FP4+ -- are those developing times right?!

[Donald Qualls]

I was given a roll of FP4+, which I've exposed and was about to develop, so I was looking up the times. I was astonished to see that FP4+ uses such a long time -- HC-110 Dilution B (which I use as a reference, though I use a higher dilution at an adjusted time and agitation scheme) shows 9 minutes, while Tri-X and J&C Pro 100 require only about 7.5 and TMY just 6.

Can this be right? I can't just clip test it -- it's 120, 12 exposures, and I only have the one roll. Does FP4+ really require that much more development than other common films (even ISO 100, conventional grain films), or is Ilford specifying a different contrast index or something similar that would require me to adjust my times accordingly to get the results I'm used to?

 

[glennfromwy]

Donald, though I've never used HC110, I have found that suggested times using D-76 a too long. Never could nail it down. I would err on the conservative side. I have since switched to PMK Pyro for FP-4. Mucho grande!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, thanks, if the suggested D-76 times are too long, the suggested HC-110 times are probably too long as well. I'll check this thread again before I actually develop (likely tomorrow), and if I don't get anything else back, I'll treat it like Tri-X and Pro 100, which at least ought to give me something I can save with contrast filtration. This will also be useful information (i.e., Ilford times are for higher contrast) when I shoot and process the five rolls of Delta 100 that came with this...

 

[Nige]

I recently did a very un scientific test to test some HC-110 I received. Dunked some film (which happened to be FP4 and HP5) in at Dil H (1:63) and it went black in much less time than the recommended, so I don't doubt your questioning those recommendations. I have processed one roll of FP4+ (35mm) but have yet to print them. I think used 7 or 8 minutes @ 20C using Dil H. I can check my notes tonight.

 

[Daniel Lawton]

I develop FP4+ and Plus-X in Pyrocat-HD and the times are pretty close to each other (within a minute), although I've never done any elaborate density testing. I don't see why FP4+ should have radically longer times with HC-110 compared to other films but I'v never used that combo.

 

[Jordan]

Hi Donald, my benchmark for FP4 Plus in HC-110 (though it's been a while since i used that combination) is about 7 mins at 1+63 dilution at 24C.

 

[Saganich]

FP4 dil B 4.75 min for 35mm, very light agitation. I perfer 1:41 which is like dilution F.



http://www.imagebrooklyn.com/film_testing/FP4andHC110_test.htm

 

[Muihlinn]

Im using 9' dil B @ 20ºC with light agitation, 2 inversions every minute (120 rolls).

Density when I expose it for zone V is about 0.65-0.70, always correct for a iso125 exposure. Anyway those Ilford films keep giving good results even if they have been loosely exposed, so there is not too much to worry.

check out this page for much more about the hc-110: http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

 

[nworth]

I did some quick checking, and I don't find a whole lot of agreement. The Ilford site and the Massive Development Chart (Digital Truth) both show long times: HC110 (B) for 9 minutes, D-76 (stock) (primary recommendation) for 8.5 minutes, and D-76 (1+1) for 11 minutes. Elsewhere, the times are shorter. The Unblinking Eye has recommendations of D-76 (stock) for 3.7 minutes and D-76 (1+1) for 8.5 minutes. My own experience is that the Ilford times may be a bit long, but not by much. Try D-76 (stock) for 7.5 minutes and D-76 (1+1) for 10 minutes. The recommended times will certainly produce decent negatives. I currently develop FP4+ in Pyrocat HD for the recommended time, which seems pretty close.

 

[Donald Qualls]

"Suggested times are only a starting point." No kidding! You guys are all over the map just like the charts are, but there does seem to be a consensus that the Ilford times are on the long side. My process is pretty forgiving (maximum dilution for the volume available and reduced agitation, which with HC-110 tends to produce compensation that keps the highlights in control), so I'll give this one roll the same time I'd give Tri-X, which is about 30% less than Ilford's recommendation; that'll at least give me a handle on how much to correct Ilford's times when I process the Delta 100 and the lone roll of Pan F+ I received with this.

Back in a couple hours with the eyeball report...

 

[Donald Qualls]

Eyeball report, as promised: I should have taken the advice that came in PM, to cut the Tri-X times by another 30% or so; for my process, Ilford's times are about 2x what's needed. The Tri-X time (actually about 25% less than Ilford's time for FP4+) gave negatives that are very contrasty, but should still print successfully (though they may be hard to scan).

For exact figures, I used HC-110 Dilution G, 68 F, 21 minutes with continuous agitation the first minute, then 5 inversions every 3rd minute, and the negatives look like at least a one stop push. Future plan (for the Delta 100 and Pan F+) is to apply my usual correction to get my times, then reduce time by at least 40%, perhaps as much as 50%, which would have put this FP4+ at 14 to 16 minutes with the above dilution and agitation (my rule of thumb for Kodak products is 3x the Dilution B time with Dilution G and 3-minute agitation cycle, or cut that by 1/3 for Dilution E when tank volume requires stronger working solution).