Delcate Ilford emulsions ?

[Rupie]

There are many posts on many sites as to how you should wash and handle film, during development, and everyone has their own opinion.

This post hopes to be a little different. A couple of years ago I got back into film, 120. I started using Acros 100 and found it fine. Last week I shot some HP5. I have hand tank developed a number of rolls of both the HP5 and Acros. The HP5 has come out with streaks and lots more dust specks, by a mile, but was handled exactly as the acros 100. There is nothing special to my system, washed 6 minutes, finished in a drying cabinet. All done in a very dust free environment, at a normal temp, without wetting agent. If my process was wrong then both film types should come out just as bad.

 

[railwayman3]

Very odd. I've, personally, never noticed any issues in that respect with Ilford films (and HP5+, with its previous versions way back to HP3, has been a favourite film of mine for years). Or any particular differences with products from the other big makers ? (and nothing special to my system either, just normal care in a home darkroom situation).

 

[Ron789]

I have no experience with Acros but comparing Ilford films with Kodak I do notice that Ilford film is indeed more delicate. The film is more vulnerable. In your case, my guess is that the drying cabinet is causing the problem. I also get lots of dust when drying film in my drying cabinet. I suppose this is caused by the intense air circulation. Every dust particle sooner or later bumps into a film and depending on the characteristics of the film surface, it will stick to it.
I therefore don't use my drying cabinet for films any longer, I let my films dry in plain air.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Within films of medium speed, namely FP4 versus Acros versus TMX, I've noted how the Ilford emulsion is more susceptible, but not really a serious problem. I rarely shoot HP5 in anything but 8x10 format, and never have had an issue with that. I try to avoid developing temps higher than 70F.

 

[StephenT]

I've had a couple of issues with HP5+ in 120 myself. It's been said that the film is susceptible to less than very careful handling. I haven't shot any since then, but will and will be EXTRA careful in handling from now on.

 

[darkosaric]

Delicate Ilford emulsions: no such thing. Only delicate emulsions are Foma and Efke - but even those are ok with some basic careful handling.

 

[John Bragg]

All emulsions are delicate, especially when wet.

 

[Xmas]

All emulsions are delicate, especially when wet.

Stick with Acros until you get the same problem.

 

[pentaxuser]

This is the first time I have heard this said. In the past the consensus seemed to be that HP5+ was if anything a particularly tough emulsion. In the semi-darkness of a college print-room I ran water from the hot tap into the tank with no ill effect.

I have no idea about the streaks but dust on the emulsion doesn't seem to be connected to the emulsion's delicacy as I understand the word delicacy

pentaxuser

 

[markbarendt]

Every time my film has been damaged or streaked or spotted, I eventually figured out I was the problem.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have no idea about the streaks but dust on the emulsion doesn't seem to be connected to the emulsion's delicacy as I understand the word delicacy

Exactly. I can't figure out what the connection is either.

I think I may have shot a few hundred rolls of 120 HP5+ by now, and have never considered the emulsion to be delicate.
My method of drying the film is controversial to some, as I use Sprint wetting agent, where it's recommended that the excess fluid on the film is removed prior to hanging it to dry. I do this with a well used windscreen wiper blade, which I dip in wetting agent, run my finger along the edge to make sure no dirt is trapped on it, and simply run it along the entire length of the film, both on the emulsion side and the film base side. Never a scratch with Ilford (or Kodak film). That to me indicates a very strong emulsion, contrary to the notion of it being delicate.

The dust issue is a separate issue, and should be discussed as such. Incidentally, I do get a few more dust spots with HP5 than I did with TMax 400. But still very few.

 

[piu58]

I work a lot with HP5+. It is a fine film and not delicate in a special way.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I work a lot with HP5+. It is a fine film and not delicate in a special way.

That is my experience.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Most certainly streaks are not the fault of the emulsion, and I am presuming the OP means HP5+ because if it's HP5 all bets are off.
No two emulsions, particularly from different manufacturers, behave the same in a processing sequence. It is entirely possible that your technique that works flawlessly for Acros will produce streaking (not well defined by the OP) with HP5+.
Unless the two films are developed and finished simultaneously you cannot compare results in the dust deposited. Even then they are not hanging in precisely the same spot, there is a wall effect on dust and air circulation, particularly in a cabinet or shower, exacerbated by forced circulation.
Other physical conditions materially affect the accumulation, notably, rather obviously, the dust in the ambient air at the time and the relative humidity are key factors. The static load on the film can vary dramatically, was one roll harder to load? Was it handled more? That would increase the static load and potentially the dust attraction. The charge on the dust has a dramatic effect. (Ask vinyl LP aficionados about dust and static).
A lot of work has been done on dust, itself a rather short word for what is suspended in the air which is actually very complex. For example many dry in a shower after running hot water. This increases the humidity, slowing the drying, (said to help prevent curl) giving the emulsion more time to "collect" dust. The theory being the "wet" air "settles" the dust. Studies have shown in real life (well actually under experimental conditions) the dust in that case actually tends to clump together and not "settle" (mainly an electrostatic effect) giving a lower suspended particle count (which would give the impression of "settling" but of larger particles.
Finally (who said "at last" ?) the OP reports on one developing session and, no doubt in all innocence, extrapolates that experience to all HP5+ film developed in all circumstances, in science that is an N=1 trial and provides no evidence at all that can be relied on.

 

[Xmas]

I don't always use HP5+ instead mainly Foma400 neither are to delicate to not tolerate a squeegee.

So I think delicate is not the OPs intent.

If you get dust on film it is not the films fault.

 

[Ian Grant]

It would help knowing what developer was used. However the streaks and dust specks must come from the processing itself I don't recommend using a squeegee though that's a recipe for disaster.

Ilford films have been well hardened during manufacture since the release of FP4 & HP4, no way can they be called delicate.

Ian

 

[Xmas]

It would help knowing what developer was used. However the streaks and dust specks must come from the processing itself I don't recommend using a squeegee though that's a recipe for disaster.

Ilford films have been well hardened during manufacture since the release of FP4 & HP4, no way can they be called delicate.

Ian

But Ian I always use a squegee.
The drying marks you otherwise get in London are horrific, I'd not be able to process.
Not had a scratch yet...
Never had any problem with HP3 either.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Most certainly streaks are not the fault of the emulsion, and I am presuming the OP means HP5+ because if it's HP5 all bets are off.
No two emulsions, particularly from different manufacturers, behave the same in a processing sequence. It is entirely possible that your technique that works flawlessly for Acros will produce streaking (not well defined by the OP) with HP5+.
Unless the two films are developed and finished simultaneously you cannot compare results in the dust deposited. Even then they are not hanging in precisely the same spot, there is a wall effect on dust and air circulation, particularly in a cabinet or shower, exacerbated by forced circulation.
Other physical conditions materially affect the accumulation, notably, rather obviously, the dust in the ambient air at the time and the relative humidity are key factors. The static load on the film can vary dramatically, was one roll harder to load? Was it handled more? That would increase the static load and potentially the dust attraction. The charge on the dust has a dramatic effect. (Ask vinyl LP aficionados about dust and static).
A lot of work has been done on dust, itself a rather short word for what is suspended in the air which is actually very complex. For example many dry in a shower after running hot water. This increases the humidity, slowing the drying, (said to help prevent curl) giving the emulsion more time to "collect" dust. The theory being the "wet" air "settles" the dust. Studies have shown in real life (well actually under experimental conditions) the dust in that case actually tends to clump together and not "settle" (mainly an electrostatic effect) giving a lower suspended particle count (which would give the impression of "settling" but of larger particles.
Finally (who said "at last" ?) the OP reports on one developing session and, no doubt in all innocence, extrapolates that experience to all HP5+ film developed in all circumstances, in science that is an N=1 trial and provides no evidence at all that can be relied on.

I have a little problem, in the "dead of winter" here in Michigan, with static build-up. I use Hewes SS reels and now I'm thinking of using an alligator clip and wire to ground my reel while loading. Just kidding! Is raising the humidity in my loading area the only way to try and limit the static build-up in the film base? John W

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I feel like total amateur here. What is the drying cabinet, what is squeeze and what is London water and what is delicate hanging of film?
Do you, guyz, develop for customers in huge quantities daily?
I'm not in business and I don't need all of it and I don't have problems. Pro-Flo rinse in not even filtered, boiled, distilled water and squeeze with fingers.
Drying in regular bathroom at regular home with dust more like an issue (continuous, massive housing development in town).
Ilford, Kentmere doesn't matter at all. I'm getting spotless prints most of the times.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have a little problem, in the "dead of winter" here in Michigan, with static build-up. I use Hewes SS reels and now I'm thinking of using an alligator clip and wire to ground my reel while loading. Just kidding! Is raising the humidity in my loading area the only way to try and limit the static build-up in the film base? John W

Well, the wetting agent itself usually has anti-static properties. I don't worry too much about it and just hang it up with film clips and/or clothes pins from the strings I installed in the ceiling.

You'll laugh, but I'm in Minnesota and it gets bone dry in the winter here too. With forced air heating there is enough static in the air to create arcs while touching door knobs. I hang my film in my darkroom, which is in the basement, which is not furnished or insulated, or even separated from the forced air furnace which is located about four feet from where I hang my film. We also have three cats that drop hair everywhere and roam free in the entire house, and frankly, I don't have dust problems with my film.

 

[R.Gould]

For the last 50 years I have washed my film under running water, via a piece of hose down the middle of the tank, for 20 minutes,then a brief rinse in tap water with a little bit of washing up liqued in it,with 120 I shake the film and hang it up on a line to dry, nowadays I have a permanent darkroom so I hang the film up there to dry, but before I had my darkroom I would hang the film where I could, with 35 mm I run a sheet of kitchen roll down the shiny side, my water is not filtered, never use de ionsed or distelled water, I still have some of the first films I ever developed, they are fine, no problems feom the wash up stuff, I rarely need to spot, I get get any, and if I do it is very few on an odd negative, many here may think my way of working is asking for problems, but it has served me well for fifty years so I believe in if it ain't broke don't fix it,
Richard

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I use HP5+ and other Ilford films, and never had any issues. Do you presoak before development?