Developing time for FB paper

xkaes · Aug 10, 2023

It's one test/sheet of paper to test for fogging (I already listed the specifics earlier) and another test/sheet of paper to test for MAX black.

You don't use an enlarger for the first test, you're using unexposed paper.

You use an enlarger for DMAX, but you can set it to whatever height you want, lens & f-stop you want, and time you want. It's a good idea to pick your most frequently used setting because you'll need to adjsut, of course for changes in magnification, f-stop, etc. just like in any other print. Then you exposure the paper the same, but develop each strip differently, just like with the fog timing strips, compare them and find out what time gives you MAX Black. You need to put a piece of unexposed but fully developed film in the enlarger -- to factor-in/adjust/compensate for base+fog, of course.

In the first test you are comparing strips of light grey to find the whitest (at some point it does not get any whiter), while in the second you are comparing strips of dark grey to find the blackest (at some point it does not get any blacker).

Photo Knowledge · Aug 10, 2023

Roger Cole said:
The biggest difference between unfiltered variable contrast paper and using a grade 2 filter is that it will usually be much faster unfiltered. The filters are designed to, at least somewhat, result in matching speed from grade 0 to 3.5 and half that speed for grades 4-5. Of course this can only be true for one specific tone (usually a midtone) since the contrast changes with each different filter. I find it useful, if not exact.

What do you mean by speed? I thought I knew what speed was in film but maybe I don't. Like a higher ISO film is faster than a low ISO film that I do know but why do they call it speed? What exactly is speed in film? I thought I knew but I think I'm confused now. What do filters have to do with speed? When I hear the word speed in film I think fast shutter speed slow shutter speed. High ISO fast speed low ISO slow speed. Am I close? Any further explanation would be great!

Photo Knowledge · Aug 10, 2023

L Gebhardt said:
To much of this thread is focused on maximum black. That’s because you asked for developing time and it is related to getting the paper fully developed. Paper is fully developed when it can produce maximum black. For now I suggest you develop your prints for a fixed time of 2 minutes for fiber based and 1 minute for resin coated. Then adjust exposure time to get the best print you can. Once you have a nice print make a second one with the same exposure but develop it for an extra 30 seconds and compare the two. If they look the same your first developing time is correct for your darkroom, and you know you can leave the print in the developer for a bit of time and not worry about pulling it out at exactly a set time.

There are no rules for how a print should look, but you want to be in control. Generally speaking a print looks best to most people if it has areas of paper white and areas of black. Make a few prints and create a new thread where you post a few pictures of them. We can help you troubleshoot them then, but the important thing is to get printing.

Also consider learning on RC paper since it’s cheaper and faster to print on. It also washes quicker and dries flat.

I cannot scan prints onto here I have no scanner and my phone camera is no good so that's a no go for me. I'm starting to take all this knowledge more calm and read what everyone says and take notes and if I I have questions I'll ask. Thanks for replying.

Pieter12 · Aug 10, 2023

xkaes said:
It's one test/sheet of paper to test for fogging (I already listed the specifics earlier) and another test/sheet of paper to test for MAX black.

You don't use an enlarger for the first test, you're using unexposed paper.

You use an enlarger for DMAX, but you can set it to whatever height you want, lens & f-stop you want, and time you want. It's a good idea to pick your most frequently used setting because you'll need to adjsut, of course for changes in magnification, f-stop, etc. just like in any other print. Then you exposure the paper the same, but develop each strip differently, just like with the fog timing strips, compare them and find out what time gives you MAX Black. You need to put a piece of unexposed but fully developed film in the enlarger -- to factor-in/adjust/compensate for base+fog, of course.

In the first test you are comparing strips of light grey to find the whitest (at some point it does not get any whiter), while in the second you are comparing strips of dark grey to find the blackest (at some point it does not get any blacker).

My hope and uderstanding is that an unexposed strip of paper will remain white no matter the developing time unless your safelight is fogging it.

RalphLambrecht · Aug 11, 2023

BMbikerider said:
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.

Don't use increased fixing times; it will make it harder to wash out the fixer. Two-bath fixing is the better choice. Also fixing strong and fast is better than fixing weak and long

Don_ih · Aug 11, 2023

Pieter12 said:
My hope and uderstanding is that an unexposed strip of paper will remain white no matter the developing time unless your safelight is fogging it.

