Realistic times for FP4 in HC-110

[mackinto2000]

I'm puzzled by the published development times for FP4+ in HC-110, all of which seem way too long. I'e been doing some tests at a dilution of 1:49 with the following results:

Here's a scan of one of the negatives, with the scan adjusted to show the full tonal range, and with the metered Exposure Values shown. I exposed for EV12 at ISO 100, putting EV10 into the shadows.


Here's my first negative, HC-110 1:49, 5 minutes at 20 degrees C. It was printed on grade 2 paper, and the print scanned in:


Four stops on from EV12, the box in the middle of the image is basically pure white, and look like zone 9 to me, or possibly zone 8, with the ground next to it in zone 7.

Here's my second negative, same dilution and temperature, for 7 minutes, and again on grade 2 paper:



The ground by the box is almost completely blown out, and the fence to the left, at EV14, is looking more like zone 8 than zone 7 to me. Given this, I'd say that 7 minutes is the absolute maximum for normal development, and maybe a bit too overdeveloped.

Note that shadow detail seems about the same in both prints. Here's the 5 minutes:

And the 7 minutes:

See the vertical dark line that shows the gaps between two of the planks. It's just about visible in both prints.

The times I'm using seem a lot shorter that the various times on things like the Massive Dev Chart or Ilford's own site, but if the aim is to get controllable highlights when printing on grade 2 paper, I don't see how those longer times are going to work. Does anyone else have any experience with developing negatives for the darkroom, as opposed to scanning?

Thanks,

Alasdair

 

[bernard_L]

You may be right; see e.g.:
http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00HjLZ
http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/007ZAF

This said, it seems to me that your post raises twol issues that shoud be considered as distinct:
(a) Is the contrast too high, like, requiring a #1 or #0 paper for what you feel is a good print?
(b) Are the highlights compressed; poor separation; unwanted compensating effect?
Either of (a) or (b) can occur, or both, but they are, to a degree, independent, until one hits the Dmax that he emulsion can produce. It is not possible to tell which (if any) is present in your negatives from the images you show, that are dependent on your scanning process. I am surprised that FP4 (a film with an inherently long scale) would block even zone X (your placement for the white bags in front of the box). It would be easier to draw conclusions from density measurements.

 

[ic-racer]

Published times are just a suggestion. Just like the suggested way to compose your pictures in the manual that came with your camera. Use the development times that print best for you. I suspect you are printing with a condenser enlarger.

 

[David Allen]

What is your approach to agitation? - this can make a very big difference with HC110.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Rodinalforever]

I've experienced FP4 in HC-110 only few times because my favourite developer for FP4 is Rodinal 1+50

The first time that I souped FP4 in HC-110 I followed the Ilford Datasheet: HC-110 dil-B 9 min E.I.125
Agitation: Ilford way (30sec at beginning, then 10sec each minute).
Results: overdeveloped (IMHO); too much contrast, a lot of grain (more than I usually see with Rodinal) and difficult to print in grade 2 paper (Ilford RC)
Indeed I've tried a second roll setting 80 ISO on my meter and cutting the developing time by 50%: HC-110 dil-B 5 min
Results: much better; lower grain and easy print on grade 2 paper (Ilford RC)

@ Alasair: shadow details don't depend on developing time, but on exposure. If you overdevelop your negative you wouldn't find more details in the shadows, but you'll find an increase in the contrast and the dense part of it (highlights on the paper).

 

[zehner21]

I've experienced FP4 in HC-110 only few times because my favourite developer for FP4 is Rodinal 1+50

The first time that I souped FP4 in HC-110 I followed the Ilford Datasheet: HC-110 dil-B 9 min E.I.125
Agitation: Ilford way (30sec at beginning, then 10sec each minute).
Results: overdeveloped (IMHO); too much contrast, a lot of grain (more than I usually see with Rodinal) and difficult to print in grade 2 paper (Ilford RC)
Indeed I've tried a second roll setting 80 ISO on my meter and cutting the developing time by 50%: HC-110 dil-B 5 min
Results: much better; lower grain and easy print on grade 2 paper (Ilford RC)

@ Alasair: shadow details don't depend on developing time, but on exposure. If you overdevelop your negative you wouldn't find more details in the shadows, but you'll find an increase in the contrast and the dense part of it (highlights on the paper).

Remember to change only one variable at time if you're trying to nail down a problem.

 

[NedL]

I've been using dilution "d" with 135 FP4+ for a couple years now, which is supposed to need roughly 25% longer than dilution "b". I too started with the recommended time, around 11 minutes IIRC, and then backed off more and more due to high contrast and grain. Now I use 7 minutes or 7 minutes + 15 seconds at dilution "d". For comparison, I use just a little longer time: 7 minutes + 30 seconds for Tri-X. These times are for 68 degrees F, and I use the "Ilford method" agitation, 4 gentle inversions at the start of each minute ( unlike rodinalforever, I use 4 inversions at the start ). If my water is not 68 degrees, I use the formula at Covington to adjust the time, and that seems to work well and consistently. I print with a diffusion-type fluorescent light source. How you meter and expose the film matters a lot too.

So yes, I use much shorter times in HC-110 than seem to be commonly recommended.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

.....

 

[NB23]

With regards to Ilford film and HC-110 or D76 developers, I always follow the times they give for their own formulations of these developers (ilfotecHC and ID11).

I trust those more.

 

[franck]

Hello,

Interesting thread, I typically shoot HP5+ and develop in HC-110. I do not have a lot of experience with FP4+ but I shot a roll some weeks ago and was very disappointed with the results. I think I got more grain than what I typically get with HP5! I used HC-110 (1+31 Dil. B) for 8'00"@20°C.

Here is a picture from that roll:

I had been wondering what went wrong with this roll because my previous experience with FP4 was much better, the main difference is that there were developed with ILFOSOL 3. Now I know, it is probably way over-developed. Next time I will use Dil D and 7'00" @20°C to see what happens.

Cheers,

Franck

 

[Rodinalforever]

Hello Frank,
the photo you've posted is not too bad considering that you've had to match a huge area of sky+light clouds with a very dark area (group of trees on the left). I've often met difficoulties to get good and sharp details in groups of dark green trees on the shore of a lake.
I think that your negative is sligthly underexposed and overdeveloped, but it can be adjusted in wet darkroom with some burning in the upper area and masking the group of trees on the left.
Anyway, Fp4 and HC110 seems to be a not very common combo and users tend to reduce the suggested time by Ilford datasheet.
5-5,5 min in dil B are comparable to 7-7,5 min in dil D (2 recipes suggested here)

 

[mackinto2000]

I was agitating for 5 seconds every minute. This was in a Patterson rotary tank where I agitate by spinning the reels using the paddle provided. (I use the same tank for 4x5 processing, using a MOD54 film holder. In that case I agitate by three inversions every minute.)

 

[mackinto2000]

You may be right; see e.g.:
http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00HjLZ
http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/007ZAF

This said, it seems to me that your post raises twol issues that shoud be considered as distinct:
(a) Is the contrast too high, like, requiring a #1 or #0 paper for what you feel is a good print?
(b) Are the highlights compressed; poor separation; unwanted compensating effect?
Either of (a) or (b) can occur, or both, but they are, to a degree, independent, until one hits the Dmax that he emulsion can produce. It is not possible to tell which (if any) is present in your negatives from the images you show, that are dependent on your scanning process. I am surprised that FP4 (a film with an inherently long scale) would block even zone X (your placement for the white bags in front of the box). It would be easier to draw conclusions from density measurements.

Hi Bernard,

Thanks for the comment. Unfortunately I'm not entirely sure I understand the difference between your two points (a) and (b), and what practical difference it would make?

From the scan, it seems as though there's detail in the highlights that I'm not capturing in a grade-2 print. The solutions would either be to use a to reduce development time, lower contrast grade, or to dodge and burn selectively. In practice one often has to do the last two things, but I thought the idea was to adjust development so that you had a reasonable chance of making a workable print on grade 2 paper. Or are you saying that if you go too far with underdevelopment, you will end up with poor highlights, and it may be better to increase development and then deal with it in the darkroom?

Thanks,

Alasdair

 

[Doc W]

I use a Jobo and my development time for FP4 in HC-110, dilution D, at 20C is 6 minutes. EI is 64. N+1 is about 7 minutes. I have not yet established N-1 but I think it will probably work out to about 9 minutes with dilution F.

 

[MattKing]

I was agitating for 5 seconds every minute. This was in a Patterson rotary tank where I agitate by spinning the reels using the paddle provided. (I use the same tank for 4x5 processing, using a MOD54 film holder. In that case I agitate by three inversions every minute.)

I would recommend against using the spinning type of agitation for anything more than the first few seconds. That type of agitation tends to be uneven.

Paterson itself recommends inversion agitation after the first few seconds.

 

[franck]

Hello Frank,
the photo you've posted is not too bad considering that you've had to match a huge area of sky+light clouds with a very dark area (group of trees on the left). I've often met difficoulties to get good and sharp details in groups of dark green trees on the shore of a lake.
I think that your negative is sligthly underexposed and overdeveloped, but it can be adjusted in wet darkroom with some burning in the upper area and masking the group of trees on the left.
Anyway, Fp4 and HC110 seems to be a not very common combo and users tend to reduce the suggested time by Ilford datasheet.
5-5,5 min in dil B are comparable to 7-7,5 min in dil D (2 recipes suggested here)

Hello!

Thanks for your reply, As you say, the scene on that photo was really high dynamic range so probably not the best example. Also, for this roll of FP4+ I used an app on my phone as a light meter and discovered later that it had a tendency to overexpose quite significantly so the combination of overexposure and overdevelopment probably explains the very dense and grainy negative I obtained. For the next FP4+ roll I will follow the recipes suggested here (probably dil D) and make sure my exposures are better.

Cheers,

Franck

 

[Rodinalforever]

Hello!

I used an app on my phone as a light meter and discovered later that it had a tendency to overexpose quite significantly so the combination of overexposure and overdevelopment probably explains the very dense and grainy negative I obtained.

Cheers,

Franck

Hi Frank, the best investment that I suggest to improve your bw skills is a good light meter. I am very skeptical about Iphone meter app because you don't really know what are you metering. A solid Gossen Lunasix with reflected and incident read can give you a reliable measure of the light and allow to reduce the risk of an underexposed negative (the biggest risk in bw). I've bought a 2nd hand one 20 years ago and it still work perfectly; I've learned a lot using it with a 18% gray card.
Cheers from Italy, Thomas

 

[trythis]

I have been shooting some old FP4. (Not plus) and following the massive dev chart for fp4+ with god results but for the one roll of fp4+ i just bought new I felt the same way about the exact same dil B developed roll. I will try some more but I wonder if there's any correlation to the European HC 110 having a different ratio for their dilutions because the concentrate bottle didn't come as strong for a while. I also wondered if they use the same developing times for the original and the. Fp4


Typos made on a tiny phone...

 

[Nodda Duma]

Do you guys do the clip test to determine development time?

Dip half a snip of film in your developer solution, count the seconds until the film in the developer looks the same as the undeveloped part, then divide by 3 to give you number of minutes to develop the roll. I've been doing this for a little while now and the results are real nice. There's a video out there showing this.

 

[ColColt]

Next to Tri-X and Agfapan 400 FP-4 was my favorite film but never tried development with HC-110. That was reserved for the ASA 400 films and it always did a superb job.

Best results I found with FP-4 was with Rodinal diluted 1:75 for 7 minutes when conditions were overcast. Rated at ASA 64 for bright, contrasty conditions development was 6 min at 1:100.

 

[mackinto2000]

Published times are just a suggestion. Just like the suggested way to compose your pictures in the manual that came with your camera. Use the development times that print best for you. I suspect you are printing with a condenser enlarger.

Thanks for the comment. Yes, you're right that one should use the method that suits one best - I was just a bit surprised that the published times were so much longer that the one that seem to be right for me. And yes, I am using a condenser, which will make things more contrasty.

 

[franck]

Hi Frank, the best investment that I suggest to improve your bw skills is a good light meter. I am very skeptical about Iphone meter app because you don't really know what are you metering. A solid Gossen Lunasix with reflected and incident read can give you a reliable measure of the light and allow to reduce the risk of an underexposed negative (the biggest risk in bw). I've bought a 2nd hand one 20 years ago and it still work perfectly; I've learned a lot using it with a 18% gray card.
Cheers from Italy, Thomas

Hello!

Good point, I agree, a lightmeter is on my wish list. I typically use either a Nikon FE or a Nikon F3 and use the camera meter to choose my exposure in manual mode. It is probably not as precise as a proper light meter but I have not have any problem to get good exposure as long as I take the time to meter for the different parts of the scene and choose the exposure wisely. The need for a light meter comes when I am using older fully manual rangefinders. They do not have light metering in manual mode and so I tried using my phone. Some people seem to have good results with specific phones and apps but I can say for sure that my phone provides exposures which are completely off sometimes by over 2 stops (I have compared the reading with the Nikon F3 and D600 meters).

Cheers,

Franck

 

[Joel_L]

Hmm, I haven't heard this before. Does this work with any BW film and developer?

Joel

Do you guys do the clip test to determine development time?

Dip half a snip of film in your developer solution, count the seconds until the film in the developer looks the same as the undeveloped part, then divide by 3 to give you number of minutes to develop the roll. I've been doing this for a little while now and the results are real nice. There's a video out there showing this.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Hi Joel,

So far from what I've seen, although I judge by the look of the negative and haven't compared my results for combinations of dev and film against established times. I've been using the rule of thumb lately to determine development times for my expiring Arista Premium Liquid developer. The negatives come out real nice and contrasty, and I print them right to grade 2 paper. Look in the gallery at my stereo pictures for example result. Those are scans of the negs, un-manipulated. Some of the B&W prints are also from this method but I don't remember which.

Btw I develop in a Paterson tank with a 5 min prewet, 30s agitation followed by 2 inversions every minute, so I tend to round down to the nearest half-minute, ie 12:30. If you like inversion every 30s then cut back the resulting time so your negs aren't overly contrasty.

Hope this helps,
Jason

 

[Joel_L]

I think I'll just give it a try and see. I've been pushing some Xtol age wise, might also be a good test of developer health.

Thanks

Joel

Hi Joel,

So far from what I've seen, although I judge by the look of the negative and haven't compared my results for combinations of dev and film against established times. I've been using the rule of thumb lately to determine development times for my expiring Arista Premium Liquid developer. The negatives come out real nice and contrasty, and I print them right to grade 2 paper. Look in the gallery at my stereo pictures for example result. Those are scans of the negs, un-manipulated. Some of the B&W prints are also from this method but I don't remember which.

Btw I develop in a Paterson tank with a 5 min prewet, 30s agitation followed by 2 inversions every minute, so I tend to round down to the nearest half-minute, ie 12:30. If you like inversion every 30s then cut back the resulting time so your negs aren't overly contrasty.

Hope this helps,
Jason