Curious LPD Issue with Ilford FB Papers

[captainfalco]

I recently purchased some liquid concentrate Ethol LPD and have been using it to develop FB Cooltone (glossy), FB Classic Multigrade (glossy), and FB Classic Multigrade (matte) as well as RC Portoflio (pearl). I had been having excellent results with Ethol LPD (powder mix) at 1:3 dilution paired with RC Portfolio as well as FB Matte and Glossy in the past. But, for some reason, this liquid concentrate version of LPD while still working exactly the same for the RC Portolio, now has drastically different development times - and they are VERY long development times. After testing, I'm inclined to think the liquid version (apparently twice as strong as the powder mix) is not what's causing issues with spotty development and chronic underdevelopment with the Ilford FB papers. I am flummoxed.


In one session, I tried all of the FB Ilford papers I mention above, plus the RC Portolio, with Ethol LPD at 1:4 dilution (68-70 degrees) using the same negative. Whereas a 3-4 minute development with the RC Portfolio produces a rich image, the FB papers take no less than 10 - 25 minutes. Yes, it takes that long for it to fully develop, or come close. For 3/4 of the development time, the print looks like a very dull, flat image. (FYI, I'm using a moderately dense negative with a #3 filter). It's not the enlarger time because I experimented with drastically longer times doubling, even tripling the time plus opening up a stop on the enlarger. When I did overexpose the image, the faded development would make its slow progress as before but you could tell the image was overdeveloped. Overdeveloping made no impact on the very slow trudge of development and that flat, low contrast result. Sometimes spots would appear on the image. I think that might be because of the amount of time it is spending in the developer.


Is there something particular about these Ilford FB papers that doesn't react well with Ethol LPD? I thought it might be the LPD developer, but when my Ilford RC Portfolio prints were coming out as expected, I had to wonder if there was something particular about the FB papers (versus RC). Of the three FB papers I tried, the FB Cooltone glossy performed the worst, the Classic matte finish was a little better, and the Classic glossy came somewhat close to the RC Portfolio, but with an unexpectedly long development time of roughly 13 minutes. The blacks were a tad flat and everything was generally duller, though it was much better than the absolute flat junk that resulted with the matte and the cool tone papers.


What's most frustrating is that using the same settings, the RC Portfolio paper comes out great and all FB papers come out underdeveloped or slightly flat and underdeveloped (even after as much as 25 minutes of development). The development sometimes produces spots on the paper. Very curious.


Your help is much appreciated!

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Very curious indeed.

You need a control. Try developing in another developer (Dektol, D-72, Bromophen or the like) and see if your paper develops normally in them.

Usual print developing times are 2-3 minutes, not 10-25! If another developer works well, then maybe it's the LPD, but I have a hunch that the problem lies somewhere else besides the developer...

Keep us posted.

Doremus

 

[pentaxuser]

I'd have thought that there must be enough liquid LPD users who print Ilford FB on APUG for this to have arisen before if it is simply a question of that combo being "bad". It really is puzzling and based on what you have said you seem to have covered most of the obvious problems so that is the extent of my help unfortunately.

pentaxuser

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Just a thought. I don't use RC papers, but I believe that Ilford RC papers have an incorporated developer. If that's the case (I hope someone can confirm or deny this) and your LPD developer was just bad, that would explain why the RC paper was the only one that developed well. The developer in the RC paper would be enough to give an acceptable image, but the bad LPD wouldn't with other papers without a built-in developing agent. Again, you need to mix up some other developer that you know is good (i.e., fresh from the package) and test.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Rick A]

I have no experience with liquid LPD, but I do use LPD mixed from powder exclusively. My experience with Ilford FB MGWT is, it requires 2x - 4x development times as the RC papers for my method, no matter which dilution I use.

 

[MattKing]

In days gone by, Simon Galley has posted that no Ilford papers use incorporated developers.

On the other hand, Photo Engineer has posted that he has seen developing activity when certain papers are placed in an alkaline solution.

And as I understand PE's other posts, one of the techniques used to fine tune the contrast and speed of papers is to add minute amounts of developer to the emulsion.

I doubt though that there is enough developer incorporated in the RC paper to make the difference described by the OP.

 

[captainfalco]

It was indeed the developer! I bought some powder LPD and it works great. I don't know why the liquid LPD was so problematic. The store gave me a deal on the gallon, so my guess is that it had been sitting around for a while. Thanks for the advice!