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/devchart-mobile.php?Film=Ilford+FP4&Developer=Rodinal&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 (http://monochrome.me.uk/blog/film-development/), 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.

[Michael R]

All you did was meter at 2/3 stop below ISO speed. Changing the development time changes the contrast index. Is that what you want to do? If so, why?

[Paul Kinzer]

I do not know enough to answer your question. Or even to understand it.

[Michael R]

I'd want the same contrast (having shot at 80) as if I had shot at 125. Changing the development time changes contrast (reducing development time reduces contrast, increasing development time increases contrast).

I think you're overcomplicating this. What you did is give the negatives a little more exposure than if you'd metered them at 125. Reducing the development time doesn't compensate for that extra exposure.

[Paul Kinzer]

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks again. I'm going to try a sheet using Ilford's recommendation, and reduce by 15% because of continuous agitation.

[Jimi]

I'd want the same contrast (having shot at 80) as if I had shot at 125. Changing the development time changes contrast (reducing development time reduces contrast, increasing development time increases contrast).

I think you're overcomplicating this. What you did is give the negatives a little more exposure than if you'd metered them at 125. Reducing the development time doesn't compensate for that extra exposure.

Yes, but with continuous development, not backing down on development time gives you higher contrast overall.

[Michael R]

The assumptions include continuous agitation in all scenarios since that is what OP is doing (see post #14). Ilford recommends reducing all development times by ~15% to account for continuous agitation.

[Paul Kinzer]

Well, I stayed up most of last night so that I could develop the film in the darkest conditions possible. (I was not completely sure my light trap for the upstairs bath was light-proof.) Of the 11 images I took, three did not work because of rookie mistakes on my part; two did not work well because of light leaks in the film holders (but most of each image is salvageable), and a couple more are under exposed (I think because of the lens shutter, but it might be my skills) but possibly acceptable. That leaves four very nice images, two of which -- the best ones! -- are of Lower Yellowstone Falls.

Some might find that a low success rate, but I'm very happy with it, since these are the first images I've taken with this equipment, and this is my first experience with developing film. That part of it went particularly well. I made no mistakes that led to ruined images, though I did knock over a beaker of mixed fixer, which splashed large amounts into a prepared mix of developer. I had to re-do both, but that's not a big deal. It was a tight space, and I am a klutz, so it was not a shocking disappointment.

Thanks everyone, for the help!

[mpirie]

So long as you learn from the failures Paul, you can consider them all a success!

Mike

[Leigh]

Very good, Paul.

People learn from their mistakes. That's why I know so much. :cool:

- Leigh

[Jimi]

Great to hear that it turned out so well overall, Paul! 4 out of 11 - I wish I had that sort of success. :)

[Paul Kinzer]

Thanks, folks! I agree, making mistakes is part of learning: it sure gets you to pay close attention. And learning is the most fun I have doing.

And thing were not even as educational as I thought, if the number of mistakes is my guide to judging education. I looked at the negatives on my light table today, and I can see clear detail in all of them, from shadows to highlights. Now, in one I somehow managed to pull the dark slide out again, halfway, after the exposure was made. I must have done it in pretty subdued light because there is still some of the image there on that half. In two, there were still light leaks, as well as, I see now vignetting caused by a filter. But these tow were shot with my 90mm Super Angulon, and there is at least 4x5 inches of perfectly fine image in the center of each frame, so those are halfway acceptable. And the two that I thought were underexposed? Well, I put one on my flatbed scanner, and with almost no adjustments, here's what it shows:

171118

So that's two more that will be okay.

(The weird thing is that the four that I thought were exposed most correctly need major adjusting before they look less than waaaaay over-exposed. This has to the scanner in my printer, which is not designed for photos at all, really, but it's all I have. On the light table, these negatives look lovely. I'm hardly an expert, but they look just like images in all of the several books I've bought and/or read on B&W photography in the last several months.)

And there's one more, which I thought was ruined because some of the emulsion scraped off as I removed it from the drum. It turns out that the small bit where that happened is on a patch of clear blue sky. A purist might call it cheating to fix that in processing, but that's fine by me. I'm willing to 'cheat' on a shot I may never get a chance to re-do.

So that takes me from what I thought were four usable images to seven, and two 4x5 'saves' out of a couple of 5x7s. I don't mind mistakes in the service of learning, but I like success better!

[Paul Kinzer]

Thanks, folks! I agree, making mistakes is part of learning: it sure gets you to pay close attention. And learning is the most fun and rewarding thing I do.

And it turns out that this was not even as educational as I thought, if the number of my mistakes is a guide to judging my education. I looked at the negatives on my light table today, and I can see clear detail in all of them, from shadows to highlights. Now, in one I somehow managed to pull the dark slide out again, halfway, after the exposure was made. I must have done it in pretty subdued light because there is still some of the image there on that half, but it's still a dud. In two, there were still light leaks, as well as -- I see now -- vignetting caused by a filter. But these two were shot with my 90mm Super Angulon, and there is at least 4x5 inches of perfectly fine image in the center of each frame, so those are halfway acceptable. And the two that I thought were underexposed? Well, I put one on my flatbed scanner/printer, and with almost no adjustments, here's what it shows:

171118

So that's two more that will be okay.

(The weird thing is that the four that I thought were exposed most correctly need major adjusting before they look less than waaaaay over-exposed. This has to be the scanner in my printer, which is not designed for photos at all, really, but it's all I have. On the light table, these negatives look lovely. I'm hardly an expert, but they look just like images in all of the several books I've bought and/or read on B&W photography in the last several months.)

And there's one more, which I thought was ruined because some of the emulsion scraped off as I removed it from the drum. It turns out that the small bit where that happened is on a patch of clear blue sky. A purist might call it cheating to fix that in processing, but that's fine by me. I'm willing to 'cheat' on a shot I may never get a chance to re-do. I'm going to use a DSLR to 'scan' the negatives on my light table, and then process them in Photoshop for printing, fixing a bit of sky is not going to be a big deal.

So that takes me from what I thought were four usable images to seven, and two 4x5 'saves' out of a couple of 5x7s. I don't mind mistakes in the service of learning, but I like success better!

[Paul Kinzer]

Sorry for the double post! We were in the middle of a thunderstorm (in Wisconsin, in late October: not normal!) and the laptop was acting goofy.