Bad developer from decanting after preparation?

[mehguy]

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.

 

[runswithsizzers]

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?

 

[mehguy]

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?

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

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]

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]

These rolls were shot in a Nikon FE, center-weighted exposure metering.

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]

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?

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.

I am not familiar with Ultrafine Finesse 400.

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.

 

[mehguy]

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.

 

[koraks]

Maybe they accidentally packaged the wrong film?

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.

 

[dcy]

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.

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.

 

[mehguy]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[bernard_L]

I had just shot @ 100 and developed for 400 speed and the results seem much more acceptable.

If your film was rated optimistically you must shoot for a lower rating. Developing "for 400" will not help very much except maybe to blow the highlights.

 

[MattKing]

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.

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

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

 

[Rick A]

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

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.