Alter id68 (microphen) to produce less contrast??

[IOWA CAMERA GUY]

hi all!
shout out koraks (I think it was him) who put me on to microphen.

I love the developer, but it's very contrasty. It's actually perfect contrast - but I'm interested in seeing if I can reduce contrast somehow.

Is there some sort of chemical I can add/reduce in the id68/microphen formula - or some sort of treatment I can do to produce less contrast with it?

ty!

I don’t know if you got the correct information on what is causing your contrast issue.

There are 3 parts to developing b/w film - assuming you have properly mixed the chemistry (duh!): Time, temperature and agitation.

Generally speaking time and temperature control the DENSITY of the negative.

The amount of agitation you use will affect the CONTRAST.

More agitation (more vigorous or longer time) will affect the contrast.

With more agitation, fresh(er) chemistry washes over the surface of the film more often and provides more/better developing action.

Everybody seems to have their own magic bullet for this, but a reasonable rule of thumb, for ’normal results’ is 5 seconds of agitation every 30 seconds.

That involves about 2-3 full tank inversions, just swishing the tank around won't do it, inversions physically move fresh(er) chemistry THROUGH THE SPIRALS OF THE FILM, which swishing around won't do as well or as thoroughly.

To improve the contrast of the negative do 3 or 4 inversions instead of 2.

Of course if you did continuous agitation then the contrast would increase much more, but that isn't usually where you want to go.

FIRST, set up a standard development time and a consistent agitation procedure, THEN you can make changes as you gain experience.

My basic plan was 68F, 8 to 8-1/2 minutes as a starting point and meticulous exposure.

I’ve done everything from B/W to E-4 and E-6 slide film and color printing, so pretty much done it all.

60+ years in photo, owned/ran a camera store for 50 years.

Good luck.

 

[MingMingPhoto]

Yes, there are differences with developers, and they can be quite large, but with any developer negative contrast is a function of exposure and development time.

Ilford spent some years working on Autophen before marketing it. They realised the slight gain in speed with a PQ variant of ID-11/D76 and then exploited this further with ID-68/Microphen, one major step was reducing the Sodium Sulphite. Developers like Adox Borax MQ & Ahgfa 17/Agfa Ansco 47 give slightly better film speed compared to ID-11/D76.

The formula for Autophen was incorrectly claimed to be that of Microphen in the Photo Lab Index, and then many other US publications, just one of hundreds of errors il the Photo Lab Index.

My point is though that Autophen and ID-68/Microphen are quite similar, and you would need a more significant change in developer to make it worthwhile changing developer.

Ian

ah ok i see, just contrast. do you feel that d76 is significantly different from microphen?

but going back to the constant thing, it makes total sense it’s more to do with time since the shadows are nothing more than the base of the film and you can continue build highlight and midtones on top of that base.

thank you for the clear break down

 

[IOWA CAMERA GUY]

I have just stuck with D-76 1:1, 68F and the 8 to 8-1/2 minute times as I noted, for my own work, mostly because D-76 was available EVERYWHERE and a good, solid developer.

Control of temperature throughout the developing process is paramount, thermal shock can up the appearance of grain.

From developing temperature to the temperature of the wash water, it must be very stable.

Developers are developers, and as Ian Grant noted above different developers yield different results.

The other issue is that (back before B&H and EVERYTHING PHOTOGRAPHIC), you used whatever your local camera store carried, if you had one.

We carried D-76, D-11, Microdol-X, Diafine, Acufine, Ilford ID-11 and one other from Ilford which I cannot think of now, TMAX developer, Kodak, Ilford, Fuji and Agfa films.

24 running feet of Kodak, Ilford and Agfa papers, in 100 boxes and 25-sheet packs - essentially if they sold it, we had it.

And this was in a pretty small footprint store, plus a full array of cameras, lenses, and a VERY wide range of accessories.

A full lab processing setup (FUJI) color printing, up to 12x18, black & white, up to 16x20, E-6 slide processor and digital services.

Literally, the ONLY photo processes we did NOT offer were Kodachrome slide processing, and movie film processing - WAAAAY COMPLICATED.
================================
AND CONTRAST IS MAINLY CONTROLLED BY AGITATION, AS I NOTED, DENSITY IS TIME AND TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED.

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, DEVELOP A ROLL OF B/W FILM IN A TANK W/O AGITATION, AND SEE HOW THE CONTRAST LOOKS.

THE DENSITY WILL BE THERE, PROBABLY, BUT THE CONTRAST WILL BE VERY LOW.

The rule of thumb was/is that if your negatives printed OK on a #2 or #3 paper, you were pretty much on the money for agitation (contrast) during development.

 

[Ian Grant]

ah ok i see, just contrast. do you feel that d76 is significantly different from microphen?

but going back to the constant thing, it makes total sense it’s more to do with time since the shadows are nothing more than the base of the film and you can continue build highlight and midtones on top of that base.

thank you for the clear break down

"since the shadows are nothing more than the base of the film"

This shows it's an exposure issue, there should be detail in the shadows. You need to increase exposure by maybe half a stop, The perhaps drop development by 10%.

Ian

 

[koraks]

AND CONTRAST IS MAINLY CONTROLLED BY AGITATION, AS I NOTED, DENSITY IS TIME AND TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED.

That's a very contentious remark. And no, I don't agree with it, also based on many, many experiments with stand and semi-stand development. I think it's also an oxymoron at a theoretical level: if no agitation means no contrast, then a stand-developed negative would come out with a perfectly equal tone and no differentiation in density whatsoever. It evidently does. So what this leaves is the old story of compensation through local exhaustion, which, as said, is a contentious topic mostly because there are so many factors that affect the degree to which this compensation occurs.

Agitation does influence contrast through the intermediate variable of supply of active developer to the film surface. Local developer activity is furthermore influenced by developer makeup, developer temperature and of course the compound effect is influenced by the time the developer can work on the emulsion.

I really can't get behind the (over-)simplification of one processing parameter affecting overall density and another affecting contrast. It's not a tenable position from a theoretical viewpoint, nor does empirical evidence support it particularly well.

 

[Ian Grant]

That's a very contentious remark. And no, I don't agree with it, also based on many, many experiments with stand and semi-stand development. I think it's also an oxymoron at a theoretical level: if no agitation means no contrast, then a stand-developed negative would come out with a perfectly equal tone and no differentiation in density whatsoever. It evidently does. So what this leaves is the old story of compensation through local exhaustion, which, as said, is a contentious topic mostly because there are so many factors that affect the degree to which this compensation occurs.

Agitation does influence contrast through the intermediate variable of supply of active developer to the film surface. Local developer activity is furthermore influenced by developer makeup, developer temperature and of course the compound effect is influenced by the time the developer can work on the emulsion.

I really can't get behind the (over-)simplification of one processing parameter affecting overall density and another affecting contrast. It's not a tenable position from a theoretical viewpoint, nor does empirical evidence support it particularly well.

Totally agree.

Ian

 

[IOWA CAMERA GUY]

"since the shadows are nothing more than the base of the film"

This shows it's an exposure issue, there should be detail in the shadows. You need to increase exposure by maybe half a stop, The perhaps drop development by 10%.

Ian

I would agree, they seem to maybe have mixed up exposure density with contrast but who knows? Good to see people back at it with film again, they seem to be having some fun going through the process of getting it right.

 

[MingMingPhoto]

hi guys!
so I love the results of id68 with my black and white films. but when I shoot at box speed I get wayyyyy too much density on my negatives. wayyy too much contrast.

I have been under exposing to try to compensate - but I'd like to know if there's more or less of a chemical I can put in my developer to reduce this intense build up.

I'm guessing less phenidone since I learned it's the most powerful developer in the the mix.

please lmk!

 

[koraks]

Just develop shorter; it'll build less density. If you want a chemical solution, just add water. Dilute your ID68 further down with water. E.g. if you're now using it full-strength, try it 1+1 or even 1+2.

I'm guessing less phenidone

That will throw off the phenidone:hydroquinone ratio. It will slow down the developer, so it'll kind of work. But why try to improve on a tried & tested formula? If you have too much density, just develop shorter, that's all there is to it!

PS: underexposure will mostly affect the shadows, so you end up with little or no shadow detail. I.e....underexposure (surprising, eh!) It will only marginally affect the highlights, at least within a range where you don't end up in problematic underexposure territory. So the real solution to too much development, is just less development. It's really that simple.

PPS: I suspect that the solution you tried, i.e. underexposure, just made matters worse. What happens is that as you reduce exposure, you lose shadow detail. Since overall contrast in the negative will drop only a little, and you end up compensating for this in digital post processing or enlarger printing anyway, what you end up with is large black shadows and the same highlights. I.e. the general impression of the same image/scene will be of higher contrast.

