FP4+ and Prescysol for landscape

[Vania]

Hello,
Does anyone have convincing experience on a regular basis with this developer/film combo (not the EF version but standard prescysol) ?
I have been using Prescysol for some time now and very happily with tri-x but I can't get anything satisfying with FP4+. In brief semi-stand method is too flat and normal agitation too contrasty and I can't find anything in between that I find pleasing... I guess I would have to play around with dilutions but have no clue where to start. Should I increase part A or B ? I've tried increasing both but still without luck. It's odd but whatever I do there's either too much or too little contrast, and I can't get remotely near the nice gradation, subtle tones and spark I get with Tri-x and HP5+.
This is especially true for landscape work where contrast is high. For stills and lower contrast scene it behave a bit better.
I'd be thankful to hear comments from people using this film and developer.
Thanks!
Vania

P.S. I have quite a few rolls of FP4+ shot @ 80 iso. I thought 2/3 stop would help bring the spark and contrast missing from the semi-stand agitation but no... Any alternative developer recommendation for contrasted landscapes ? I'm mostly interested by smooth gradation of the mid tones and manageable highlights.

 

[Adrian Twiss]

I had a correspondence with Peter Hogan about a similar problem I was having. I use Verichrome Pan rated at 100 ISO. I was getting frustrated at the need to print all my negatives at between grade 31/2 and 4. He suggested diluting the developer at 2:2:100 (Prescysol EF) or 2:10:100 (Prescysol). I suggest you try this and see how it goes. If you still need to up the contrast you could also use a modified semi stand agitation regime by agitating once every 90 seconds rather than once every 3 minutes. I found that with this method I only needed to use grade 3 to 31/4 which is about right for a diffusion enlarger.

 

[Vania]

Thanks Adrian, I did try both as well as 1,5:75:100 and was still disappointed. If I remember correctly, I ended up with slightly too much contrast with 2:2:100. I'm clearly not good at understanding my negs, but it makes me think that maybe what I dislike is that shadows are buried, and while enhancing contrast I don't get much better shadows but I also blow the highlights (best of both world huh). Is that even possible ? What is puzzling is that in low contrast situation (N-1 or even -2) I get very thin negs but excellent mid-tone gradation that are easy to print. Maybe 100 pan films need to be exposed @ 50-64 with this developer for higher contrast (I think, but I'm not sure that Peter uses some T-grain 100 film with great success, and he mention to me that he disliked FP4+).
I would be tempted to blame my metering technic, but again I get excellent results with TX-400.
Have you tried other ratings with Verichrome Pan ?
Any feedback from FP4+/Prescysol user would be more that welcome !
Again thank you. V.

 

[Vania]

I forgot to mention that I get no visible stain at all with FP4+, the negatives are really clear, and also the marking on the side are extremely thin, and barely visible. Don't known if it's relevant...

 

[Steve Smith]

It always works fine for me with FP4+. I can see the stain although I get a little bit more with HP5+. This is with 10.5 minutes (usually a bit more) semi-stand.


Steve.

 

[Vania]

Thanks Steve. How do you rate it ? Also, do you see the markings on the side of the negatives or are they faint ?

 

[Steve Smith]

Thanks Steve. How do you rate it ? Also, do you see the markings on the side of the negatives or are they faint ?

I rate FP4+ at 100 and HP5+ at 400 just like the box tells me too.

The edge markings look fine to me, not really any different to FP4+ developed in DD-X.


Steve.

 

[Brook Hill]

Peter Hogan is very approachable, I would suggest you email him direct, I am sure he will give all the help he can. I use Prescysol at the standard dilution 10.5 min. semi-stand at 24deg. C which seems to work OK.

Tony

 

[Adrian Twiss]

Vania

If I understand expansion and contraction correctly - If you reduce development to counter high contrast you should lower the ISO to preserve the shadow detail. If you extend development for low contrast situations then you can shoot at box speed.

The "issue" with Prescysol, and other pyrocatechin developers is that they are compensating developers that do their job too well with low contrast subjects. Also Peter Hogan has advised in other forums that there is little to be gained in simply extending the development time and that contrast is best controlled by modifying the concentration of the developer. I have never had to rate FP4+ at anything lower than 80 and the same goes for Verichrome Pan. Usually I am fine with rating it at 100. One thing I do though is I meter the open shadows and place them on zone IV (i.e. underexpose by 1 stop). Are you, perhaps, placing your shadows too low down on the exposure scale thus dropping zone II shadows down to zone I?

 

[Steve Smith]

Peter Hogan has advised in other forums that there is little to be gained in simply extending the development time

Due to someone phoning me half way through development, I once used Prescysol for around twice the normal time and couldn't really tell any difference.


Steve.

 

[Vania]

Thanks all for your contribution. The problem was since I changed my tanks for stainless steel, I was using too much developer. As a result I think agitation was not enough and resulted in no stain and wrong density... Now I use 425 ml per roll instead of 500. Stain is faint but definitly there. Markings on the sides is still faint but a little more dense. And for proper density iso should be around 80-100.

 

[Ian Grant]

Thanks all for your contribution. The problem was since I changed my tanks for stainless steel, I was using too much developer. As a result I think agitation was not enough and resulted in no stain and wrong density... Now I use 425 ml per roll instead of 500. Stain is faint but definitly there. Markings on the sides is still faint but a little more dense. And for proper density iso should be around 80-100.

That won't make any difference, if anything the extra developer would help as it wouldn't exhaust as fast.

Ian

 

[Vania]

When I was using 500ml per roll the tank was completly full up to the top and there was no air at all I think the consequence of that was that inversions were really inefficient because the developer was not flowing around the film.
Although it is puzzling that the edge marking are so faint. Nevertheless I shot a grey card at zones 1&8 and for the first time densities were correct. Also there is definitly some stain now. Nothing compared to trix, but still visible. I should mention also that there appeared to be a little more stain just after the fix that goes away during the wash.
All that should be confirmed of course with more tests and comparisons.
Thanks. V.