xtolsniffer
Allowing Ads
Hi all,
I use a lot of Ilford HP5 in both 35mm (various Nikons) and 120 (RB67 plus a couple of old Brownies). I used to process in Xtol but more recently moved to ID11. When I printed contacts (grade 2 onto Ilford RC) I noticed that the times for 120 and 35mm were different to get the same density on the print. I put this down to different lenses and column heights as I usually put the 80mm lens on for contacts for 120 and 50mm on for contacts for 35mm, only because I would then print from those negatives anyway so I put the right lens on first. Recently I revisited a whole bunch of rolls and reprinted the contacts in one big batch, same lens, same column height, same film, and from the same developer for the same time, and the contacts for 120 films needed about a half to one stop less light than the 35mm to get the same density. I've always been rubbish as assessing negative density on a light box but the 120 do seem less dense than the 35mm, so when I print the contacts from 120 at the same exposure time, they come out way darker. Is this normal? Is there a different development time for 120 compared with 35mm? This is the only conclusion I can reach though the only evidence I can cite is that Steve Anchell in 'The Darkroom Cookbook' says that often people prefer to develop 120 for 20% more time but this doesn't seem to crop up in the published times on the datasheets.
I can't fathom what's going on here. If it was one or two films then I could understand it, perhaps it was a camera fault, but the RB67 shots were with different lenses, the 35mm from three or four different cameras with different lenses.
The 120 negatives print fine, they look good, I'm just perplexed by the contact prints.
I use a lot of Ilford HP5 in both 35mm (various Nikons) and 120 (RB67 plus a couple of old Brownies). I used to process in Xtol but more recently moved to ID11. When I printed contacts (grade 2 onto Ilford RC) I noticed that the times for 120 and 35mm were different to get the same density on the print. I put this down to different lenses and column heights as I usually put the 80mm lens on for contacts for 120 and 50mm on for contacts for 35mm, only because I would then print from those negatives anyway so I put the right lens on first. Recently I revisited a whole bunch of rolls and reprinted the contacts in one big batch, same lens, same column height, same film, and from the same developer for the same time, and the contacts for 120 films needed about a half to one stop less light than the 35mm to get the same density. I've always been rubbish as assessing negative density on a light box but the 120 do seem less dense than the 35mm, so when I print the contacts from 120 at the same exposure time, they come out way darker. Is this normal? Is there a different development time for 120 compared with 35mm? This is the only conclusion I can reach though the only evidence I can cite is that Steve Anchell in 'The Darkroom Cookbook' says that often people prefer to develop 120 for 20% more time but this doesn't seem to crop up in the published times on the datasheets.
I can't fathom what's going on here. If it was one or two films then I could understand it, perhaps it was a camera fault, but the RB67 shots were with different lenses, the 35mm from three or four different cameras with different lenses.
The 120 negatives print fine, they look good, I'm just perplexed by the contact prints.
