What Developer? ~ Help needed

[Stoo Batchelor]

Hi everyone.

I have just returned from a trip to the Cornish coast in th U.K. and have been testing different films while on my travels. By doing this I have made two balls ups .

Number 1,

I have rated a roll of 120 Ilford PanF at 100 iso instead of the 50 it should have been. What developer should I use to push this film? and what developoment times etc? I have the following developers at hand. Pyrocat M (though I can make HD) Rodinal, Ilford ID11 and Thorntons two bath.

Number 2,

I have used a couple of rolls of ADOX CHS-25 art in 120 format. On my return home I have read that it is not a good idea to use an orange filter with this film, due to its allready high contrast character. Well, I have used one ! What developer should I go with to give me a good range of tones? I don't mind high contrast but I do wish to see some shadow detail. I have read that Rodinal @ 1-100 for 18 mins is good for this film. Should I use this and cut back a bit on the development time?

Your help with this will as allways, be much appreciated.

Regards

Stoo

 

[dpurdy]

I would do the adox 25 in Rodinal 1:100 in any case if it was me. Hopefully you didn't want a whole lot of shadow detail from the Pan F. It should push to a hundred pretty well. I would personally do the ID11.

 

[23mjm]

For the Pan F+ give XTOL a try--check the Massive Development Chart for times, also might give you ideas on other developers to try. The Adox I would develope it normally and see what you get--think of it as a film test.

 

[Stoo Batchelor]

think of it as a film test.

Thanks for your help so far Guys.

On the first roll I know that there is one very special frame that I would very much like it to make it through this mess up, so I would rather not see this as a film test. Man the joys of straying away from what you know best!

Regards

Stoo

 

[Anscojohn]

Sounds like a perfect job for Eastman D23. It is outstanding in giving you shadow detail but will not (well, hardly) block up your highlights and rarely gives excessive contrast.

John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

 

[gainer]

Well, then, get a sacrificial roll to use for the test.

 

[Stoo Batchelor]

Well, then, get a sacrificial roll to use for the test.

Great advice!

I just so want to get in the Darkroom but your right, on this occasion I feel its not worth the risk.

Thank You

Stoo

 

[jim appleyard]

For the Pan-F, I'd go ID-11. This was the standard pushing dev years ago. You should be able to find a time on the MDC.

For the Adox, Gainer is correct, there's nothing like a test roll under similar (???) conditions with the orange filter. You might want to try Thornton's two bath for that. It should help keep your contrast in control.

 

[pentaxuser]

Seeing these posts made me check the MDC. Roger Hicks says that DDX is a speed increasing developer and yet neither Ilford nor MDC give speeds above 50 for this combo. The only Ilford developer which Ilford gives a higher speed for is Microphen but then only 64 or 80, I think. As another poster has said it seems that Xtol is the most versatile developer for Pan F. There's an amazing range of speeds quoted - way beyond the 100 that the OP used it at.

pentaxuser

 

[bill spears]

I recently discovered a roll of undeveloped pan F 120 in my cupboard which had been exposed at 100 ISO from about 4years ago !! Couldn't decide what dev to use either.
When I get round to it I'll probably go for ID11 or Microphen.
Great film Pan F, quite contrasty and I normally rate at 12 or 25 and do it in dilute Perceptol.
Interested to see how you get on.

Where did you go in Cornwall by the way ? Lousy weather down here lately.

Bill

 

[Stoo Batchelor]

For the Pan-F, I'd go ID-11. This was the standard pushing dev years ago. You should be able to find a time on the MDC.

Thanks Jim

There is nothing on the MDC for Pan-f rated at 100 in ID11, though your suggestion regarding Thorntons two bath has got my mind thinking that way. Especially as I could control contrast with the adjustment of bath 'B' I am still at the testing stage with this developer though.

As another poster has said it seems that Xtol is the most versatile developer for Pan F. There's an amazing range of speeds quoted - way beyond the 100 that the OP used it at.

pentaxuser

P.U

Very interesting. It is allways good to go for something that is tried and tested. Thanks for your input.

