I'm glad I checked Ilford's data sheet for HP5+ before developing.

rpavich · Jul 21, 2018

I was just about to develop some HP5+ in D76 and so I set up the Massive Dev app, chose the film/dev combo and it said 13 minutes at stock temp but I always check the data sheet and I'm glad that I did! Massive Dev has it as 13 minutes for a 1:1 ratio at 20c. Ilford's data sheet has it at 11 minutes for the same temp, that's quite a difference!

I'm not sure of why the disparity, this is why I always check the data sheets before developing.

manualcrank · Jul 21, 2018

Ilford tech sheet says 13 minutes for ID-11, though, which is supposed to be functionally interchangeable with D76.

rpavich · Jul 21, 2018

manualcrank said:
Ilford tech sheet says 13 minutes for ID-11, though, which is supposed to be functionally interchangeable with D76.

The specifically call out D76 1:1 at 11 minutes.

MattKing · Jul 21, 2018

Development recommendations are just that - recommendations.
You are working with one company's film and another company's developer. If you look at the Massive Development app, you are looking at another company's effort to gather opinions from even more third parties about what they recommend.
And most important, none of the recommendations include information about what contrast index or gamma the films are developed to.
What you may be seeing is simply the difference between opinions as to how much contrast in the negatives is "best".
I would suggest the Ilford datasheet as the best starting position.
And as for the D76/ID-11 issue, you may again be seeing a difference in subjective approach to contrast. Alternatively, there may be a practical difference arising from dilution.

chriscrawfordphoto · Jul 21, 2018

There are several cases where Ilford recommends different developing times for ID-11 and D-76, despite those developers supposedly being the same formula. While the original formulas were identical, I suspect both Kodak and Ilford have made alterations to the packaged products they sell, which would account for the differences Ilford's times show. I would always start with manufacturer's developing times before something like the Massive Developing Chart.

rpavich · Jul 21, 2018

Well this has been interesting!
I just developed and printed a few 8x10's from this roll and here is my observation when shooting at box speed and developing at the recommended time: the negatives were underexposed (Getting true black from the film rebate on a contact sheet caused the frames to be very dark) and the contrast was very low (I like to shoot for grade 2 and had to print with a grade 4 to get normal contrast)

So, I guess my next roll will be shot 1 stop over and developed for a bit more time, maybe I'll try either the Massive Dev time of 13 minutes or just start by splitting the difference between the 11min and the 13 min and make it 12 min.

Lachlan Young · Jul 21, 2018

chriscrawfordphoto said:
There are several cases where Ilford recommends different developing times for ID-11 and D-76, despite those developers supposedly being the same formula. While the original formulas were identical, I suspect both Kodak and Ilford have made alterations to the packaged products they sell, which would account for the differences Ilford's times show. I would always start with manufacturer's developing times before something like the Massive Developing Chart.

Or it may be far simpler than that - they may be for different contrast indices - one for 0.62, the other for 0.56 - or something along those lines. I just wish Ilford would follow what Kodak, Foma etc do & provide time/ g-bar curves - they do for Delta's 400 & 3200, but nothing else - it is a massive help in understanding where certain development times are targeted at before getting deeper into analytical approaches.

Lachlan Young · Jul 21, 2018

rpavich said:
Well this has been interesting!
I just developed and printed a few 8x10's from this roll and here is my observation when shooting at box speed and developing at the recommended time: the negatives were underexposed (Getting true black from the film rebate on a contact sheet caused the frames to be very dark) and the contrast was very low (I like to shoot for grade 2 and had to print with a grade 4 to get normal contrast)

So, I guess my next roll will be shot 1 stop over and developed for a bit more time, maybe I'll try either the Massive Dev time of 13 minutes or just start by splitting the difference between the 11min and the 13 min and make it 12 min.

A lot of your problems may be down to too little exposure (metering technique?) and too much processing time.