It won't. After some amount of time, the paper will start to fog from exposure to the developer. It depends on the dev/paper combination. That amount of time is significantly longer than it takes to get max black.

faberryman · Aug 11, 2023

pentaxuser said:
I don't know the answer to the first question because as I said I use replenishment based on the Ilford information. In respect of the second question I read the posts of those who advocate factorial replenishment and my thoughts lead me to say what I have said so yes you could classify my reasoning as a "thought experiment" but isn't that what homo sapiens does all the time to ensure his continued existence? ...

However I presume that you do not believe that anyone who reads a thread should not participate in the form of saying what their logic tells them nor of asking questions that may be pertinent in helping them to make a decision on a subject?

To my knowledge, Ilford does not have any information on replenishment of paper developer. The technical datasheet for paper developers states that, for fiber based paper, the capacity of one liter of working solution is 40-50 8x10 sheets depending on developer. Do you typically use 40-50 sheets of 8x10 paper in a session?

The questions I asked were meant to elicit a response as to what you actually do. Based on your logic as a homo sapien, will you now shift to factoral development?

Note: I know some people become apoplectic whenever someone mentions that they read something in a technical datasheet, but I find them useful, certainly more useful than trying to search through threads on photo forums where answers vary and there is no easy way to gauge the credibility of the person sharing his opinion. People, including me, who routinely rely on technical datasheets for technical data are frequently denigrated as curmudgeons. We all have our crosses to bear.

Neal · Aug 11, 2023

I apologize for jumping in so late as well as not reading every post.

Years ago there was a nice article in Photo Techniques magazine testing this very question. I gave away all my old copies to a community darkroom so I can't share it. The gist of the article led me to use 3 minutes as my standard.

faberryman · Aug 11, 2023

Neal said:
I apologize for jumping in so late as well as not reading every post.

Years ago there was a nice article in Photo Techniques magazine testing this very question. I gave away all my old copies to a community darkroom so I can't share it. The gist of the article led me to use 3 minutes as my standard.

It is difficult to assess an article when it is unavailable to read.

grain elevator · Aug 11, 2023

Photo Knowledge said:
What do you mean by speed? I thought I knew what speed was in film but maybe I don't. Like a higher ISO film is faster than a low ISO film that I do know but why do they call it speed? What exactly is speed in film? I thought I knew but I think I'm confused now. What do filters have to do with speed? When I hear the word speed in film I think fast shutter speed slow shutter speed. High ISO fast speed low ISO slow speed. Am I close? Any further explanation would be great!

Same thing in film as in paper, in principle. Higher speed means it takes less exposure (thus a "faster" time). The post you replied to isn't strictly about the speed of the paper, but the filters remove some of the light, so the whole system with filters is slower.

xkaes · Aug 11, 2023

Pieter12 said:
My hope and uderstanding is that an unexposed strip of paper will remain white no matter the developing time unless your safelight is fogging it.

An unexposed (including NO SAFELIGHT) piece of paper will fog if left in a developer too long. That's why it needs to be tested. But don't believe me -- or the others on this Forum. Try it yourself. There is a maximum amount of time you can develop a print before it starts to fog -- but you need to test it yourself because it is different for every paper & developer combination. It's simple, and uses one sheet of paper -- details listed above.

Roger Cole · Aug 11, 2023

Photo Knowledge said:
What do you mean by speed? I thought I knew what speed was in film but maybe I don't. Like a higher ISO film is faster than a low ISO film that I do know but why do they call it speed? What exactly is speed in film? I thought I knew but I think I'm confused now. What do filters have to do with speed? When I hear the word speed in film I think fast shutter speed slow shutter speed. High ISO fast speed low ISO slow speed. Am I close? Any further explanation would be great!

Speed means the same thing it does with film. A faster paper will need less enlarger exposure to produce a given tone than a slower paper will. Filters affect this. "Speed" in both just refers to how sensitive to light the material is. The "faster" it is, the faster it will record an image of a given brightness and thus the less exposure needed.

Roger Cole · Aug 11, 2023

xkaes said:
An unexposed (including NO SAFELIGHT) piece of paper will fog if left in a developer too long. That's why it needs to be tested. But don't believe me -- or the others on this Forum. Try it yourself. There is a maximum amount of time you can develop a print before it starts to fog -- but you need to test it yourself because it is different for every paper & developer combination. It's simple, and uses one sheet of paper -- details listed above.

