Bad developer from decanting after preparation?

mehguy

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
522
Location
Canada
Format
35mm
Hello,

I recently got back into B&W developing, and mixed up a batch of Ilford ID-11 and after dissolving both packets, I decanted it into two 500ml bottles, and waited overnight to use.

I prepared the solution at ~44 Celsius

These rolls were shot in a Nikon FE, center-weighted exposure metering, aperture priority. Shot at box speed.

I developed two rolls, but both came back as very thin, and faint-looking. This is my methodology:

Ilford ID-11 1:1 Dilution
Ultrafine Finesse 400 developed @ 24 Celsius, compensated to 8:45 minutes (Ilford temperature/time compensation chart)

Start timer after full solution has been poured in
Agitation for first 30 seconds, then 10 seconds after every minute.

30 Second Stop Bath
3:30 minutes Fixer


I thought maybe this is occurring due to me having decanted the developer right after I had mixed it, and not letting it sit overnight in a bottle with the entire solution?

I am not so sure. It didn't take very long for the powder to dissolve for the most part, so I did not spend very much time preparing the stock solution, but maybe it didn't dissolve 100 percent?

Just looking for helpful advice.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1012.JPG
    1.7 MB · Views: 85
  • IMG_1009.JPG
    1.3 MB · Views: 78
Last edited:

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,860
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
What film is it, and what developing time did you use?

I notice there are no edge markings, and the base+fog looks like it might be on the high side, but it's hard to tell from your photos. Was the film relatively fresh, or long past its shelf date?

I can't think of any reason why decanting the developer would make any difference unless you decanted into unclean containers that had some kind of contaminating residue left in them. I asume there was not any significant amount of undisolved particles left behind when you decanted?
 
OP
OP

mehguy

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
522
Location
Canada
Format
35mm

I have added additional details.

When I dissolved the chemistry, there were two-three particles left over, but I had followed the mixing instructions advice of it being normal for these to be "undissolved".

Before developing the rolls, I had thought of maybe mixing the decanted developer into the mixing bowl again just to make sure that the developer in the two bottles is "equal", (for the lack of a better word), but I chose to skip this since I thought it would've been fine.
 
Last edited:

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,128
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
As rusnwíthsizzers has indicated I think the problem lies with your film and exposure rather than your processing. Tell us about those 2 aspects such as what film, expiry date, its exposure in terms of what speed and finally is this the first time you have gotten negs like this from this camera.

It's going to be a question of elimination of possible factors as causes so we need info on those factors

Thanks

pentaxuser
 

Ian C

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
1,273
Format
Large Format
The preparation temperature looks good.

I think it’s the brand-x film. You can test this by shooting a roll of reliable film, such as Ilford, Kodak, or Fuji. Using the same batch of developer. I presume—but don’t know—that the Nikon FE you use has an accurate meter and shutter. It’s probably working properly. Bear in mind that diluted film developer is not to be reused.

Here's the Ilford data for ID-11.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1829/product/551/

On page 9, “We do not recommend reusing diluted developers, 1+1 and 1+3, always use fresh solutions on each occasion.”

Under: Working Solution Life, page 9, “PERCEPTOL, ID-11 and MICROPHEN diluted 1+1 or 1+3 should not be kept for more than 24 hours.”

If this test with standard film yields good negatives, then you’ll have your answer.
 

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,860
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
mehguy said:
These rolls were shot in a Nikon FE, center-weighted exposure metering.
Click to expand...
Did you set the Nikon metering to ASA 400 or something else? When lookng at negatives, sometimes it's hard to distinguish between under-exposure and under-development.

So far, I am inclined to think the problem is not due to your chemistry or developing workflow, but more likely due to either your exposure, or to "bad film." Bad film could be the result of age or storage conditions, or bad information provided by the manufacturer which can lead to choosing an optimistic exposure index setting when metering.

I am not familiar with Ultrafine Finesse 400. Is that a film which is currently available? If it is a discontinued film, and if the film is more than a year or two past its expiration date or if it has not been stored properly, then that might explain your results.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
24,574
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
mehguy said:
I thought maybe this is occurring due to me having decanted the developer right after I had mixed it, and not letting it sit overnight in a bottle with the entire solution?
Click to expand...

Nope, don't worry about that. It's not a factor.


You seem to have some usable density occurring here on the ring in the specular highlights, which suggests that the others who pinpointed systematic underexposure as the problem would be right.

runswithsizzers said:
I am not familiar with Ultrafine Finesse 400.
Click to expand...

Me neither; maybe it's Fomapan 400?
Either way, I'd (1) revise metering practices and (2) try a roll at a lower EI like 200 and see how that goes.
 
OP
OP

mehguy

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
522
Location
Canada
Format
35mm

First Look at Ultrafine Finesse 400: Something Is Not Right — Shawn Bruce

I’ve been using a lot of film this year. In fact, I’ve photographed more than 110 rolls of film, most of which was Kentmere 400. The largest share of that has been from 100 ft boxes of film that I’ve bulk loaded. I recently decided to step outside of my comfort zone with Kentmere to explore another
shawnpbruce.com

I have since found this article with the same film, and getting systemic underexposure.

