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

[Alex Benjamin]

Could this be due to HC-110 itself going through several reformulations in recent years?

Would be interesting to do the same test with Ilford's Ilfotech HC, supposedly similar to the original HC-110 formula.

 

[reneboehmer]

Ilford says that their development times are published for, quoting: "The times in bold will produce negatives of normal contrast (G0.62)". Elsewhere they say: "0.62 is suitable for printing on grade 2 or 3 photographic paper under typical darkroom conditions."

I do not know why you're getting the results you're getting, but it seems to me that Ilford clearly cares about contrast.

Could this be due to HC-110 itself going through several reformulations in recent years?

As mentioned in my latest post in this thread. My assumption got confirmed by Ilford directly, about 5 hours ago. They care about a correct slope but only for one specific curve in ID-11 the rest of the data is only meant to produce box speed, in disregard of contrast. Direct quote from the Email:

"
We supply the information on our tables to give speeds using different developers but these are more accurately described as EI values (Exposure Index). The contrast at the particular speeds with particular developers will be variable and not something we have ever quoted. This data is supplied as an aid to customers, to give an indication of how to achieve the effective speed so that users can calculate exposures appropriately. It would be possible to give a defined ISO speed for each developer, but most would give a different speed under the ISO contrast conditions."

-David Abberley, technical services

 

[DREW WILEY]

"HC-110" and its clones have gone through multiple reiterations in the past two decades. I can't comment on any of those because I'm still using the original formula. It keeps remarkably well in concentrate.

 

[pentaxuser]

renboehmer, it seems incredible that Ilford has what appears to be total disregard for contrast ? I appreciate that you have concluded this from Ilford's reply but I do wonder if that is what Ilford meant

In fact I am unsure exactly what Ilford does mean in its reply.

Does Ilford mean that it has only carried out an ISO test using only ID 11 and no other developer If so is it saying that the ISO for FP4 only applies to development in ID11 but if so, has it done no other development times in other developers? Is it also saying that each user has to find out the correct time for the user's own correct contrast and its stated times may give excessive contrast times in the case of all other developers except for ID 11?

Can it really be saying that for all other developers except ID11 then user is "on his own" when it comes to development times if he wants acceptable contrast?

I know little about H&D curves but I take it you did get an ISO of 125 for FP4+ in HC110, that is you obtained its "box speed"

So what did Ilford do or not do to arrive at a time of 9 mins which is nearly 100% more than your time

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Steven Lee]

Looks like the right hand at Ilford doesn't know what the left one is doing.

 

[Steven Lee]

Would be interesting to do the same test with Ilford's Ilfotech HC, supposedly similar to the original HC-110 formula.

Ilfotech HC is my go-to developer for large format and I've been using their datasheet times with perfect results. But I only shoot HP5+ so I can't comment on FP4+ and I never used HC-110 with any film in any format.

However, over the years I've tried probably all Ilford-made films in smaller formats and a bunch of different developers and always found Ilford datasheets to be reliable.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

View attachment 405200

This is a screenshot from the ISO:6 for the determination of film speed. My understanding is that not only the speed point must be met, but also the general curve steepness. My assumption would be that Ilford, in their data sheet , does not care about curve form, but only about point m (speed point). This is only an assumption though and might very well be a misunderstanding of the matter on my side.

I'm going to be pedantic. The speed point doesn't need to be met, but is determined. You're not aiming for a speed but determining speed under the stated conditions.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

As mentioned in my latest post in this thread. My assumption got confirmed by Ilford directly, about 5 hours ago. They care about a correct slope but only for one specific curve in ID-11 the rest of the data is only meant to produce box speed, in disregard of contrast. Direct quote from the Email:

"
We supply the information on our tables to give speeds using different developers but these are more accurately described as EI values (Exposure Index). The contrast at the particular speeds with particular developers will be variable and not something we have ever quoted. This data is supplied as an aid to customers, to give an indication of how to achieve the effective speed so that users can calculate exposures appropriately. It would be possible to give a defined ISO speed for each developer, but most would give a different speed under the ISO contrast conditions."

-David Abberley, technical services

You maybe reacting to a poorly worded response from Ilford. First speed is a product of the inherent qualities for the film and the specifics of development. Not the other way around. You don't process for a given speed, so the Ilford representative's response was clumsy at best. Was he unknowingly wrong or or just patronizing? Either way I'm betting he wasn't from R&D. Note: This response came after reading a excerpt of the response. Upon reading the full response, I retract these comments and apologize for the misunderstanding.

I wrote a post explaining my position twice, but it keeps coming out preachy.

While the data sheet on Ilford developers does give a Gbar for what they consider average processing, the film data sheets I've checked don't, but they do say, "These times will produce negative of average contrast suitable for printing in all enlargers." They also include a statement about other manufacturers' developers, "Development times in other manufacturers' developers are included for you 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."

 

[koraks]

Either way I'm betting he wasn't from R&D.

"Product technologist". Working at Harman/Ilford for 42 years, 9 months.

 

[skahde]

Do I understand this correctly, I'm not a native speaker and the above mumbo-jumbo seems easy to get wrong: Ilford gives times to achieve boxspeed but not (neccessarily?) normal contrast? For all or only for films from different brands? Because that is what users assume when setting exposure: Boxspeed? If this is the case, it's not quite what I would wish for. Time to get my broken densitometer up and running again.

 

[koraks]

Ilford gives times to achieve boxspeed but not (neccessarily?) normal contrast?

Exactly. IMO Ilford's message is quite clear in this regard and despite (or perhaps, I'm starting to wonder, 'thanks to') the language barrier, it seems that @reneboehmer, you and me managed to figure out its meaning.

 

[Craig]

Or is it a case that the data sheet gives time for normal contrast and noted speed with Ilford developers only? The Non-Ilford developer times are given as a courtesy only?

 

[reneboehmer]

Here is a full quote of the total email:

"Dear René,
We do quote ISO speeds and use ISO conditions to define the "box" speed of the product. However, in line with the ISO standard it is only valid for a named developer (in our case we use ID11 stock) and when the contrast at the bottom part of the curve near the speed point has a Gbar of 0.62. We supply the information on our tables to give speeds using different developers but these are more accurately described as EI values (Exposure Index). The contrast at the particular speeds with particular developers will be variable and not something we have ever quoted. This data is supplied as an aid to customers, to give an indication of how to achieve the effective speed so that users can calculate exposures appropriately.
It would be possible to give a defined ISO speed for each developer but most would give a different speed under the ISO contrast conditions. Some may be close to ID11, eg. DDX, but I would expect others could be quite different eg. Microphen or Perceptol, due to the different ways that different developers build density. However, for most customers, this would be less use than the range of EI values.
I hope this answers your question."

Regards,
David Abberley

 

[reneboehmer]

I'm going to be pedantic. The speed point doesn't need to be met, but is determined. You're not aiming for a speed but determining speed under the stated conditions.

I was under this impression too.

 

[reneboehmer]

You maybe reacting to a poorly worded response from Ilford. First speed is a product of the inherent qualities for the film and the specifics of development. Not the other way around. You don't process for a given speed, so the Ilford representative's response was clumsy at best. Was he unknowingly wrong or or just patronizing? Either way I'm betting he wasn't from R&D.

I wrote a post explaining my position twice, but it keeps coming out preachy.

While the data sheet on Ilford developers does give a Gbar for what they consider average processing, the film data sheets I've checked don't, but they do say, "These times will produce negative of average contrast suitable for printing in all enlargers." They also include a statement about other manufacturers' developers, "Development times in other manufacturers' developers are included for you 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."

But what you can also see in the data sheet is that Ilford does only state EI and not ISO, making it not needed to conform to ISO conditions with each developer.

 

[skahde]

Here is a full quote of the total email:

Very interesting! That means, you are completely on the safe side, if you manage to comply with Ilfords directions for development AND use ID11 (stock?). With any other developer: Contrast is a variable the user has to get right on his own. This explains a lot of my frustration over the years, until I started doing my own sensitometry. (Typo edited)

 

[reneboehmer]

Very interesting! That means, you are completely on the safe side, if you manage to comply with Ilfords directions for development AND use ID11 (stock?). With any other developer: Contrast is a variable the user has to get it right on his own. This explains a lot of my frustration over the years, until I started doing my own sensitometry.

Well this is how I understand this, and it is in line with my testing.

 

[reneboehmer]

"These times will produce negative of average contrast suitable for printing in all enlargers." They also include a statement about other manufacturers' developers, "Development times in other manufacturers' developers are included for you 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."

You are right, this is quite a weird discrepancy.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

"Product technologist". Working at Harman/Ilford for 42 years, 9 months.

