Using Ilford universal paper Developer with film

[stowpirate]

I think it was the latter. Stowpirate takes the idea of 'make do and mend' to the nth degree. Read this thread and some of his others about getting old cameras, film and photo chemicals from car boot sales. I have tried to remonstrate with him but to no avail. Sailing against the wind is his hobby, borne from lack of funds but now a complete lifestyle.

You should see my car. Nothing works, but it still gets through the mot. Secondhand parts, car boot sale tyres anything to save money

Hocus Eye my negatives from this film are more or less unusable. The very high contrast shots are not even worth editing. Also if I had known the grain was going to be such an issue I would have used 120 film and obviously something a tad slower. Thanks for having a go at editing my photo. It would have been interesting to see the results.

 

[stowpirate]

I suggest that, if you're going to use paper developer with HP5, embrace the grain and make it a feature. Attempts to reduce it will negate the point; unless the point is pure economy and even then I think it's a better course to steer.

Random-ish selection from the Flickr BW Grain pool

http://www.flickr.com/photos/toki_dub/3881278499/sizes/o/in/pool-50887705@N00/

[the same guy's stream has some other nice examples]

e2a: He seems to be using Tri-X (which is comparable with HP5) at 1600 ASA.

I agree the grain has to stay maybe even enhanced in photo editing. Thanks for the links.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Stowpirate

I agree with Bosky about longer developing times. If you dilute the developer more and develop for longer, it should give a smoother tonal range and also with developing times over 15 minutes the margin of error for timing is much greater.

I don't agree with the esteemed Bosky about raising the developing temperature though in the absence of professional lab equipment, because it requires some means of maintaining the temperature, such as a water bath around the measuring cylinder which has to be topped up with warmer water regularly. Also hotter developer especially highly diluted will oxidise (there is dissolved oxygen in the water) during the time it takes to process and will add to your problems. The reason Ilford et al recommend 20 C as developing time is that this is standard room temperature. As a side issue, according to Langford*, Reticulation is a thing of the past because the gelatine in modern films is more stable.


*Michael Langford Basic Photography

 

[stowpirate]

These two worked out a tad better- I think
Edited in ShowFoto DigiKam which I think is better than Gimp's limited black and white control.

Second attempt at this one

Might be some problems introduced by this camera lens and shutter. I imagine the shutter speeds are a tad out!

Hocus Eye. Next time I am going for a longer dev time and more diluted mix. I already know all about the temperature thingy. My cold tap water sometimes comes out in the summer at exactly 20C which is helpful. So what I need now is some FP4 120 film which will cost me some money!!!

 

[stowpirate]

Decided to start again as first film was a disaster, meaning neg scans were unusable. The film amongst other things was well over developed, with Ciro 35 camera being an unknown quantity. This time I have tried to work from data sheets etc and used a better suited Ilford FP4 125 film I had waiting to be developed. I decided on a conservative dev time of 5 minutes at 1+19 mix. Results suggest the same mix for HP5 would require about 4 minutes!!! Next try will be 1+24 mix for 7 minutes or 6 with HP5. Then maybe to 1+49 and 16 minutes! The camera used was a 1932 Leica II with Industar-22 Lens.

 

[boskysquelch]

you can extend the devving time by lowering the temperature!

 

[stowpirate]

you can extend the devving time by lowering the temperature!

What do you suggest and how will it help? I have now got a sort working system within 30 seconds of ideal for this paper developer.

 

[stowpirate]

Here is another one from the Ilford FP4 125 film. Tried to rescue this one in Paint Shop Pro but really a lost cause

 

[boskysquelch]

but really a lost cause

hardly... ... you've jus gotta learn how and what to do to do what you want to see...once you work out your techniques and how to implement them ...and where and when...then you'll jus schweeeeeng thru shizzle...eventually.

Layers/Masks/Selections/Levels/Curves etc etc... they make appear hardcore as first...but tis all tools as a means to an end blah blah blah.

 

[stowpirate]

hardly... ... you've jus gotta learn how and what to do to do what you want to see...once you work out your techniques and how to implement them ...and where and when...then you'll jus schweeeeeng thru shizzle...eventually.

Layers/Masks/Selections/Levels/Curves etc etc... they make appear hardcore as first...but tis all tools as a means to an end blah blah blah.

It is not the photo editing but the crap negatives, albeit half the time I cannot be bothered to sort the image out properly and use auto everything. I really think i need to get a better scanner and sort out this developing lark. Epson 2480 running Xsane does not make a happy combination.

Here is another go using Virtual Studio