Recent searches
Search options
Hi #BelieveInFilm #FilmPhotography folk: anyone dev their FP4+ in #HC110? I'm interested in times. Massive Dev Chart says 7-9 minutes for HC-110 dilution B (1+31), and I've been using 8 minutes. I'm finding when I scan with Vuescan Pro with pixel colours on, I'm getting "out of gamut" indications for some highlight areas. I thought it might be my scanner, but new scanner says no! So I'm thinking my dev time is too long, highlights over-devved. Any thoughts? (PS my syrup is 6 years old!!)
@carusb yep, my notes say that half a minute shorter than what is commonly said is better. using 1+31 and presoak in water I came to 7 minutes for exposure that admittedly leant more towards 100iso than 125.
@rovanwil Thank you Robert, I'm definitely going to try for shorter times.
@carusb Some people say HC-110 is speed-enhancing with FP4+ and some other films, and I agree. I also think the "reverse S" of HC-110 doesn't bring out the best in FP4+, even though I use that combo a lot.
I've tried shooting it at EI200 to tame the highlights and no real luck. I think reducing the time, dilution, and agitation are better bets, but I plan to go back to Caffenol in 2032 or so when my supply of HC-110 runs out. 
@knapjack Reducing agitation is tricky for me, as I use a Rondinax 35 daylight loading tank (due to physical difficulties loading reels), and that requires (near) continuous rotation (reducing time by 15% to compensate, which I why I keep writing "nominal" for the standard tank times). I quite like using dilution E (1+47) for faster films, but the nominal time for that is 12 minutes, which is a PITA. That leaves reducing time!
.@knapjack @rovanwil This is a screenshot of the "color" tab of Vuescan Pro when scanning this film. VSPro doesn't have a preset for FP4, so I tend to play around with the TMAX 100 options.
I did get Silverfast SE 9 with the new scanner, so I had a play with that. No equivalent of the pixel colours setting AFAICS, but there is a preset and the results are more contrasty. Looks like that sky area still blown out.
Here's the VSPro screenshot...
@carusb @knapjack @rovanwil Wait a second. The problem you've got is that the sky is blocked up? With a foreground in shade, there's no way the sky is going to be in range. The "highlight" in this picture isn't the sky, it's the bench in the background. The sky isn't going to show any more detail than a bare light bulb. This is perfectly normal.
I think I must be missing something here.
@bosak @knapjack @rovanwil You may not be missing anything, Jon, I may be just being a bit thick, it's quite common!
I think the issue is: I wouldn't have been too surprised if the sky had been shown as green pixel colours had been shown, for clipped highlights (although that scene is not significantly dark in those bushes), but the "out of gamut" thing alarms me...
@bosak @knapjack @rovanwil ... I also tried the trick of looking at some good contrasty print through the negative in good (reflective) light. It's readable elsewhere, but not the sky bit. There were some Photrio folk I reported on earlier (marcmarc in 2010, see the second part of this post about P33 development on TP: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/new-films-then.759742/post-9509354) who claim this as a reasonable indication (wo a densitometer) of over-development. "Expose for the shadows, dev for the highlights", etc!
@carusb @knapjack @rovanwil My workflow has become easier now that I'm consistently reminding myself that light sources (here, the sky) and specular reflections are not part of the tonal range that I'm trying to capture. In fact, these little areas of solid white are necessary to give the picture some sparkle and snap. In ye olden days, we used to rub these areas of the print with ferricyanide just to "clean up" any remaining traces of grey.
@carusb @knapjack @rovanwil The key here is your histogram down at the bottom left. See that little spike way over on the right? Set your high clip just *inside* (to the left of) that spike. It's not really part of the continuous-tone picture anyway, it's one of the sparkly bits that make the photo come alive. You'll see exactly this distribution of tones in interior shots that include light sources, too. Just clip 'em out.
@knapjack Just noticed your last comment, haha. I think I'll finish my 2018 bottle of syrup next year some time! It's about the colour of Newcastle Brown Ale at the moment. 6.3 ml per film goes a long way.
@carusb A few months ago, I went through 4 rolls of 120 FP4+. All were shot at 125 (incident meter) and developed in HC-110 1+29. This is my version of Dilution H (1+31) because my tanks want 15 and 30 ounces, not 16 and 32. Base time (agit. 10/60) was 18 minutes at 68F/20C; one batch (2x120) was 15'39" at 70.5F and the other was 11'24" at 76.2F. I was pleased with all the results, but of course I might be even more pleased if I had done something differently.
@carusb Now, the usual advice for Dil. H (Dil. B x 2) would make the base time 9 minutes at 68F/20C, which is at the top end of the Massive Dev Chart range. My "Dil. H" is a bit hotter than usual, so (if we pretend that our thermometers read the same, which is a big if) my dev was probably a little more aggressive than yours. Which makes me wonder about the "overdevelopment" theory. (Oh yeah, different scanner, too. So just one data point, FWIW, YMMV, &c.)
@bosak I'll need to think on this, Jon, quite confused at the moment. I have dilution B as 1+31, dilution H at 1+63 (I doubt 1+29 or 1+59 make any difference to those times). MDC has FP4 at EI100 dil H 10.5 mins at 21C (120/135) or 9 mins for sheet (about the first time I've noticed where sheet is different!).
I'm going to try to re-assess the negatives with the "read newsprint through the sky" test tomorrow.
AIUI marginal dev time changes should mostly affect highlight, not shadows.
@carusb I screwed up in my initial description, sorry. HC-110 Dil. H is 1+63, and my variation is 1+59 instead (not 1+29 as stated before). I have to check this every dang time I mix it up. Dil. B is properly 1+31, and my variation on *that* is 1+29.
@carusb According to my #FilmData spreadsheet, I only ever put one roll of 120 FP4+ in HC-110 back in 2019. Exposed at 125 and dev time was 9 minutes. I can't show any results because privacy, but the final images look fine to me. A few skies are blown out but as I was probably guesstimating the exposures, that is only to be expected.
@kamerakata I'm really impressed you have data that far back, that's really well organised, Ralf! I can't quite remember what time I used 10 days ago! Do you remember the dilution? Cf MDC, your time looks a bit long for B (1+31) at 20C and short for E (1+47). But I'd be pretty happy with devving for 9 minutes nominal with E (bearing in mind I'm turning the knob a little every second!).
@carusb That was B, proably with 1 minute initial agitation and ten seconds every minute after that. I usually go by the MDC app and that is the time it recommends.
@carusb And concerning the data: well...I'm a statistician by trade and they say we loooove lists. I started developing my own film (again) in 2017 and have been writing down the dev times from the beginning.
@kamerakata So looks like the MDC app is much more confident than the web version, which says 7-9 minutes for B at 20C, for FP4 box. No Problems with your highlights?
TBH I've been using 8 minutes for years, and didn't really notice the problems until I started using the pixel colour option in Vuescan Pro, which gives this out of gamut result. But when It does, I can really notice the flat white area in the scan, AND in the same scan with Silverfast 9!
@carusb As I said, there are a couple of images on that film where the highlights are blown out but there are others that have even tones and some are eve n on the darkish side. I play too fast and loose with my exposures to really judge the dev time from one roll.
@carusb There are pics from a party on a balcony and the woman shot against the wall looks fine and the bald guy shot towards the sky has blown out highlights on his scalp. Chances are, I measured the first shot and used the same settings for the second.
@kamerakata Understandable under the circumstances! I've always thought of FP4 as a very forgiving film!
@carusb I use 9 min at 20C for HC110b with FP4 at box. This has worked well for me.
@tomnorthfilm Wow, 9 minutes! No problems with your highlight areas? I'm having troubles at 8!
@carusb Not that I’ve noticed, although the negs do come out fairly contrasty. I’ve not tried printing any of those negs in the darkroom. Normally I use FX39II with FP4 at box nowadays. Most recently I used HC110b because I was finishing up one of my small decanted bottles.
@tomnorthfilm I will probably go back to FX39II next year; this year I decided I really ought to finish my 6-year-old decanted HC-110, too.
@carusb I took a look at recent rolls of FP4 dev'd in HC110b and FX39II. The negs look similar to me. One doesn't look more dense than the other. I use 9 min for HC110b and 6 min for FX39II with FP4 at box.