The worst film/developer results I ever saw...

Juan Valdenebro · Dec 25, 2020

Today I found half a roll of Kentmere400, so I used it for experimentation... I exposed it at 640 and developed it in Microphen 1+2 at 24C, just to see, with 10 sec. initial agitation and 2 inversions every two minutes, for 12 minutes. Tone is perfect, by the way...
I can't imagine what this could be used for... Maybe an arts project...
Grain isn't very big, but the general look is horrible...
It totally lacks definition... Nothing is sharp in any frame... All details vanished...
I wonder if the high temperature with that dilution produced it...
K400 is fine at 250 in D-76 and at 400 in Microphen stock, and other films work well in diluted Microphen: some way I must have hit that film's design weak points...
Instead of just losing my time, I decided to lose a little more saving that information here...
Merry Christmas!

pentaxuser · Dec 25, 2020

Juan a couple of examples of what you got with this disastrous combo would be helpful for those of us who might otherwise be tempted to use it. After all at first glance an Ilford developer with an Ilford film is the sort of combination that anyone would expect to work well

Thanks

pentaxuser

Juan Valdenebro · Dec 25, 2020

Pentax, Michael, your options are to do it or not to do it. No need of any kind from myself.
Pentax: I have no scanner right now, and I won't print those... I'm sorry...
Michael: Buy it? Who cares about that? If you are interested in publishing how great K400 can be in Microphen 1+2 at 24C, do it and publish it. I`ll gladly take a look.

wyofilm · Dec 25, 2020

Semi-stand development of delta 3200 with 1:100 rodinal. The grain was so large you feel the bumps when touching the emulsion surface. (hyperbole alert.)

Craig75 · Dec 25, 2020

So 2 inversions every 2 minutes rather than 4 every minute at a dilution beyond the max in the datasheet and you dont like results.... whod have guessed.

pentaxuser · Dec 25, 2020

Juan Valdenebro said:
Pentax, Michael, your options are to do it or not to do it. No need of any kind from myself.
Pentax: I have no scanner right now, and I won't print those... I'm sorry...

Juan all I am asking for is help to decide if this combo which fails for you also fails for me and some pics would clearly help. I appreciate you have no scanner right now but when you get one will you scan the pics then from prints if possible but if you do not wish to make prints then a reversed scan of some of the negatives would help. Isn't a forum there so we can help each other? Otherwise each thread can become just a statement by the originator of the thread with no meaningful dialogue or clarification

I am sure that this is not your purpose when you posted your thread as this is not in keeping with the spirit of Photrio or indeed any forum that has any purpose

I look forward to your response. Thanks

Oh and a merry Christmas

pentaxuser

NB23 · Dec 25, 2020

2 inversions every 2 minutes?

mind blowing.

What is your reason to use such a bad technique? What were you hoping to achieve?

NB23 · Dec 25, 2020

michael_r said:
A two minute agitation interval is not extreme, and is not necessarily bad technique.

But more importantly: it is not a good technique.

Lachlan Young · Dec 25, 2020

If Ilford isn't recommending a dilution deeper than 1+1 with K400 and Microphen, there will be good reasons. It may well be that getting adequate density takes disproportionately longer at deeper than 1+1 dilution in Microphen, and/ or that it's no longer solvent enough to release iodide from the emulsion to generate sufficient acutance effects etc. To take another example, Ilford have been quite clear that Delta 3200 needs developers like Microphen to be used at stock strength to get the full intended performance of the emulsions.

Andrew O'Neill · Dec 25, 2020

It's good to experiment. Thanks for sharing your results.

Deleted member 88956 · Dec 25, 2020

Old Gregg said:
I have never used Microphen but I like Kentmere-400 in 120 (available in the US under "Ultrafine Extreme" brand). Here's how it looks like in Xtol. This is not a top stock like HP5+ but perfectly serviceable with a characteristic gentle look for scenes without too much contrast.

It looks great, but most often the question is wether film made the scene or scene made the film. And how the photographer played into it.

NB23 · Dec 25, 2020

michael_r said:
Yes, we are all painfully aware anything you don’t do constitutes bad technique, bad photography etc.

Oh the pain. Eskouzi moua.

NB23 · Dec 25, 2020

Another painful update for all youze:

Microphen 1:2/1:3 is not a good idea for a lot of films. And it usually needs quite extended times versus 1:1. Twelve minutes sounds very low, I would personally go at least 18 minutes with that combo.

And if you decide to do 2 inversions every 2 minutes, then you should extend the development time.

This reminds me one time when I used HC110 h (1:63) to develop some plus-x rolls, while thinking it was Dilution B (1:31). As with the op, the tonality seemed fine and it was definitely printable, but the overall result was horrendous.

I could have easily concluded that Plus-X and HC110 was a bad match and spread the news on various platforms. However, the culprit was under-development.

grat · Dec 25, 2020

michael_r said:
A two minute agitation interval is not extreme, and is not necessarily bad technique.

No, but it's plainly not "stock" or 1+1 at 20C, with 4 inversions every minute, which seems to be what Ilford is recommending for Microphen.

Massive Dev chart recommends 14.5 minutes for 1+3 dilution at 20C-- but 1+2 is going to be a faster time, and then another 40% needs to be taken off because the development was at 24C, and that's also, if I remember correctly, going to make the grain more apparent.

So as near as I can tell, the OP under-exposed, over-developed, under-agitated, and didn't like the results-- which is entirely reasonable, I'm just not sure why he expected to like the results in the first place.

Craig75 · Dec 26, 2020

michael_r said:
While I agree OP’s processing technique was not as Ilford instructs, and that he seems to have been overdeveloping/pushing (which degrades image structure) my points are:

1. OP’s dilution is not far removed enough from Ilford’s recommendations to have horrendously impacted image structure
2. Complaining about OP’s agitation intervals is a red herring. See (1) above, plus the fact agitation is not a primary determinant of image structure anyway, unless wildly beyond the norm and/or combined with dilutions which are also far off

If OP was disappointed by image definition in his scenario, and assuming it is objectively, significantly worse than “normal” (big assumption as we have no idea what OP is seeing and comparing with etc.), I stand by my hypothesis it simply has to do with the film having been overdeveloped, and is very unlikely to have been specifically due to the 2 minute agitation intervals and 1+2 dilution.

Its underdeveloped not overdeveloped.

Used the 1+1 time for very mild push but used 1+2 dilution

Then didnt agitate enough.

You are going to end up with under developed film.

Lachlan Young · Dec 26, 2020

Craig75 said:
Its underdeveloped not overdeveloped.

Used the 1+1 time for very mild push but used 1+2 dilution

Then didnt agitate enough.

You are going to end up with under developed film.

Add in some underexposure to that too - at the level of N- used (very rough guess would suggest about -3) - especially when the + 2/3 shadow speed of Microphen is claimed on the basis of normal/ G-bar 0.62 development, as opposed to somewhere probably in the 0.3's.
Usual rule of thumb with Ilford materials (and no deviation from their agitation pattern) is that 'box' speed dev times in the data sheet are for g-bar 0.62, +1 for 0.7-ish, +2 heading towards 0.75-0.8, -1 about 0.5-ish. Perceptol can be a bit more confusing on some data sheets until you work out which one is intended to be the 0.62 time.

Craig75 · Dec 26, 2020

michael_r said:
If the film was underdeveloped, I am even less convinced anything went wrong with respect to image structure.

Its very underdeveloped. -33% developer + 1/2 the agitation is going to equal low contrast and reduced sharpness. Op is complaining its not sharp - theres the reason.

pentaxuser · Dec 26, 2020

michael_r said:
I’m sorry to be argumentative on this, but with respect to both acutance and resolution/detectivity in image structure, they are inversely related to density, and by extension, degree of development.

There just isn’t anything in OP’s stated procedure which would have destroyed the film’s sharpness.

Yes that phrase on film's sharpness was one of the aspects I was hoping to be able to judge from his examples which I fear will not be forthcoming now despite my request.

Andrew I take it that your "thanks for sharing your results" reply was directed at Old Gregg? It made me look again to see if Juan has shared his results and it was simply that I just hadn't seen them but no I can't find any sharing by Juan

pentaxuser

Wallendo · Dec 26, 2020

The impression I got from the original post was that "found" Kentmere film exposed at a custom EI and developed in a novel development routine produced unacceptable results. Nothing more ... nothing less.

It may be helpful to people who plan to shoot such a combination. I suspect most of the responses to this are from users who don't plan to use this combination to begin with.

NB23 · Dec 26, 2020

Well, if you ask me, all my underdeveloped negatives all look soft as well.

NB23 · Dec 26, 2020

Here are some Official Ilford
infos, and with some basic extrapolation/logic we can safely conclude that the OP messed up his development, big time.

According to the Microphen brochure, not many films can be developed 1:3. There is stock and 1:1. No 1:2.

The jump from stock to 1:1 is usually 50% extra time for all films... But for HP5, the most flexible film in the world (IMO) it is double the time, 6:30 for stock and 12 for 1:1. It is Double for Tri-X and Kentmere as well. Kentmere goes from 8 minutes to 15!

Now the biggest surprise is this:
HP5@1:3 is rated at 23 minutes.
Trix@1:3 is rated at 22 minutes.
Old APX@1:3 is rated at 27 minutes.
Kentmere is not recomended at anything above 1:1. This means that even an extended developing time will NOT give satisfactory results with Kentmere if you dilute Microphen more than 1:1. But a simple extrapolation would warrant double the time from 1:1, leading it into the 30 minutes region.

Now, the question of temperature is a tricky one. The Ilford temperature compensation chart is far from accurate. I personally do not use it in fear of underdevelopment.
As an example, on the DD-X Bottle, HP5 is rated at 9 minutes at 20c and 7 minutes at 24c. But if you refer to Ilford’s chart, you should develop for 6:15 at 24c. This is enough for me to not follow the chart. My personal rule of thumb is to take off 30 seconds per every 1 degree celsius, and test from there for further optimisation. That’s a total of only 2 minutes difference from 20c to 24c.

And If I plan to agitate sporadically and lethargically (which is absolutely never because there is not a single reason to do so), I would add a few minutes to the development.

So, after a quick, dirty and basic analysis, and taking into account the lethargic inversions regimen, anything UNDER 35 minutes would have given subpar results. And anything OVER 35 would have also given unacceptable results (as per Ilford’s own recommendation not to go over
1:1 with Kentmere).

We are confronted to a catch-22 situation where you are guaranteed to get bad results, except if you stay with stock or 1:1, and if you invert and shake the damn tank.

The worst film/developer results I ever saw...

Moderator

Deleted member 88956

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency