Fomapan 100 development time in Ilfosol 3?

[McDiesel]

I continue exploring Ilfosol 3. Having been happy with HP5+ and Delta 100 results, I am moving on to trying Ilfosol with my 3rd favorite film - Fomapan 100. Neither the film nor Ilfosol 3 datasheets contain recommended development times for this combination. I'm following Ilford datasheet: 20C, 1+9 dilution, and their agitation method. For testing I use self-made "control strips" to dial in times for different developers and dilutions, i.e. I have a test scene which I exposed with identical settings onto many films, and I use stock ID-11 as a reference.

MDC contains a single community-contributed time of 5 minutes. I felt this value was suspect because FP4+ Ilfosol datasheet time is 4:20, and FP4+ usually takes longer than Foma 100 in all developers. But I tried it anyway with awful results: the negatives were severely overcooked.

I then tried 4:30 and even 3:30 (!) and the results are much denser than Foma 100 in ID-11. Before I continue to 3:00 and even 2:45 I must admit, I've never worked with such short development times, I'm in C-41 territory at this point.

Did anyone else tried this combination?

 

[NB23]

I use ilfosol-3 diluted 1:14 for my pan-f negatives. Beautiful results. Brings the times up to 5 minutes at 20c

For fomapan 100 I will have to check my notes in my darkroom this evening. I never got around to using ilfosol-3 with fomapan a lot since I was so busy getting over my 500 rolls of tmax 100...

Fomapan 100 is a wonderful film, ilfosol-3 is a wonderful developer.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Are you using Ilfosol-3 at 1+9? Have you tried it at 1+14? I prefer it at that dilution with HP5. If it were me, I'd mix up a 1+14 dilution and start at about 6 min 20C. If it works, you'll also appreciate the improved economy (and perhaps, sharpness).

 

[McDiesel]

@Andrew O'Neill I haven't tried 1+14 yet because the datasheet says it comes with a "small sacrifice in image quality". The plan is to get the official 1+9 time figured out, and then see what 1+14 offers. Basically, nail the datasheet recommendation first and experiment/tweak from there. Thanks!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

That's strange that they would say that, as I've only ever seen image quality improvements. I would never feel comfortable with such short development times at a 1+9 dilution... unless I agitate continuously.

 

[McDiesel]

Here's the latest update. To achieve the same density & contrast as with ID-11 / D76, Fomapan 100 needs the following in Ilfosol 3:

• 3:00 @20C at 1+9 dilution. 24MP scan
• 5:00 @20C at 1+14 dilution. 24MP scan

Agitation: 30 seconds continuous, followed by 3 inversions every minute. See for yourself if you can detect any difference between two dilutions. It's obvious to me that 1+14 is more practical.

 

[foc]

Here's the latest update. To achieve the same density & contrast as with ID-11 / D76, Fomapan 100 needs the following in Ilfosol 3:

• 3:00 @20C at 1+9 dilution. 24MP scan
• 5:00 @20C at 1+14 dilution. 24MP scan

Agitation: 30 seconds continuous, followed by 3 inversions every minute. See for yourself if you can detect any difference between two dilutions. It's obvious to me that 1+14 is more practical.

I feel your times for 1+14 is a little short.
I have processed Fomapan 100 in Ilfosol 3 for 8 mins @20C at 1+14 and always got great results. ( I know the Massive Dev Chart suggests 7.5 mins)
Here are 2 examples of Fomapan 100 shot with a Fed4b and using sunny 11 rule.

 

[NB23]

Foc, your examples definitely look overcooked...

 

[McDiesel]

@foc I have started with MDC times and in my case they're off by a mile. This is subjective of course, I use stock ID-11 as a reference as I prefer the standard/balanced look.

 

[foc]

@foc I have started with MDC times and in my case they're off by a mile. This is subjective of course, I use stock ID-11 as a reference as I prefer the standard/balanced look.

Of course, to each his own. Personally, I have found MDC to be fairly reliable but as always test to your own likeing.

Foc, your examples definitely look overcooked...

Not overcooked but maybe poorly scanned.

 

[McDiesel]

After several 35mm rolls and two 120 rolls of Fomapan 100, I am seeing something I've never seen before: my results in Ilfosol 3 are different between 35mm and 120. The 3:00 time is perfect for 35mm with 9+1 dilution, but clearly not enough for medium format.

I am quite unhappy with the two 120 rolls I have developed using 3:00 time (which worked perfectly with 35mm).

Just sharing. I still don't know what the good time for 120 will be, but I'm betting its somewhere between 3:30 to 4:00.

 

[John Wiegerink]

After several 35mm rolls and two 120 rolls of Fomapan 100, I am seeing something I've never seen before: my results in Ilfosol 3 are different between 35mm and 120. The 3:00 time is perfect for 35mm with 9+1 dilution, but clearly not enough for medium format.

I am quite unhappy with the two 120 rolls I have developed using 3:00 time (which worked perfectly with 35mm).

Just sharing. I still don't know what the good time for 120 will be, but I'm betting its somewhere between 3:30 to 4:00.

So, you are saying your 120 Foma 100 negs are to thin. I just have Foma 100 and 200 in 35mm, but have used it in 120 also. With Xtol-R I don't remember seeing much difference in densities between the two, 35mm or 120. I did have some emulsion problems with Foma 200 in 120 and white specks on the emulsion side of Foma 100 in 120. I haven't used either one for a long time now so maybe those problems are gone. Never had a problem with bulk rolls of Foma 35mm in any variety.

 

[McDiesel]

@John Wiegerink yes, that's what I have. I have never seen any difference between 35mm and 120 Fomapan with my regular Xtol. Here's my latest theory:

• When I was testing with 35mm, I exposed a 36exp roll and cut it into four strips and developed each strip in 300ml of Ilfosol 3.
• Then I loaded two 120 rolls onto a single JOBO reel and developed them in 500ml of Ilfosol 3.

In both cases the dilution was the same at 1+9 and development happened by the book. However, if you look at the ratio of film area to developer concentrate volume, they are quite different.

I need to develop a full roll of 36exp in 300ml and then compare that to a single 120 roll in 500ml.

 

[NB23]

Looks like your 120 exhausted the developer to the limit while the 135 film had sufficient (overkill) replenishment, basically developinng One roll in 1200ml.

I’d keep the 120 data as the correct one, just because it’s on the safe side and what seems to the basic amount of developer per film.

Still, this shouldn’t show Such a big difference.

Also, I remember reading a few times that foma has a different base for its 120 films versus 135. This played a role on development.

 

[MattKing]

There are a few different things that have to be done with films in order to make a 35mm emulsion work for 120. The difference in the base materials and the different approaches to anti-halation and light-piping (in some cases) mean that there are differences in the films, and they can end up requiring different developing times. Your agitation regime may also enter into the issue - fluid flow dynamics and all that.
As an example, historically, Kodak suggested different times for 135 Plus-X Pan and 120 Plus-X Pan, but by the time that was replaced by Plus-X Pan Professional, there was one single recommendation for the two sizes.

 

[Digitaltruth]

These times (1+9/3min and 1+14/5min) were submitted to the Massive Dev Chart by @McDiesel. First of all, thanks for sending this data and the sample images. Clearly, you get good results with these times and others may too, so it is really helpful to have this input.

The longer times submitted by other users have been in the chart a while and people also report good results. In this thread @foc is reporting good results with the existing times. It is also worth noting that the 1+9/5min and 1+14/7.5min were submitted by separate users, so it's not a simple matter of one user submitting times which might be unsuitable for others. These times have proven to work as starting points.

This apparent conflict illustrates the subjective nature of what a good result is, as well as how printing/scanning requires different types of negatives in different situations. While for many people the existing times in the chart are accurate, for others the shorter times may be better.

With this conflict in mind, the MDC (online version only right now, app will be updated in the next few weeks) now contains both times. The old times remain as is and the new times contain a note stating they should be used if the longer times are unsatisfactory.

I also agree completely with what @Andrew O'Neill says. I'm never comfortable with times under 5 mins unless they use continuous agitation as its hard to be consistent and this can adversely affect less expert users. A lot of people who use the MDC are beginners, so a 3 minute time is a risky starting point. In general, the chart will always preference longer times over shorter ones when there is a difference of opinion: better a dense neg than one which is too thin.

 

[NB23]

There are a few different things that have to be done with films in order to make a 35mm emulsion work for 120. The difference in the base materials and the different approaches to anti-halation and light-piping (in some cases) mean that there are differences in the films, and they can end up requiring different developing times. Your agitation regime may also enter into the issue - fluid flow dynamics and all that.
As an example, historically, Kodak suggested different times for 135 Plus-X Pan and 120 Plus-X Pan, but by the time that was replaced by Plus-X Pan Professional, there was one single recommendation for the two sizes.

At some point Kodak just didn’t care anymore and started to going woke with their recomended times. Some development times clearly became illogical and their explanation rapidly became “all depends on your desired contrast index” and whatever.

Remember the tri-x +
Hc-110 times? That was clearly a sabotage on kodak’s part.

Or what about kodak keeping the same development times for tmx/tmy/tri-x pushed +1?