Developer comparisons

[Kingbobdole]

Hi,
I'm just getting back into the whole developing thing after a 10 year or so hiatus. I went to my not-so-local store and grabbed some Ilford Ilfosol 3 developer and some rapid fix. I'm shooting in some strange efke R100 127 size film through an old yashica 44.

In the film box it says when using Ilford ID11 that the processing time is 8 minutes. It is about the same for the Ilfosol 3 I have? I tried the massive dev chart on digital truth, but it was no help.

There is also an option for better "economy" to use a 1+14 mix. Should I use that or just stick to 1+9?

Also, the rapid fixer... How long should I mix that in for?

Thanks for the help!

 

[Ian Grant]

The Massive Developing chart is too unreliable, go by manufacturers own data-sheets.

Efke R100 is the same as EFKE/Adox 100 the designation R, Kb. Pl, just stand for R - Roll, Kb -(Kine) 35mm and PL 0 cut film.

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

XTOL to get the finest grain in Tri-X and soon to start with Pyro Rollo for fine grain and keeping the highlights from being blown out.

Steve

 

[bdial]

As Ian says, forget the Massive chart.
Here's where to get the Ilford data sheets; http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/default.asp
For reference the Kodak data is available here; http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/cpq/features/featuresIndexUS.jhtml?pq-path=522
Ilford doesn't show times for Efke however, so you might try starting off with the FP4 times.
Different developer dilutions will produce slightly different results, which one is better is up to your taste. Unless you are processing quite a lot, the economy thing doesn't matter much, and for most developers it's better to use it up faster so that it doesn't go bad.
The fixer should have recommended times on the bottle, otherwise look at the data sheets. The "normal" time for most films is double the time it takes to clear the film - that is double the time it takes to lose the "milky" appearance.

 

[2F/2F]

I would find an Ilford developing chart that lets you compare ID-11 times to Ilfosol times in general. Since there are published times for the film in D-76 (which is the same as ID-11), you should be able to make an educated guess by doing this. For instance, say that Ilfosol times are 20% longer than ID-11 on average. Try adding 20% to the 8 minutes. Yes, I made these numbers up, so don't use them!

 

[Anscojohn]

The Massive Developing chart is too unreliable, go by manufacturers own data-sheets.

Efke R100 is the same as EFKE/Adox 100 the designation R, Kb. Pl, just stand for R - Roll, Kb -(Kine) 35mm and PL 0 cut film.

Ian

*******
FWIW, I think the KB stands for Kleinbild--small format?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

This is good advice. Any published developing times are 'recommended' times, because your film handling and Kodak's film handling is different. You don't use the same meter, technique, camera, lens, shutter, etc. Plus lighting conditions vary. So it's a place to start, which is why 2F/2F's advice works.

Welcome back to film processing! I imagine you will have a lot of fun.

I would find an Ilford developing chart that lets you compare ID-11 times to Ilfosol times in general. Since there are published times for the film in D-76 (which is the same as ID-11), you should be able to make an educated guess by doing this. For instance, say that Ilfosol times are 20% longer than ID-11 on average. Try adding 20% to the 8 minutes. Yes, I made these numbers up, so don't use them!

 

[Ian Grant]

Your right But the Germans sold Kine film cameras like the Kine-Exacta, and in the 30's they called 35mm cameras like Leica's & Contax's Miniature Format while small format meant 127/120 etc.

You can tell I'm reading pre-WWII books

Ian

 

[Kingbobdole]

Thanks for all the help guys! I'll hit up the data sheets and compare and then make a guess! They all seem to be with-in about a minute of each other anyhoo so it shouldn't be too hard.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Enjoy!!

Steve

 

[CBG]

Eventually, you may find that going by the manufacturer's recommendation, you get negatives that are too contrasty, or too flat for your needs and for the way you process. They are best seen as a staring point from which you fine tune to get things the way you need them.

If your results are consistently too contrasty, inch back on the developing time just a little. And if too flat, add a little to your developing time. Whatever you start with, the most important thing you can do is to be consistent enough that your results can be depended upon. Once you have that, you'll have a repeatable base to see how to modify your results.

Think of it as a kind of recipe. If it keeps coming out undercooked, you cook just a little longer, etc, etc.

Take notes every time until there is no more to learn. Then you can go back and see how you got a particular result. Sounds monotonous, but it pays off the first time you would have had to redo something when you lost track of how you got something.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

The Massive Developing chart is too unreliable, go by manufacturers own data-sheets.

Ian

This is always good advice although much of the data on the massive developing chart where practicable, is actually from the manufacturers own data.

 

[Ian Grant]

Only some Keith and when it is a link to the manufacturers data would be invaluable. But there are quite a number of very strange anomalies because people don't put all the info, so temperatures and agitation aren't always taken into account or adjusted.

Ian

 

[Kingbobdole]

Success! I don't have a scanner of any kind, but I went out and shot a roll today and developed it right away and it looks great! I don't have a darkroom (yet) so I'll take the negs to my local camera shop to make some prints...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Success! I don't have a scanner of any kind, but I went out and shot a roll today and developed it right away and it looks great! I don't have a darkroom (yet) so I'll take the negs to my local camera shop to make some prints...

G R E A T !

Steve