I think ilford nearly always recommends one set of agitation per minute for their films. Four a minute seems a bit excessive? More like a cocktail shaker...
I think ilford nearly always recommends one set of agitation per minute for their films. Four a minute seems a bit excessive? More like a cocktail shaker...
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
This is an old post on AA developing times for HC110 1+64 (dil H or B 1+1):
[pre]
Below is a table of development times for different films including
Plus X using HC 110B and HC 110 B diluted 1+1. The 1+1 dilution
would be 1 + 15 from stock rather than "B"'s 1 + 7 dilution; the
dilution from concentrate is 1 + 63 instead of 1 + 31 for "B".
The information was published by Ansel Adams in the "Negative".
Adams' Development Times For HC 110
68F - Agitate 5 sec every 30 sec
Diffusion head:
35 mm Films 1:7 Dilution (B) 1:15 Dilution (B 1+1)
EI N-1 N N+1 N-1 N
Pan F 20 - - 4.5 5 7
Panatomic X 20 - - 5 5.25 7.75
Plus X 64 - - 8 6.5 10
FP-4 80 - 4.75 8 7 10.75
Tri-X 200 5.25 6.75 9 - -
HP5 160 4.75 6.5 8.5 - -
120 Roll Films 1:7 Dilution (B) 1:15 Dilution (B 1+1)
N-1 N N+1 N-1 N
Panatomic X 20 - - 6.5 6 8.5
Plus X Pro 64 - 4.5 8 7 10.5
FP-4 64 - 5 7.5 7 11
Verichrome Pan 100 - - 5.5 5.25 8
Tri-X Pro 200 - 5.5 8.5 8 -
4x5 Sheet Films 1:7 Dilution (B) 1:15 Dilution (B 1+1)
N-1 N N+1 N-1 N
Plus X 64 - 5.25 7.5 8 12
FP4 64 - 6 9 9 -
Tri X 160 - 4.25 6.5 6 9
Adams' Development Times For HC 110
68F - Agitate 5 sec every 30 sec
Condenser Head:
35 mm Films 1:7 Dilution (B) 1:15 Dilution (B 1+1)
N-1 N N+1 N-1 N
Pan F 20 - - 3.5 4 5.5
Panatomic X 20 - - 4 4.25 6.25
Plus X 64 - - 6.5 5.25 8
FP-4 80 - 3.75 6.5 5.5 8.5
Tri-X 200 4.25 5.5 7.25 - -
HP5 160 3.75 5.25 6.75 - -
120 Roll Films 1:7 Dilution (B) 1:15 Dilution (B 1+1)
N-1 N N+1 N-1 N
Panatomic X 20 - - 5.25 4.75 6.75
Plus X Pro 64 - 3.5 6.5 5.5 8.5
FP-4 64 - 4 6 5.5 8.75
Verichrome Pan 100 - - 4.5 4.25 6.5
Tri-X Pro 200 - 4.5 6.75 6.5 -
4x5 Sheet Films 1:7 Dilution (B) 1:15 Dilution (B 1+1)
N-1 N N+1 N-1 N
Plus X 64 - 4.25 6 6.5 9.5
FP4 64 - 4.75 7.25 7.25 -
Tri X 160 - 3.5 5.25 4.75 7.25
[/pre]
I had to experiment with several dilutions and ended up going to Dilution D for HP5+. I get times around 9 minutes in trays, agitating twice per minute. I get similar times with FP4+ in Dilution E.
I've been following Gordon Hutchings recommendation for agitation with the PMK. I thought it would be too much but I've always had beautifully even development so I am loathe to change. I just dilute the PMK more for minus. This still leaves me with times way short of what Hutchings recommends in his book! I'm not complaining, just wondering if Ilford has done something causing more rapid development. The experience with HC110 would seem to go along with this hypothesis.
just to complicate the issue:
I use a durst L1200 enlarger. The ilford recommended settings for Grade 2 Y+M on ilford MGIV FB are actually equivalent to ISO grade 1. That means I need a negative with a higher gamma than if I were using ISO G2 filtration. The result is that I can get better film speed by using the recommended filtration as my standard setting even though its not ISO G2 and even though Ilford says it is G2 on my enlarger.
What you should conclude from this is that asking someone else for their film speed and dev times in isolation without regard for all the variables in the equation in exposing a negative and making a print from it, is a waste of time. You must do your own testing to arrive at what works best for you given that your whole work process will always be different from anyone elses, whether it be the enlarger, paper, exposure meter, water supply or any of the other variables in the process.
Grump,
My times for Ilford films have remained constant for years. I've not seen anything that indicates a change in the film outside of slight differences in batches of film and developer. Even these are miniscule.
Why not start using your current "minus" development dilution for a bit longer time and let that become your "normal" then go to further dilution for your new "minus"? That'll move your times longer and would be worthwhile if that will help your process.
But maybe you're just wondering why your times are different? I think there is often no accounting for differences in people's lab techniques, water supply, chemical quality or age, etc. You just have to build your own process and have faith in it when the results are what you want.
Just to further confuse things. I had thought that my short times (compared to Hutchings) might be due to a new V54 cold light head which prints extremely rapidly, and according to some requires the addition of a CC40Y filter. However I ran test strips of all the Ilford filters I use with my Stouffer calibrated step wedge and obtained ISO numbers (contrast) almost exactly matching those in Steve Anchell's book on VC for fiber based Multigrade. So my light source is not giving me more contrast. The discrepancy between my times for N negatives (5 minutes for FP4) and Gordon Hutchings' (12 minutes) is an awful lot. I can't account for it - water maybe? I rather like the short time, and just halve the dilution for minus development, but it has puzzled me. When I saw a somewhat similar occurence with HC110 I wondered if there might be a change in the film. Oh well. The vagaries of living well using chemistry?
just ask yourself if know every variable in hutchings processing including how his light meter is calibrated and how he meters subjects. If you don't know the exact answer to all the variables then what exactly are you trying to compare? When you can answer that you know all the variables then you may be able to work out why there is a difference.
In the mean time do your own testing and be confident with your own results if they are giving you images the way you want them...
It's a little late, since this thread is 7 years old, but here's my 2 cents.
When I tray develop HP5+ in HC-110, I use dilution H, 8ml solution to 492ml water. I agitate for 1 minute, then lift 1 side of the tray every 10 sends for 9 minutes, alternating sides every lift. Total time 10 minutes. I get the same results with FP4+ using total time of 9 minutes, no other changes from above.
This, of course, works for me, and might not for you. I use box speed on both, and have no issues with my negatives unless I expose incorrectly.
Gah! Don't wake old threads! Haha and welcome to LFF.Originally Posted by kintatsu
Also, be careful, the jury's still out on whether the new 1L HC-110 that's more viscous than the old stuff, will produce the same results... Mixed reports...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks