Good points, Dmitri. I did use a two-reel tank with only one reel loaded. It was a plastic Paterson universal tank. Would it be better if I loaded it with both reels and the full amount of chemistry for 2 rolls, even though I am only developing one roll?
I'll also try not to re-use developer next time. I was using a friend's developer so I had no choice. I have a bottle of fresh Ilford DD-X. There is a link to some of the grey photos in my original post. Here is also a link to some photos with terrible contrast i.e "Pink Bouquet"
<<< Flora >>>
If you compare the FP4+ photos with the Agfa Scala ones, they are really bland, particularly Pink Bouquet, and the lighting conditions for each were not THAT different.
Jin, I always think that it is a good idea to follow the recommended way in using these tanks.
I use a Jobo and always use both reels, even if one is empty and the full amount of chemistry.
The reasoning is that all development times and liquid flow are calculated with the tank filled to the recommended level and with all the movable parts (reel, film) in. Otherwise the airgap is too much and there is less restriction to the flow when one reel is missing. The increased air space results in bubbles and the missing reel in faster fluid flow (and the chance of streaking).
Recently I moved from hand inversion to a Jobo CPE2+ and still I go for the recommended chem quantity even if only one reel is in the tank (fluid speed/turbulence being here the most important thing)
As for the difference between the FP4 and the Scala pictures, it could very well be problems with the dev gone bad. Why not give it another try with fresh dev and see how it goes.
As for re-using, I do it most of the time, but not up to the manufacturers recommended limit. Only up to the limit that no time increase is required (so maybe 2 or 3 times).
in case you need some help when going solo
ALso, i think it is very hard to compare negative film with slide film. Am i wrong about Scala being a slide film?
Ann, you are correct - while it may be B&W it is still a slide film..does give some nice results, but I would hesitate to compare to a B&W print or neg.
If you use HC 110 and develop film every day or so the there is a real advantage to reuse and replenishment of the developer. As the soup ages and come to balance with the replenisher you will usually notice the grain is a bit finer and less harsh looking. For 35mm this is a plus. I used to soup film at the newspaper office every day with the stuff and can say there is quite a noticeable difference between the aged working developer and the fresh mix. Since I only do film every few weeks now I do a one shot with Rodinal. My efforts to use HC-110 one shot were very unsatisfactory, the stuff seemed to go bad on me pretty quick after opening the bottle. Do you do anything special to keep the syrup fresh Ann?
I never use HC110 as Kodak says. I pour out of the Kodak bottle and mix it 1 to 31. That seems to be the 1 to 4 then 1to7 ratio. IN the Kodak bottle, HC110 will seemingly last for ever. With a 1 to 31 mix it guarantees a fresh mix. Use this as one shot and you will be ok.
No we are not doing anything special. I have never done any real testing for re-use. Your experience sounds interesting.
On another note about HC 110. I was going to post this question.
Has anyone else noticed the color is paler and i don't think it is as thick as it use to be. I thought it was just me, but one of my advanced students made the same comment the other night.
One extra comment on the air bubbles. You must bang the tank HARD on the counter or table top a couple of times to dislodge any bubbles.
Here is an excellent comprehensive source of information about HC110:
Thanks for the links. I will definitely have a look.
My friend uses the HC110 developer regularly, and I think it was quite a "fresh" mix. I think he reuses it 4-5 times before dumping it, and anyway he developed another roll after I did mine, with much better results. It is making me neurotic. ;) I do bang the tank hard, but I guess possibly not hard enough.
It's true, I shouldn't have made the comparison between Scala and FP4. It was just convenient because the photos were on the same page - but there are also glaring differences between the FP4 pictures and Delta 100. It is also possible that developing issues aside, I just don't like the characteristics of FP4, and that's a subjective thing. I tend to favour the tonal range of films like Neopan Acros, Agfa APX and Scala etc anyway.
Thanks for the thoughtful responses.