My own experience is it can be an excellent fine grain developer, very clean working , good tonal range and sharpness. It needs dilution 1+19 even 1+29 for normal use.
Yes, I was thinking of lower dilutions 1+7. At 1+19 it can be considered an acutance developer. Other possibilities would be D-72 or DK-50 1+9 with 9 g/l of added sodium metaborate. I have used DK-50 with excellent results.
Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 08-20-2011 at 12:33 AM. Click to view previous post history.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
Ian, can you give your developing times for it? I am not using it now, but I want to try using it again.
Last time I used PQ Universal was back in 1986 We used it mainly for copy negatives with Ilford Otho or FP4 but I did a series of tests with 3 or 4 developers and 35mm FP4 and it gave very good results but there was a slight drop in film speed compared to Adox Borax MQ and Rodinal, about a 1/3 of a stop.
Not sure I'd find my notes now however I do have an Ilford booklet with the times for 120 FP4 in PQ Universal which I'l dig our later today. 7 mins sounds about right though.
Ilford's time for FP3 in PQ Universal at 1+19 is 6 mins, I used FP3 and dev times where similar to FP4, it wasn't as sharp, and FP4 have slightly finer grain. So that 7 mins time is a good ball park figure.
I am using an Epson 4490 and Vuescan, and I admit I have A LOT to learn about scanning (can't even scan color images properly). In the last image on the right side the big black part, there seems to be, for lack of a better term, pixelation? I don't really know what to call it, I just thought that is what shows up if the negative was under exposed.
I'm using much the same model, maybe older, scanner. I use the software that comes with it on the Mac. The first thing I did was turn off all the defaults and aim to get the best initial scan i could with the most and clearest information .
Dust the neg. strip. Use 24 bit colour (not some default B&W setting, which I find did not work very well). Set it to a 4800 dpi scan. Turn off all filters that the scan software has set up as defaults. i.e Use no sharpening, no noise reduction, use no (ICE) scratch or dust filter*. Make a single frame preview and allow it to set the autolevels - or adjust those by eye until the preview shows a good range of black to white with no clipping at either end and ignoring the area outside the neg frame. You can also leave it as negative image for processing later. I suggest you select and scan one frame at time – else it's slow and the file are huge. Save as tiff or another lossless format.
If you have image processing software like Photoshop then – invert to a positive image, desaturate it (make B&W) and then quickly adjust the levels to your preference. You may then want to reduce the width of the image, with image size, to around 3000 pixels for posting. Save as high quality jpg. That's just my method and you should get a clear idea from such a scan of the real grain of the neg.
Post the results!
* at least until you know what a good clear scan looks like. And later you can learn to clean up dust in the scan by hand.
NB. I'm only saying all this as you want to post a clear neg scan here for discussion of your film processing. (Otherwise, I would not be allowed by forum rules to say any of this.)
Here are my new results. Kodak Tri-X 400 (outdated last dec 2010) souped in Ilford PQ Universal 1:29 for 14mins ( I think I overdeveloped). And to mr.datsun, I tried those setting you said, and I think the negatives scanned much better. It is quite grainy, I might try diluting it a bit more or using it if I want grainy images.