Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,956   Posts: 1,586,032   Online: 794
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    ColdEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    733
    Images
    50

    35mm film Developed in Ilford PQ Universal

    Some months ago I asked how to develop Fuji Neopan using this developer and after a very long wait, finally got my scanner! I know it sucks, I have not got a place for a darkroom for enlargers and other stuff yet so this is the only way to view my negatives. These are un-retouched scans, you can still see specs of dirt. Based on the answers I got, the resulting pictures should be grainy. But from what I got, they look fine to me. There is grain, but I think that is normal amount of grain, or am I mistaken? As you can see the last photo shows some ugly blacks, I believe it is from my underexposing it. I went with a dillution of 1:19 and I think 6 or 7 mins. in the tank and mild agitation. Anyways, I just want to share my results.









    PS. It took me around 3 months to finish this roll (January to March), then developed it sometime around June or early July I think.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,151
    Ilford PQ Universal is not an ideal developer for 35mm film. Universal developers are best used for LF negatives and papers.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  3. #3
    foc
    foc is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North West of Ireland
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    89
    I have in the past used Ilfors PQ Universal to develope 35mm negs. At the higher dillution rate of 1+19 I got less grain than at 1+9.

    I know it's not an ideal developer but I was happy with my results.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The End of the World
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    242
    Images
    1
    I've used PQ once with fine results. It's a universal developer and made for paper or film and produces pretty fine grain. So nothing wrong with using it. Based on my limited experience, I'd say no more grain (and maybe less) than Rodinal, imo.

    Your scans are small. I can see mottling in the dark areas. Is this what you mean? Doesn't look like grain to me – but could easily be an artefact of scanning. I might be inclined to guess that they were scanned at a reduced bit-depth from the limited evidence at hand, but need to see bigger scans to comment further. What scanner are you using , settings etc?
    Last edited by mr.datsun; 08-16-2011 at 11:41 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #5
    ColdEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    733
    Images
    50
    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.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,066
    I don't know about PQ, but my experience is that you won't know about grain till you print with your enlarger, and your paper. The contrast choice of your paper will have a lot to do with the expression of the grain, and you can't tell from the scans what grade of paper you will need. I use quick scans to see what is on the film too, but the printing is what tells the tale.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The End of the World
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    242
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by George Collier View Post
    I don't know about PQ, but my experience is that you won't know about grain till you print with your enlarger, and your paper. The contrast choice of your paper will have a lot to do with the expression of the grain, and you can't tell from the scans what grade of paper you will need. I use quick scans to see what is on the film too, but the printing is what tells the tale.
    I think that's true up to a point and I agree about the contrast of the paper. However, I find that a lot of scanned negatives online vary tremendously with regards quality. It's easy to find examples of Plus-X with more apparent grain than Tri-X, for example, even with the stand development techniques. Without knowledge of scanner and settings used it is only possible to speculate that variations in such scans could be down to NR and ICE filters used in the scanner software with default or user-applied settings.


    Recently, I have been able to compare my own neg scans with my own prints. The scans were done on a cheapish Epson flatbed and with care the grain of a neg can be captured well enough to fairly reflect the grain of the final print. FWIW, I always turn off all NR and I don't use ICE. I only adjust the levels before scanning to get the best DR possible and I use 4800 dpi. I then tweak the final levels in Photoshop. I find that this way I can see the film grain, even though not as sharply defined as the print. Digital noise is easy to spot and distinguish from film grain.
    Last edited by mr.datsun; 08-18-2011 at 07:22 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,066
    Agreed, re the scanning stuff (I just didn't want to get into d***l on this forum). Turn that stuff off to get the best scan.
    And true, you can get a relative (to other scans done the same way) take on grain structure, but still, ColdEye will need to print them to see the "look" they will have.

  9. #9
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,440
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    Ilford PQ Universal is not an ideal developer for 35mm film. Universal developers are best used for LF negatives and papers.
    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. It was our main paper and specialist emulsion developer in the 70's/80's at work and also used for many of our films. I've had great results from 35mm but you need to do ISO speed/dev time tests

    However the developer needs to be reasonably fresh for film use as it loses a little bit of activity stored part filled, talking months here. We were using 5 litres PQ concentrate every 1-2 weeks.

    The May & Baker (now Champion) equivalent to PQ Universal - Suprol was used commercially as a fine grain developer for all film formats in machine processing.

    Ian

  10. #10
    ColdEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    733
    Images
    50
    Ian, can you give your developing times for it? I am not using it now, but I want to try using it again.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin