AA's Value I density targets

Bill Burk said:

1.17/2.10 = 0.55 … I don’t see any reason to try for a higher contrast.

Age fog could have cost you some speed (unless Base+Fog is close to Base).

At that contrast (to rise 0.07) you are 0.13 away from Zone I reaching 0.10

By that reckoning (0.13 is close enough to round off and say you need to increase exposure by 0.1 = 1/3 stop) you can subtract one-third stop from speed = EI 160

Click to expand...

Bill Burk said:

I don’t know. Seems like you could look at times for Microdol-X which massive dev chart shows as 10 minutes stock or 23 minutes 1+3 for 125 speed. So maybe the same 16 minutes 1:1

Click to expand...

markbau said:

Ilford shows a 2 minute reduction for FP4 compared to HP5 so maybe I’ll start by taking 2 minutes off. I’ve found too many whacko times in the massive chart to ever trust it.

Click to expand...

markbau said:

So I just did another zone 1 and zone 8 test. It should be noted that the film had a best before date of Nov 2017 and had not been refrigerated although it was kept in a basement that never gets over 18C.

120 TX @ EI 200 developed 12 min in D 23 1:1 12 minutes Patterson tank 30 sec inversions.

Zone 1 .03 above fb+fog
Zone 8 .99 above fb+fog.

In the pictorial photos on the rolls the shadows look a bit thin even though I gave those pics plenty of exposure. (Rated at EI 200 and in full sun, sunny 16 rule and then open another stop)
The zone tests were metered with a Zone 6 modified meter. Is this lack of shadow detail due to the age of the film?
The D 23 was freshly made up 2 days ago
Can I deduce anything from the zone 8 density when the zone 1 was so low? Or can I still safely say that the neg could have used a bit more development?
Next test will be just purchased FP4+

Click to expand...