What Developer? ~ Help needed

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by Stoo Batchelor, Jan 26, 2008.

  1. Stoo Batchelor

    Stoo Batchelor Member

    Messages:
    1,237
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Location:
    Hertfordshir
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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 :mad:.

    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 :mad:! 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
     
  2. dpurdy

    dpurdy Member

    Messages:
    2,249
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Location:
    Portland OR
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    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.
     
  3. 23mjm

    23mjm Member

    Messages:
    450
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Location:
    Rocklin, Cal
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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.
     
  4. Stoo Batchelor

    Stoo Batchelor Member

    Messages:
    1,237
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Location:
    Hertfordshir
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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
     
  5. Anscojohn

    Anscojohn Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,727
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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
     
  6. gainer

    gainer Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,725
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    Well, then, get a sacrificial roll to use for the test.
     
  7. Stoo Batchelor

    Stoo Batchelor Member

    Messages:
    1,237
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Location:
    Hertfordshir
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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
     
  8. jim appleyard

    jim appleyard Member

    Messages:
    2,130
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
  9. pentaxuser

    pentaxuser Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,228
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    Daventry, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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
     
  10. bill spears

    bill spears Member

    Messages:
    565
    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Location:
    Cornwall Eng
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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
     
  11. Stoo Batchelor

    Stoo Batchelor Member

    Messages:
    1,237
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Location:
    Hertfordshir
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
     
  12. Doug Webb

    Doug Webb Member

    Messages:
    105
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    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
     
  13. jim appleyard

    jim appleyard Member

    Messages:
    2,130
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
  14. Tom Hoskinson

    Tom Hoskinson Member

    Messages:
    3,879
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Location:
    Southern Cal
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
     
  15. Stoo Batchelor

    Stoo Batchelor Member

    Messages:
    1,237
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Location:
    Hertfordshir
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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
     
  16. dancqu

    dancqu Member

    Messages:
    3,676
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Willamette V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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
     
  17. Lee Shively

    Lee Shively Member

    Messages:
    1,325
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Location:
    Louisiana, U
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
  18. Stoo Batchelor

    Stoo Batchelor Member

    Messages:
    1,237
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Location:
    Hertfordshir
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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
     
  19. Lee Shively

    Lee Shively Member

    Messages:
    1,325
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Location:
    Louisiana, U
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    "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.
     
  20. dancqu

    dancqu Member

    Messages:
    3,676
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Willamette V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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
     
  21. Mark Burley

    Mark Burley Member

    Messages:
    659
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Location:
    Toddington,
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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
     
  22. Stoo Batchelor

    Stoo Batchelor Member

    Messages:
    1,237
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Location:
    Hertfordshir
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 31, 2008
  23. dancqu

    dancqu Member

    Messages:
    3,676
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Willamette V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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
     
  24. Stoo Batchelor

    Stoo Batchelor Member

    Messages:
    1,237
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Location:
    Hertfordshir
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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
     
  25. Paul Verizzo

    Paul Verizzo Member

    Messages:
    1,261
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Location:
    Sarasota, FL
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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.