Fomatol PW paper developer.

Fomatol PW paper developer.

This small pack of paper developer has been sitting on the shelf patiently waiting for me to use it. I'm told it will produce some very rich brown looking prints. I think the time has come to try it.

The information on the packet:

    

Same size different amounts.

The developer is a slow working Hydroquinone that will produce warmtone images that verge on brown when used with Fomatone papers. This varies depending on manufacturer. You can get a bit more information about the developer 

from the Foma web site.

Mixing instruction: Dissolve big bag first in approx 750 ml of water at 20 c with continuous agitation. Then add small bag while continuing the agitation.

This makes no sense as both bags are the same size!!?

Figure 1
Ilford multigrade RC paper, developed in Multigrade.

Development: 2-3 minutes at 20 C depending on dilution. The more dilute the developer the stronger the image tone will be. The developing time is dependent on how many more parts of water you add to the stock solution. I.E Stock 2-3 mins, 1+1 4 to 6 mins, 1+3 8 to 12 mins. To keep the results consistent the developer should not be stored for the longer term.

 

 

 

 

Capacity:

 

 One litre of developer should develop 2- 3 sq meters of photographic paper. This translates to approx 210 sheets of 8 x 10. The number of pictures produced is dependent on the types and makes of paper used e.g. resin coated and or fibre base.

This little pack of powders makes up a stock/working solution of a litre. Which will mean for larger sheets of paper you may need to use two packs or dilute 1+1, this will extend the developing time and increase the tone of the final image.

Figure 2 Ilford multigrade RC paper,
 Developed  in Fomatol PW

The only bit of controversy with this developer is to determine which is the smaller of the two same size packs. If you lay the packs side by side it is easy to see which of the packets in fuller than the other or to be absolutely sure use a scales then there are no doubts. They could quite easily mark them A and B.

Making the developer up is straight forward:

Fill a mixing jug up with 750 mls of water at 20 degrees C. while mixing in the larger of the two packets make sure you constantly stir it. As you mix it in it will have quite a gritty feel to it turning the water white, this is normal. It will start to go clear as you stir in the the smaller pack. The gritty feel to developer will start to disappear as well. Once both the powders are mixed together add a further 250 ml of water making it up to a litre. Keep agitating the water until all the powder has dissolved. You should now be left with a clear slightly tan tinted liquid. This is classed as the stock solution and is ready to use as it is. You can if you wish dilute it 1+1 or 1+3 for greater colour.

Large pack of powder
added first.

I'm going to compare Fomatone PW against a semi fresh Ilford multigrade developer already in the slot processor. I am curious to see how much tone, different makes and types of photographic papers would show at stock strength. I poured the developer into a tray ready to use.

 I set the enlarger to grade 3 and the lens to F8 after exposing two sets of test strips the base exposure was set to twenty two seconds with a further forty seconds of burning in. I should have chosen a more straight forward negative for this comparison.

Figure 3 Adox MCC FB paper developed in
Fomatol PW for 5 Minutes

The first paper into the soup was Ilfords multigrade RC gloss into the slot process ( Fig 1) for comparison. Figure 2 went into the tray of Fomatone PW. Would the developer tone this paper? Resin coated papers can be difficult to tone.

Fomatone PW is billed as a slow working toning developer and at stock strength it was suggested that the image would take two to three minutes to reach full exposure. The Ilford paper was near enough spot on to the second of three minutes and has a warmth to it. Don't forget that RC papers tend to reach full development far quicker than it's FB brother.

Figure 4  Adox MCC FB paper developed in
Fomatol PW for 12 Minutes.

So I upped the stakes with Adox MCC FB paper this would really test how long the image would take to appear. Figure 3 shows what happened when I took the paper out after 5 minutes. I should point out that MCC is not a warm tone paper and yet here it exhibits a light chocolate brown colour.

