Ilford FP4 + Ilfosol 3 + Time ?

aoluain · Jan 27, 2010

Hi All,

I have a query on developing Ilford FP4 125 [120] with Ilfosol 3.

I am shooting this at its box speed and I was checking
on 'Digital Truth' the development details and notice
they state at a dilution of 1:14 the time is 5 minutes @ 24 degrees?

has anyone done this? can I just do 8.5 minutes @ 20 degrees?

this is the first roll of FP4 and I have never developed at 24 degrees.

thanks in advance

Alan

Steve Smith · Jan 27, 2010

Ilford's data sheets usually give data for 20 and 24 degrees:

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/download.asp?n=474&f=2006216115141521.pdf
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/download.asp?n=750&f=2008422946292613.pdf

Steve.

aoluain · Jan 27, 2010

thanks steve! never thought to check the ilford data sheets.

5 minutes seems correct @ 24 degrees

Rhodes · Jan 27, 2010

For 20ºC, I use 1+14 and 6m. Good results!

kevin_c · Apr 3, 2010

Jumping onto the end of an old(ish) thread here...

I've got a couple of rolls of 35mm FP4 (shot @ISO125) to develop in Ilfosol 3 and the Ilford datasheet gives 7:30 @20deg but the Massive Dev Chart gives only 6:00 mins (This is the same as 'Rhodes' findings above^^^). The film box and the film data sheet from Ilford doesn't have the new(ish) Ilfosol 3 listed.

Has anyone here any advice on this matter - I want to dev @20deg (not 24) if possible.

Thanks

Rhodes · Apr 7, 2010

Well, you could try one roll with 1+14 at 6m to see you like the results. Then try another and use 7:30. I had the same problem and at that time Massive Dev Chart didn't had the time for iso 125. I ask in rangefinderforum and one person give me that combo, possibly the same one that later posted in the dev chart.

kevin_c · Apr 8, 2010

Thanks for the reply Rhodes,

I'll probably go with the Ilford datasheet on the first roll and see how things come out (7.5 mins 1+14), although it's tempting to meet 'somewhere in the middle' and just try around 7.0 mins. These are not important shots so it's not critical.

In the past (a few years ago), I used ID-11 but don't intend doing so many rolls these days so mixing a load of ID-11 stock is going to be a waste so I decided to go with a liquid that i can mix as i need it.

Thanks again

bsdunek · Apr 8, 2010

I like Ilfosol 3 with my Ilford films. Generally use the times on the label generously. That is, don't start timing until the tank is filled, and then don't hurry to pour the developer out. Probebly adds 10%. I like nice rich negatives as I have had problems in the past with lack of detail in the shadows. Works for me.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 8, 2010

Keep in mind that there are many variables in how you print the negs and what contrast you subsequently need in your negatives. A diffusion or cold light head will require more contrast in the negative than for a condenser enlarger to achieve the same contrast in the print.

It really is up to you what you need to do to be happy with the resulting prints, so whatever times you find, you likely will need to optimize and tweak before you get just what you need. I would trust Ilford recommendations any day over findings on Digitaltruth. The data on Digitaltruth should be taken with a pinch of salt, because of the variables introduced by each and every photographer posting times. They are individual, with light being measured in different ways, in varying lighting conditions, with varying darkroom and printing conditions. At least Ilford's recommendations are stemming from controlled environments.

Expose one half stop under, one at box speed, one half stop over, and one full stop over. Develop according to instructions. Judge and print the negs. Pick the one you think has the best shadow detail. Now shoot a roll at that exposure index, and process one third at 20% less than recommended, at recommended time, and 20% more than recommended. Print again and now judge what your exposure and development needs to be.
Now you can get into tweaking your agitation intervals, etc, to move your highlights around, and fine tune your shadow detail.

- Thomas

- Thomas

kevin_c · Apr 8, 2010

Thomas, Bruce,

Many thanks to you both for the helpful replies. I am obviously going to have to see how the first roll comes out and maybe adjust from there, although the second roll was shot on a different camera so maybe these two rolls are not a particularly good test. The first roll was shot on a 25 year old Canon AE-1 program, the second on a Canon EOS3, so both ends of the spectrum there, although the metering between the two does compare well.

Ah well, will have to experiment a bit sometime (I always enjoyed that part of home developing and printing) as I do like this film and have about 10 rolls in the fridge...

Many thanks.

kevin_c · Apr 13, 2010

Just as an update to my question in post #5 above, I developed the first roll of FP4+ earlier this evening and used the Ilfosol 3 datasheet times (4min 15sec @20deg 1+9) and they came out fine to my eyes. I have just done the second roll the same and these are also looking very good.

Thanks for all the replies

Holger · Sep 4, 2010

Late follow-up: I did the same last night: 4:15, 20° C and 1:9. Worked perfectly to my eyes. Need to be rather precise with just 4 minutes to go, but with the stop bath and rapid fixer ready to go, it was rather easy.

From all the posts I read, only few people seem to like Ilfosol. It's either Rodinal, XTol, some ID11 and a few DDX-friends, while Ilfosol seems to be the poor beginners choice, soon to be given up in favour of something different.

Except for the fame of Rodinal, is there a specific reason to leave Ilfosol alone, or is it just too "normal" (like FP4)?

Aurum · Sep 6, 2010

Ilfosol 3 is the much improved son of the older developer Ilfosol S, and probably has a little guilt by association with the latter's tendency to go off without warning.
I find Ilfosol 3 to be a good general purposes developer. It works well with most things, and especially Ilford Delta. You can use it weak as well (1:14) which makes it reasonably economical. I can also still pick it up in stores easily. A big advantage if I need to get stuff developed like NOW!

ID11/D76 is the standard developer that all others are compared to. Thats why a lot of people use it. Its a known quantity, so no matter what film you want to develop, even if its handcrafted by Llamas in outer mongolia you know you will find data for that emulsion with D76
Rodinal is one of the original developers from way back in History. It gives a distinctive look, lasts for decades, and you use very little indeed, again a reason why its well used and liked.

Xtol: Has its fans who are adamant that it is the best thing since silver emulsion. I haven't tried it yet, more due to availability issues, than any particular feelings either way.

As always I would advise, try it, work with it. If you like it stick with it

tomalophicon · Sep 6, 2010

Nothin wrong with Ilfosol3. I use it with a wide range of films, although it seems to go best with FP4+. Apparently it's good for medium speed film.
I think I developed it for a bit longer than you did though, like 6 mins or more.

Leigh Youdale · Sep 6, 2010

DDX is probably the 'best' all round liquid developer, and especially so for Delta type film emulsions, but at 1+4 dilution it's more expensive to use than others.
Of the powder developers ID-11 is about the best generally available and it's economical.
Rodinal is "legendary" in a similar way to the Leica "legend" and attracts people for similar reasons. There's a bit of "cult" mentality amongst some Rodinal boosters. I've found it to be a good, versatile and economical developer best suited to films up to ISO200. For ISO400 films I look for better fine grain performance than Rodinal generally gives although it can produce satisfactory results - just don't overdevelop - whether through temperature, agitation or time.
With regard to development times, bear in mind that Ilford publish density curves for their films and eventually you need to find a DMax figure in your negatives that suits you. That includes what you subsequently do with them. You'll end up with your own set of preferred times. So many people today are scanning their negatives for preference (and flatter, thinner negatives scan better than the rich negatives that best suit enlargers) that the Massive Development Chart is probably starting to skew a little as a result of their inputs.

mcgrattan · Sep 7, 2010

I used to prefer DD-X, but recently I've been using Ilfosol-3. I've only put half a dozen or so rolls through it, but so far I've been very pleased with the results. I've tried it with Pan-F, some 400 ASA films [Delta, HP5 and Neopan, iirc] and Acros and all have been fine with a nice tonal range and reasonable levels of grain. First impressions are that it's a good general purpose developer, with the advantage that it's cheaper than DD-X and just as easy to get hold of in the UK.

For what it's worth, I've stopped using Rodinal as I find I get more predictable results (for me) with other developers.

TareqPhoto · Sep 7, 2010

Ilfosol 3 was my first ever developer i used, used it during a workshop i took about "the darkroom" in my area, was developing Delta 100/400 and HP5+, they all came out fine even not so great for 400ASA films maybe, but i bought this developer by mistake a month ago or so, gave it a test for film like TMAX it worked great, then if i still remember i tested it with Delta 3200 was not great, so i read the manual and the description and found that this developer is better used for slow to medium speed films, so i gave it a test with Pan F+, after i saw the results i ordered more Pan F+ to use it with Ilfosol 3 [4 films and i have 2 already before], amazing sharp result.

Ilford FP4 + Ilfosol 3 + Time ?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency