Why do I need to develop longer?

[Jessestr]

Context / Long story short: Always had very thin negatives, quit film photography 3 years ago.. but I'm back.
Changed film stock to HP5+ instead of Tri-X. Still using my 5 y/o HC-110 bottle which looks very brown.

Problem:
Developed a new test roll to see if my camera was still working and the negatives look very thin (ugh).
I took the recommended time of Ilford HP5+ and HC-110 on dilution B at 20C which is 5 minutes.

I compared to older b/w negatives which were developed by a lab and they look a lot denser and they print/scan a lot better as well.

Exposure seems okay, sometimes a little under.
I use distilled water to mix my developer, and check temp for 20C!

Solution: Increase development time.

Question: How is it possible that my development time has to be increased so much to achieve the same density as opposed to the data sheets telling it should be only 5 minutes of development time? What could be so different to my equipment / process that influences development time so much compared to other people?

Could the HC-110 be exhausted due to age? Even though I read the syrup lasts for a very long time. Bottle is 1/3rd full. Any other guesses?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

You should always try fresh developer when trying to diagnose a developing problem. Most likely the HC-110 you have is too old.

 

[ic-racer]

Many factors affect the activity of developers, and film can be very sensitive to very small changes in developer activity. Enlargers and printing paper are not very standardized in printing contrast either.* So trial and error to achieve development to produce excellent prints is still required, just like 50 years ago.

* For example ISO(R) grading for paper contrast shows a range like this: Grade 2 = ISO(R) 100 to 110

 

[mshchem]

Get a fresh bottle of an easy to use Ilford developer and a good thermometer.

 

[Jessestr]

You should always try fresh developer when trying to diagnose a developing problem. Most likely the HC-110 you have is too old.

Get a fresh bottle of an easy to use Ilford developer and a good thermometer.

I ordered a new bottle already. Let's say I develop another roll with 5 minutes of dev time and it has the same outcome. What else could be a possible problem? Just to rule out anything I didn't think off.

 

[MattKing]

Thin negatives frequently means under-exposure.
May we see a backlit photo of your negatives?

 

[Jessestr]

Thin negatives frequently means under-exposure.
May we see a backlit photo of your negatives?

Just some test shots to check the camera for light leaks etc..

If I put my black point on the negative border, pictures are very dark.

• The first on is a big contrast scene, shadows inside and highlights outside but even this one is very flat
• The one of the steering wheel is one of the better shots, all the rest look super flat.
• The last on is a bit underexposed, lost detail in the shadow there
• The other car pictures are really dull and lifeless but shadow detail looks fine

Quite confident that my exposure should be fine, except for a few mistakes I made. Had this problem 3 years ago as well when I used an external incident meter, which was accurate.
The negatives that are denser are way better to scan/print for me. Much less work needed to get them "right".

I now used the in camera meter, which is still accurate if I compare it to my digital camera.

 

[John Bragg]

What iso are you setting on your camera ? I would bracket a few shots of a well lit test subject and try and establish your personal exposure index or ei. That may be the root cause of thin negatives. Is the leader nice and black when developed and the frame numbers a good dark grey/black ? Develop in fresh developer for 6 to 6.5 mins @20°c as a starting point. That is closer to what I would expect. Good luck.

 

[MattKing]

They look okay to me.

 

[Jessestr]

What iso are you setting on your camera ? I would bracket a few shots of a well lit test subject and try and establish your personal exposure index or ei. That may be the root cause of thin negatives. Is the leader nice and black when developed and the frame numbers a good dark grey/black ? Develop in fresh developer for 6 to 6.5 mins @20°c as a starting point. That is closer to what I would expect. Good luck.

ISO 400. Started a new to @ 320 to be sure I am not underexposing a bit.

Thanks! But what could be the reason that my EI would be lower than someone else? Frame numbers look more light grey, not dark grey.

Will try new HC-110 with bracket exposures to see what that difference makes. But I still think it's a little underdeveloped and I wonder why

They look okay to me.
View attachment 248138

With scanning I can get them like this as well. However try to invert it and put the black point on the negative without moving the white point... A very dark image.

Or set the white point without moving the black point... A very washed out image ...

If I scan visually denser negatives I often get good results with inverting only since the white point and black points are more separated already.

I know I can fix it with scanning but I'd rather have a correct negative and I don't think my negative looks correct compared to other negatives done by a professional lab.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Not all folks meter the same and not all meters meter the same.

 

[MattKing]

If I scan visually denser negatives I often get good results with inverting only since the white point and black points are more separated already.

I know I can fix it with scanning but I'd rather have a correct negative and I don't think my negative looks correct compared to other negatives done by a professional lab.

Your scanner and scanning software incorporate a bunch of choices you have no choice over.
They may actually be set-up for negatives that have been over-developed!

 

[MattKing]

This image comes from a negative that appears very thin to the eye. It prints very nicely in the darkroom as well.

 

[Jessestr]

Your scanner and scanning software incorporate a bunch of choices you have no choice over.
They may actually be set-up for negatives that have been over-developed!

I am not using a scanner. I use a digital camera to convert the negative. I have full control over the process.

By just inverting the negatives and set a good exposure to view the image at, the true blacks are not black but grey, maybe zone 4.

If I scan a negative from a professional lab, which by eye is already looking denser, by inverting the negative, it lools much better. More contrast etc.

Might get myself a new indicent meter as I don't have one anymore. Just to be sure it's not my exposure.

 

[Dali]

As already recommended, I would use fresh developer and start to test the effect of:

1) ISO rating
2) Development time

I too had thin negatives for a while and decided to run these tests. Now, I rate my films lower than box speed with ID-11 and slightly higher with Microphen. With both developers, my development times are way highen than recommended by the manufacturer.

