Development times? FP4+, Shot at ISO 80, Rodinal, Continuous Agitation

[Paul Kinzer]

I took half a dozen 5x7 images on a recent trip, using FP4+ at ISO 80. )Mountain peaks in morning sun in Rocky Mountain NP.) I plan to -- eventually -- scan the negatives. I have Rodinal developer, and want to develop using drums and continuous agitation on a Unidrum at a dilution of 1 to 25 or 50. I have looked at many posts here and elsewhere to get an idea of development times, but they have been all over the map, or the threads devolve into discussions of stand development, or arguments against continuous agitation, or something else. I get the arguments, but for my own reasons, mostly simplicity and using what I already have, I'd like to do as I described.

The Ilford development chart does not show ISO 80 for FP4+, nor for ISO 50 with Rodinal.

I am not new to photography, but am new to developing my own film. I realize that there are no 'right' answers, and so many variables that are hard to get around. I'm just hoping for some pointers based on what folks have experienced. I apologize if my post seems snarky. I don't intend that; I just want to be specific.

I'd be grateful for any responses. If what I want to do makes no sense, I'd be happy to read why. Still, I do know that others have done similar things....

[Leigh]

I am not new to photography, but am new to developing my own film.

Paul,

Forgive the blunt response, but...

If this is all new to you, why do you start by using film speed and development that differ from the standards established by the manufacturers? They spent a lot of time, effort, and money, determining which approach would yield optimum results.

Smart people follow their advice.

- Leigh

[Paul Kinzer]

Leigh,

I did do some testing with a few rolls of 120, but I really don't have a defense. I did loads of reading and made some of my decisions based on it. I cannot deny that's probably lame.

At this point, I cannot do anything about the exposed film, and I want to use the drum and Unidrum because I have a very bad back and it seems like the best way for me, or at least a way I want to try.

[Jimi]

Morning sun and mountain peaks sounds like a long scale negative in the making. ISO 80 is not all that far off, 2/3 of a stop from the original ISO 125.

If you are doing continous development, I'd go from the Ilford recommended times, using 1+50 and doing 15% less development. Do a test sheet from an exposure of some sort of similar condition if you are able to, and from there on in I think you can dial it in for the "real" negatives.

Kudos for sticking to 5x7", btw.

[Keith Pitman]

The “massive development chart” —https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchar...nal&mdc=Search — has a time for sheet film FP4, ISO 80, Rodinal 1:24. It’s a starting point to test from.

[Paul Kinzer]

Thanks for the further responses!

Jimi: As I wrote, the Ilford chart does not include times for ISO 80 with Rodinal. The closest it comes is ISO 125. I appreciate the advice on test sheets. I did do testing with 120 rolls, but stupidly did not then do continuous agitation. Still, I can extrapolate.

Keith Pitman: I saw the 'massive development chart' but have read that it can be way off in its recommendations. Reading can be dangerous, though!

I know I read a thread a few months ago, where folks who'd actually shot FP4 at ISO 80 wrote about their practices. A couple even used Rodinal. But I cannot find that thread now. I have a failing memory I'd rather not depend on, and for some reason I did not bookmark it. Nor, like an idiot, can I find the time I used on the test rolls! I know I wrote it down.

I also know that much of this is hit and miss, anyway. I used more than one lens, so the shutter variance will be a big factor, as will my novice skills with using a light meter, and the (slightly) changing sky conditions on that morning. So I'll probably be close on at least a couple of the sheets if I am at all close with the times used in development. I'm just hoping for whatever pointers I can get ahead of time. I know it will be years before I can get back to that spot.

[MartinP]

Presumable you still have the camera and film-holders, so shoot a couple of test sheets of anything with a similar brightness range to your original scenes, then develop one of those at the guesstimate-time. Adjust the time and/or dilution with the second sheet, then decide on what you need to do for the important sheets based on the tested results. What you want the negs to look like will also depend on what you are planning to do with them of course -- enlargements, contacts or scanning -- and also even which process will be used!

[Leigh]

The main reason for shooting at a slower film speed is to increase detail in the shadow areas. Those areas of minimal negative density develop almost immediately. They're unaffected by changing development times.

Using continuous agitation with Rodinal totally defeats one of its main advantages, which is compensating development. It reaches completion in areas of high density, smoothing out the highlights in the original scene. This function depends critically on very minimal agitation.

I shoot FP4+ at ASA 100 just for convenience, since everything else I shoot is that speed. I develop for the normal time in Rodinal 1:50, and am very pleased with the results.

- Leigh

[Michael R]

Paul - just to simplify matters a little, whether you shot the film with your meter set to 125 or 80 is of little consequence where development time is concerned. If you have a somewhat reliable time for 125 (eg Ilford's chart, etc.) that is what you should use even though you metered at 80.

[Paul Kinzer]

Michael R: Thanks, that really does simplify matters!

Leigh: I do realize that. But I have the drums already, and have set things up in my 'darkroom' (a minimally-adapted bathroom) to use them. I know others have done this with success, and I'm going to try it. Losing this advantage of Rodinal is the price I'll pay.

I've gone back and done more searching for what others have tried. I find it quite interesting, but also a bit exasperating. Clearly, some writers put things down based on their own reading, not experience. They admit as much, and then write what seems unwise.

Others, such as here, not only present clear and complete information; they also show results. At that link, Hans ter Horst shows photos taken with FP4+ at ISOs of both 80 and 125 that he developed in Rodinal. He used a dilution of 1:50 for both, but developed the 80 for 9 minutes, and the 125 for 15 minutes. He has links to scans of both, and they look, for the most part, equally good (at least to my eye). This seems to go against the advice of Michael R, above. And a little way down on his page, he shows results using the same dilution, ISO 80, and a development time of 10 minutes, instead of 9. The results look grainier to me.

I'm trying to learn as much as I am hoping to get good results with my current film. Can anyone give me some thoughts on this? I also figure it could help others.