Ilford PanF50 in HC-110
I seem to have messed up a Panf50 film in Tetenal Ultrafin. Did 1:20 for 8.00min, like described on Tetenal box.
Can someone help me with a PanF50 in HC-110? Can't seem to find it in the Mas Dev Chart. Dilution b.
A few tips and not so much tips (like "use my sort of super-brew instead") in this thread:
and some more here: http://www.jasonbrunner.com/hc110.html
“Do your work, then step back. The only path to serenity.” - Lao Tzu
That's the problem with most of these threads. Some asks for recommendations for film X and dev Y, and learns he should be using films A and B together with dev C and/or D instead. Sure, HC110 is loved by casual users for its ease of use and its long shelf life, but I refuse to believe that it is a bad developer.
Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.
I don't think that anyone has said that HC110 is a bad developer, but there may be more suitable developers for Pan F.
Originally Posted by Rudeofus
Maybe a Google of HC110 will turn up some info. or go to Kodak or Ilford photo.
The times I have are:
ISO 50 dil. B 4:00
ISO 50 dil. E 5:30
ISO 50 dil. F 9:30
I'm not sure where I got these, but probably from the PanF+ data sheet.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Looks like you developed a tad long with ultrafine, massive dev chart states 5.5 minutes with that film for 1:20.
Make sure you make your dev correctly (use a syringe) and measure the temp correctly as well (digital thermometer, it doesn't have to be very expensive) .
For 500ml total dev, you need 500/20 +1 => 23.8 ml ...say 24ml of tetenal ultrafin for 1 + 20 dilution, this is hard to measure without a proper syringe. For these short dev times, a little off here and there can create pretty drastic shifts I would suppose.
I have hc 110, but I haven't tried it yet, as I am currently trying out one dev on a few selected film types, to see how they look.
My experience so far with ultrafin and contrasty films, is that if you overdevelop by a few percent, your highlights to bye-bye in a flash, panf+ is pretty contrasty afaik.
Edit: Found a thread on flicker concerning Panf and hc110: http://www.flickr.com/groups/7207885...7607470544788/
And if al else fails, there's always Rodinal
Last edited by Helinophoto; 12-01-2011 at 01:26 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Well, I usually stick to one developer for all my films and at the moment it is HC-110. I tried this Tetenal Ultrafine, cause I couldn't find the correct values for Panf50 and HC-110 on the dev charts, maybe I wasn't looking in the right place.
Anyways, I think I have enough info now to do the next roll with HC-110 with correct measurements. I use temp and all that stuff, so I stick to quite a steady and scientific ;-) workflow.
I have some Rodinal here too, maybe I try one of the rolls with that too and I have something to compare.
Anyways, on the Tetenal Ultrafine bottle its says: 1+20 for 8:00 minutes, I am pretty sure I read it correctly, but it didn't turn out like it should. Temp was 20c, etc, did the whole shake and agitation ritual like I always do, but this one got messed up a bit. Better luck next time
How did it get messed up?
Often times, problems with film developing is due to user error, and not the materials.
Please describe exactly what went wrong with your film.
"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
Thomas, I was testing a Rodenstock Trinar f6.3 / 105mm, it's a classic 1920 camera. Technically it is in good shape, at least, I did not see any light leaks.
I was shooting night pics in the city here in The Netherlands. It is a low light environment with little shops everywhere, just the old center of the city. It has normal city lighting and lighting from the shops.
When I scan the negatives it looks like it has an extreme light trace all over them. The result looks like if you would have a b/w image in say Photoshop and then pull the mid grays to the left, so make everything lighter. Not sure if I can link an image here, but I put one of the scans (not editted) here:
Maybe it could also be the light surrounding giving this effect, I worked with long shutter speeds. f16 for about 30 seconds on this one. It's like fog or oil on the lens....Around me (where I was standing) there where city lights.
Looks like light going trough the film and being reflected back again, I just red a thread on here about this effect with long exposures.