That does look very interesting

Where did you go in Cornwall by the way ? Lousy weather down here lately.

Bill

Hi Bill

I started off in Portwrinkle, had a very bad experience there with the B+B. Booked out of there after one night and moved on. I went to Seaton, Looe and Polperro before continuing my Journey to St Just. It was after seeing some of Mark Burley's photos of Portwrinkle and yours of Porth Nanven that spurred me on to make the trip. I was greeted by a Sea mist at Porth Nanven, though still managed to make a few images that day. I then moved on to Cape Cornwall and then an evening meal back in St Just. I then bedded down for the night in Porth Nanven. That was spookey. It was facinating to watch nature at its finest that night. The waves were real monsters. You could hear them rocks moving about like snooker balls! I was rewarded with a fine morning and I followed the tide out.

My journey ended up on the Lizard at Kinance Cove. Very beautifull. The whole trip was the hardest I have ever had to work to make a photograph. On more than one occasion I was hit by waves that come up to my waste. I am sure someone up there was having a laugh with me! There was a few occasions that I was seriously asking myself 'WHY?'

Thanks again All

Best

Stoo

 

[Doug Webb]

Because I have done this too many times myself with images I really wanted to salvage, I recommend a procedure I have tried with success. I would take another roll of Pan F, go either outdoors or indoors, whichever is more like the images you want to give your best shot at saving, find a subject that has some similarities, like foilage, rocks, etc., and shoot at a time of day or in similar light conditions in which you took those photos you want to save. Then shoot the entire roll at the EI of 100, if that is what you shot originally, all of the same sujbect, just fire off the whole roll, don't change anything between shots. Then cut the roll into 3 or more pieces in the darkroom and load each part of the roll into a separate developing tank.

Start with ID 11 at the recommended development time for an EI of 50, see what those negatives look like after they are dry, and if you need more development, add 2 minutes or so to the next few frames. That way you have at least 3 chances of getting something usable that would probably work on the original images you want to save. I would add, if you really want to be as sure as possible, try printing those test images before you make up your mind just by looking at the negatives, don't stop developing the second or third piece if the first piece of the roll looks good. I say that because I have tried processing film in a way that was different than my normal procedure and the negatives that looked good to me didn't always print the way I expected. Also, even if you do find the first set of negatives works well, if you go ahead and develop the other pieces of film at different times and record the information, you may be able to use it in the future.

Don't know about the other film or the other developers. But I would say that a situation like this may not be the best time to start experimenting with unfamiliar developers.
Good luck,
Doug Webb

 

[jim appleyard]

Stoo, ID-11/D-76 was the standard for pushing years ago, and seeing as you already have that dev...

I had neglected to mention the times for you; pushing one stop in ID-11/D-76 is an increase in dev time of 1.5. A test roll is recommended. Doug has a great method above.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Thanks Jim

There is nothing on the MDC for Pan-f rated at 100 in ID11, though your suggestion regarding Thorntons two bath has got my mind thinking that way. Especially as I could control contrast with the adjustment of bath 'B' I am still at the testing stage with this developer though.




P.U

Very interesting. It is allways good to go for something that is tried and tested. Thanks for your input.

That does look very interesting



Hi Bill

I started off in Portwrinkle, had a very bad experience there with the B+B. Booked out of there after one night and moved on. I went to Seaton, Looe and Polperro before continuing my Journey to St Just. It was after seeing some of Mark Burley's photos of Portwrinkle and yours of Porth Nanven that spurred me on to make the trip. I was greeted by a Sea mist at Porth Nanven, though still managed to make a few images that day. I then moved on to Cape Cornwall and then an evening meal back in St Just. I then bedded down for the night in Porth Nanven. That was spookey. It was facinating to watch nature at its finest that night. The waves were real monsters. You could hear them rocks moving about like snooker balls! I was rewarded with a fine morning and I followed the tide out.

My journey ended up on the Lizard at Kinance Cove. Very beautifull. The whole trip was the hardest I have ever had to work to make a photograph. On more than one occasion I was hit by waves that come up to my waste. I am sure someone up there was having a laugh with me! There was a few occasions that I was seriously asking myself 'WHY?'

