Not "we." Some of us came to a conclusion many, many years ago. And will have no need to knock from within our coffins. If HARMAN doesn't get the answer right 40 years hence, it won't matter. The facts are as they've always been....Until now we can't come to any conclusions about the capacity of Perceptol when used one-shot...
My apologies, I was too short in my answer. If you read Ilford's documentation about Perceptol and then compare it to the capacity of Microdol-X you as you show it, you will see that there are no similarities. Also in general, looking at a developer A can't give you specific info about a developer B. Until now we can't come to any conclusions about the capacity of Perceptol when used one-shot, hence an attempt to get some more info from Ilford.
I hoped you liked the story. Shades of the macabre mixed with humour to keep the "funny bones" active.Not "we." Some of us came to a conclusion many, many years ago. And will have no need to knock from within our coffins. If HARMAN doesn't get the answer right 40 years hence, it won't matter. The facts are as they've always been.
.... The answer won't matter; there's too much 'belief' involved.
This reminds me of my kids who say "you can't eat that because its use by date was yesterday." I explain that it doesn't flip over from one state to another at midnight.
In the case of increasing the dilution of developer by reducing the amount of it in, say, 250mL I'm sure that the decline will be gradual, and practically imperceptible until it's clearly inadequate. It will depend, as suggested by some posts above, on the degree of exposure and what sort of contrast the user is looking for. I prefer to use a generous amount of developer to take account of any deterioration caused by its age since mixing and any other vagaries known and unknown. Were I using an expensive developer like DDX I might look at the issue more closely though.
Surely they would test with the standard 80 square inches of typically fully exposed film developed to a reasonably high contrast?I’ve seen people say the same thing a number of times. But I wonder if Ilford tests with a standard negative, say one fully exposed frame, to determine if there is enough developer to fully develop the negative to the necessary density. After all, they need to give a recommendation that can handle the worst case scenario, right?
This is quite interesting, I used perceptol 1+1 in my 300ml tank (so 150ml + 150 water) last year and the results were excellent, with nice dense negatives. I also recall that the box said one can develop up to 10 films with the stock adding 10% time each new film to compensate developer exhaustion (just as is says in the microphen box). I wonder if Ilford had a batch with incorrect information on the box?
Just out of curiosity I fished out a very old ILFORD booklet I have (from 1980) and it says that with 1L of solution you can do 5 films, if you use less than 1L, you need to add 10% for each film. So probably the box contains a mix of old and new information. I hope they come back to you...
One week ago I mailed Harman Technical Services with a question about the capacity of Perceptol. If they could confirm that 4 films/litre for Perceptol as mentioned in the PDF datasheet is only for reused stock indeed, and when the developer is used as one-shot 1+1 or 1+3 if it would be feasible to use a minimum of 70 ml stock / film (135, 120), as indicated by pentaxuser (OP) in post #1. However, I didn't get an answer, so I guess they prefer the status quo.
Did you ever hear anything?One week ago I mailed Harman Technical Services with a question about the capacity of Perceptol. If they could confirm that 4 films/litre for Perceptol as mentioned in the PDF datasheet is only for reused stock indeed, and when the developer is used as one-shot 1+1 or 1+3 if it would be feasible to use a minimum of 70 ml stock / film (135, 120), as indicated by pentaxuser (OP) in post #1. However, I didn't get an answer, so I guess they prefer the status quo.
Did you ever hear anything?
I mixed up some Perceptol this morning. If I could get away with 200ml per 120 film, I could do two at once in my tall stainless steel tank.
I find it hard to believe that Ilford are still composing an answer after this length of time. I suspect that your question has somehow "dropped into a black hole"Sorry, no answer from Ilford.
Did you ever hear anything?
I mixed up some Perceptol this morning. If I could get away with 200ml per 120 film, I could do two at once in my tall stainless steel tank.
I find it hard to believe that Ilford are still composing an answer after this length of time. I suspect that your question has somehow "dropped into a black hole"
I'd remind Ilford of the original question
pentaxuser
Nice post. Great to see justification to follow the recommended amount of 250 ml Perceptol.Draw your own conclusions. Right side is the recommended minimum amount of stock for 40in2 of film. The left side is half the recommended amount. Both half sheets were scanned in the same pass with no adjustments.
View attachment 197531
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?