(solved) Am i underdeveloping my B&W film?

[b3stia]

Pretty much all of my negatives comes out looking like the first negative on the left, flat and milky (the version on the right is after photoshop has done its thing). I shoot medium format Ilford FP4+ and use Ilford Ilfosol 3 as my developer. I develop for 9 min, 1 min Stop and 10 min Fix at around 19-20'C (68F).

I have another roll I'm planning on developing today. Should I add 1-2 minutes to the developing time and see if it improves?

 

[peter k.]

Are you aware of this site that has developing times for different films?
https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Fomapan+400&Developer=D-76&mdc=Search&TempUnits=F

 

[Pieter12]

What dilution? Here is what the Massive Development chart recommends: https://www.digitaltruth.com/devcha...Ilfosol+3%&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C&TimeUnits=D
10 minutes fix seems like overkill. I fix for 5.

 

[ic-racer]

If you constantly print on #4 or #5 paper you could increase development time by 25%. Printing on #4 or #5 paper emphasizes grain, so if you want that effect, you could continue as you are.

Scanning provides minimal useful information for your situation. Examination of properly processed negatives on a light table should show they are less contrasty than the original scene. Like 60% to 70% less contrasty to the eye.

If they look like projection transparency slides in negative, with deep blacks and clear areas, they are likely too contrasty for condenser enlargers.

If you can see a positive reflection of your scene on the emulsion surface (like a Daguerreotype) then they are likely not contrasty enough for diffusion enlargers.

You want somewhere in the middle.

 

[b3stia]

Are you aware of this site that has developing times for different films?
https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Fomapan+400&Developer=D-76&mdc=Search&TempUnits=F

What dilution? Here is what the Massive Development chart recommends: https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=%Ilford+FP4%&Developer=%Ilfosol+3%&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C&TimeUnits=D
10 minutes fix seems like overkill. I fix for 5.

I was not aware of that site. Thanks!

I dilute at 1+9. So given the recommendations at 20 degrees, I should develop for even less than my 9 min. That does not feel right.

 

[Pieter12]

It may not feel right, but your negatives don't look right either. Try 4 minutes, or dilute 1+14 and go for 7 minutes. I have never had a problem with the times from the Massive Development chart. I use the app all the time.

 

[koraks]

Your scan looks both overexposed and overdeveloped. Then again, a scan is difficult to judge. I'd like to see a photo of the negative itself.

 

[b3stia]

If you constantly print on #4 or #5 paper you could increase development time by 25%. Printing on #4 or #5 paper emphasizes grain, so if you want that effect, you could continue as you are.

Scanning provides minimal useful information for your situation. Examination of properly processed negatives on a light table should show they are less contrasty than the original scene. Like 60% to 70% less contrasty to the eye.

If they look like projection transparency slides in negative, with deep blacks and clear areas, they are likely too contrasty for condenser enlargers.

If you can see a positive reflection of your scene on the emulsion surface (like a Daguerreotype) then they are likely not contrasty enough for diffusion enlargers.

You want somewhere in the middle.

I will look for some info regarding how to examine the negatives with a light table. I haven't yet gotten around to printing any of the photos I have taken.

 

[b3stia]

It may not feel right, but your negatives don't look right either. Try 4 minutes, or dilute 1+14 and go for 7 minutes. I have never had a problem with the times from the Massive Development chart. I use the app all the time.

Your scan looks both overexposed and overdeveloped. Then again, a scan is difficult to judge. I'd like to see a photo of the negative itself.

Not sure if this will be useful or not. Had to improvise with my tablet as light box and shooting with my phone.

 

[koraks]

You can develop quite a bit less. And your exposure is quite liberal as well, but that's less problematic as a little extra shadow detail doesn't hurt.

 

[b3stia]

You can develop quite a bit less. And your exposure is quite liberal as well, but that's less problematic as a little extra shadow detail doesn't hurt.

Thanks! I will try the 1+14 for 7:30min at 20'. And also cut my Fix time to 5 min.

I'm getting to know my camera and how to use sunny 16, as well as learning the development process. So I'm glad I'm being able to fine tune at least one part of the process with your help.

Thanks again.

 

[dante]

Your scan looks both overexposed and overdeveloped. Then again, a scan is difficult to judge. I'd like to see a photo of the negative itself.

I agree. If this were normally exposed, you'd have detail in the sky, even if you underdeveloped the shot. This looks a lot like one used to experience shooting an old TLR with a slow shutter and then taking it to a lab where they developed everything for 6 minutes at 20 C, no matter what film it was.

Something does not seem to make sense about your question because developing FP4 in Ilfosol for EI 125 for 9 minutes at 1+9 and 68 degrees (a combination whose time is listed at 4'15") should result in very, very dark negatives, especially the way this negative looks like it was exposed. So maybe it's bad developer, bleaching all the image out with fixer, or something unusual.

Please tell the group:
- How you are measuring temperature
- What camera this is
- What light meter you are using
- Your exposure index (125? 500?)
- What your dilution with Ilfosol 3 is - and how old your developer is.
- Are you diluting the fixer or using it straight out of the bottle?

 

[removed account4]

Pretty much all of my negatives comes out looking like the first negative on the left, flat and milky (the version on the right is after photoshop has done its thing). I shoot medium format Ilford FP4+ and use Ilford Ilfosol 3 as my developer. I develop for 9 min, 1 min Stop and 10 min Fix at around 19-20'C (68F).

I have another roll I'm planning on developing today. Should I add 1-2 minutes to the developing time and see if it improves?

View attachment 219572 View attachment 219573

hey b3stia
I hate to ask this but do you have a few rolls of film to "burn" to figure out what development time and exposure works out for you? As much as it would be absolutely fantastic if exposure and processing would be the same for everyone, there are a lot of things that people do differently, and sometimes light meters, and shutters are not calibrated &c ...

The first things I would do is bracket your exposures a little bit, so take 1 roll of film and pretty much in similar lighing conditions shoot 3 exposures of each scene .. 1 exactly as the meter tells you ( lets say f8 @ 125 ) one with 1 stop more light and 1 with 1 stop less light ( if you like f8 you can just adjust the light with your shutter by shooting 1 speed slower and 1 speed faster it does the same thing otherwise f 8, f 5.6 f11
shoot 3 rolls of film just like this ... then settle on what development time you want to be your "base time" .. so 9 mis to start .. develop 1 roll at 9 mins, one at 6mins ( 30% less ) and one for 12 mins ( 30% more ) . agitate all your film the same way, ( I am guessing you do first minute continuous and then 10 seconds each min? or 1st continuous and 5 seconds every 30?) .. If not that is a good place to start so everything is the same...
Then examine your film, if you make photographic prints make a contact sheet and then a print or 2 or 4 and see which one gives you what you want... if you scan, then scan them all and see which
films give you what you like ... and THEN .. after you decide on how you want to expose and develop your film .. shoot a whole roll and see if it turns out the way you like...
A lot of people do this sort of thing for every film they shoot or do it "by ear" because pretty much it makes it a little easier to tweek your development a little or exposure a little once you get a handle on what you like..

To my eye, I have no idea if your film is over exposed or over developed or both .. the exercise I suggested will also help you understand how the whole process works together and how in certain situations you will want to give a little extra light and maybe a little less development ( or the opposite ).

have fun !
john

 

[MattKing]

As was posted above, good negatives look much less contrasty than good slides.
The negative that you have photographed with your phone looks to be over-developed and possibly over-exposed. The "milky" response you referred to in your opening post is the result of your scanner having problems with the too dense negative.
The following link has a useful article about assessing negatives. While the illustrations aren't perfect, they should give you an idea about how a good negative should appear: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/assessing-negatives-4682
If you look at the illustration of the negative that is described as being properly exposed and properly developed, you will most likely note how relatively "flat" and "thin" that negative appears compared to yours.
I hope this helps.

 

[b3stia]

I agree. If this were normally exposed, you'd have detail in the sky, even if you underdeveloped the shot. This looks a lot like one used to experience shooting an old TLR with a slow shutter and then taking it to a lab where they developed everything for 6 minutes at 20 C, no matter what film it was.

Something does not seem to make sense about your question because developing FP4 in Ilfosol for EI 125 for 9 minutes at 1+9 and 68 degrees (a combination whose time is listed at 4'15") should result in very, very dark negatives, especially the way this negative looks like it was exposed. So maybe it's bad developer, bleaching all the image out with fixer, or something unusual.

Please tell the group:
- How you are measuring temperature
- What camera this is
- What light meter you are using
- Your exposure index (125? 500?)
- What your dilution with Ilfosol 3 is - and how old your developer is.
- Are you diluting the fixer or using it straight out of the bottle?

hey b3stia
I hate to ask this but do you have a few rolls of film to "burn" to figure out what development time and exposure works out for you? As much as it would be absolutely fantastic if exposure and processing would be the same for everyone, there are a lot of things that people do differently, and sometimes light meters, and shutters are not calibrated &c ...

The first things I would do is bracket your exposures a little bit, so take 1 roll of film and pretty much in similar lighing conditions shoot 3 exposures of each scene .. 1 exactly as the meter tells you ( lets say f8 @ 125 ) one with 1 stop more light and 1 with 1 stop less light ( if you like f8 you can just adjust the light with your shutter by shooting 1 speed slower and 1 speed faster it does the same thing otherwise f 8, f 5.6 f11
shoot 3 rolls of film just like this ... then settle on what development time you want to be your "base time" .. so 9 mis to start .. develop 1 roll at 9 mins, one at 6mins ( 30% less ) and one for 12 mins ( 30% more ) . agitate all your film the same way, ( I am guessing you do first minute continuous and then 10 seconds each min? or 1st continuous and 5 seconds every 30?) .. If not that is a good place to start so everything is the same...
Then examine your film, if you make photographic prints make a contact sheet and then a print or 2 or 4 and see which one gives you what you want... if you scan, then scan them all and see which
films give you what you like ... and THEN .. after you decide on how you want to expose and develop your film .. shoot a whole roll and see if it turns out the way you like...
A lot of people do this sort of thing for every film they shoot or do it "by ear" because pretty much it makes it a little easier to tweek your development a little or exposure a little once you get a handle on what you like..

To my eye, I have no idea if your film is over exposed or over developed or both .. the exercise I suggested will also help you understand how the whole process works together and how in certain situations you will want to give a little extra light and maybe a little less development ( or the opposite ).

have fun !
john

Thanks for the input guys.

I shoot on an old TLR as you suspected Dante. A Yashica D. I measure temp with a digital food thermometer. I haven't invested in a light meter yet. I don't know how old the developer is as I can't see a date anywhere on the bottle. But it was bought from the biggest supplier of analog equipment in Barcelona, so their turn-around should be trustworthy . And I have so far used 1+9 dilution. The fixer I use is the Ilford Rapid Fixer and I have diluted that 1+4.

Regarding the approach of taking the same photo with different exposures. That is something that makes perfect sense and that I will have to do. Better to burn some film early on in order to take better photos later.

 

[b3stia]

As was posted above, good negatives look much less contrasty than good slides.
The negative that you have photographed with your phone looks to be over-developed and possibly over-exposed. The "milky" response you referred to in your opening post is the result of your scanner having problems with the too dense negative.
The following link has a useful article about assessing negatives. While the illustrations aren't perfect, they should give you an idea about how a good negative should appear: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/assessing-negatives-4682
If you look at the illustration of the negative that is described as being properly exposed and properly developed, you will most likely note how relatively "flat" and "thin" that negative appears compared to yours.
I hope this helps.

Great! Thanks!

 

[winger]

The fixer I use is the Ilford Rapid Fixer and I have diluted that 1+4.

For most films (pretty much everything except Delta and TMax), something between 2 minutes and 4 minutes is all that's required with Ilford's Rapid Fixer at 1:4.
+another on overexposed and/or overdeveloped.

 

[b3stia]

For most films (pretty much everything except Delta and TMax), something between 2 minutes and 4 minutes is all that's required with Ilford's Rapid Fixer at 1:4.
+another on overexposed and/or overdeveloped.

Yes, I have come to understand that I have been overdoing the Fixer part (as well). I will decrease my previous time considerably.

 

[removed account4]

Yes, I have come to understand that I have been overdoing the Fixer part (as well). I will decrease my previous time considerably.

you can figure out what time to do your fixer by taking a small clip of the film you like to use and in day light put it in a little bit of fixer and see how long it takes to turn to a clear piece of film.
your total film fix time is 2x that "clear time" ... as your fixer gets used ( assuming you do not toss it after one use ) it will take longer and longer .. eventually it will
take 2x that original clear time, when that happens it is time to make new fixer.
have fun !
john

 

[b3stia]

you can figure out what time to do your fixer by taking a small clip of the film you like to use and in day light put it in a little bit of fixer and see how long it takes to turn to a clear piece of film.
your total film fix time is 2x that "clear time" ... as your fixer gets used ( assuming you do not toss it after one use ) it will take longer and longer .. eventually it will
take 2x that original clear time, when that happens it is time to make new fixer.
have fun !
john

Does overdoing the fixer part (fixing longer than required) have a negative effect on the final negative? I understand that the solution over time will cause a problem as it gets older an stops to fix properly.

 

[ic-racer]

Can you take a picture of the negatives on a light tablet?

 

[b3stia]

Can you take a picture of the negatives on a light tablet?

There's one here. I believe the general consensus is that I am overexposing and overdeveloping.

(solved) Am i underdeveloping my B&W film?

 

[removed account4]

Does overdoing the fixer part (fixing longer than required) have a negative effect on the final negative? I understand that the solution over time will cause a problem as it gets older an stops to fix properly.

People way smarter than me say over fixing with strong fixer can bleach your film. I have never seen that yet ( almost 40 years ) and sometimes i over fixer my film.
Its best to not tempt the fates, sometimes they get mad !

 

[jvo]

i have no digital expertise and i can only go by what has been repeated on this site - "you can't tell from a scan what the quality of your negative is! a scan is different than a print" (okay correct me!)

 

[MattKing]

you can figure out what time to do your fixer by taking a small clip of the film you like to use and in day light put it in a little bit of fixer and see how long it takes to turn to a clear piece of film.
your total film fix time is 2x that "clear time" ... as your fixer gets used ( assuming you do not toss it after one use ) it will take longer and longer .. eventually it will
take 2x that original clear time, when that happens it is time to make new fixer.
have fun !
john

There are a few films - Kodak T-Max films being three examples - where the "2x clearing time" rule of thumb would be better if it was a "3x clearing time" rule of thumb. They simply need more fixing.
As far as I am aware, you need to fix for significantly longer than 3x the clearing time before any bleaching effect starts to matter.
The only problem with using 3x the clearing time for all your film, is that it tends to delay your results longer than is necessary for lots of different types of films.