Thanks again All

Best

Stoo

When I was shooting Pan F, I developed it in 1:1 Microdol-X with excellent results (never tried pushing it though).

If XTOL is good with Pan F, then Instant Mytol should also be good.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Stoo Batchelor]

Doug, Jim and Tom

Thanks for your input here.

Yes the way forward is a test roll in the same(or near as) conditions. It will mean ordering the film in as I only purchased two rolls of each to start with. Perhaps I should have used them as test rolls first before I shot anything that would be a 'keeper'

I most definately want a finer grained film as when I make a slightly larger print from a Delta 100 neg, I am seeing grain , which I personally do not like with my landscapes, yes other work, but not my landscapes. I have been offered a Toyo 5 x 4 outfit complete with polaroid back and a roll film back which frames at 6 x 9 cm. It has been so tempting, but after this recent trip I do not think it would suit the way I work, with waves chasing me up the beach etc! So a finer film is a step in the right direction me thinks.

Thanks all

Regards

Stoo

 

[dancqu]

Sounds like a perfect job for Eastman D23.
It is outstanding in giving you shadow detail but
will not (well, hardly) block up your highlights and
rarely gives excessive contrast. John

I checked a roll of Acros put through an 8-80 D23.
That's 8 grams metol and 80 grams sulfite. Using a
densitometer zone 1 measured 0.12. So a full ISO
100. Very pleased. May or may not help the OP
with his ISO 50 shot at 100.

FWIW, that slightly modified D23 at 1:7 dilution,
500ml, inversion agitation at start and each 2
minutes, 16 minutes. A little soft, a hard
Grade 2 or Soft 3. Dan

 

[Lee Shively]

According to an Ilford chart I obtained somewhere, the only two developers listed for Pan F+ shot at an E.I. of 100 is full strength Microphen and Xtol. Both are listed as 8 minutes at 68 degrees. For an E.I. of 200, Microphen for 12 minutes, Xtol 9 minutes. I always cut Ilford's times a bit for my purposes but I would use their recommendations as a starting point.

 

[Stoo Batchelor]

According to an Ilford chart I obtained somewhere, the only two developers listed for Pan F+ shot at an E.I. of 100 is full strength Microphen and Xtol. Both are listed as 8 minutes at 68 degrees. For an E.I. of 200, Microphen for 12 minutes, Xtol 9 minutes. I always cut Ilford's times a bit for my purposes but I would use their recommendations as a starting point.

Thanks lee

It is in the pdf for Ilfords Panf plus that you would have read it. It reads like this...

PAN F Plus
DEVELOPMENT TIMES
If PAN F Plus has been inadvertently exposed at
settings below EI 25/15 or above EI 64/19, the
following guide will ensure usable negatives are
obtained. Obviously, the quality of negatives
processed in this way will not be so high as
conventionally processed ones.
Manual processing (min/20oC/68oF) –
accidental exposure only
ILFORD Dilution Meter setting
developer
EI EI EI
12/12 100/21 200/24
and and
below above
MICROPHEN stock – 8 12
ID-11 stock 4 – –

Something to consider along with the Xtol that had been mentioned earlier. What I find interesting is the Eastman D23 that Dan has mentioned.This keeps cropping up alot lately. Whats interesting about it is tha fact that it is almost identicle to the 'A' bath of Thorntons two bath, which is a modified Stoeckler formula. I imagine that I will never understand the chemical side of photography, I mean, why no 'B' bath? This is why I am allways eternally greatful for those that do and have had the time to test such formulas. I have even got a headache just thinking about it!

This formula is most definately going to be the one that I test as soon as my film arrives, especially with the Adox chs25 Art.

Thanks again to both yourself and Dan for your input

Regards

Stoo

 

[Lee Shively]

"It is in the pdf for Ilfords Panf plus that you would have read it."

No, actually it is a large cardboard information chart. It has information on all Ilford B&W films with developers and suggested development times. It's been hanging on my darkroom wall for about 10-12 years.

Comes in handy.

 

[dancqu]

What I find interesting is the Eastman D23 that Dan has mentioned.
Whats interesting about it is the fact that it is almost identicle to
the 'A' bath of Thorntons two bath, which is a modified Stoeckler
Thanks again to both yourself and Dan for your input...Stoo

Thornton's A of two baths. Likely the 80 grams of sulfite.

Headache? I'll explain. Two bath developers, Diafine,
divided D23, Stockler's, etc, all have developing agent
and alkali, activator, in A bath. A thorough soaking of the
emulsion and shorted development there then to the B bath
for continued development in that alkaline solution.

The developing agent within the emulsion is depleted
rapidly as it tackles the more exposed areas. The less
exposed areas continue to develop depleting the carry
forward developing agent only slowly. Of course the
developer is washed and diffuses from the emulsion.
Two or three minutes in B I'd think about it. Dan

 

[Mark Burley]

Good luck with the film trials Stoo. You should have asked me re where to stay in Portwrinkle. I would have given you a few addresses.

As for scary waves, I got very wet taking the shots in Portwrinkle. Worst one being chest height. I honestly thought I was going to lose the Blad and tripod - brown trousers/shorts was the order of the day. I just caught the tripod as it lifted off the rocks. After that I realised I had pushed it too far. I found it very difficult to judge when to retreat back up to the beach. Leave to early and lose out on great shots or risk soaking everything but get at least a shot or two in the bag. Either way I got thoroughly soaked every day for a week.

I would do it again tomorrow though - what a fantastic venue... As for Porth Nanven - I'm jealous, not got there yet.
It has to be one of the most interesting challenges in Cornwall. By the way, have you seen Andrew Nadolski's book - The End of Land. That's based on Porth Nanven. Wonderful colour neg based images (he uses Reala and Velvia I think)

Mark

 

[Stoo Batchelor]

Thornton's A of two baths. Likely the 80 grams of sulfite.

Headache? I'll explain. Two bath developers, Diafine,
divided D23, Stockler's, etc, all have developing agent
and alkali, activator, in A bath. A thorough soaking of the
emulsion and shorted development there then to the B bath
for continued development in that alkaline solution.

The developing agent within the emulsion is depleted
rapidly as it tackles the more exposed areas. The less
exposed areas continue to develop depleting the carry
forward developing agent only slowly. Of course the
developer is washed and diffuses from the emulsion.
Two or three minutes in B I'd think about it. Dan

Dan, thanks for taking time out to explain but the headache continues!

Heres why:

D-23 chemical make up ~ 7.5 gram Metol
100 gram Sodium Suplhite
Water

Stoeckler 'A' Bath ~ 5 gram Metol
100 gram Sodium Sulphite
Water

Thorntons 'A' Bath ~ 6.5 gram Metol
80 gram Sodium Sulphite
Water.

Now, I am assuming that By using the D23 alone, development would result in good negatives, assuming they were correctly exposed. But in Barry Thorntons book 'Edge of Darkness' he states, and I quote:

"Bath 'A' contains only the developing agent and preservative. The second, bath 'B' contains the alkali activator and any restrainer"

So, if that is the case, what is in the D-23 to activate the Metol? because Barry continues:

"The exposed film is first immersed in tank or dish, in Bath 'A'. Because there is no activator present virtually no development takes place"

O.k, I can see that there is more Metol in the D-23 than both Stoeckler and Thorntons formulas, but there is a lack of activator, hense the continuation of the development process is in need of a 'B' Bath , the activator, to yield a final correctly developed negative..

You see why I am confused!

How the bloody hell does the D-23 work? Beats the hell out of me!

Mark, thanks for pointing me in the direction of the photographer Andrew Nadolski. I looked him up. Some of his work can be found here:

http://www.tristansgallery.com/showGallery/21/245

The trip to Porth Nanven was well worth the extra miles. Very special. I am afraid that I did not come away from Portwrinkle with much as a sea fog moved in while I was there. If you ever go to Porth Nanven, ask how to get there as it is not the easiest place to find, even with an O.S in your lap.

Cheers Dan and Mark

Best

Stoo

 

[dancqu]

Dan, thanks for taking time out to explain but the headache continues!

"Bath 'A' contains only the developing agent and preservative.
The second, bath 'B' contains the alkali activator and any restrainer"

So, if that is the case, what is in the D-23 to activate the Metol?
because Barry continues:

"The exposed film is first immersed in tank or dish, in Bath 'A'.
Because there is no activator present virtually no development
takes place"
Stoo

Yet more headache! D-76H. Only 2.5 grams of metol. Barry, I'm
sorry to say, has lead you into a state of confusion. Very simple.
Sodium sulfite is both preservative AND ACTIVATOR. In fact
sodium sulfite has a fairly high ph, round about 10. That is
higher than borax or bicarbonate.

So, metol and sodium sulfite in any reasonable proportion and
the correct amount of water will develope film, even paper.

It just so happens that Steve Anchell has addressed this issue
of development in the A bath of the above and other two bath
developers. In an article in Camera & Darkroom some years ago
he modified a few formulas so to include sodium bisulfite.
By so doing a lower ph and less A bath development.

For greater development control the A bath can be inactive.
Multiple passes twixt A and B baths are necessary. Dan

 

[Stoo Batchelor]

Yet more headache! D-76H. Only 2.5 grams of metol. Barry, I'm
sorry to say, has lead you into a state of confusion. Very simple.
Sodium sulfite is both preservative AND ACTIVATOR. In fact
sodium sulfite has a fairly high ph, round about 10. That is
higher than borax or bicarbonate.

So, metol and sodium sulfite in any reasonable proportion and
the correct amount of water will develope film, even paper.

It just so happens that Steve Anchell has addressed this issue
of development in the A bath of the above and other two bath
developers. In an article in Camera & Darkroom some years ago
he modified a few formulas so to include sodium bisulfite.
By so doing a lower ph and less A bath development.

For greater development control the A bath can be inactive.
Multiple passes twixt A and B baths are necessary. Dan

Actually Dan, no. no more headache. You have explained it perfectly well, and I couldn't thank you enough.

So the 'B' Bath, as Barry goes on to explain, is a final tweeking of what allready has taken place in bath 'A' And depending on what strength it is, will depend on the final contrast of the negative. Very interesting.

Thanks Dan

Best

Stoo

 

[Paul Verizzo]

pH with sulfite

There has been more misunderstanding, lies, faith, and confusion about two bath/divided developers than the death of JFK.

Divided D-23 is the daddy of them all and seems to be Diafine (look at the MSDS.) D-23 has only the SS content to provide activation. Divided D-23 starts out as regular D-23 and as such, development does take place, but not a lot in 3 minutes. As you may know, you can extend the A development to change the film characteristics. The completion in Bath B is almost instantaneous, the 3 minutes is just for simplicity and marketing. However, it does provide a lot of "seed" sites for the sodium carbonate kick in the B bath.

Some extensive notes of mine from the early 90's has pH vs. SS concentration. To be honest, I can't remember if I got this info elsewhere, or it was the result of my own tests. Anyway:

30g/L of SS has a pH of about 8+
60g/L of SS has a pH of about 9

So, at 80-100 grams typical of most fine grain developers, you can expect a pH in the "low 9's." That's right there with D-76, +/- pH 9.2 - 9.5), which is right there with 10g/L of borax alone: pH 9.5.

In the next week I will be trying a two bath developer that I got from the original article on from a Shutterbug in 1992, by Otha Spencer. He claims "no grain" on a Plus-X, 35mm to 11x14. If you have an eye for such things, it's a concentrated DK-50 with the sulfite held about the same.

Metol, 6.5 g
SS, 32.5 g
HQ, 6.5 g
Pot. Bromide, 3 g
Water to make 1 Qt.

I think that there is an error on the B bath, stating "3 oz, 200 grains." That's about 91 grams! Even undiluted Dektol/D-72 doesn't use that much. You can't go too far wrong at at 5 grams, est. pH of 11.6. Or maybe 10 g Kodalk (sodium metaborate) for a pH of 10.5. With a two bath, you can try any accelerator in any amount as you wish, they are cheap chemicals.