Ilford Ortho Plus, FP4 Plus: How developer dependent?

Hi all!

I've been using quite abit of Ilford Ortho Plus. And I have to admit, I have never really paid attention to how much various developers have affected the negatives - I've always been pretty pleased. I wonder now because I've developed a few sheets in XT-3. I do this in a Jobo and a couple of weeks ago I forgot to pay attention to the time so I overdeveloped by a couple of minutes. There is a difference, but I have to say I expected to see more.

I use the times Kodak has given for Xtol for FP4+ in rotary tanks which is 7:15. I use these times as I understand that Ortho behaves like FP4, which is also why Ive included FP4 in this question. I have heard that FP4 is resilient to developer choice - and therefore also time? If this is the case, can I assume the same for Ortho?

Are there developers you prefer to use (or not) for these two films - if so, why? I enjoy XT-3 as it is a powder developer (longer shelf life) and easy to mix

Cheers
Peter

I've used Ilford Ortho Plus and develop it in multigrade print developer at 1:9. However, I would question why you are developing this film in a Jobo tank? It's ortho, so you can develop it by inspection in a tray under red safelighting.

It's not resilient to developer choice or for developer dilution, for that matter. Why don't you just stick with XT-3, and play around with dilutions, if you want to experiment?

It's been a while since I've used Ilford's Ortho film, not sure if it was Ortho Plus or just plain Ortho.

I've never used XT-3 developer, but have in the past used two developers for this film, D76 full strength and a high contrast developer for one particular customer's artwork.

I used 4x5" sheet film and I too developed in a Jobo as the sheet film variant of this product requires constant agitation and having for 10 years daily used rocking motion in a developing dish to develop Ilford Newsdot film under a deep red safelight, the Jobo rotary development is better for producing consistent negative density.

The Ilford Newsdot film, of which I still have around 80 sheets, is 30.5cm x 45.7cm in size and is a hoot to use.

Getting back to 4x5" Ilford Ortho film, for pictorial work I used D76, and for high contrast work I used ID19 developer. I know this as I just looked at my darkroom wall clip which has a plethora of developer formulae listed.

ID19
Metol 2.2g
Sodium Sulphite Anhyd 72g
Hydroquinone 8.8g
Sodium Carbonate Anhyd. 48g
Potassium Bromide 4g

Water to 1000ml

Use full strength and according to my notes 5 minutes at 24ºC with constant agitation

It has been around 20 years since I last used it, so what you have today may be slightly different but Ilford Ortho was certainly developer dependent on what you could or would get.

cliveh said:

I've used Ilford Ortho Plus and develop it in multigrade print developer at 1:9. However, I would question why you are developing this film in a Jobo tank? It's ortho, so you can develop it by inspection in a tray under red safelighting.

Click to expand...

Hi - I dont have a darkroom.

Andrew O'Neill said:

It's not resilient to developer choice or for developer dilution, for that matter. Why don't you just stick with XT-3, and play around with dilutions, if you want to experiment?

Click to expand...

I intend to stick with XT-3. Im probably not experiment that much either. Im just curious on other peoples experience with the film(s).

Thanks @Mick Fagan

pkr1979 said:

Thanks @Mick Fagan

Click to expand...

If you can't get the results you want with XT-3 (Xtol) then something it dreadfully wrong. Just a superb developer all the way around. Good luck and most importantly, have fun.

John Wiegerink said:

If you can't get the results you want with XT-3 (Xtol) then something it dreadfully wrong. Just a superb developer all the way around. Good luck and most importantly, have fun.

Click to expand...

This isnt a complaint about results - XT-3 is awesome. Maybe Ive been unclear, but as I said above I intend to stick with XT-3. I was just curious on other peoples experience with the film(s).

pkr1979 said:

This isnt a complaint about results - XT-3 is awesome. Maybe Ive been unclear, but as I said above I intend to stick with XT-3. I was just curious on other peoples experience with the film(s).

Click to expand...

I know you weren't complaining about XT-3 and I totally agree that it's an awesome film developer. I really shouldn't have commented since I have not used Ilfords Ortho film. I have used a lot of FP4+ and XT-3/Xtol works fine with that. Sorry!

John Wiegerink said:

I know you weren't complaining about XT-3 and I totally agree that it's an awesome film developer. I really shouldn't have commented since I have not used Ilfords Ortho film. I have used a lot of FP4+ and XT-3/Xtol works fine with that. Sorry!

Click to expand...

Im happy to know about your FP4+ XT-3 experience - got a pack to go thru there as well And Merry Christmas

I find Ortho and FP4 have similar development times as well. I use Wimberley’s WD2D+ pyro developer: 6 minutes for FP4, 6:15 for Ortho+. 64 and 20 ISO, respectively.

Jarin Blaschke said:

I find Ortho and FP4 have similar development times as well. I use Wimberley’s WD2D+ pyro developer: 6 minutes for FP4, 6:15 for Ortho+. 64 and 20 ISO, respectively.

Click to expand...

Funny you should mention WD2D+ since I just tested some sheet film and used some of John Wimberley's WD2H+ to develop the negatives. I made it about 7 years ago, and it still seems to work fine. I only keep it for testing now, as I have moved to another pyro developer. I believe that FP4/FP4+ was the only film that John used, but could be wrong. I wonder which is better for Ortho film, pyro or non-pyro. I have some of the new Foma Ortho, but haven't shot it yet. I'll probably just use my batch of XT-3 replenished to develop it.