I have tried it. I saw no visible density after 15 minutes. I didn't try longer.

faberryman · Aug 11, 2023

Roger Cole said:
I have tried it. I saw no visible density after 15 minutes. I didn't try longer.

There is no need to test for longer than you plan to leave the paper in the developer plus a reasonable margin in case you zone out and forget to pull the paper after the allotted time. The Ilford print developer datasheet says you can extend the development time to six minutes without any noticeable change in contrast or fog, assuming your safelights are safe for six minutes. That's not to say your print won't be overdeveloped. Testing for overdevelopment is a separate process.

Shall we discuss what you do after you pull your print? I let my print drain, which takes a few seconds, and then place it in a tray of stop bath. Some may have decided that even though the instructions say to place the print in stop bath, they know better and do a water rinse instead. (I am not sure if that is because they use the logic of homo sapiens or they just want to save a few cents, or both). And then there is how long to leave the print in the fixer. Fights have broken out over those two issues.

Pieter12 · Aug 11, 2023

Don_ih said:
It won't. After some amount of time, the paper will start to fog from exposure to the developer. It depends on the dev/paper combination. That amount of time is significantly longer than it takes to get max black.

So why even test for it if it is going to be an unreasonable developing time that no one would ever approach?

MattKing · Aug 11, 2023

Roger Cole said:
I have tried it. I saw no visible density after 15 minutes. I didn't try longer.

That may have been different if you had used different paper, or different developer - but it still requires a long time!
A better test is to do it with two copies of a properly exposed print - one stopped and fixed after a normal time, and the other left in the developer until it fogs. Or a sheet of paper that has had a partial, "flashing" exposure that brings the paper close to the image threshold.

faberryman · Aug 11, 2023

MattKing said:
A better test is to do it with two copies of a properly exposed print - one stopped and fixed after a normal time, and the other left in the developer until it fogs.

This type of test will also show the effects of leaving a print in the developer beyond the minimum time for maximum black but before the paper begins to fog.

xkaes · Aug 11, 2023

Roger Cole said:
I have tried it. I saw no visible density after 15 minutes. I didn't try longer.

Congratulations. No point in going that long! I wasn't so lucky, but I didn't even get to 10 minutes to find a difference. But I was undoubtedly using different paper and developer and dilution and........

Of course, eyesight also varies, along with the viewing situation, brightness, distance, paper coating, etc. -- and whether you use your eye, a magnifying glass, or a photocell of some sort.

But fogging does exist -- especially in the extreme highlight areas of a negative (dark areas), as Matt pointed out. If there is a highlight in the negative that doesn't quite reach the threshold to show any grey in a print, a little fogging can be enough to push it over the edge.

The only thing worse that grey highlights are grey maximum blacks.

Pieter12 · Aug 11, 2023

MattKing said:
A better test is to do it with two copies of a properly exposed print - one stopped and fixed after a normal time, and the other left in the developer

Kind of what I described in post #195, without going so long as to fog the highlights. After all, achieving maximum black is what this is about. But first, the exposure under the enlarger has to be correct or everything else is just an exercise in futility.

Neal · Aug 11, 2023

faberryman said:
It is difficult to assess an article when it is unavailable to read.

Just letting folks know. The article can be tracked down if one really wants to.

miha · Aug 11, 2023

Neal said:
Just letting folks know. The article can be tracked down if one really wants to.

Can you give us a hand?

Don_ih · Aug 11, 2023

Pieter12 said:
So why even test for it if it is going to be an unreasonable developing time that no one would ever approach?

I wouldn't bother.

GregY · Aug 11, 2023

The OP definitely got his money's worth & then some, all from a simple question:
"Can anyone give me the times to develop FB paper in Ilford Multigrade paper developer. Ilford Ilfostop and Ilford rapid fixer?"
Who would have thought?.......

faberryman · Aug 11, 2023

GregY said:
The OP definitely got his money's worth & then some, all from a simple question:
"Can anyone give me the times to develop FB paper in Ilford Multigrade paper developer. Ilford Ilfostop and Ilford rapid fixer?"
Who would have thought?.......

That's what happens when you don't read the instructions.

Sirius Glass · Aug 11, 2023

faberryman said:
That's what happens when you don't read the instructions.

Is that a big RTFM?

Developing time for FB paper

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency