Ilford FP4+ in HC110 tested. From way to contrasty to normal.

[pentaxuser]

In my experience FP4 developing time in Hc110 is: 5 min (1+31). Time reporter by Ilford (9 min) is troppo long and lead to a overdeveloped negative with a bad grain.

Now that the OP has re-tested his first experiment and found that his results were correct, might it be that the Ilford time is too long? It appears that Ilford has admitted that its time for HC110 was not tested so maybe whatever system it used for determining the time was in this case wrong by an appreciable margin?

We have seen the negative produced by the OP at his time and it looks good to me. What I haven't seen is examples of negatives in HC110 at 9 mins

So can anyone show us a negative at 9mins in HC110 and better still a print from that negative so we may try to compare the differences or is this not a good way to progress this thread in order to try and reach a conclusion?

pentaxuser

 

[npl]

I did shoot FP4+ a few week before OP's threads and coincidentally used HC-110 (b) with Ilford time and agitation. To my eyes the negatives were denser than expected, and I also got bigger grain than anticipated, like HP5+ grain. Turned out the added contrast and grain kind of fitted the mood of some shots captured on a misty morning, so I'm not unhappy.

I'll try tonight but posting "realistic" pictures of negatives that are similar to what our eyes see is a tricky thing really, and it can lead to biased impressions and conclusions. I'll see what I can do. No darkroom prints yet.

 

[pentaxuser]

I did shoot FP4+ a few week before OP's threads and coincidentally used HC-110 (b) with Ilford time and agitation. To my eyes the negatives were denser than expected, and I also got bigger grain than anticipated, like HP5+ grain. Turned out the added contrast and grain kind of fitted the mood of some shots captured on a misty morning, so I'm not unhappy.

I'll try tonight but posting "realistic" pictures of negatives that are similar to what our eyes see is a tricky thing really, and it can lead to biased impressions and conclusions. I'll see what I can do. No darkroom prints yet.

Thanks, npl

pentaxuser

 

[npl]

I did shoot FP4+ a few week before OP's threads and coincidentally used HC-110 (b) with Ilford time and agitation. To my eyes the negatives were denser than expected, and I also got bigger grain than anticipated, like HP5+ grain. Turned out the added contrast and grain kind of fitted the mood of some shots captured on a misty morning, so I'm not unhappy.

I'll try tonight but posting "realistic" pictures of negatives that are similar to what our eyes see is a tricky thing really, and it can lead to biased impressions and conclusions. I'll see what I can do. No darkroom prints yet.

Here are the negatives against the white screen of a tablet computer with full brightness. Look good but as expected the phone photos sucks. Anyway, it should give an idea of the density.
The church was shot on a sunny afternoon, the tree on an overcast morning.

9min in HC-110 (b) at 20°c, Ilford agitation as described in the datasheet ("[...] invert the tank four times during the first 10 seconds, then invert the tank four times again during the first 10 seconds of each further minute.")

Scans in small size just to give an idea of what the positives could look like. Mirroless camera with an old Helios lens and an extension tube. Inversion and post-processing in snapseed.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Here's a bit of data from the older FP4+ data sheet (1990s)

Ilfotech HC, 1+31, 20oC

EI 50: 4.5mins

EI 125: 6 mins

EI 200: 8.5mins


Kodak HC-110, 1+31, 20oC

EI 50: 4 mins

EI 125: 5 mins

EI 200: 8 mins




The nature of the 35mm developing tank used and the accuracy of the thermometer (and the temp in/ temp out of the developer) are all areas that need to be checked for sources of error.

 

[pentaxuser]

Here's a bit of data from the older FP4+ data sheet (1990s)

Ilfotech HC, 1+31, 20oC

EI 50: 4.5mins

EI 125: 6 mins

EI 200: 8.5mins


Kodak HC-110, 1+31, 20oC

EI 50: 4 mins

EI 125: 5 mins

EI 200: 8 mins




The nature of the 35mm developing tank used and the accuracy of the thermometer (and the temp in/ temp out of the developer) are all areas that need to be checked for sources of error.

Thanks Lachlan. It looks as if this older date sheet quotes dev times much closer to what our OP found by testing In fact the time for 125 is exactly what our OP gave us

I wonder why Ilford changed the times? Simply a typo?

pentaxuser

 

[reneboehmer]

Well, this is Fp4 in D76 1+1. These results provide good Ci values at the recommended 11-min dev time at 125.

All this leads me to the conclusion that HC110 is just not good for Fp4 and the Ilford datasheet is not good advice. The Fp4 in Hc110 is better with 4x5 but not really usable with 135 film, as the contrast is very hard to control with reasonable dilutions without the expense of mayor testing.

 

[reneboehmer]

Here's a bit of data from the older FP4+ data sheet (1990s)

Ilfotech HC, 1+31, 20oC

EI 50: 4.5mins

EI 125: 6 mins

EI 200: 8.5mins


Kodak HC-110, 1+31, 20oC

EI 50: 4 mins

EI 125: 5 mins

EI 200: 8 mins




The nature of the 35mm developing tank used and the accuracy of the thermometer (and the temp in/ temp out of the developer) are all areas that need to be checked for sources of error.

Thanks,

the temp in and out was documented properly with a calibrated lab grade thermometer. +/- 0.3 C. I even measured fluid density to ensure proper dilution of the developer. I also documented PH.
As mentioned before my Ci or Gamma values are slightly to high (about 0.05) because of me using a green light and the gamma lambda effect coming into effect.

 

[reneboehmer]

Here's a bit of data from the older FP4+ data sheet (1990s)

Ilfotech HC, 1+31, 20oC

EI 50: 4.5mins

EI 125: 6 mins

EI 200: 8.5mins


Kodak HC-110, 1+31, 20oC

EI 50: 4 mins

EI 125: 5 mins

EI 200: 8 mins

Insightful thank for this!

 

[Lachlan Young]

I wonder why Ilford changed the times? Simply a typo?

Transcription error, or everything got shifted over a column at some point.

By the time it happened, things like HC/ HC-110 were falling out of industrial use for various reasons.

 

[sir_pece]

I am just a tad too late to the party - unfortunately for me. Today I developed for the first time hc110&fp4 combination. Caravaggio would be proud of me, negatives are in full chiaroscuro.

Please, Ilford, you can correct the numbers, cant you?

 

[DREW WILEY]

HC-110 is fine for FP4. One just needs the right dilution and development time -
relative to THEIR OWN specific development methodology and contrast expectation, and personal film speed. Nothing really differs in 35mm instances, except the possibility of too much agitation. All of this needs to be fine-tuned to specific expectations via testing and practice, just like with any other developer film combination.

In small format film work, I'd be more concerned about the grain structure you get with HC-110 than the contrast issue, which should be easy to control if your procedure is correct.

 

[bernard_L]

Just stumbled upon this thread that had its peak of activity during my summer vacation.
@reneboehmer rest assured that your findings are correct. I have on file old threads on that very same issue, 20 years ago. Won't Ilford ever learn? Just like Kodak with the "new" times for 400TX in HC-110 dil.B.

https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/152902-fp4-in-hc-110/

https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/85361-fp4-plus-in-hc-110/

FWIW, for the FP4/HC110 combination I've settled on 1+47 7min @ 20°C with two inversions every minute. EI 100 (but I may have a safety factor built into the shutters of my old cameras). YMMV.
Now my go-to developer is PC-512 by @relistan, but I'm digressing.

 

[pentaxuser]

I am just a tad too late to the party - unfortunately for me. Today I developed for the first time hc110&fp4 combination. Caravaggio would be proud of me, negatives are in full chiaroscuro.

Please, Ilford, you can correct the numbers, cant you?

Well IMO you or anyone else will never even get a reply for Ilford unless you contact it with reference to this lengthy thread or provision of evidence

pentaxuser

 

[Craig]

Please, Ilford, you can correct the numbers, cant you?

The quote from the Ilford Datasheets is:

"Development times for some other manufacturers’ developers are included for your convenience and are only a general guide. Other manufacturers can and do change their product specifications from time to time, and the development times may change as a result."

In other words, Ilford has provided a time as a staring point, but they don't refine that as competitors formulas may change. It's not really in Ilfords' interest to continually test developers other than their own.

 

[GregY]

The quote from the Ilford Datasheets is:

"Development times for some other manufacturers’ developers are included for your convenience and are only a general guide. Other manufacturers can and do change their product specifications from time to time, and the development times may change as a result."

In other words, Ilford has provided a time as a staring point, but they don't refine that as competitors formulas may change. It's not really in Ilfords' interest to continually test developers other than their own.

On top of that how do you take into consideration the accuracy of the user's camera shutter, light meter or metering methods?

 

[sir_pece]

I might send a mail to Ilford regarding the 9-minute recommendation. I think it is possible to arrive at a better "sensible" starting point, which should be the goal of the manufacturer's basic guidelines on the film packaging. I really don't see the point here in playing advocate for Ilford or looking for borderline cases.

 

[Bill Burk]

I’m not sure how I missed this thread.

@reneboehmer thanks for clarifying dilution, temperature, pH, specific gravity.

I think all we need is a video of your process!

 

[Stephen Benskin]

@reneboehmer has contacted Ilford. They responded back in September.

 

[reneboehmer]

Hey, yes, I talked to David Abberley from Ilford. Here is his response to my email:

"I don't have access to the original work that generated this data so we would have to test it again. We will have to order some HC110 and then carry out testing. If we do get different results then we will modify our datasheet accordingly. This may take a little while to complete but I will let you know what happens. Thank you for doing this work and sharing your findings with us."

I just emailed him asking for an update.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Here are the negatives against the white screen of a tablet computer with full brightness. Look good but as expected the phone photos sucks. Anyway, it should give an idea of the density.
The church was shot on a sunny afternoon, the tree on an overcast morning.

9min in HC-110 (b) at 20°c, Ilford agitation as described in the datasheet ("[...] invert the tank four times during the first 10 seconds, then invert the tank four times again during the first 10 seconds of each further minute.")

View attachment 405843

View attachment 405844

View attachment 405839

View attachment 405845

Scans in small size just to give an idea of what the positives could look like. Mirroless camera with an old Helios lens and an extension tube. Inversion and post-processing in snapseed.

View attachment 405846

View attachment 405847

View attachment 405848

Reduce time by 20%. Reduce agitation by 50%.

 

[Craig]

This is the Ilford developing chart from 1993. It shows a time in HC-110 1+31 in FP4 as 5 min for a speed of 125. Ilfotec HC 1+31 time is 6 min. I'm not sure why the times have become longer over time.

 

[pentaxuser]

Hey, yes, I talked to David Abberley from Ilford. Here is his response to my email:

"I don't have access to the original work that generated this data so we would have to test it again. We will have to order some HC110 and then carry out testing. If we do get different results then we will modify our datasheet accordingly. This may take a little while to complete but I will let you know what happens. Thank you for doing this work and sharing your findings with us."

I just emailed him asking for an update.

Yes it's an answer but it begs the question of why Ilford changed its data sheet. Surely it must still have the data sheet from the 1990s so why change the times if the 1990s times were tested and found to be OK as indeed they still seem to be based on the evidence provided in this thread.


pentaxuser