Can I use Ilford PQ Universal to develop 35mm film?

[ColdEye]

Hi! I just bought my darkroom chemicals and equipment. I picked it up in Nelson Photo. The developer they have there is Ilford PQ Universal. Then while I was reading the label (after I bought it, stupid me) it says do not use on 135/120. Is there a way to use this on normal BW film (fuji neopan 400)?

 

[MattKing]

Hi! I just bought my darkroom chemicals and equipment. I picked it up in Nelson Photo. The developer they have there is Ilford PQ Universal. Then while I was reading the label (after I bought it, stupid me) it says do not use on 135/120. Is there a way to use this on normal BW film (fuji neopan 400)?

How much do you like grainy negatives?

Unless the answer is "a lot", you don't want to use this developer for 35mm film.

It is very good as a paper developer.

 

[ColdEye]

I like grain, but too much is not good. how grainy are we talking about?

 

[MattKing]

Tough to describe - and actually, my experience was with either HP5 or Tri-X, not with Neopan.

Personally, I'd wait until I had an appropriate film developer in hand.

 

[2F/2F]

It is not recommended by Ilford for 35mm film, because it causes a lot of graininess. They say it works OK with larger formats. If you want grain, I'd go right ahead! Using paper developer to get grain is a common trick.

 

[ColdEye]

Hmmm. Yeah, I guess I'll wait, the ones I'm gonna develop are quite important to me. How about kodak xtol? the one in powder form? Is that suitable? Can't remember if that was the other developer they had or if it is dektol.

 

[2F/2F]

Hmmm. Yeah, I guess I'll wait, the ones I'm gonna develop are quite important to me. How about kodak xtol? the one in powder form? Is that suitable? Can't remember if that was the other developer they had or if it is dektol.

Check out the Kodak Webpage for a listing of their developers, and what they are intended for. X-Tol is a film developer. Dektol is a paper developer. They both come as powders.

 

[ColdEye]

Thanks, will do that. Can't wait to try developing.

 

[mr.datsun]

I like grain, but too much is not good. how grainy are we talking about?

Although Ilford do not recommend this developer for 35mm, I've used it for 35mm TX400. It's quite fine grained, imo. I think more so than Rodinal at 1+25. Actually, I was almost disappointed in its finess.

So I used PQ on TX400 @ 320ASA. Diluted 1:19 for 4mins with agitation for 30s + 5s every 30s. Personally I'd like to try 1:9 but the shorter dev time would be hard to handle!

Worth exploring on a film you can afford to experiment with.

 

[2F/2F]

It's called a universal developer for a reason and I've used it for 35mm film. It's quite fine grained, imo. Actually, I was almost disappointed in its finess.

I used PQ on TX400 @ 320ASA 1:19 for 4mins with agitation for 30s + 5s every 30s.

Well worth exploring.

I do not doubt it with tabular-grained films. It would be hard to make T-Max all that grainy in almost any developer.

 

[ColdEye]

how about in neopan 400 instead of tmax? Ok, i will try a test roll and use your dev shots. Thanks very much. Can I see some picture samples?

 

[mr.datsun]

I do not doubt it with tabular-grained films. It would be hard to make T-Max all that grainy in almost any developer.

I meant to type 400TX – ie. Tri-X.

 

[Rick A]

My recommendation for film is Kodak D-76. This is the developer that all others are compared to. Mix the powder to a stock solution and use straight or diluted, you won't be disappointed in the results(unless you err). Tri-X and D-76 is an age-old favorite combo of many photographers.

 

[2F/2F]

I meant to type 400TX – ie. Tri-X.

My mistake. I read your post wrong.

The new Tri-X is actually a very fine grained film, despite the reputation of Tri-X in general. It looses sharpness as you enlarge it more and more, but the grain is not terribly apparent even in 8x enlargements.

What size prints did you make from your film?

 

[mr.datsun]

My mistake. I read your post wrong.

The new Tri-X is actually a very fine grained film, despite the reputation of Tri-X in general. It looses sharpness as you enlarge it more and more, but the grain is not terribly apparent even in 8x enlargements.

What size prints did you make from your film?

Increasingly off-topic but I think I agree about 400TX and grain. It's a got a very tight modern technological feel to it – at least in RO9. It's OK, but I'm not sure I like it that much. I wish they'd stuck to the old Tri-X formula. I think the only film that ticks my boxes as far as grain goes is HP5+. That film seems to remain fairly immune to those market forces that desire the grainless scannable film for that smooth photoshop look.

Looking through my contact sheets and prints, I realised that i didn't print from the end of the tri-x roll done in PQ universal. Contact looked good, but I think I evaluated the grain looking through the focus scope! I will do a print this week, though.

 

[Ian Grant]

You can use PQ Universal and the grain is quite reasonably fine, not much different to D76 in fact and the negatives are a touch sharper. However you'd need to use a dilution like 1+19 or better still 1+29.

Ilford used to publish times for 120 films in PQ Universal a starting point would be 7 minutes at 1+19 @ 20°C. I did test 35mm FP4 in PQ Universal in the mid 1980's along with some other developers and the results were impressive but there was a slight speed loss compared to Rodinal and ID-11.

Ian

 

[mr.datsun]

I had another look and identified the print from Universal PQ as I was worrying that I'd imagined the fine grain. The print confirms a subtle fine grain at 6x enlargement. Much less grain than RO9.