ILford FP4, Trying to achieve normally developed negatives with good density and contrast for #2-3 printing.

[sruddy]

I have been shooting this film for awhile and last roll was a disaster for darkroom printing but my mirrorless camera scans are fine. In order to get a decent contact print I had to go to a 00 filter. I’m pretty sure my mistake was to use the highest developing time listed on the massive developing chart. I have no idea why but the times listed for FP4 using Kodal HC110 are 7,8 or 9 minutes. Why three choices? I used 9 minutes and my images were shot at either normal exposure or +1. I was testing a new Yashica 124G and felt the meter was of by -1. I mostly used it’s meter at 0 and +1 exposure times and occasionally checked with an exposure app. Here are the OO and #2 contact sheets and the negatives.

 

[retina_restoration]

Underexposed, and way too overdeveloped for such contrasty lighting.

 

[Alan9940]

Underexposed, and way too overdeveloped for such contrasty lighting.

+1

Best best is some basic testing. Look up John Finch of Pictorial Planet on YouTube. He just did a multi-part series on what he called "The Easy Zone System."

 

[GregY]

I agree but will add ...too many variables. Meter accuracy.....shutter accuracy and underexposed & over developed.... Not really something you can blame on the film.

 

[pentaxuser]

I agree but will add ...too many variables. Meter accuracy.....shutter accuracy and underexposed & over developed.... Not really something you can blame on the film.

If the above was not a reply to Alan then ignore the following but if not then isn't the John Finch video to which he refers the only way to ensure that with the OP's camera, meter, exposure and developer he gets a customised EI for his film and customised development time for his developer.

It looked a fairly simple method to me and worth a try. If these were my negs then I, like the OP, would want to try ways to avoid producing these in future

In fact OP John Finch a while earlier produced 2 videos which gets you to the same place without in my opinion making it any harder than his latest method and maybe ensuring slightly more accuracy

pentaxuser

 

[GregY]

If the above was not a reply to Alan then ignore the following but if not then isn't the John Finch video to which he refers the only way to ensure that with the OP's camera, meter, exposure and developer he gets a customised EI for his film and customised development time for his developer.

It looked a fairly simple method to me and worth a try. If these were my negs then I, like the OP, would want to try ways to avoid producing these in future

In fact OP John Finch a while earlier produced 2 videos which gets you to the same place without in my opinion making it any harder than his latest method and maybe ensuring slightly more accuracy

pentaxuser

Actually a reply to retina restoration's post "Underexposed, and way too overdeveloped for such contrasty lighting."
The topic title is also misleading, as there is more going on/gone wrong than how to best process the film.
If you're testing a new camera you can't have so many moving targets. Compare the meter against one with known accuracy. Check the shutter speeds on a tester or shoot a roll of transparency film. Or when you shoot a test roll of film, use one with a familiar developer at a processing time that would give you normal results.....

 

[koraks]

I was testing a new Yashica 124G and felt the meter was of by -1.

The meter on those cameras is really rudimentary. Under the conditions you were photographing, I'm not surprised your exposures are all over the place and tending towards severe underexposure.

The first thing, as others have mentioned, is fix that issue. Consider carrying a separate light meter. Doesn't have to be a spot meter, although those are certainly nice, too. Practice with it and notice how large the contrast range is in the kind of forest scenes you shot on that roll. You may want to keep this into account also when composing.

Development comes next and I'd suggest sticking in first instance to the development times listed by Ilford for their own film:

Left column is the time for exposure at EI50, middle = EI125, right = EI200.

In your forest scenes, it would have made sense to set the EI to 50 on your meter, measure the shadows for e.g. one stop underexposure and give 6 minutes development in the B dilution. Don't hesitate to err on the side of overexposure, in general.

 

[MattKing]

Now those are negatives with muscle .
It is a bit difficult to tell whether they are actually under-exposed, although the may be. I often photograph in the forest, and my good negatives often have significant portions in them with very little density in the shadow .
But those highlights are very over-developed.
As koraks posted, use the manufacturer's references before the MDC. Ilford first, and then Kodak's as a backup.

 

[sruddy]

The meter on those cameras is really rudimentary. Under the conditions you were photographing, I'm not surprised your exposures are all over the place and tending towards severe underexposure.

The first thing, as others have mentioned, is fix that issue. Consider carrying a separate light meter. Doesn't have to be a spot meter, although those are certainly nice, too. Practice with it and notice how large the contrast range is in the kind of forest scenes you shot on that roll. You may want to keep this into account also when composing.

Development comes next and I'd suggest sticking in first instance to the development times listed by Ilford for their own film:
View attachment 344206
Left column is the time for exposure at EI50, middle = EI125, right = EI200.

In your forest scenes, it would have made sense to set the EI to 50 on your meter, measure the shadows for e.g. one stop underexposure and give 6 minutes development in the B dilution. Don't hesitate to err on the side of overexposure, in general.

Interesting that Ilfords numbers are lower than MDC, so going by them would make my situation worse.

Now those are negatives with muscle .
It is a bit difficult to tell whether they are actually under-exposed, although the may be. I often photograph in the forest, and my good negatives often have significant portions in them with very little density in the shadow .
But those highlights are very over-developed.
As koraks posted, use the manufacturer's references before the MDC. Ilford first, and then Kodak's as a backup.

Koraks show Ilfords numbers to be longer development than MDC, wouldn't that make my situation worse? My developing notes went with the 9 minute time for FP4+that equals 5.11 minutes in my processor. Since I use a machine so maybe I made a mistake. I'm going to reshoot charts and items in the studio, using strobes and a hand held meter. This should tell me what went wrong. I have a dual meter with 5 degree spot and incident but just purchased a Pentax 1 degree spot meter. I don't generally use hand held meters outside but I'm discovering my images in high contrast areas really kinda suck. I'm not one for the super high contrast with no shadow and highlight detail. I see lots of super high contrast images that look stunning, however I need to be able to make consistent images with both shadow and highlight detail before I go off into a more creative style.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Averaging meters in harsh contrasty lighting almost always underexpose. That's because they choose a midpoint in the subject brightness range to render as middle grey. That's fine if your SBR is "normal" or less (7 stops or less), which gives you three stops below and three above the midpoint, which means the shadows get adequate exposure (3 stops less than middle grey is about the limit for a shadow that has a tiny bit of detail).

But if your SBR is 10, as it could easily have been in the OP's case, then the midpoint ends up leaving 4 or 5 stop below and above the midpoint for the film to record. The high values will record satisfactorily on most modern films, but four stops below middle grey doesn't get recorded on the film at all; just clear negative.

My advice for using averaging meters has always been to overexpose one or two stops in contrasty situations. If the OP's meter is underexposing already, then those negs might even be 3 stops under.

Couple that with the overdevelopment and you're going to need a 00 filter or more and end up with blank shadows.

So, OP, use this as a test. You now know to reduce your development time and to rate your film slower (or give more exposure compensation) in contrasty situations. Keep adjusting as needed till you get the results you like.

It's not rocket science; just follow Kodak's time-tested advice: If your shadows have too little detail, expose more (and vice-versa, but overexposure is much less of a problem). And if your negatives are too contrasty, reduce development time, and vice-versa.

Best,

Doremus

 

[GregY]

Averaging meters in harsh contrasty lighting almost always underexpose. That's because they choose a midpoint in the subject brightness range to render as middle grey. That's fine if your SBR is "normal" or less (7 stops or less), which gives you three stops below and three above the midpoint, which means the shadows get adequate exposure (3 stops less than middle grey is about the limit for a shadow that has a tiny bit of detail).

But if your SBR is 10, as it could easily have been in the OP's case, then the midpoint ends up leaving 4 or 5 stop below and above the midpoint for the film to record. The high values will record satisfactorily on most modern films, but four stops below middle grey doesn't get recorded on the film at all; just clear negative.

My advice for using averaging meters has always been to overexpose one or two stops in contrasty situations. If the OP's meter is underexposing already, then those negs might even be 3 stops under.

Couple that with the overdevelopment and you're going to need a 00 filter or more and end up with blank shadows.

So, OP, use this as a test. You now know to reduce your development time and to rate your film slower (or give more exposure compensation) in contrasty situations. Keep adjusting as needed till you get the results you like.

It's not rocket science; just follow Kodak's time-tested advice: If your shadows have too little detail, expose more (and vice-versa, but overexposure is much less of a problem). And if your negatives are too contrasty, reduce development time, and vice-versa.

Best,

Doremus

Agreed DS, but trying to figure out development time at the same time as testing an unknown camera & meter doesn't seem plausible.

 

[pentaxuser]

Actually a reply to retina restoration's post "Underexposed, and way too overdeveloped for such contrasty lighting."
The topic title is also misleading, as there is more going on/gone wrong than how to best process the film.
If you're testing a new camera you can't have so many moving targets. Compare the meter against one with known accuracy. Check the shutter speeds on a tester or shoot a roll of transparency film. Or when you shoot a test roll of film, use one with a familiar developer at a processing time that would give you normal results.....

OK Thanks. However I always thought that establishing your own EI and from that a suitable development time for the particular developer you use was precisely because that method tailors the EI and dev time to match what you are using in terms of camera and metering. The method exists precisely because you have unknown variables built in to meters and cameras

pentaxuser

 

[GregY]

OK Thanks. However I always thought that establishing your own EI and from that a suitable development time for the particular developer you use was precisely because that method tailors the EI and dev time to match what you are using in terms of camera and metering. The method exists precisely because you have unknown variables built in to meters and cameras

pentaxuser

Well in theory yes but when your film doesn't turn out as planned you think....maybe my meter is off or my camera needs a CLA. I would not try to establish film development criteria with a camera/meter of unknown condition and then wonder where the errors crept in....

 

[MattKing]

My developing notes went with the 9 minute time for FP4+that equals 5.11 minutes in my processor.

Huh?

 

[koraks]

Interesting that Ilfords numbers are lower than MDC, so going by them would make my situation worse.

No, they are exactly the same (with Ilford's EI 125 dilution B figure matching the high end of the range on the MDC).

My developing notes went with the 9 minute time for FP4+that equals 5.11 minutes in my processor.

Uhm, no. If you want to correct for continuous agitation, you'd end up at something like 7.5 minutes or so. Unless you're developing at a significantly higher temperature, too. At that point it becomes a lot of guesswork of course.

I need to be able to make consistent images with both shadow and highlight detail

Keep in mind that in a real-world conditions, outside, with variable lighting, you'll still run into images with quite wildly varying contrast on a single roll. There's not all that much you can do about that, although exposing in such a way to capture sufficient shadow detail is always a good start.

 

[sruddy]

Huh?

Oh sorry Matt dev temp is 75 degrees

No, they are exactly the same (with Ilford's EI 125 dilution B figure matching the high end of the range on the MDC).



Uhm, no. If you want to correct for continuous agitation, you'd end up at something like 7.5 minutes or so. Unless you're developing at a significantly higher temperature, too. At that point it becomes a lot of guesswork of course.



Keep in mind that in a real-world conditions, outside, with variable lighting, you'll still run into images with quite wildly varying contrast on a single roll. There's not all that much you can do about that, although exposing in such a way to capture sufficient shadow detail is always a good start.

My dev temp is 75 degrees. I just started using pre wet,not sure why and my agitation is 30 reves per minute. I'm pretty certain my biggest part was over development. Today I will make sure my developing is correct by shooting some 4x5 sheets in studio were there will be absolutely not exposure issues. Thx for your feedback.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't see where you've stipulated your degree of HC-110 dilution. 9 minutes would be fine for HC-110 diluted 1:31 from concentrate or 1:7 from stock solution (dilution B). But it would be nuts with dilution A. And you'd have to shorten that quite a bit for 75F, versus normal 68F.

Otherwise, relying on TTL averaging meters for contrasty black and white scenes is always a gamble, and rarely a successful one.

 

[GregY]

I don't see where you've stipulated your degree of HC-110 dilution. 9 minutes would be fine for HC-110 diluted 1:31 from concentrate or 1:7 from stock solution (dilution B). But it would be nuts with dilution A. And you'd have to shorten that quite a bit for 75F, versus normal 68F.

Otherwise, relying on TTL averaging meters for contrasty black and white scenes is always a gamble, and rarely a successful one.

To add to the issue Drew, It was a Yashica 124G with non TTL metering of unknown accuracy......

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, iron out one bug at a time. Between posts, I was actually looking at a sheet of 8x10 FP4 I processed yesterday in HC-110 B, 10 min at 20C. Dead on for Gr 3 expectations (though I'll probably print it on MGWT). And nearly all my metering, any format, is via a handheld Pentax spot meter.

 

[MattKing]

Looking at the information I normally rely on, it seems to me that a 5.11 minute development time in 75F HC-110 dilution B should lead to much less density than I see on those negatives.
I would seriously check your temperature control.
Assuming of course there is no problem with dilution.

 

[sruddy]

I don't see where you've stipulated your degree of HC-110 dilution. 9 minutes would be fine for HC-110 diluted 1:31 from concentrate or 1:7 from stock solution (dilution B). But it would be nuts with dilution A. And you'd have to shorten that quite a bit for 75F, versus normal 68F.

Otherwise, relying on TTL averaging meters for contrasty black and white scenes is always a gamble, and rarely a successful one.

E

Looking at the information I normally rely on, it seems to me that a 5.11 minute development time in 75F HC-110 dilution B should lead to much less density than I see on those negatives.
I would seriously check your temperature control.
Assuming of course there is no problem with dilution.

Exactly, that's why I am scratching my head. I'm looking at 4x5 studio test shots I took a few years ago with those parameters and they looked awesome. I maybe having a senior moment. I'll sort this out and reply back with my findings.

 

[Thomas71]

FP4 is my all time favourite film in MF and I developed it with many developers (D76, Rodinal, HC-110 and XTOL).
My best results for darkroom print are achieved with XTOL 1+1 for 10 min.
In my process (incident meter, print on Grade 2 - Ilford RC) the time in Ilford datasheet (9 min in HC110 dil B) is too long and leads to very high contrast negatives and too much grain. I've found a time of 5-6 min is more appropiate with more manageble negatives.
Anyway, XTOL is definitely better than HC110 for FP4

 

[cliveh]

Massive development charts are crap. Experiment to achieve a development time that works for you.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are all kinds of developers choices for FP4. I normally use PMK pyro. But in this case I was dealing with a very gritty architectural subject where I wanted a bit of grain accentuation. After all, a 16X20 print from 8x10 film is only a 2X magnification. A medium format shot of the same thing would have been processed differently.

And I wouldn't dismiss the Massive Dev Chart. It's based on actual experiential input by many people. So it can be a useful starting point before further refining the parameters to your own needs - certainly better than nothing or a sheer guess when starting out.

 

[ic-racer]

Expose more, at least one stop, and develop 30% less and report back.