Changed to 100 and shots were ok. Maybe they accidentally packaged the wrong film? I am not so sure.
 

dcy

Subscriber
Joined
May 9, 2025
Messages
878
Location
New Mexico, USA
Format
35mm
koraks said:
A more likely explanation in my view is that whatever they're selling as Ultrafine Finesse 400 is just being rated very optimistically at 400.
Click to expand...

My first development experience was atrocious, for precisely that reason. ---- Not Ultrafine Finesse 400 in particular, but a different non-standard film that was rated optimistically and my negatives ended up badly underexposed, in many ways reminiscent of OP's negatives.

@mehguy I doubt that someone accidentally packaged the wrong film. Sadly there are companies that rate their film optimistically. I think you should try using a film from Kodak, Ilford, or Kentmere. Those are all accurately rated.

I never understood why companies rate their film optimistically. All it does is annoy users who then won't buy your film again. One specific example I'm thinking of is Fomapan 400. To Foma's credit, they provide a really good spec sheet with nice plots. But their plots show that this film is nowhere near ISO 400.
 
OP
OP

mehguy

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
522
Location
Canada
Format
35mm
I had just shot @ 100 and developed for 400 speed and the results seem much more acceptable.

I will treat it as an 100 ISO film and switch back to Fomapan after I am done with what I have bought.

However, if this film is being rated optimistically, what is Ultrafine finesse 100? the development times are not the same as 400 so they seem to be different emulsions.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,128
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
mehguy said:
I had just shot @ 100 and developed for 400 speed and the results seem much more acceptable.

I will treat it as an 100 ISO film and switch back to Fomapan after I am done with what I have bought.
Click to expand...
Won't switching back to Fomapan result in the same issue if as seems to be the case that Ultrafine 400 is Fomapan 400 film? Of course if you mean that you will treat Foma 400 in the same way as Ultrafine 400 then that sounds fine and just ígnore my question

pentaxuser
 

loccdor

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 12, 2024
Messages
1,929
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format

Two reasons I can think of.

The majority of people who shoot film are not highly technical, unlike the users of this forum, and are mainly doing it to capture a certain mood or nostalgia.

Most of them are digitizing rather than doing darkroom printing which is more forgiving of underexposure on negatives.
 

Rick A

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,980
Location
Laurel Highlands
Format
8x10 Format

As someone who shoots copious amounts of Foma films, ISO speeds are totally dependent on developer choice. When I use HC-110 I compensate by adding one stop, when using PMK, I only need half a stop of extra exposure. Most folks I know simply rate the films at half the listed box speed. When I tried Retropan 320 film I found it perfectly fine at box speed, but needed a good deal more development than called for to get good printable negatives.
 

dcy

Subscriber
Joined
May 9, 2025
Messages
878
Location
New Mexico, USA
Format
35mm

It sounds like you're just underexposing and then pushing the film. Did you get the shadow detail you wanted out of that film?
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,898
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

dcy said:
It sounds like you're just underexposing and then pushing the film. Did you get the shadow detail you wanted out of that film?
Click to expand...

To the contrary, it sounds like he is increasing exposure - "When I use HC-110 I compensate by adding one stop".
 

Rick A

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,980
Location
Laurel Highlands
Format
8x10 Format
dcy said:
It sounds like you're just underexposing and then pushing the film. Did you get the shadow detail you wanted out of that film?
Click to expand...

I followed the info for the film and never was satisfied with the results, so I tried overexposing with lackluster result, then over developing and got what I wanted for alt processes.
 

dcy

Subscriber
Joined
May 9, 2025
Messages
878
Location
New Mexico, USA
Format
35mm
MattKing said:
To the contrary, it sounds like he is increasing exposure - "When I use HC-110 I compensate by adding one stop".
Click to expand...

Yeah. I got that wrong. I was focused on the last sentence about increasing development and didn't pay enough attention. He is increasing exposure and development.
 

dcy

Subscriber
Joined
May 9, 2025
Messages
878
Location
New Mexico, USA
Format
35mm
Rick A said:
I followed the info for the film and never was satisfied with the results, so I tried overexposing with lackluster result, then over developing and got what I wanted for alt processes.
Click to expand...

The fact that you wanted it for alt process probably explains a lot. I have extremely little experience with alt process, but I do know that at least cyanotype needs higher contrast negatives. So you get that by increasing development.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
24,574
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
dcy said:
I do know that at least cyanotype needs higher contrast negatives
Click to expand...

Well, I'm afraid you know that incorrectly...although it kind of depends. Classic cyanotype does well with negatives that print OK at around grade 3-4, so the negatives are on the weak side. But other cyanotype chemistries have different requirements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…