Need help with pushing Arista EDU 400 in HC-110

[mrmekon]

Hi there,

For reasons that aren't worth explaining, I'm on the road with a single-roll Paterson tank, a changing bag, a bottle of American HC-110, and a whole bunch of rolls of AristaEDU 400 shot at 3200. I'm well aware that that's nobody's favorite combo, but that's what I've got. My goal is to recover those latent images before I have to fly.

I learned that I have a problem when I guessed at what I thought would be a reasonable development time, and got completely unusably thin negatives. For that, I tried dilution A (1+15) for 11 minutes, 20s initial agitation + 3 inversions every 30s. The images are basically lost. The leader is fully darkened, but clearly thin when held up to a light. This tells me: "needs more development time."

I also had some HP5+ rolls, also at 3200, which developed very nicely with the same process for 9.5 minutes. So the developer is good.

I shot a test roll of Arista and cut it into 4 strips:

• first, I tried nearly doubling the time: 1+15 for 20 minutes. They look pretty much equally thin. Still completely unprintable. This was a surprise, I thought doubling the time might over-develop.
• second, I tried semi-stand: 1+99 for 50 minutes, with 60s hard shaking at the start and at the halfway point. This looks more or less identical, practically no image recovered. Again, if there was anything in the shadows I would have expected it to come out.

The other two test strips are sealed awaiting better ideas. So... any better ideas? Otherwise I'm going to try 1+15 for 30 minutes and semi-stand in 1+31 dilution.

I ensured at least 6ml of HC-110 concentrate in all attempts. Semi-stand was exactly 6ml, the others were 36ml. All rolls are brand new, though I note that Arista doesn't print expiration dates??

I fear that it really didn't get enough light to even produce a latent image, but I have seen images around the net indicating people have successfully pushed Arista/Foma 400 to 3200. I get that it will be crazy contrasty, which is fine, as long as there's... ya know, an image.

The attached images give a rough comparison. It looks slightly better than reality after the cell phone processing... in person, I struggle to tell there's anything in some of these frames. The first is the three Arista attempts, the second is Arista vs HP5+. When only looking at the Arista you might think "yeah, there's maybe some image here", but compared to HP5 you can see that truly nothing came out. These are same camera, same place, same settings, same lighting.

Thanks!

 

[Paul Howell]

As rebranded Foma, I have shot Foma 400 at 800 and one time at 1600 but never at 3200. My best guess would Dilution B at 20 mints, agitation. To make sure you have an image you can add another 5 minutes or so. If you have light tight darkroom you can try a test buy scarfing a strip of film, lower it into the HC 100 bit by bit every 5 mints for 6 strips and see where you can an image. With a 3 stop push you not much in the way of shadow details so look for highlights.

 

[koraks]

I fear that it really didn't get enough light to even produce a latent image

That's it. You're SOL.

I have seen images around the net indicating people have successfully pushed Arista/Foma 400 to 3200.

Hazarding a guess, metering probably comes into play. The people who successfully 'push' this film to 3200 may be taking meter readings for the shadows and then say they've metered at 3200 ("hey, that's what I had my meter set to, so what's the problem!") Or, even more likely: they metered without really knowing very well what they were metering, it ended up being balanced towards the shadows, so they walked away with something of a latent image.

When only looking at the Arista you might think "yeah, there's maybe some image here", but compared to HP5 you can see that truly nothing came out. These are same camera, same place, same settings, same lighting.

Yeah, so that's one of the reasons I'm now shelling out the cash for HP5+. I worked my upwards in the price chain and in the end decided that the solidly performing product is just worth the money (and besides, 35mm HP5+ isn't that outlandishly expensive anyway.)

Sorry, all this is of little help in your position - but maybe it'll still help in somehow accepting the loss of these images. It happens to all of us from time to time.

 

[mrmekon]

My best guess would Dilution B at 20 mints

That's even more dilute than when I tried dilution A for 20 minutes, so that probably won't help.

If you have light tight darkroom you can try a test buy scarfing a strip of film, lower it into the HC 100 bit by bit every 5 mints for 6 strips and see where you can an image.

Hmm, that's a good idea. Pulling this off in a changing bag would be tough, though. And I guess you don't have any choice here except stand development, since agitation options are limited.

Hazarding a guess, metering probably comes into play. The people who successfully 'push' this film to 3200 may be taking meter readings for the shadows and then say they've metered at 3200

That's an excellent point. And I'm no better, so it could be that I'm metering closer to 6400 and they're closer to 1600 and we both call it 3200.

Yeah, so that's one of the reasons I'm now shelling out the cash for HP5+

Lesson definitely learned. Every time I stray, I regret it...

Well, I'll try a more concentrated and a more agitated semi-stand with the other test strips, since that seems most likely to rescue any detail that might have been captured, but I'm guessing it's a lost cause.

Thanks for the help!

 

[john_s]

It's interesting that two films of the same nominal speed are so different when pushing to this extent (assuming that they were metered identically)

I'd be inclined, since it may well be a lost cause, to try quite strong HC110 and a much, much longer time. You might get into heavily fogged situation but there might be something there.

 

[cmacd123]

It's interesting that two films of the same nominal speed are so different when pushing to this extent (assuming that they were metered identically)

the "Normal Times for HP5 in 110B is 5 Minutes, and for Foma 400 is 6 to 7 Minutes. (Foma 400 being any of Arista EDU.Ultra, Flic UltraPan, Fomapan 400, Ultrafine Finesse, and proably a few more) So any starting point for the Foma Family is probably TWICE the time for HP5.

several folks have previously posted that they find that the Foma Family gives them slightly less shadow detail, and they use a personal EI of 200. I have not noticed this but perhaps it is just I don't tend to do anything like Concert Shots.

 

[mrmekon]

several folks have previously posted that they find that the Foma Family gives them slightly less shadow detail, and they use a personal EI of 200.

Yep, I saw that a lot of people consider it EI 200 or even 100. But I've pushed Delta 100 to 3200 with significantly better results than this. I expected very high contrast, not... blank.

Can anyone who has experience with Foma/Arista 400 confirm if the leader is normally more translucent than other films? I have developed two Arista leaders now, and both are a "medium grey", vs HP5's "near black". If I hold my phone flashlight a few inches behind HP5, I only see a tiny pin prick of light coming through. Holding it behind Arista, I can see clearly through the whole leader and see the whole outline of the phone through it. I have no way to measure it, but I guess it's passing at least 5x more light than the HP5 leader.

I tried two more tests:

• 1+31 semi-stand, 50 mins, 1 minute agitations at start and middle (2x)
• 1+31 semi-stand, 50 mins, 1 minute agitations every 10 minutes (4x)

Honestly, they all look pretty much the same. Which is odd, because it means I'm unable to "overdevelop" this film?

 

[npl]

Forget about (semi)stand entirely in this situation, it's about the worst technique that could be used. It won't push anything.

But that doesn't matter because from the look of your negative almost nothing was recorded on film. 20min in dilution A is quite a lot so I think you already got to the point where the highlight are at a somewhat reasonable level, and it's the best you'll get. Pushing does next to nothing on shadows, it's only a way to bring the highlights where we want them.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Forget about (semi)stand entirely in this situation, it's about the worst technique that could be used. It won't push anything.

But that doesn't matter because from the look of your negative almost nothing was recorded on film. 20min in dilution A is quite a lot so I think you already got to the point where the highlight are at a somewhat reasonable level, and it's the best you'll get. Pushing does next to nothing on shadows, it's only a way to bring the highlights where we want them.

There is no remedy for underexposure.

 

[MattKing]

There is no remedy for underexposure.

There is no cure, but for some cases, there are treatments that minimize some of the pain.
However, it appears to me that the OP's severely underexposed shots of a subject with normal or high Subject Luminance Range may be beyond even palliative care.

 

[loccdor]

While not suitable for darkroom printing, surprisingly thin negatives like yours can be recoverable via hybrid process. You didn't mention what you are going to do with them.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

One of the priceless moments that occurred when I worked in a camera shop back in the 70s, was the statement of a customer who brought in a roll of film for processing: "Can you help me? I shoved my ASA."

 

[Rick A]

The MDC lists Foma 400 (same as EDU) at 3200, 1+100 - 60 minutes @ 20c. Ifyour negatives are still thinner than you think they should be try developing at 21c for the same time. Also, try to keep the tank in a tempering bath to hold the temperature constant for the duration of the process.

Massive Dev Chart Film Development, Film Developing Database

www.digitaltruth.com

 

[koraks]

The MDC lists Foma 400 (same as EDU) at 3200

An unfortunate inclusion, if you ask me. People might interpret it as "aha, it's possible to get decent results with this film underexposed by 3 stops". This really isn't the case. Foma 400 struggles to give decent shadow detail at box speed and in fact doesn't quite manage it; it's well known that this film is approx. ISO250 or thereabouts. Many find it performs fine at box speed, which I can understand as it will yield "deep shadows" that way. Going far beyond box speed, however, virtually always ends in disappointment. The stories are all over the internet and I can personally confirm them from first-hand experience. Foma 400 is a fine product given its price, but one thing it definitely is NOT, is a film that tolerates 'pushing' very well. It's the antithesis of that, in fact.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Just a comment FWIW,

When I was using HC-110 a lot, I found I could get a better expansion by using more dilute HC-110 and longer development times. My N+2 for Tri-X was using HC-110 1+63 and developing for 20+ minutes. You might experiment in that direction if your other avenues lead nowhere.

Best,

Doremus

 

[mrmekon]

While not suitable for darkroom printing, surprisingly thin negatives like yours can be recoverable via hybrid process. You didn't mention what you are going to do with them.

I think this might be the real answer to why people are claiming it works to push. The shadows are not entirely clear, they're just unbelievably light. A good scanner might be able to recover quite a bit of image. Unfortunately, I only do traditional printing, so I'm not going to have such luck. I do have an LED enlarger head, so maybe I can decrease the power enough to eke out a little detail.

Ultimately, I went with the most aggressive of my four attempts: 1+31, 50 minute semi-stand with with 1 minute of hard agitation every 10 minutes. It's certainly not good, but the images... exist.

This film must be "thin" even in the best of cases. The leaders, which are fully daylight-exposed, are light enough to see through. Not sure if it can get darker in some other developer formulation. For my purposes, I'm going to consider Arista/Foma 400 as unsuitable for use in the traditional darkroom.

There is no remedy for underexposure.

Sure there is: the remedy is learning to adjust your tastes! Learn to love black, blacker, and blackest

 

[koraks]

I think this might be the real answer to why people are claiming it works to push.

Yes, you're probably right!

I do have an LED enlarger head, so maybe I can decrease the power enough to eke out a little detail.

The paper won't make any more contrast than it's inherently capable of, regardless of the light source or its power. Also, a bright source and a short exposure will do exactly the same as a dim source and longer exposure as long as you remain within the boundaries imposed by reciprocity failure. Scanning is your best bet to make the most of whatever detail you've got, especialy because you can easily at the same time suppress the very dense highlights.

This film must be "thin" even in the best of cases.

Not necessarily, but it won't go as bulletproof as easily as, say Fomapan 100.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Methinks the ship has sailed just too far west of the Pillars of Hercules, and has fallen off the edge of the earth. It's a four stop underexposure in my book. Even if the scene contrast range was moderate, it still might be a hopeless proposition except for the highlight portions.

 

[lamerko]

There are films that are better at pushing, others that is not their strength at all. Ilford don't give information on the structure of the film, but I'm sure there are two halide layers with different crystal structures. This gives a wider exposure range. On the other hand, Fomapan 400 is a classic emulsion - if you approach it with care, great results can come out, but expectations should not be at the level of HP5+. The price is more than great these days, but there's a reason.

 

[Paul Howell]

Thinking about it over the past few days, maybe try development to completion. Develop for 50 or even 60 minutes, then print with grade 00 filter.

 

[tykos]

this is the datasheet graph (for d-76, the others have a different curve but they all flatten towards 320ISO), there's no way it reaches 3200.
Or, better: you can probably have some faint image if you read the shadows and are generous with the light and you use a scanner and a generous amount of PS curves.
It may be, however, a good thing if the wanted look is blocked shadows and high contrast, nothing wrong with that.

Plus, iirc hc-110 generally gives small contrast in the shadows and high on the highlights, the opposite of what's needed to push a film. Maybe it's better to look at some stand development hoping for compensation by exhaustion?

 

[mrmekon]

The paper won't make any more contrast than it's inherently capable of, regardless of the light source or its power. Also, a bright source and a short exposure will do exactly the same as a dim source and longer exposure as long as you remain within the boundaries imposed by reciprocity failure. Scanning is your best bet to make the most of whatever detail you've got, especialy because you can easily at the same time suppress the very dense highlights.

Absolutely, yep. Dimming the light source is just to lengthen the exposure time long enough to be able to dial in the ideal exposure accurately and have time for some dodging and burning. I'm imagining that the exposure time is going to be obnoxiously short otherwise.

 

[koraks]

Ahh, I see. Yes, dimming back will help for that! And indeed, making a series of test strips where you very delicately control the shoulder of the curve/deepest shadows will be the best approach I think. You could combine it with preflashing to retain the highlights.