Well I'm shocked. I was assuming he was more public relations. Just read the full quote. It makes more sense. First read, I don't have any problem with his response.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

But what you can also see in the data sheet is that Ilford does only state EI and not ISO, making it not needed to conform to ISO conditions with each developerT

The ISO standard is about determining film speed. It's not a standard for development. The ISO contrast parameters are defined so that there is a consistent relationship between the fixed density speed point of 0.10 over film base plus fog and the fractional gradient speed point. When ΔD is 0.80 at Δ1.30 log-H, ΔX always equals 0.296 log-H. This brings into agreement the fixed density method with the fractional gradient method. It's called The Delta-X Criterion. Delta-X Criterion paper

The average gradient of the tested film under the Δ1.30 log-H, ΔD 0.80 conditions is only 0.62 when the curve has a short toe. Long toed films have a higher average gradient. Using CI, it can be around 0.67. What they both have is a gradient of 0.3x the average gradient at Δ0.296 log-X below the fixed density speed point.

 

[reneboehmer]

The ISO standard is about determining film speed. It's not a standard for development. The ISO contrast parameters are defined so that there is a consistent relationship between the fixed density speed point of 0.10 over film base plus fog and the fractional gradient speed point. When ΔD is 0.80 at Δ1.30 log-H, ΔX always equals 0.296 log-H. This brings into agreement the fixed density method with the fractional gradient method. It's called The Delta-X Criterion. Delta-X Criterion paper

View attachment 405320 View attachment 405321

The average gradient of the tested film under the Δ1.30 log-H, ΔD 0.80 conditions is only 0.62 when the curve has a short toe. Long toed films have a higher average gradient. Using CI, it can be around 0.67. What they both have is a gradient of 0.3x the average gradient at Δ0.296 log-X below the fixed density speed point

Dear Stephen, I think I understand that Delta X testing is a more accurate way of determining speed and is preferred over the simple .10 over base fog method, because it takes the curve toe length into account. As far as I can tell from the paper, it was discovered that Delta X was a more consistent factor to obtain proper exposure for good prints. (Please correct me if my understanding is wrong).

It's not a standard for development, but a developer has to be used. In this case, it's ID-11 stock that produces a curve corresponding to a logH value that produces ISO 125. To me, it seems as though, it makes only ittle difference what speed determination they use.

This should not disprove my original argument that Ilford's data sheets lead to too contrasty, hard to use negatives. My assumption is that they measure one curve (ID11 stock) totally. Meaning plotting luxs to density, then calculating speed based on Delta X, and for each other developer only reference to this original curve. Only stating effective film speed, contrast not taken into account. To me this seems weird since the goal should be, at least, to compress an average scene to a normal density range. At least more than to hit the box speed. I wouldn't mind shooting at El 50 if I knew I could rely on the datasheet to give me a normal Density range for a normal exposure.

But maybe I am misunderstanding your point! I'd be happy to hear your side to clear up my brain fog. ;D

 

[pentaxuser]

Do I understand this correctly, I'm not a native speaker and the above mumbo-jumbo seems easy to get wrong: Ilford gives times to achieve boxspeed but not (neccessarily?) normal contrast? For all or only for films from different brands? Because that is what users assume when setting exposure: Boxspeed? If this is the case, it's not quite what I would wish for. Time to get my broken densitometer up and running again.

Don't worry. I am a native speaker and I had and still have as much difficulty interpreting what the OP quoted from Ilford originally as you have with it

Once the full reply was shown it appears that contrast may be of minor concern to Ilford or no concern at all in all cases of developer times except those given for ID11.

Ilford says: "We supply the information on our tables to give speeds using different developers but these are more accurately described as EI values (Exposure Index). The contrast at the particular speeds with particular developers will be variable and not something we have ever quoted."

I still wonder how Ilford works outs the times it does give as EI values Is there a formula for it or what

It does give a time for Ilfotec HC of 8 mins for an EI of 125 which is 1 min less than for HC110 Whether this produces a negative that looks more like the OP's neg at 5 mins I have no idea

Hopefully for those who use Ilford film and Ilford developers other than ID11, the resulting contrast of the negative is close to "normal" or close enough that MG papers can cope with the differences

pentaxuser

 

[Vaughn]

I am glad there are people interested in the fine details of such things. I have just metered, exposed, developed, and printed based on previous experience (and note-taking). Then use the print/image qualities to judge instead of the graphs. So I appreciate that Ilford keeps it simple and is concerned with the real-world use of film. Seems to me that those who are concerned with more detail tech info can generate it themselves.

I am not going to be facing the exactly lighting used, contrast range, and such used for the ISO testing/determinations for 99.99% of my images. I do not need or want the sort of precision or accuracy that allows for the drawing of graphs. Definitely a personality thing -- YMMD, and probably should.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've always rated FP4 and FP4+ at 50, half of box speed, in order to boost most of the exposure up onto the long straight line section of the curve. That certainly helps, regardless of specific developer. With most developers, it's been 10 min at 20C. FP4 is one of the easiest films to learn exposure and development with - what I generally recommend to beginners; it's relatively forgiving.