Used Ilford Multigrade instead of Ilfosol 3

Oops.

Grabbed the wrong bottle. Developed a roll of FP4 using Ilford Multigrade instead of Ilfosol 3.

The negs seem to have come out fine, however. Go figure. Actually, I really can't say. I made a point of exposing this roll a little harder than I normally do. Seems like my negatives were coming out thin, so I wanted more light. Mission accomplished. These negatives look a LOT darker than before. I guess that was my goal.

Does anyone do this on purpose?

Well you've gone against all convention as I understand it and seem to have come out of it successfully but you might want to tell us what changes MG has made to both the neg and print when you print.

I look forward to your findings. If the prints are as good as those produced from Ilfsol 3 negs and require no more difficult processing then some re-thinking of convention may be called for.

Thanks for sharing

pentaxuser

With a bit of luck, I'll be back in the darkroom tonight to try printing some of these. If that works out, I should have some scans to show tomorrow.

And FWIW, I developed at a concentration of 1/14 for seven minutes at 68 degrees F.

But, honestly, I'm not sure if there is much to learn from this for me (beyond the fact that it worked at all). I am still quite new to all this and there are so many variables that I did not control (all my exposures were by eye and "best guess"), its hard to say.

That's say 70 litres at 1:14 and allowing 250mls per 35mm film that's 280 films for about 20 GBP so about 8 pence per film. Wow! I cannot think of any commercial developer that comes anywhere near that kind of value for money

pentaxuser

Well, I've got a bottle of Multigrade sitting at home, you've tempted me to try it myself.
So 7 mins, 1:14, 20C. Agitations/min?
Roughly what ei would be "exposed a bit harder", ei100, ei80?

(meanwhile, are you going to try dev some paper in ilfosol to complete the switch-around?)

My "process" (in quotes since that's too good of a word for my level of technique) is to dump in the developer, cap the tank. Four firm taps to remove bubbles, four inversions. Wait 60 seconds, four more inversions. Repeat until time's up.

As for these exposures, all I can say is that I started this journey (I'm using my Agfa Isolette III) using the "sunny-16 rule", so with my 125 ISO film, I was going f/16 at 1/125. If the light was a bit less (overcast, lets say), I'd open it up to f/8. With this eyeball technique, I was consistently getting under-exposure, so I decided to hit this roll pretty hard. The last five shots were in shade (but it was bright out with all the snow cover) at f/4 and 1/60. Those negatives look really good on the roll. We'll see how they look on paper.

Correct me if I am wrong, but a paper developer is stronger than a film developer (on the base of the same dilution). The opening thread just proves how "resilient" a film is when faced to a "strong" developer. If it works, I wonder about the details and the gray tones will turn out.

Maybe you got lucky. I tried Dektol and Tri-X once when I ran out of D76....it was like lith film. LOTS of contrast, as you may find in the darkroom. Let us know how it comes out. You might start a trend. I know it sounds anal, but you might wish to jot down development times, temps, type of agitation etc for future reference.

Paper developer for film is an old PJ trick meant to develop films much faster. Your neg is probably overdeveloped with steep contrast. That's all there is to it.

NB23 said:

Your neg is probably overdeveloped with steep contrast. That's all there is to it.

Click to expand...

Yep.

Just spent a few hours making prints.

These negatives are crazy-contrasty. There is black, white and maybe one shade of grey.

Oh well. One more mistake I won't make again.

omaha said:

Yep.

Just spent a few hours making prints.

These negatives are crazy-contrasty. There is black, white and maybe one shade of grey.

Oh well. One more mistake I won't make again.

Click to expand...

Speaking of mistake, I had already used HC-110 ("A" solution) with one film. The film ended up black & white without the smallest tone of gray.
:eek:

Here are a couple of scans...




The second one was probably a bit over-exposed, in addition to being over-developed.

All things considered, this was an interesting exercise in over-development for me, even if it was an accident.

I think that first one works really well as a 'high key' photo. At least there's *some* grey in there.
I once gave a roll of ATP1.1 to a lab to process, and they didn't quite realise that it needed special processing, now *that* came out true black and white...