Ilfosol 3 and HP5+

[Tom Kershaw]

Film developers seem to be a more nuanced area than paper developers where in many cases you'd have to look very hard to see differences outside the major type demarcations.

 

[John Bragg]

I am pleased to add to this thread, that 2 months in and 60% of the original 500ml used, there has been no signs of poor keeping. Quite the opposite in fact. Sufficient to say "Rumours of its (premature) death have been greatly exaggerated", to paraphrase Mark Twain. It keeps very well if you do your part and decant into small glass medicine bottles with air tight child proof lids. My 3 year old has kindly donated her used Calpol bottles that hold 100ml and they work like a charm. I see no reason why it wont keep like any other dev if given this treatment. The old "Ilfosol S" has left somewhat of a poor reputation in this regard for the newer incarnation to live down. I now have complete confidence in the new stuff.

 

[NB23]

Yes, Ilfosol-3 is great. Just the needed boost in sharpness and contradt that TMAX100 needs. My 16x20 prints are fabulous.

I also fondly remember Ilfosol-S. Beautiful negatives.

 

[Bormental]

Yes, Ilfosol-3 is great. Just the needed boost in sharpness and contradt that TMAX100 needs.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but the last things T-Max 100 needs are sharpness and contrast. It offers loads of both, in my experience. Isn't it the sharpest ISO 100 film in Kodak's marketing materials?

 

[John Bragg]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but the last things T-Max 100 needs are sharpness and contrast. It offers loads of both, in my experience. Isn't it the sharpest ISO 100 film in Kodak's marketing materials?

I think sharpness and accutance are sometimes used interchangeably and they are two different things. A film can be very sharp with low accutance. In my limited experience of T-max 100, that is the case here. I found it great for female portraits.

 

[MattKing]

I think sharpness and accutance are sometimes used interchangeably and they are two different things. A film can be very sharp with low accutance. In my limited experience of T-max 100, that is the case here. I found it great for female portraits.

I'm not sure that you are using "sharpness" here the way most people do.
"Sharpness" is very closely related to acutance - most of what we observe subjectively as "sharpness" is actually just edge contrast (accutance).
Resolution - the ability to record fine detail - is the characteristic that T-Max 100 excels at, but which can actually reduce the appearance of sharpness.
Grainy Tri-X often appears "sharper" than T-Max 100. The fine gradations and tonal transitions that T-Max 100 is capable of are what make it excellent for portraits. Tri-X is more likely to emphasize wrinkles.

 

[John Bragg]

I'm not sure that you are using "sharpness" here the way most people do.
"Sharpness" is very closely related to acutance - most of what we observe subjectively as "sharpness" is actually just edge contrast (accutance).
Resolution - the ability to record fine detail - is the characteristic that T-Max 100 excels at, but which can actually reduce the appearance of sharpness.
Grainy Tri-X often appears "sharper" than T-Max 100. The fine gradations and tonal transitions that T-Max 100 is capable of are what make it excellent for portraits. Tri-X is more likely to emphasize wrinkles.

Thankyou for clarifying my clumsy explanation. That's exactly what I meant to say

 

[pentaxuser]

Certainly in certain threads "sharpness" can be had in super abundance here on Photrio

pentaxuser

 

[John Bragg]

Just a quick update to my experience with Ilfosol 3. I am delighted with the keeping properties when stored in 100ml Calpol bottles. I am now at almost 6 months and about to use the final 50ml and there is no sign of loss of potency. It is still Gin clear and works like a charm. I think that stored this way, 12 months is perfectly possible. Very good for a great Developer that has gotten some bad reviews when improperly stored.

 

[cowanw]

This is my experience as well.

 

[NB23]

I typically wait until I have 20 rolls of film and finish the whole bottle of Ilfosol within 2 days (same for a D76/Xtol) solution.

It is never said enough: Ilfosol-3 is a marvelous developer.

 

[foc]

I have used Ilfosol 3 commercially for many years, always at 1+14 (I prefer the longer times), and found it to be a great developer. I never had a complaint from a customer.
Unfortunately, I think its reputation gets mixed up with its predecessor Ilfosol S.
Like any concentrated liquid developer, it is best to decant into smaller glass bottles.
I saw on Firstcall Photographic website "Although we stock 40 different types of developer, two liquid film developers outsell all the remainder - Ilford Ilfosol 3 and Fotospeed FD10."

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Slightly off topic but as I mentioned earlier in this thread, my students use Ilfosol 3 at 1+14. For semester two, I'm going to be using Ilford MG developer, diluted at 1+60. I used it with HP5 back in the 90's, and I was quite impressed with the results. This way I can simplify my purchases, and save money for film... that has gone up quite a bit over the past couple of years! On a tight budget, and Covid didn't help! We just finished farting around with caffenol, and the kids just loved it!

 

[John Bragg]

Slightly off topic but as I mentioned earlier in this thread, my students use Ilfosol 3 at 1+14. For semester two, I'm going to be using Ilford MG developer, diluted at 1+60. I used it with HP5 back in the 90's, and I was quite impressed with the results. This way I can simplify my purchases, and save money for film... that has gone up quite a bit over the past couple of years! On a tight budget, and Covid didn't help! We just finished farting around with caffenol, and the kids just loved it!

Great stuff Andrew. I have always thought that D23 may be a cheap but good way to go. Or add a little salt and make Perceptol ?

 

[foc]

Slightly off topic but as I mentioned earlier in this thread, my students use Ilfosol 3 at 1+14. For semester two, I'm going to be using Ilford MG developer, diluted at 1+60. I used it with HP5 back in the 90's, and I was quite impressed with the results. This way I can simplify my purchases, and save money for film... that has gone up quite a bit over the past couple of years! On a tight budget, and Covid didn't help! We just finished farting around with caffenol, and the kids just loved it!

I would be very interested in seeing some of your results, please.

I remember back in late 1970s using Ilford PQ Universal in higher dilutions for 35mm and getting very good results. (I can't remember the exact dilutions but the times were 8 mins for 100 ASA and 12 mins for 400 ASA films, batched processed 12 films at a time in a hand line).

 

[Lachlan Young]

Slightly off topic but as I mentioned earlier in this thread, my students use Ilfosol 3 at 1+14. For semester two, I'm going to be using Ilford MG developer, diluted at 1+60. I used it with HP5 back in the 90's, and I was quite impressed with the results. This way I can simplify my purchases, and save money for film... that has gone up quite a bit over the past couple of years! On a tight budget, and Covid didn't help! We just finished farting around with caffenol, and the kids just loved it!

PQ Universal is usually recommended over Multigrade for film development - likely for good reasons (probably buffering or restrainers or something like that).

I've used PQ Universal at about 1+29 or so for film development in the last year or so - astoundingly low base fog & controllable contrast boosts (to quite drastic levels) if you need them. Watch out for the potential speed loss in some circumstances. Ilford has instructions for using PQ Universal for film processing in the PDF document for their paper developers.

I remember back in late 1970s using Ilford PQ Universal in higher dilutions for 35mm and getting very good results. (I can't remember the exact dilutions but the times were 8 mins for 100 ASA and 12 mins for 400 ASA films, batched processed 12 films at a time in a hand line).

1+39 would probably be a fair guess - I've seen old 1970's Ilford data that recommended 4 mins for FP4 and 6 mins for HP4 in 1+19 dilution for a G-Bar of 0.7 (ie cold cathode/ diffusion).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I would be very interested in seeing some of your results, please.

I remember back in late 1970s using Ilford PQ Universal in higher dilutions for 35mm and getting very good results. (I can't remember the exact dilutions but the times were 8 mins for 100 ASA and 12 mins for 400 ASA films, batched processed 12 films at a time in a hand line).

Will do, but remember... it'll be the results of high school students, not my own personal work

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

PQ Universal is usually recommended over Multigrade for film development - likely for good reasons (probably buffering or restrainers or something like that).

I've used PQ Universal at about 1+29 or so for film development in the last year or so - astoundingly low base fog & controllable contrast boosts (to quite drastic levels) if you need them. Watch out for the potential speed loss in some circumstances. Ilford has instructions for using PQ Universal for film processing in the PDF document for their paper developers.



1+39 would probably be a fair guess - I've seen old 1970's Ilford data that recommended 4 mins for FP4 and 6 mins for HP4 in 1+19 dilution for a G-Bar of 0.7 (ie cold cathode/ diffusion).

MG at 1+60 was completely fine, but I'll look into Universal. Thank you.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I would be very interested in seeing some of your results, please.

I remember back in late 1970s using Ilford PQ Universal in higher dilutions for 35mm and getting very good results. (I can't remember the exact dilutions but the times were 8 mins for 100 ASA and 12 mins for 400 ASA films, batched processed 12 films at a time in a hand line).

Shot a very short roll yesterday of FP4 (EI 100), and developed it in Ilford MG developer, 1+60. 9:30 20C. Agitation 5s every minute. Negative looks great (subject matter not so). B+F is the same as Ilfosol-3 at 1+14. This is the route my students will be going. Can't beat the economy!

 

[NB23]

Good.
what is “B+F”?

As far as the economy goes, it is very close to the price of 500ml Rodinal used at 1:50.

My rough calculation indicates that you save 0.02$ (Two cents) per developed roll.

Is saving 2 cents worth it, over a loss of quality? Then again, maybe there is a gain in quality?

edit: was too quick, it actually comes to 5.7 cents more expensive, per roll, with rodinal @ 1:50.

 

[Lachlan Young]

'B+F' = Base + Fog.

Dilute PQ Universal is pretty brutally sharp when used for film development, but somewhat different in terms of visual look to Rodinal. Apparent granularity can come in much quicker too. I do intend to try it on Delta 3200, but I'm under no illusions about the effective EI likely being about 500-640.

 

[foc]

Shot a very short roll yesterday of FP4 (EI 100), and developed it in Ilford MG developer, 1+60. 9:30 20C. Agitation 5s every minute. Negative looks great (subject matter not so). B+F is the same as Ilfosol-3 at 1+14. This is the route my students will be going. Can't beat the economy!

View attachment 257032

Thank you for posting the photo and the details.
To me the results look great.
Is this the new rodinal?
Or should it be Ilfonal?
(I know the keeping powers may not be the same)

 

[NB23]

Yes, back in the Newspaper days, Dektol was used to develop film. Depending on deadlines, 2 minutes developing time wasn’t unusual. And printing wet negatives...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Good.
what is “B+F”?

As far as the economy goes, it is very close to the price of 500ml Rodinal used at 1:50.

My rough calculation indicates that you save 0.02$ (Two cents) per developed roll.

Is saving 2 cents worth it, over a loss of quality? Then again, maybe there is a gain in quality?

edit: was too quick, it actually comes to 5.7 cents more expensive, per roll, with rodinal @ 1:50.

Ilford MG is about 5 dollars cheaper per litre of stock than Blazinal (our Rodinal here in Canada). From what I can see, there is no loss in quality. Also please keep in mind that this is for high school students who wouldn't know quality if it hit them in the face... That said, I wouldn't hesitate to use it for my own, personal work.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thank you for posting the photo and the details.
To me the results look great.
Is this the new rodinal?
Or should it be Ilfonal?
(I know the keeping powers may not be the same)

Ilfonal! I like it! Maybe I should see if it can stand develop like Rodinal...