Processing HP5+ and FP4+ in the same tank

[Tumbles]

I have the same dev times written down for both FP4+ and HP5+ in Pyrocat. Would it cause any problems to process them together in the same tank? Has anyone tried it? If it's ok, it certainly would speed things along. Pyrocat with minimal agitation tends to have somewhat painfully long processing time.

Normally I would just try it out, but the shots on these rolls are not reproducible.

 

[retina_restoration]

I have the same dev times written down for both FP4+ and HP5+ in Pyrocat. Would it cause any problems to process them together in the same tank? Has anyone tried it? If it's ok, it certainly would speed things along. Pyrocat with minimal agitation tends to have somewhat painfully long processing time.

Normally I would just try it out, but the shots on these rolls are not reproducible.

There's no reason not to develop both in the same tank at the same time, assuming the times for each are not significantly different.

 

[Milpool]

What’s your rush if the shots are not reproducible?

Or you could shorten things by dispensing with the minimal agitation stuff but that’s a whole other story.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I have the same dev times written down for both FP4+ and HP5+ in Pyrocat.

"...written down..." from where? You don't sound too confident in the provenance of your times.

Have you confirmed the time you have written down works for you by processing either of these films in that developer? If not, you might want to see what a less important roll looks like.

Ilford shows different times for FP4+ and HP5+ when using Ilford developers. For example, if each film was exposed at box speed, Ilford shows FP4+ should get 8:30 in stock ID-11, but HP5+ should get 7:30. https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1829/product/708/

Of course if you are pushing or pulling one of the films, maybe they would coincidentally both have the same processing time?

I know nothing about Pyrocat -- is there something about Pyrocat that somehow allows it to ignore different processing times for different films as is normal for most other b&w developers?

 

[pentaxuser]

Hopefully the "pyrocaters" will chime in with their user experience

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Long time Pyrocat-HD user. I've never processed HP5 and FP4 together as my times and dilutions are different, but there will be no harm sticking them both in the tank.

 

[GregY]

Likewise....Pyrocat is my looooonnnng-time developer of choice. My times with 100 ISO/400 ISO films are different....so i'd never process them together.

 

[Paul Howell]

If time is an issue, then I would move to Diafine, well skip that idea, as you have already shot both rolls too late to change the ISO for PF4 250, HP5 800. But I would surprised if both can developed at the time in developers other than a divided developer like Diafine.

 

[pentaxuser]

It has already been asked by runwithsizzers where you got your same times from but can I ask as well? I have checked the Massive Development Chart and the times seem different there

I am not aware of film manufacturers ever quoting Pyrocat HD times so I am curious about your source for times

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[cliveh]

I have never used Pyrocat, but it must be a pretty amazing developer if you are able to develop FP4 and HP5 in the same tank, for the same time.

 

[MattKing]

I guess there might be someone who habitually uses pull development times with one film, and push development times with the other, and the respective adjusted development times happen to match .....

 

[cliveh]

I guess there might be someone who habitually uses pull development times with one film, and push development times with the other, and the respective adjusted development times happen to match .....

Nice one matt. You have a very creative imagination.

 

[MattKing]

I'll let the pyro developer fans come up with suggested EIs and development times to accomplish this .
I must admit though, that I consider that one definite advantage of T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 is that in many developers, they have the same recommended development times.

 

[GregY]

I'll let the pyro developer fans come up with suggested EIs and development times to accomplish this .
I must admit though, that I consider that one definite advantage of T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 is that in many developers, they have the same recommended development times.

Matt, do you mind sharing which developers that might be? I'm one of the pyro-maniacs & typically it's 9 min for 100 and 13 min for 400...with consistent results

 

[MattKing]

Matt, do you mind sharing which developers that might be? I'm one of the pyro-maniacs & typically it's 9 min for 100 and 13 min for 400...with consistent results

Using Kodak datasheets for the chemicals - with all warnings attached concerning current changes - HC110 dil B and D76 1+1 are two examples, for most temperatures around 20C.

 

[pentaxuser]

Using Kodak datasheets for the chemicals - with all warnings attached concerning current changes - HC110 dil B and D76 1+1 are two examples, for most temperatures around 20C.

Maybe. Just a pity that the source, be that the MDC or a third party. did not share what you speculate with the OP

pentaxuser

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have the same dev times written down for both FP4+ and HP5+ in Pyrocat. Would it cause any problems to process them together in the same tank? Has anyone tried it? If it's ok, it certainly would speed things along. Pyrocat with minimal agitation tends to have somewhat painfully long processing time.

Normally I would just try it out, but the shots on these rolls are not reproducible.

I do not see why this should not work.

 

[cliveh]

I do not see why this should not work.

Can you explain why?

 

[GregY]

Can you explain why?

........ not something i would personally try with non-reproducible shots?

 

[dokko]

seems rather straight forward:

If you have developed both films before with the same method and developer and found they both gave best results with the same time, then there's no reason why developing them together should give you different results.

If you haven't used this exact developer/time/agitation scheme before for either of the films, then you shouldn't try it for the first time with important films no matter what you've read about the dev times somewhere else.

 

[MattKing]

It is the "minimal agitation" and "painfully long development times" references in the initial post from @Tumbles that makes me think that there is little likelihood that anyone else's development experience with these will provide a reliable indication of what to do.
In case it isn't obvious, I am not a fan at all of extreme minimal agitation development schemes, except in very unusual, special purpose applications.

 

[Maris]

There's always an extreme opinion.

I develop all conventional black and white films in mixed batches in the same developer for the same time.
The developer is well seasoned Replenished Xtol (years old) and the time is 11 minutes 15 seconds at 20 Celcius.
Negative densities come out fine because each film has a personally calibrated Exposure Index to be compatible with the pre-arranged developing time.
Minor variations in negative contrast are easily compensated by printing on modern variable contrast papers.

Why does this work for me? Maybe it's the old Xtol. Maybe it's consistently predictable subject matter: outdoor things under natural light.
Maybe the finest nuances of print quality escape me. Don't know for sure, but it is a convenient way to work.

 

[Tumbles]

Whoa. This got more replies than expected.

The times I have for HP5+ and FP4+ are 20 minutes at 20C, with 2 minutes initial agitation, and then 3 more 10 second agitations at evenly space intervals. I also use this same scheme with TMax 400. I'm a big fan of the acutance this produces.

With larger formats (120 & 4x5) I reduce the time to 17:30 min. and agitate every 2 minutes for 5 seconds. I find that get way too many problems with bromide drag and mottling.

My concern is that the rolls could release chemicals that could possibly interfere with each other. I guess it would probably be best to do a test first before proceeding.

These shots where taken from an airplane of landscapes over Utah and Colorado during some crazy weather with lots of turbulence.

 

[MattKing]

My concern is that the rolls could release chemicals that could possibly interfere with each other.

Not a concern at all!
But the concern remains about obtaining appropriate contrast from the same development time for two such films
For most developers, HP5+ and FP4+ are designed to require different amounts of development in order to achieve similar amounts of contrast.
Aerial photos tend to require special control and adjustment of the contrast. As extended minimal agitation development schemes tend to distort the contrast behavior of films, I would be loathe to add yet another variable by trying to compromise on a single development time for two such disparate emulsions..

 

[koraks]

The times I have for HP5+ and FP4+ are 20 minutes at 20C, with 2 minutes initial agitation, and then 3 more 10 second agitations at evenly space intervals. I also use this same scheme with TMax 400. I'm a big fan of the acutance this produces.

For HP5+ this is somewhat similar to what I've been doing lately; I develop it for 18 minutes, 30 seconds initial agitation, then one agitation cycle every 3 minutes. With FP4+ this would result in excessive contrast in the negatives; I can't imagine that the same time would give optimal results for both films. 20 minutes is just way too long for FP4+; yes, it'll still scan OK, but there's no need to push the gamma that far at the expensive emphasized grain (which is further exacerbated if you scan through dense highlights).

Unless maybe you're exposing both the HP5+ and the FP4+ at E.I. 400, but I assume this is not the case.

Having said that, if you really find that the processing parameters should be the same for both films, then go ahead and bunch them together in the same tank. As said above you'll get quite wildly different kinds of negatives, but if that's Ok for you, then why not.