My own approach with HP5+ is to key to the shadows - at which point 250-400 or very close to it is correct - or rate it at about 200 with a traditional TTL meter and develop for about 10 minutes, ID-11 1+1, 20c, depending on lighting conditions. Usually places negs in the G2-3 range with a 4x5 diffusion enlarger unless I want to do specific things in printing.

RalphLambrecht · Jul 21, 2018

rpavich said:
I was just about to develop some HP5+ in D76 and so I set up the Massive Dev app, chose the film/dev combo and it said 13 minutes at stock temp but I always check the data sheet and I'm glad that I did! Massive Dev has it as 13 minutes for a 1:1 ratio at 20c. Ilford's data sheet has it at 11 minutes for the same temp, that's quite a difference!

I'm not sure of why the disparity, this is why I always check the data sheets before developing.

I doubt it's that big of a difference at 1+1 and 20C.

rpavich · Jul 21, 2018

Ok, so I did a test.

I shot one roll of a still life consisting of a few items sitting on my kitchen table: two flashes (black with details), a bag of coffee (green bag), along with a couple of white coffee cups, a steel reel, and my computer mouse (black) and napkin (white)

I shot sequences at 400, 320, 250, 200 blank blank blank, 400, 320, 250, 200, blank blank blank...etc.

I split the roll in half and developed one half at the Ilford recommended time of 11 minutes, and the other half at the Massive Dev time of 13 minutes.

Then I made a contact sheet for minimum time to get max black. (which was 18 seconds) at grade 2

I then made (without moving anything) four 8x10's, (the ones box speed and ones at 200) all printing for the same 18 seconds and grade 2. Here are the results:

Exposed at 400 and dev'd for 11 seconds:
Shadows / blacks are a bit weak but the highlights look good with just enough detail where it needs to be.

Exposed at 200 and dev'd for 11 seconds:
Shadows / blacks are a bit weak and the highlights are void of all of the detail that they should have.

Exposed at 400 and dev'd for 13 seconds:
Shadows / Blacks are nice and strong and highlights are good with just enough detail where it needs to be.

Exposed at 200 and dev'd for 13 seconds:
Shadows / Blacks are nice and strong but highlights are void of all of the detail that they should have.

Now I know why the massive dev chart said 13 seconds, clearly that time produced the best print using the minimum time for max black for my paper.

I do think that my earlier negs were so far out of the ball park that I did something wrong, I'm guessing it was a significant math error. Those negs weren't even in the ball park.

sepiareverb · Jul 21, 2018

This is why we test.

MattKing · Jul 21, 2018

rpavich said:
Ok, so I did a test.

I shot one roll of a still life consisting of a few items sitting on my kitchen table: two flashes (black with details), a bag of coffee (green bag), along with a couple of white coffee cups, a steel reel, and my computer mouse (black) and napkin (white)

I shot sequences at 400, 320, 250, 200 blank blank blank, 400, 320, 250, 200, blank blank blank...etc.

I split the roll in half and developed one half at the Ilford recommended time of 11 minutes, and the other half at the Massive Dev time of 13 minutes.

Then I made a contact sheet for minimum time to get max black. (which was 18 seconds) at grade 2

I then made (without moving anything) four 8x10's, (the ones box speed and ones at 200) all printing for the same 18 seconds and grade 2. Here are the results:

Exposed at 400 and dev'd for 11 seconds:
Shadows / blacks are a bit weak but the highlights look good with just enough detail where it needs to be.

Exposed at 200 and dev'd for 11 seconds:
Shadows / blacks are a bit weak and the highlights are void of all of the detail that they should have.

Exposed at 400 and dev'd for 13 seconds:
Shadows / Blacks are nice and strong and highlights are good with just enough detail where it needs to be.

Exposed at 200 and dev'd for 13 seconds:
Shadows / Blacks are nice and strong but highlights are void of all of the detail that they should have.

Now I know why the massive dev chart said 13 seconds, clearly that time produced the best print using the minimum time for max black for my paper.

