You don't have to reply and I don't wish to start an argument - this is just an observation and your mileage may vary. Cheers, kevs
__________________
Confucius say, "Build a man a fire and he's warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life!" |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Good examples are Tmax 100 and APX100 both of which I did Zone system tests with, to get similar results I shot the Tmax at 50EI and the APX100 at 100EI in 35mm, 120 & 5x4. It's some years since I used FP4 regularly but it was once my main B&W film and I always shot if at 80EI in replenished ID-11. However you're using ID-11 at 1+3 shich has some compensating affects this also helps slightly with the effective EI. The differences between full strenght ID-11 and 1+3 in terms of sharpness and grain are more noticable with 35mm than 120 (6x6) particularly with enlargements of 14" wide, I'm enlarging 6x6 negatives a bit more than that at times and I want the best possible results. Ian |
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Delta 400 exposed at 100 iso | vincent | Monochrome Film | 20 | 20th October 2012 04:28 PM |
Shelf life of exposed E-6 | Keith Cocker | Colour film | 5 | 5th October 2010 10:38 AM |
Old film just exposed | photomi7ch | Monochrome Film | 19 | 6th November 2009 08:28 PM |
Under exposed SFX | Mark Burley | Monochrome Film | 7 | 18th January 2009 01:20 AM |