PPPS: all of the above is in the assumption that you have already determined for sure that the highlight density in your negatives really is too high. Please verify if this is truly the case. I have my doubts, given the nature of your question.

 

[Craig]

You can also process at a lower temperature, and/or a shorter time as Koraks mentioned.

What is the final use of the negatives? Are you scanning or printing optically? I have found that some scanners can't deal will with dense highlights, but they are easily printable in the darkroom.

Be careful about judging the quality of negatives from scans, rather than from the negatives themselves.

 

[ags2mikon]

If you reduce your development time 15-20% and shoot at box speed you may be spot on.

 

[mshchem]

Double check your thermometer. Seriously

 

[Lachlan Young]

As others have said: process controls!

ID-68/ Microphen are capable of delivering a very broad range of aim contrast indices. With some materials and some aim densities it can overshoot relatively quickly, but only if your process is majorly out of control.

A sufficiently accurate thermometer and timer (and if needed, densitometer), not messing up the formulation are what you need to be referring to as a matter of first principle in order to resolve a suitable development time.

 

[Ian Grant]

ID-68/Microphen gives an effective increase in film speed roughly two thirds of a stop, so a slight reduction in exposure and dev time should solve the problem.

From memory older Ilford's older datasheets suggested 200 ISO for FP4 developed in Microphen compared to the 125 ISO box speed, and 640 ISO for HP5.

Ian

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

What film?

 

[Doremus Scudder]

If your negatives are consistently overexposed, i.e., too dense shadows, then rate your film faster and vice versa.

If your negatives are consistently too contrasty, reduce development time and vice versa.

That's about all you need. Just juggle those two variables till you get results you like. Don't mess with the formula to try and achieve this.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Donald Qualls]

If your negatives are consistently overexposed, i.e., too dense shadows, then rate your film faster and vice versa.

If your negatives are consistently too contrasty, reduce development time and vice versa.

This. Since I learned developing the second time, in high school (1975 or so).

 

[MingMingPhoto]

thank you everyone.

for those that asked:
I'm shooting mostly bwxx (and have hand spooled double xx as well)
ortho 80 ilford
sometimes tx400

also - yes defiantly too much density judging form the negatives themselves. the goal is to optically print the negatives - but i also want to scan them. I have an hs1800 noritsu scanner and it struggles with the density. when printing in the darkroom I have to consistnely print at 0 or 00. but tbh I really used to love making prints at 00 as a "artist proof print" and then printing at 2 ish for the final print.

if the advice everyone has given doens't work I'll post again about it and hopefully I'lll ahve a new solve (messing with the chemicals)

I will take the advice of developing shorter. and I'll also go against the advice of not messing with the formula cause why not?

 

[koraks]

cause why not?

Cause it ain't necessary and you risk getting lost a heck of a lot further in the woods, that's why.

Just give less development. Easy. Don't overcomplicate things. This ain't rocket science.

 

[skahde]

I will take the advice of developing shorter. and I'll also go against the advice of not messing with the formula cause why not?

Please keep us updated... sounds promising with respect to our entertainment.

Or just stick to only changing one parameter at a time and shorten the development.

 

[ags2mikon]

Once you start adding or subtracting from the formula you will not have ID-68. The smart people at Ilford spent a lot of time and effort into getting the developers, phenidone and hydroquinone in balance and the borax to boric acid ratio right to keep the ph stable and at a point for good overall control. This is a fine formulae as it it is. You just have to fine tune your exposure and time to get a good negative. I have found that the times and E.I, given by Ilford to be very close. Fomapan 400 was another story.

 

[Romanko]

Check your camera.

 

[MingMingPhoto]

ok all you debbie downers - I liked the results from reducing development time by 20% so I probably wont waste time in making my own formula at the moment. but if i live a long life, I'll go against you all and make my own mix of chemicals.

 

[koraks]

I encourage you to do so - and I'm happy to hear that the -20% already seems to have helped!

 

[skahde]

ok all you debbie downers - I liked the results from reducing development time by 20% so I probably wont waste time in making my own formula at the moment. but if i live a long life, I'll go against you all and make my own mix of chemicals.

No complaints from my side if you first fixed the obvious problem at hand, learn from it and venture further from there. If you have a firm base to start from there is nothing to fear when you try something new.