Under the enlarger (Durst M605 Color), I can print most of the time within 0 to 30M points range, which is not too bad.

 

[Jessestr]

As already recommended, I would use fresh developer and start to test the effect of:

1) ISO rating
2) Development time

I too had thin negatives for a while and decided to run these tests. Now, I rate my films lower than box speed with ID-11 and slightly higher with Microphen. With both developers, my development times are way highen than recommended by the manufacturer.

Under the enlarger (Durst M605 Color), I can print most of the time within 0 to 30M points range, which is not too bad.

Ahhh great!

Two questions:

1. Which tests did you do?
2. Do you know WHY your develop times and ISO speed are different than the manufacturers recommendations? Any guess why it's different with you compared to other people?

Thanks!

 

[osella]

The manufacturer recommended times are just a starting point, there’s nothing wrong with developing longer if that gets you the negatives you want.

How was the the light(contrasty, flat) when you took the pictures? I deal with a lot of overcast days so usually end up developing for longer than the recommended time to get more contrast.

It’s mostly just personal preference however, provided I have sufficient shadow detail I can pretty much get the contrast I want when printing.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Context / Long story short: Always had very thin negatives, quit film photography 3 years ago.. but I'm back.
Changed film stock to HP5+ instead of Tri-X. Still using my 5 y/o HC-110 bottle which looks very brown.

Problem:
Developed a new test roll to see if my camera was still working and the negatives look very thin (ugh).
I took the recommended time of Ilford HP5+ and HC-110 on dilution B at 20C which is 5 minutes.

I compared to older b/w negatives which were developed by a lab and they look a lot denser and they print/scan a lot better as well.

Exposure seems okay, sometimes a little under.
I use distilled water to mix my developer, and check temp for 20C!

Solution: Increase development time.

Question: How is it possible that my development time has to be increased so much to achieve the same density as opposed to the data sheets telling it should be only 5 minutes of development time? What could be so different to my equipment / process that influences development time so much compared to other people?

Could the HC-110 be exhausted due to age? Even though I read the syrup lasts for a very long time. Bottle is 1/3rd full. Any other guesses?

HC-110 is bullet proof. I've used it when it was old and very dark. Developing longer won't increase shadow density if your film is under exposed. Start with properly exposed film and develop with the suggested development time. If your highlights are too thin, develop longer and visa versa.

 

[MattKing]

I am not using a scanner. I use a digital camera to convert the negative. I have full control over the process.

So you are relying on the settings in the firmware for the built-in image processor in your camera, which is making many, many choices for you that you have no control over, other than through the menus on the camera.
I understand that you prefer the "out of the box" results you obtain from denser negatives, but that doesn't mean that the denser negatives are better than less dense negatives - either for darkroom printing or digitizing.

 

[John Bragg]

ISO 400. Started a new to @ 320 to be sure I am not underexposing a bit.

Thanks! But what could be the reason that my EI would be lower than someone else? Frame numbers look more light grey, not dark grey.

Will try new HC-110 with bracket exposures to see what that difference makes. But I still think it's a little underdeveloped and I wonder why



With scanning I can get them like this as well. However try to invert it and put the black point on the negative without moving the white point... A very dark image.

Or set the white point without moving the black point... A very washed out image ...

If I scan visually denser negatives I often get good results with inverting only since the white point and black points are more separated already.

I know I can fix it with scanning but I'd rather have a correct negative and I don't think my negative looks correct compared to other negatives done by a professional lab.

We all do this thing differently. Water can be different, thermometers vary and technique is unique. Camera and lenses can vary too. Always best to check.

 

[mshchem]

Develop your negatives. Make a real contact print. Then you know where you stand. IF you want dense negatives over expose the film. Easy as can be.

 

[tomkatf]

Look at the edge numbers on the film... If they look good, you're probably underexposing, not undedeveloping. Which is what I would say in any case... not bad, but could use more exposure.
PS nice Alfa!

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I ordered a new bottle already. Let's say I develop another roll with 5 minutes of dev time and it has the same outcome. What else could be a possible problem? Just to rule out anything I didn't think off.

Are you following the recommended agitation? Doing something different? https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j24.pdf. shows 30 second intervals for small tank manual agitation.

Are you sure your temperature is accurate? When it says 68 degrees, that's what it means, not 66 degrees, or almost 67 degrees, or 69 degrees. Have you done a test pour with an already developed roll of film and verified what the actual temperature in the tank is 1 minute after pouring in the liquid in? You'd be amazed at how much it changes, especially if the ambient air temperature isn't 68 degrees. Black and white isn't as finicky about temperature as color is, but it still matters enough that you want to be as close to the specified temperature as you reasonably can be. Also, make sure your thermometer is also accurate. You'd be amazed at how many aren't.

outside of that, yes, make sure you have fresh developer.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Just some test shots to check the camera for light leaks etc..

If I put my black point on the negative border, pictures are very dark.

• The first on is a big contrast scene, shadows inside and highlights outside but even this one is very flat
• The one of the steering wheel is one of the better shots, all the rest look super flat.
• The last on is a bit underexposed, lost detail in the shadow there
• The other car pictures are really dull and lifeless but shadow detail looks fine

Quite confident that my exposure should be fine, except for a few mistakes I made. Had this problem 3 years ago as well when I used an external incident meter, which was accurate.
The negatives that are denser are way better to scan/print for me. Much less work needed to get them "right".

I now used the in camera meter, which is still accurate if I compare it to my digital camera.

You have to adjust the contrast of the scans to taste. A simple scan and invert in PS will generally result in very flat negatives. Also, if using a camera, you're shooting raw right?

 

[Bill Burk]

How do you time 5 minutes? 1 minute error is a 20% error. If you choose a dilution that brings to 10 minute developing time, then a one minute error is only 10%

I prefer at least 8 minutes.