What chemical can i use to slightly decrease density build up ID68?

hi guys!
so I love the results of id68 with my black and white films. but when I shoot at box speed I get wayyyyy too much density on my negatives. wayyy too much contrast.

I have been under exposing to try to compensate - but I'd like to know if there's more or less of a chemical I can put in my developer to reduce this intense build up.

I'm guessing less phenidone since I learned it's the most powerful developer in the the mix.

please lmk!

Just develop shorter; it'll build less density. If you want a chemical solution, just add water. Dilute your ID68 further down with water. E.g. if you're now using it full-strength, try it 1+1 or even 1+2.

MingMingPhoto said:

I'm guessing less phenidone

Click to expand...

That will throw off the phenidone:hydroquinone ratio. It will slow down the developer, so it'll kind of work. But why try to improve on a tried & tested formula? If you have too much density, just develop shorter, that's all there is to it!

PS: underexposure will mostly affect the shadows, so you end up with little or no shadow detail. I.e....underexposure (surprising, eh!) It will only marginally affect the highlights, at least within a range where you don't end up in problematic underexposure territory. So the real solution to too much development, is just less development. It's really that simple.

PPS: I suspect that the solution you tried, i.e. underexposure, just made matters worse. What happens is that as you reduce exposure, you lose shadow detail. Since overall contrast in the negative will drop only a little, and you end up compensating for this in digital post processing or enlarger printing anyway, what you end up with is large black shadows and the same highlights. I.e. the general impression of the same image/scene will be of higher contrast.

PPPS: all of the above is in the assumption that you have already determined for sure that the highlight density in your negatives really is too high. Please verify if this is truly the case. I have my doubts, given the nature of your question.

You can also process at a lower temperature, and/or a shorter time as Koraks mentioned.

What is the final use of the negatives? Are you scanning or printing optically? I have found that some scanners can't deal will with dense highlights, but they are easily printable in the darkroom.

Be careful about judging the quality of negatives from scans, rather than from the negatives themselves.

If you reduce your development time 15-20% and shoot at box speed you may be spot on.

Double check your thermometer. Seriously

As others have said: process controls!

ID-68/ Microphen are capable of delivering a very broad range of aim contrast indices. With some materials and some aim densities it can overshoot relatively quickly, but only if your process is majorly out of control.

A sufficiently accurate thermometer and timer (and if needed, densitometer), not messing up the formulation are what you need to be referring to as a matter of first principle in order to resolve a suitable development time.

ID-68/Microphen gives an effective increase in film speed roughly two thirds of a stop, so a slight reduction in exposure and dev time should solve the problem.

From memory older Ilford's older datasheets suggested 200 ISO for FP4 developed in Microphen compared to the 125 ISO box speed, and 640 ISO for HP5.

Ian

What film?

If your negatives are consistently overexposed, i.e., too dense shadows, then rate your film faster and vice versa.

If your negatives are consistently too contrasty, reduce development time and vice versa.

That's about all you need. Just juggle those two variables till you get results you like. Don't mess with the formula to try and achieve this.

Best,

Doremus

Doremus Scudder said:

If your negatives are consistently overexposed, i.e., too dense shadows, then rate your film faster and vice versa.

If your negatives are consistently too contrasty, reduce development time and vice versa.

Click to expand...

This. Since I learned developing the second time, in high school (1975 or so).

thank you everyone.

for those that asked:
I'm shooting mostly bwxx (and have hand spooled double xx as well)
ortho 80 ilford
sometimes tx400

also - yes defiantly too much density judging form the negatives themselves. the goal is to optically print the negatives - but i also want to scan them. I have an hs1800 noritsu scanner and it struggles with the density. when printing in the darkroom I have to consistnely print at 0 or 00. but tbh I really used to love making prints at 00 as a "artist proof print" and then printing at 2 ish for the final print.

if the advice everyone has given doens't work I'll post again about it and hopefully I'lll ahve a new solve (messing with the chemicals)

I will take the advice of developing shorter. and I'll also go against the advice of not messing with the formula cause why not?

MingMingPhoto said:

cause why not?

Click to expand...

Cause it ain't necessary and you risk getting lost a heck of a lot further in the woods, that's why.

Just give less development. Easy. Don't overcomplicate things. This ain't rocket science.

MingMingPhoto said:

I will take the advice of developing shorter. and I'll also go against the advice of not messing with the formula cause why not?

Click to expand...

Please keep us updated... sounds promising with respect to our entertainment.

Or just stick to only changing one parameter at a time and shorten the development.

Once you start adding or subtracting from the formula you will not have ID-68. The smart people at Ilford spent a lot of time and effort into getting the developers, phenidone and hydroquinone in balance and the borax to boric acid ratio right to keep the ph stable and at a point for good overall control. This is a fine formulae as it it is. You just have to fine tune your exposure and time to get a good negative. I have found that the times and E.I, given by Ilford to be very close. Fomapan 400 was another story.