I'm just getting back into the whole developing thing after a 10 year or so hiatus. I went to my not-so-local store and grabbed some Ilford Ilfosol 3 developer and some rapid fix. I'm shooting in some strange efke R100 127 size film through an old yashica 44.
In the film box it says when using Ilford ID11 that the processing time is 8 minutes. It is about the same for the Ilfosol 3 I have? I tried the massive dev chart on digital truth, but it was no help.
There is also an option for better "economy" to use a 1+14 mix. Should I use that or just stick to 1+9?
Also, the rapid fixer... How long should I mix that in for?
Thanks for the help!
The Massive Developing chart is too unreliable, go by manufacturers own data-sheets.
Efke R100 is the same as EFKE/Adox 100 the designation R, Kb. Pl, just stand for R - Roll, Kb -(Kine) 35mm and PL 0 cut film.
As Ian says, forget the Massive chart.
Here's where to get the Ilford data sheets; http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/default.asp
For reference the Kodak data is available here; http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...ml?pq-path=522
Ilford doesn't show times for Efke however, so you might try starting off with the FP4 times.
Different developer dilutions will produce slightly different results, which one is better is up to your taste. Unless you are processing quite a lot, the economy thing doesn't matter much, and for most developers it's better to use it up faster so that it doesn't go bad.
The fixer should have recommended times on the bottle, otherwise look at the data sheets. The "normal" time for most films is double the time it takes to clear the film - that is double the time it takes to lose the "milky" appearance.
I would find an Ilford developing chart that lets you compare ID-11 times to Ilfosol times in general. Since there are published times for the film in D-76 (which is the same as ID-11), you should be able to make an educated guess by doing this. For instance, say that Ilfosol times are 20% longer than ID-11 on average. Try adding 20% to the 8 minutes. Yes, I made these numbers up, so don't use them!
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
FWIW, I think the KB stands for Kleinbild--small format?
John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
This is good advice. Any published developing times are 'recommended' times, because your film handling and Kodak's film handling is different. You don't use the same meter, technique, camera, lens, shutter, etc. Plus lighting conditions vary. So it's a place to start, which is why 2F/2F's advice works.
Welcome back to film processing! I imagine you will have a lot of fun.
Originally Posted by 2F/2F
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
Thanks for all the help guys! I'll hit up the data sheets and compare and then make a guess! They all seem to be with-in about a minute of each other anyhoo so it shouldn't be too hard.
Eventually, you may find that going by the manufacturer's recommendation, you get negatives that are too contrasty, or too flat for your needs and for the way you process. They are best seen as a staring point from which you fine tune to get things the way you need them.
If your results are consistently too contrasty, inch back on the developing time just a little. And if too flat, add a little to your developing time. Whatever you start with, the most important thing you can do is to be consistent enough that your results can be depended upon. Once you have that, you'll have a repeatable base to see how to modify your results.
Think of it as a kind of recipe. If it keeps coming out undercooked, you cook just a little longer, etc, etc.
Take notes every time until there is no more to learn. Then you can go back and see how you got a particular result. Sounds monotonous, but it pays off the first time you would have had to redo something when you lost track of how you got something.
This is always good advice although much of the data on the massive developing chart where practicable, is actually from the manufacturers own data.
Originally Posted by Ian Grant