I changed tactics for figure 4 it is the same paper as 3. FB paper can be manipulated far more than RC papers. So for this print I doubled the exposure time by adjusting the aperture to 5.6. I could shorten the developing time by pulling the paper out early. It should mean that the blacks in the image appearing more quickly. As it turned out it took twelve minutes for the image to be fully produced. If I had not increased the exposure I suspect that it may have taken a further twelve minutes to reach the same point of development. Of all the pictures made this is my favorite as it comes closest to what I had in mind. So far PW has demonstrated it is a very slow developer and a test of how long I can stand still rocking the developing tray. It is a shame that my darkroom is not big enough to allow a chair. How slow the developer can be I'm about to find out.

Figure 5

   Fomatone MG classic matt - Chamois 542 11 

Developed in Fomatol PW for 20 minutes 

Being this is warm tone developer I am about to see how it enhances a warm coloured paper. I chose Fomatone MG classic matt - Chamois 542-11. The papers base colour is cream to start with so what would a warm tone developer do.? Twenty minutes later - yes you read that right! - it is still under developed for my taste, all though it is richly toned. (Fig 5) Even with the red light on the colour was striking. 

 

 

Figure 6 is the same paper developed in multigrade to show how much tone the Foma PW has added. I must admit I prefer it in it's natural state.

Figure 6.

 Things to note:

• When mixing the developer up it will turn the water white.
• It does not matter that the pack is out of date. In this case by four years! Powder chemicals have good keeping qualities.
• It will significantly stain the tray you use.
• It is a very slow working developer and will require patience.
• I would suggest purchasing two packs at a time.

I like the tone that the Fomatone PW has produced and think it gives the paper a more contemporary warmth.

The developer will clear when
the smaller of the two
packets are added.

Figure 6 with 5 over laid to show tonal difference

                       

Since writing this article Foma has discontinued its classic matt Chamois 542-11 which is a shame. The closes paper to it is Ilfords Art 300 it is slightly more tinted look.  

Four Film Positive results

Printing

Figure 1

Before any of my negatives see the enlargers negative carrier they all get contact printed, for me this is the first indication of how they may print when enlarged and for some the only time they become a positive. It also serves as a reference.

The contact prints for the Adox and Rollei show under development, to what extent will only become clear when the test strips are produced. The Fomapan 100 and the FP4+ show as well toned. In the case of Ilfords FP4+ it may be over developed.

Once more I step into the the red world of the darkroom and the smell of chemicals. Only there are none! The developer, stop and fix need to be mixed a fresh. This is due to a problem with the fix turning the slot of the Nova processor black. Still not completely sure why!

   

Figure 2

 I set the light boxes height on the enlarger so it will  generate a print 9”x 12” in size. This means the the 6x6  negatives are going to be brutally cropped; maybe that  should be less dramatic and say 'creatively cropped' to  fit  a landscape format but also serves to increase the  magnification.

 I have set the enlarging lens to F8. All the negatives  will be exposed at this setting, it allows a comparison  to be made as to how over or under developed they  maybe with each other. In the past when F8 is set I  find that it gives me a time in the region of 30+  seconds exposure time. Which for me is about average.

Figure 3

I have set grade two and a half to start with, if this proves to be to hard I'll drop it to two. The paper being used is silverproof matt limited grade paper. Being limited does not mean it has not got a full range of tones. It also provides a certain look to the prints that I like.

The first negatives to be exposed are the Fomapan 100. Looking down the focus finder the film  has a regular fine grain making it quite easy to get it pin sharp. The test strips for these negatives are indicating an exposure of twenty one seconds. The picture of the  woods (Fg1) was to hard for the 2.5 grade I set, so reduced it to 2 for the second exposure. Figure 2  the shadow of the tree reflected in the  puddle. Printed straight, was a little flat, so I printed it a second time at grade 2 but burnt in (added exposure)  to the areas around the puddle to lift the puddle area.