I do think that my earlier negs were so far out of the ball park that I did something wrong, I'm guessing it was a significant math error. Those negs weren't even in the ball park.

I'm assuming that you mean 11 minutes and 13 minutes where you have posted 11 seconds and 13 seconds.
I have one major concern with your methodology. The time for "minimum time for maximum black" for a contact sheet should almost always be less than the time for "minimum time for maximum black" with an enlargement. If you put a source of diffusion and flare like a partially transparent piece of film higher up in the light path it will tend to have a bigger affect than if it is in contact with the paper. And a negative in the carrier will enlarge with less than a negative in contact with the paper.
You need to do your "minimum time for maximum black" determination with the negative in the enlarger if you are testing with enlargements as your end goal.

faberryman · Jul 21, 2018

The Massive Development Chart is a collection of anecdotal information. It is a place to start for oddball film/developer combinations where no manufacture information exists, but for the standard combos, consult the manufacturer data sheets.

rpavich · Jul 22, 2018

MattKing said:
I'm assuming that you mean 11 minutes and 13 minutes where you have posted 11 seconds and 13 seconds.

Whoops, yes!

I have one major concern with your methodology. The time for "minimum time for maximum black" for a contact sheet should almost always be less than the time for "minimum time for maximum black" with an enlargement. If you put a source of diffusion and flare like a partially transparent piece of film higher up in the light path it will tend to have a bigger affect than if it is in contact with the paper. And a negative in the carrier will enlarge with less than a negative in contact with the paper.
You need to do your "minimum time for maximum black" determination with the negative in the enlarger if you are testing with enlargements as your end goal.

I didn’t know that, thanks!

awty · Jul 22, 2018

I always develop hp5 in d76 1:1 for 13mins @20c. As long as I expose the film correctly they come out ok. A little too dense is better than too thin for printing. If im shooting in bright sunlight fp4 is a better choice as it handles the highlights a bit better.

M Carter · Jul 23, 2018

rpavich said:
So, I guess my next roll will be shot 1 stop over and developed for a bit more time, maybe I'll try either the Massive Dev time of 13 minutes or just start by splitting the difference between the 11min and the 13 min and make it 12 min.

Generally, if you feel your shadows are lacking in detail, the film needs more exposure for your developer/process/gear/eye. But also giving more dev. time can blow your highlights out.

The still-life test is a good one to do, but try to leave one frame blank (lens cap on) and use this to determine your max-black print time in the neg carrier, as others have said, the contact printing time won't carry over. When I shoot 35mm, I always leave a blank frame - 120 tends to have enough leader for getting a max black time.

If you spot-meter your entire test scene, and look particularly at whites holding detail, and blank, bright whites - you can easily find out the time to increase or decrease highlights by one stop - handy to know.

rpavich · Jul 23, 2018

M Carter said:
Generally, if you feel your shadows are lacking in detail, the film needs more exposure for your developer/process/gear/eye. But also giving more dev. time can blow your highlights out.

The still-life test is a good one to do, but try to leave one frame blank (lens cap on) and use this to determine your max-black print time in the neg carrier, as others have said, the contact printing time won't carry over. When I shoot 35mm, I always leave a blank frame - 120 tends to have enough leader for getting a max black time.

If you spot-meter your entire test scene, and look particularly at whites holding detail, and blank, bright whites - you can easily find out the time to increase or decrease highlights by one stop - handy to know.

Thanks for the tip...I'll do that.

I'm glad I checked Ilford's data sheet for HP5+ before developing.

rpavich

manualcrank

rpavich

MattKing

Moderator

chriscrawfordphoto

rpavich

Lachlan Young

Lachlan Young

RalphLambrecht

rpavich

sepiareverb

MattKing

Moderator

faberryman

rpavich

awty

M Carter

rpavich

I'm glad I checked Ilford's data sheet for HP5+ before developing.

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency