Ilford HP5+ - uneven development results

"clinch witness" ?

I am glad that Thomas may be getting the bottom of this problem but many of the posts have once again raised the spectre of " the problem of the pre-soak with Ilford films" or not as the case may be.

The pre-soak problem might be a "myth" and as we know myths die hard on APUG but it might help if Simon were to re-state Ilford's position on pre-soaking.

My understanding from his previous statement and a search might well turn it up is that Ilford do not recommend a pre-soak but do not actively advise against it either. Essentially its position is that it is just not necessary.

If there is a pre-soak problem with Ilford films and one would wonder what is different from Ilford films to say Fuji, Kodak etc then it would be helpful if Ilford were to say something along the lines of: While in most case a pre-soak will not create a problem we advise against it on the grounds that at best it is unnecessary and at worse in some cases may create an issue with the negatives" or suitable words to that effect.

I do hope that Thomas sends his film back to Ilford to allow it to pronounce on the problem and set the record straight on "to pre-soak or not to pre-soak"

pentaxuser

Or

Xmas said:

Hi

120 or 220 is a pig to load into plastic or CRES spirals and avoid clinch witness or touching film I don't try it in a changing (dark) bag.

If the HP5 is more flexible than you are used to or the plastic spirals are wet, you will have troubles. Never had problems with Ilford, Agfa, Kodak, or Forma film...

Noel

Click to expand...

Which is exactly the reason I don't use plastic reels.

How would that give me the results that I've been showing? If I was able to develop the film, isn't it obvious that I was also able to load it properly?

Just for the record, here is a quick scan of one of the frames from my test roll.

As explained earlier, I used exactly the same work flow as with the 'old' brick of film, because I only want to change one thing at a time when I troubleshoot. The light was not ideal, and there's a lot more texture in the sky, but I see no uneven density from side to side in the frame.

I will try using the film without presoaking too, as it isn't suggested anywhere in Ilford's literature. But I believe 100% that my problem is solved. If Ilford wants to see the film for their records, then I'll happily send it. But I'm satisfied with the solution, even though it provides no definitive answers.

Thanks all for chiming in and helping out.

pdeeh said:

"clinch witness" ?

Click to expand...

If you stress the thin base at all it show as e.g. a little flying saucers in the sky, Id not send a print to USAF...

pentaxuser said:

The pre-soak problem might be a "myth" and as we know myths die hard on APUG but it might help if Simon were to re-state Ilford's position on pre-soaking.

Click to expand...

You don't need to pre-soak mono (cept C41!), but you should not use short development times, throw in some ice granules, and use a temper bath instead for a 20C time ... If you want to be cautious you need to control the subsequent temperatures tight, taking risks is bad.
I've never done a pre-soak cept with colour... but I always temper to 20C... some organic agents are temperature sensitive, 20 C is easy to do?
Some films it would be bad e.g. the non pre-hardened, some of the colour film needed a pre-harden bath, when C41 was introduced!
Similarly non pre hardened mono wont like acid stop baths... stop baths are however necessary for prints, unless you like stains.
I use a post Borax bath, ... before a plain water 'stop' stop wash, and plain hypo fix.
You do need to pre-soak some colour films follow the manufactures instructions to the letter, if you want simpler colour printing or slides, if you can do I'd hold temperatures better as well...

When I pour in the developer I use minimum amount to leave lots of air in tank then I invert once or twice slowly, there wont be any trapped bubbles...

@Thomas

If you have film touching in a plastic or CRES spiral you will get marks... 120 is very flexible...
There are those that load two 120 film in plastic spirals, to me this is like walking on water, I hair dryer my spirals or leave in warm airing cupboard over night...
Losing a frame of 120 is not good.

Noel

Happy to re-state the position :

ILFORD Photo do not believe any advantage or benefit is gained by pre-soaking modern emulsions and we therefore do not advise or recommend that it is done.

But, if a customer chooses to do so as part of his processing discipline it should not affect the processing performance of any ILFORD film.

On a personal level I have never pre-soaked any film I have processed.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited.

Xmas said:

@Thomas

If you have film touching in a plastic or CRES spiral you will get marks... 120 is very flexible...
There are those that load two 120 film in plastic spirals, to me this is like walking on water, I hair dryer my spirals or leave in warm airing cupboard over night...
Losing a frame of 120 is not good.

Noel

Click to expand...

Which, again, is why I don't use plastic reels. Stainless steel Hewes are so much easier to work with.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Which, again, is why I don't use plastic reels. Stainless steel Hewes are so much easier to work with.

Click to expand...

CRES is Corrosion REsistant Steel (I apologise for abbreviation) it is still possible to buckle 120 even with steel reels... some people are ambi - clumsy

Simon,

Thanks again for being such a wonderful presence here. It is one of the reasons I much prefer Ilford, and why I have almost a thousand sheets of Ilford paper in my darkroom, have switched to using your films, and use some of your chemicals.

Thomas

If you want to see your performance in processing techniques.

I suggest lighting a grey background as consistently as you can, then process the films and with a densitometer read the results.

The problem you showed IMHO is not a presoak issue , but a agitation/getting developer fast onto the emulsion issue.

Bob Carnie said:

Thomas

If you want to see your performance in processing techniques.

I suggest lighting a grey background as consistently as you can, then process the films and with a densitometer read the results.

The problem you showed IMHO is not a presoak issue , but a agitation/getting developer fast onto the emulsion issue.

Click to expand...

I don't have a densitometer, or I might try what you suggest.

However, I was able to process the same film from a different batch, with perfect results, using exactly the same technique as the last two that were bad.
I don't deviate from my technique, in the name of repeatability I try my very best to develop the film exactly the same way every single time.
The only things I vary, to control tonality, is developing time, and agitation interval. Up until this point, it has worked swimmingly, judging from prints up to 16x20" size.

I think it's good to be critical of our work flow, however, which is what I think you're trying to tell me. In order to get into working the way I'm working I've mainly sought advice from people I trust and have a ton of experience, in order to make sure that my working methods are as sounds as possible.
This would all be so much easier to work out if we were in the same room together.

Dear All,

This is not, I repeat not an explanation re this thread but the 3 most common processing issues we have sent to us or referred to us regarding our films are

A ) Agitation

B ) Extended ( stand ) developing regimes

C ) Issues related to 'self manufactured developers or chemicals

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

I think it must have been something in the way the film was stored wherever you purchased it from. Your work always shows a meticulousness in technique, and Ilford's QC is second to none. I can only assume it was caused by something outside the control of you and Ilford.

eddie said:

I think it must have been something in the way the film was stored wherever you purchased it from. Your work always shows a meticulousness in technique, and Ilford's QC is second to none. I can only assume it was caused by something outside the control of you and Ilford.

Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking too, Eddie. It's definitely an episode of something I doubt will get understood, but I'm fine with that.

I haven't really lost anything in the grand scheme of things, maybe 50 bucks in purchasing the film. It's not like I depend on my photography to make a living, in fact it's the opposite - I make a living so that I can afford photography... hahaha I don't have time to market my work, so I just do. If I lose a roll or ten, it's very few rolls out of the thousands I have laying around, out of which less than 1% has ever seen the light of an enlarger.

You should just shrug it off... There are some people I might assign the problem to technique. You're not one of them.

I think that deliberately sabotaging Thomas' film, was the only way that Cardwell could get the message out that he is being kept against his will in order to reveal all he knows about portraiture.

Dinesh said:

I think that deliberately sabotaging Thomas' film, was the only way that Cardwell could get the message out that he is being kept against his will in order to reveal all he knows about portraiture.

Click to expand...

D-man, you're right!

I probably shouldn't be keeping my film in the basement where 'he who shall not be mentioned' might get a little cranky. Thanks for the advice.

Thomas

In my first post I pointed out that I had 30k rolls in my belt, and then the exact minus density problem started that you see in the middle of the film.

We were using jobo with no issues...

The final solution was to put in chemicals and hand agitate, as well use distilled water to allow the chemicals to flow faster then put the film on the machine.
Also I should point out we went back to the old method and years latter **knock on wood** we have had no issue.

The toughest thing when seeing a problem like this , is to stand back, blame the operator , and then fix. In my whole career I have swallowed this pill and
it always ends up being a variable that I did not consider in the heat of the moment.

I absolutely do not think it is the film... I believe it is some condition surrounding you that may be different and your tried and true methods are not working.

Shooting grey backgounds will show you immediately, you do not need a densitiometer.

hope you find the problem

Bob

Thomas Bertilsson said:

I don't have a densitometer, or I might try what you suggest.

However, I was able to process the same film from a different batch, with perfect results, using exactly the same technique as the last two that were bad.
I don't deviate from my technique, in the name of repeatability I try my very best to develop the film exactly the same way every single time.
The only things I vary, to control tonality, is developing time, and agitation interval. Up until this point, it has worked swimmingly, judging from prints up to 16x20" size.

I think it's good to be critical of our work flow, however, which is what I think you're trying to tell me. In order to get into working the way I'm working I've mainly sought advice from people I trust and have a ton of experience, in order to make sure that my working methods are as sounds as possible.
This would all be so much easier to work out if we were in the same room together.

Click to expand...

Bob,

Thanks. I always listen to what you say, because of your immense experience.
I might do the gray surface test some day, and I'm 100% certain it will teach me something.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Bob,

Thanks. I always listen to what you say, because of your immense experience.
I might do the gray surface test some day, and I'm 100% certain it will teach me something.

Click to expand...

If Bob is so smart then why is he so short?

It is due to the day I saw you walk into my shop.

Your Uglyness had a profound effect on my molecular structure, I was cringing so badly from looking at youI think I shrunk four inches.

Dinesh said:

If Bob is so smart then why is he so short?

Click to expand...

Perhaps I could continue on the pre-soak track a little?

I have noticed some benefits from it. I never used to pre-soak B&W film until I had a period of C41-development. Without thinking about it, I carried over pre-soaking to B&W too.

I noted that several types of film came out cleaner and scanned a bit better after a pre-soak. More so on 120 film than 35mm. It's also a good way too keep a constant temperature in basic conditions, which is good for the film.

But I will certainly try omitting it too.

Bob Carnie said:

It is due to the day I saw you walk into my shop.

Your Uglyness had a profound effect on my molecular structure, I was cringing so badly from looking at youI think I shrunk four inches.

Click to expand...

One might be conned into thinking you guys are just slinging nasty words around, but I know better.
I see real dedication to contempt, a quality I admire a lot.

Jaf-Photo said:

Perhaps I could continue on the pre-soak track a little?

I have noticed some benefits from it. I never used to pre-soak B&W film until I had a period of C41-development. Without thinking about it, I carried over pre-soaking to B&W too.

I noted that several types of film came out cleaner and scanned a bit better after a pre-soak. More so on 120 film than 35mm. It's also a good way too keep a constant temperature in basic conditions, which is good for the film.

But I will certainly try omitting it too.

Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that one should use what works best. If no presoak works better than with presoak, or a longer 5 minute presoak works better, then use it.

I thought I had a virtually bullet proof processing cycle, and I still feel that I do.

Bob Carnie said:

Thomas

In my first post I pointed out that I had 30k rolls in my belt, and then the exact minus density problem started that you see in the middle of the film.

We were using jobo with no issues...

The final solution was to put in chemicals and hand agitate, as well use distilled water to allow the chemicals to flow faster then put the film on the machine.
Also I should point out we went back to the old method and years latter **knock on wood** we have had no issue.

The toughest thing when seeing a problem like this , is to stand back, blame the operator , and then fix. In my whole career I have swallowed this pill and
it always ends up being a variable that I did not consider in the heat of the moment.

I absolutely do not think it is the film... I believe it is some condition surrounding you that may be different and your tried and true methods are not working.

Shooting grey backgounds will show you immediately, you do not need a densitiometer.

hope you find the problem

Bob

Click to expand...

The thing that bothers me the most, Bob, after thinking about it, is:

I bought ten rolls of HP5+ in a brick. Every roll I have used from it has exhibited uneven densities. That is from using three different developers, replenished Edwal 12, replenished Xtol, and D76 1+1, some shot and processed last summer, and some this winter.
All of the other films I've processed in the last five years have been fine. Except those ten.
Then I get another brick of HP5+ and try developing using exactly the same​ method as the ones that are bad, and the roll comes out perfect. I used the same D76 as the ones that are bad, the same stop, and the same fix. I agitated exactly the same way, and presoaked for two minutes.

That beats logic in my opinion. How is it possible that with those ten rolls, and only those ten rolls, the results were bad, but with every other roll since I've had perfect results? It's just too strange.