Figure 4

Figure 5

The next negatives to be exposed were from the Adox film. Looking down the focus finder to sharpen these negatives brought a smile  as it looked like someone had gone mad and splattered the grain on by flicking a brush. This may have been the result of under development. The test strips were also saying that the negatives were thin, suggesting an exposure of ten seconds, half that of the Fomapan. The two negatives from the Adox film are the complete opposites to each other. The fence post picture (Fg 3) had no detail I could see in the shadow when held up to the light. So when it was being exposed  I dodged the shadow area for a couple of second to stop it blacking right out.  Once it had dried I was surprised to see lots of detail. The two tree picture (Fg 4) was always going to be a landscape crop as there was to much foreground in the negative. It also looked the best picture negative wise.

Figure 6

The Rollei 400s was up next I had trouble picking two negatives that I could see enough of to print. These negatives were thinner than the Adox with some of the frames not showing at all. When looking  through the focus finder at the grain it revealed it to be patchy and shows up on the prints as white blotches. Lack of  proper development is evident maybe?. The picture of the rain on the window (Fg5) was a difficult print to get right.  Keeping the detail, what there is of it, of the door handle and leaf on the left. It was down to six seconds of exposure. The cat (Fg6) picture was the same six seconds but shows up the blotchy grain more. If I had shut the enlarging lens down to F11 or F16 I would have had more time to manipulate how the pictures looked by dodging and burning.

The last negatives to be worked on were the FP4+. Looking down the focus

Figure 7

finder it displayed a fine regular pattern I have come to expect from this film when developed in ID11. I had been looking forward to printing them but was thrown when the test strip revealed that a thirty second exposure was no where near enough. A further two tests revealed a time in the region of fifty seconds. You could say they were the best developed or over developed depending how you look at things. I printed an number of negatives from this film. I was really taken by the smooth tones of the pictures and the intensity of the sky. It was a bright, warm cloud less day. The prints show what a great morning it was at the bridge.  Figure seven showing the superstructure of the bridge gives a good indication as how good the sky was and Figure eight gives a good idea of how strong the sun was. Both pictures were printed at grade two but could quite easily have taken a softer grade.

Figure 8

Conclusion:

I am disappointed that the Rollei 400 was not developed correctly, I know it can produce some very smooth well toned negatives which would have lead to some great prints. As for Adox film, I am coming to the conclusion that we do not mix as this is the second time it has failed to present a good set of neg's. The Fomapan 100 classic was a surprise, if you are looking for a substitute for FP4+ then you will not go far wrong with this emulsion in my opinion. I have noticed that it is slightly more grainy than the FP4+ if you have to burn in the high lights heavily. I use both these films regularly now in rotation as their characteristics are almost identical.

Links to others from series in case you missed them.

Four film

Four film What developed

Four film how well did they develop.

Film development.

It has taken quite a time to reach this point. There have been numerous interruptions, not all of them good, but the results are in and there are some surprises.

The different makes side by side

All the films are 120 format and 6x6 negative size. They were exposed at box speed and developed in the same way with the same thirty month old batch of stock ID11. When I checked the date I was Shocked. It did explain the slightly wheat looking tone to the developer. To be honest I did not give a second thought as to whether it would work or not. The developer was diluted 1+1 and used only once at a temp 20c, No pre-soak was used. All inverted for the first thirty seconds this is equal to twelve inversions and then four inversions every minute this is equal to ten seconds. Then stopped, fixed and washed as normal.

FP4+ negs

I chose to develop the FP4+ first. This is the film all the others are going to be judged against, so there was no pressure to get the development spot on. The suggested time by the manufacturers is eleven minutes, but I find my negatives tend to be a bit thin so process for fourteen minutes. While the negatives were drying I looked over them to see how well they had turned out. I was surprised to find they are some of the best negatives I have produced. Let's hope I can keep this standard up for the rest.

Rollie 400s negs

The next film to be loaded into the developing tank was the Rollei 400s. This did not have a very auspicious start after loading the film into the back of the camera. I had mistaken the noise it was making for the film coming off the spool. I am so used to the sound FP4+makes when being wound on. I checked to see if it was OK in a blacked out darkroom and it was. This lead to four frames being lost. The suggested development time for this film in ID11 is eleven minutes. I must say I had my doubts but developed it for the said time anyway. Need I say they look thin; will have see how well they print!

Fomapan 100 negs

The five litre can of ID11 is getting very close to being used up and the developer is getting darker in colour each time I use it, could be a close run thing as to whether there is enough to do two more films. Next into the soup was the Fomapan classic exposed at 100 ISO. The suggested development time for this speed is eight to ten minutes. This is another film I have no previous knowledge of, so which is it 8,9 or 10 minutes?. With the thin looking Rollei negs at the front of my mind I've chosen ten minutes I feel it may produce better results and it did. My calculated gamble paid off this time. Producing the density of negative I like and very close to the FP4+ results.

Adox chs negs

The last one to meet the spiral was the Adox CHS exposed at 100 ISO. The suggested time for ID11 at this speed is 7.5 minutes. I took no notice of this time at all. Boyd by the results of the Fomapan I pushed the time to ten minutes. Where did this time come from? The previous results indicated that a longer development time would produce denser negatives so I decided to do the same for this. Was I right? NO! I should have gone longer. These are the thinnest negatives of the lot. Again, will have to see how they print.

Experience and knowledge has played it's part in the development of the Fomapan, 400s and Adox but even so the later two's results are 'off' by my standard. The times suggested for developing the films are from a trusted source. So I am a little disappointed that they did not turn out better than they did. Having said that it maybe the developer losing its potency as I start to scrape the bottom of the bottle. It is, to a certain extent, a gamble when using old material, combined with ones I have not used before. All is not lost, it just means that the thinner negatives will be a bit more of a challenge to print properly.

How are they going to print?

Finally the Id11 ran out before I had a chance to do another roll of the 400s. If I had, I would have extended the time by three minutes. With the Adox I would have increased the time by five minutes.

Four Film

The Plan.

This is the first time I have four different manufactures of black and white film in 120 format in stock. To mark the occasion I'm going to compare them to see if there is a noticeable difference between them. This comparison is not about which is the best film to use but to do with creativity and what each emulsion may bring to the party. Choosing a film in the first place is very subjective, you can ask as many questions as you like and look at loads of pictures that are the product of it's exposure but you will not truly know how it looks until you use it for yourself. FP4 was the first roll of film I chose to use and has remained my favorite ever since. At the time it was a close run thing with Kodak's offerings.

The protagonists are, of course Ilfords FP4+, Fomapan classic 100, Adox CHS 100 and Rollei retro 400s.

FP4+ has been the main stay of my median format work and therefore I know how to get the best out of it. The Rollei 400s and Fomapan classic are the two out of the four that are unknown quantities when it come to exposure and development. So to a certain extent the results will also have a first impressions flavour. Not always the best way to judge a product. I have used the Adox before in 35 mm format so I have an idea what to expect and in that case was not favourable but I will not let that taint the use of its bigger brother. I am also aware when loading Adox film it needs subdued lighting as it fogs easily in bright conditions. The Fomapan classic when processed with certain combinations of fix and developer can be susceptible to pinholes appearing in the emulsion but then I have had this with FP4+ in the past.

All the pictures will be made on a Bronica SQAi. I will not be replicating the same twelve views across all the films. I prefer to make pictures when the opportunity arises. They will all be exposed at box speed and developed in ID11 and processed as normal, then printed on an RC paper that will be chosen at the time of printing. I decided to keep things simple and use materials that I have a good understanding of, making it easier to tell how well the two unknown films have been exposed and developed.

All we need now are the exposed and developed film. The links below will take you to the follow up posts.



The links below are the follow ups to this post.
The developed film

The prints

Adox in PMK Pyro results.

Test stips at twenty and ten
Minutes

The results are in! This has turned out to be one of the most exasperating tests to date. There have been problems all along the way from getting the exposures right to developing the film. Having said that there have been some surprises.

As with the Agfa test the film was exposed at box speed ISO 100 in the Nikon F5. This is where the process changes apart from the test method. The PMK Pyro used was one I made from raw material that did not include EDTA disodium in the mix and a reduced amount of Sodium Metaborate in solution B.

Sequence of development:

●         Pre-soak - it makes no difference with this film. It is not prone to air bell/bubbles sticking to the film.

●         Developer - to be made up immediately before use at 21 degrees C.

●         Development times - for this test were 5, 10, and 20 minutes respectively.

●         Tank inversions - continuously for the first minute and then once every fifteen seconds.

●         Stop, Fix and wash - as normal.

●         After bath - was not used and would have made little difference with this mix.

Notes:

Adox CHS 100 PET 35mm is not like other black and white film it has a noticeable thinner film base which is coloured blue. The cassette this film came in was not light tight which almost ruined the test. I only discovered this after the film had been exposed, when removing the film from the cassette it fell to bits. I have read a forum thread saying that the 120 roll film has the same problem. Adox you need to up your game! It is appalling quality control.

Pre-soak water after use

If you use a pre-soak the water will come out blue.

The ten minute development time is the one suggested by Digital truth, which made it the reference time the other test strips were to be judged against.

Results

All the test strips including the one thats a no show.

The test strip to show the best density of negative is the twenty minute one, having said that they are still a bit on the thin side. This does not take away from the fact that they are fully toned and well defined. There is no sign of grain when enlarged to 485 mm (19”) by 340 mm (13.5”). When printing the negatives I'm having to use grade three, normally I would expect to be using grade two, this could be due to the lack of EDTA in the mix of Pyro used. I'm also disappointed that the five minute test strip shows no negatives at all, from previous experience the shorter/half development times have a faint out line. In this case I can only put it down to the faulty film cassette. The ten minute test strip is very thin when compared to the Agfa test strips it is thinner than the half development time. Which suggests that normal development in this case should be greater than twenty minutes.

Over sized enlargment

With all the time and effort put into this test the last thing I was expecting was to be let down by bad manufacture. Of the thirty six exposures on the film around about  ten frames are unaffected by some light damage luckily the majority of these are from the test exposures that put in an appearance. If there was going to be any question marks I was thinking it would be from the developer but it did not disappoint, the only thing to note was when i poured it from the developing tank it was a lovely pink rose colour.

Will I be using the film again? Yes! only because I have a roll of 120 on the shelf if the negatives show any light damage then I will not use it again. How can I say that when I use a lot of out of date film? With out of date film at least you know that the results could be iffy. You don't expect it from new in date stock.

Used PMK Pyro.

Adox art series to be developed in PMK pyro.

Adox art series CHS 100. ISO 100

It has been a long time since I mentioned that I was going to do a test development using PMK Pyro on Adox  CHS 100 art series. What with the weather being unseasonally wet and other things getting in the way I have not been able to do the test exposures. I prefer to take the pictures outside on a bright day without fast moving clouds. Something that has not been forthcoming. The light level needs to be constant for the eighteen frames it takes to produce three test strips of two F numbers over and two F numbers under the metered reading. 

I'm pleased to say that the other day, weather and time to expose the film coincided which has resulted in a film waiting to be developed. Something that requires a spare four hours to do whether all in one go or over several days. See Agfa test formethod.

What next for PMK Pyro?

This year I decided to push the boundaries of my black and white film photography with a bit of dangerous living; well, flamboyant then!!. By using three makes of film I have not tried before: Agfa's relaunched APX 100 35mm, Adox CHS 100 35mm and 120, Fuji neopane 400 35mm. All of whom are going to be finessed with PMK Pyro staining developer in to reveling their latent images.

The first of these to receive Pyro's tender kiss is Agfa's APX. I have had a quick look at Digital truth massive dev chart ( thanks guys) and have discovered that the data they hold could be out dated as it is for the original film emulsion. A quick film test (quick! just joking) as described in another post, to check the time and if needed adjust it. I'll be using the suggested dilution formula of 1+2+100 and the 13 minutes as the normal process time for comparison.

It is a fine bright warm day just right to choose a subject and take pictures for the test. Wow! that's the fastest 22 frames I've taken in a long time! So as not to waste the rest of the film I took a walk round the local area to use up the other frames. Film is becoming expensive. Now all I have to do is find the time to process the film.