Developing time for FB paper

[eli griggs]

Yes, I use 2 minutes with Bromophen @ 20°C with current Ilford and Foma papers. 3 minutes works great and may produce a more pleasing print. Fiber base seems to be better with a bit longer times 2-3 minutes, depends on the developer. Ilford is the best source of information on their products.

Plus, they're free to download.

If you can get to Photrio, Ilford is just another spelling.

There's tons of product information online, you've just got to look and see it to know the correct answers.

 

[BMbikerider]

In theory, I should use the times given by Ilford but in practise they go out of the window. I use techniques where I use water rinses out of the dish if I need to reduce density or brush on neat developer to increase depth of tone but in any these, this can increase developing to over 4 mins. Because the stages needed with this technique are quite complex I very rarely use them (Only with difficult negatives) As a matter of course I rarely give less than 3 mins with fibre based paper. The stop bath and fixing are also increased but with the increased time I use wash aid to kill remains of the fixer in the fibres of the paper.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Developer. 2:00. 20°C.
Ilfostop 30 sec
RaidFix 1 min.

Constant agitation in all three baths.

This information is all over the internet, as well as on Ilford website.

 

[xkaes]

But the generic advice of starting with 2 min is generally what I do with any first test strip of my own.

Ilford is the best source of information on their products.

The BEST source, of course, is to run your own tests. Ilford didn't use your camera, your film, your developing equipment, your enlarger etc. to create its recommendations. As DREW points out, these are good starting points, but they probably should be adjusted according to all of your variables -- and preferences. You don't assume that the ISO on the box of film is what's best for you, do you? Why assume the same thing for paper? It's really the same thing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sorry that message was for someone else trying to be a smart ass to me. Well the data sheets you sent me is just for RC. See I'm new here and new to this stuff and I also have a hard time so instead of data sheets I really just wanted you or someone to just type the times for me here. That's all I wanted but it's something no one can do for me. I don't need to be here and I don't need to be bullied so please remove me from this site. Someone will be contacting the owner of this site for what was said to me from someone on here it was uncalled for.

The development time in Dektol for RC and FB is 2 minutes. If one does that it removes one variable and that makes it easier to adjust the expose with f/stop and exposure time only. That makes repeatabilty of a negative much easiler.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Ilford's FB papers stop accumulating DMax at 3 minutes. Ditto the older Seagull papers, which went out of production 15 years ago (useless bit of knowledge, that).

Outside of really extenuating circumstances, paper should be developed to completion. If you develop to completion results are very repeatable and not influenced by temperature to any appreciable degree (sorry about that).

For really repeatable results you need fresh developer every day - but even I am not that anal-retentive when making prints for my own enjoyment. Which, when you get down to it, is the only good reason to make prints, aside from needing to eat and pay rent.

 

[Don_ih]

paper should be developed to completion.

That's the only way to know you're enlarging properly.

 

[xkaes]

And the only way to know that is to test it yourself.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

That's the only way to know you're enlarging properly.

"Develop to completion"

Ha, finally somebody who dears to speak out!
And develop the final prints exactly like the testprints, if needed use a timer and a well regulated water bath (bain-marie)...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hmm, Nicholas ... my Ilford papers apparently didn't read your instruction manual stating that anything longer then 3 min will not add to DMax. You fail to factor the often significant differences between one negative to another, or between different developer concentrations, or even between specific papers. The most premium papers, like MGWT, or even the best graded papers of former years, tend to be more flexible in that respect than garden-variety papers like MGIV.

In terms of a totally standardized workflow, with every print developed for the same length of time, in the same developer every time, sound more like a set of rules for a McDonald's franchise rather than what a good chef would choose. It might be fine for a beginner to learn that way; but just it's one more set of rules my own printing papers ever bothered to read.

But I do agree with Nicholas on the importance of fresh develop each session. (Fresh everything in my case, including fixer).

 

[snusmumriken]

I have never understood the Ilford instruction that development may be extended to 6 min without increasing fog levels. Why would anyone want to do that, when DMax is reached in at most half that time?

Hmm, Nicholas ... my Ilford papers apparently didn't read your instruction manual stating that anything longer then 3 min will not add to DMax. You fail to factor the often significant differences between one negative to another

I don't understand you here, Drew. If the paper receives enough light to achieve DMax, and you develop it adequately, DMax is what you'll get. The negative only determines whether the paper does receive enough light to achieve DMax, surely? Please tell me where I'm wrong.

 

[MattKing]

I have never understood the Ilford instruction that development may be extended to 6 min without increasing fog levels. Why would anyone want to do that, when DMax is reached in at most half that time?

If I'm developing prints in batches - e.g. six at a time for the postcard print exchange - I usually use an extended development time. That helps prevent any development inconsistencies between the prints, due to inconsistencies of agitation and actual per print development time.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That's the only way to know you're enlarging properly.

No guessing about the development time that way.

 

[MattKing]

For extended printing sessions, I'm fond of factorial development plus informal replenishment.
But that is definitely not something for a beginning printer.
Instead, for beginners, I usually suggest the longest time within the range suggested by the paper/developer manufacturers. That way it won't matter much if they slip up a bit in the timing.

 

[snusmumriken]

If I'm developing prints in batches - e.g. six at a time for the postcard print exchange - I usually use an extended development time. That helps prevent any development inconsistencies between the prints, due to inconsistencies of agitation and actual per print development time.

That makes sense, thanks for enlightening me.

 

[Don_ih]

I have never understood the Ilford instruction that development may be extended to 6 min without increasing fog levels. Why would anyone want to do that, when DMax is reached in at most half that time?

Because there is the possibility that regions not fully exposed can continue to develop.

For the most part, they don't.

 

[GregY]

If I'm developing prints in batches - e.g. six at a time for the postcard print exchange - I usually use an extended development time. That helps prevent any development inconsistencies between the prints, due to inconsistencies of agitation and actual per print development time.

Matt, having participated in one of the exchanges, i care a little less with minor variations in small prints getting sent to different corners of the globe...but that's me. When printing 16"x20 and 20 x24" either for home or for sale, i tend to really watch the print more than the clock and do aim for "development to completion."

 

[faberryman]

How are you guys determining "development to completion"? Are you eye-balling it or making measurements.

 

[Photo Knowledge]

In theory, I should use the times given by Ilford but in practise they go out of the window. I use techniques where I use water rinses out of the dish if I need to reduce density or brush on neat developer to increase depth of tone but in any these, this can increase developing to over 4 mins. Because the stages needed with this technique are quite complex I very rarely use them (Only with difficult negatives) As a matter of course I rarely give less than 3 mins with fibre based paper. The stop bath and fixing are also increased but with the increased time I use wash aid to kill remains of the fixer in the fibres of the paper.

Is the wash aid Photo Flo? If so I use it on my negatives. It's what I have. Do I just add a drop of wash Aid in my water while the prints soak? I think I've been over soaking them like 2-3 hours I'm not sure what that does to the paper. I did a lot of research before I joined this site and I know it's all over the internet but some of my questions are hard to find. I always thought you develope as the time recommended. I get images so I leave it at that. I'm not technical I dont know about fogging and and cutting your developing time in half or increasing your developing time. I'm sure I can get those answers just asking online. But back to wash aid? Is Photo Flo a wash aid? If so just a drop straight out of the bottle for my prints when they are soaking?

 

[GregY]

How are you guys determining "development to completion"? Are you eye-balling it or making measurements.

Good question. I've done the measuring part with test strips et al, when i'm at the final print stage I'm eyeballing the important shadows, the highlight detail, the overall contrast, since this for me takes into account any fluctuations in temperature change of the developer, any minor variations in paper (perhaps i changed boxes or brand to fine tune some element) from one print to the other.

 

[Pieter12]

How are you guys determining "development to completion"? Are you eye-balling it or making measurements.

It's hard to eyeball in darkroom conditions. I regularly develop Ilford MGFB classic for 3 minutes and use the same time for RC. I have never had a properly exposed print show any signs of overdevelopment at that time. I know of some who will go to 7 minutes or develop at warmer temperatures (like 75ºF) without issue and get wonderful, deep blacks.

 

[faberryman]

It's hard to eyeball in darkroom conditions. I regularly develop Ilford MGFB classic for 3 minutes and use the same time for RC. I have never had a properly exposed print show any signs of overdevelopment at that time. I know of some who will go to 7 minutes or develop at warmer temperatures (like 75ºF) without issue and get wonderful, deep blacks.

So is 3 minutes or 7 minutes "development to completion"? When does overdevelopment occur and how do you determine that?

 

[koraks]

Is the wash aid Photo Flo?

No. Wash aid is a solution of sodium sulfite. It's sold as 'wash aid' or a similar name. Photo Flo is a so-called 'wetting agent' or 'surfactant' and serves a different purpose. It's not used with paper.

 

[Pieter12]

So is 3 minutes or 7 minutes "development to completion"?

No hard and fast rule. It depends on what you want from the print, and how you have exposed it. Develop to taste.

 

[faberryman]

No hard and fast rule. It depends on what you want from the print, and how you have exposed it. Develop to taste.

So development to completion means development to taste?