Out of date HP5+ develpoed in ID11

Lomo Fisheye two

Now that my brain is back in gear I can get on with developing that errant 35mm HP5+. Hopefully it should go without a hitch.

As far as I can remember (going by recent events that’s a bit dubious) this film is about seven years out of date. With this in mind you would of thought I should have picked a camera that allowed ISO adjustments. I didn't! Lomo's fisheye 2 was the camera chosen meaning that the HP5+ would have to be exposed at box speed (400 iso) Unlike a lot of people I don't have a problem with box speed and anyway it is in the best tradition of the toy camera cult along with Light leaking cameras, plastic lens, unpredictable focus and a lot of fun.

When it comes to box speed Ilford suggest that HP5+ should be developed for thirteen minutes at 20 degrees C. in ID11. From what I can remember of this all round developer it should produce negatives that are not very grainy. Normally I would have developed the film at the indicated time and be dammed. But something at the back of my mind said that fifteen minutes would do a better job and I prefer the negatives to be a bit on the dense side which translates to clear defined rectangles of tone. This must not be over done though as increasing the printing times could lead to over heating the negative making it buckle in the negative carrier of the enlarger. Leading to out of focus or soft pictures.

After all these years I still get the little bit of apprehension as I do a quick check of the film just before the wash stage. I need not have worried as I remove the reel from the developing tank I can just make out a line of rectangles along the film. The proof of the pudding will be when I print them.

 
I am very pleased with the way these negatives have printed. There is no sign of grain even though they have been enlarged to fit 9.5”x12” paper. I have used Silverproof matt paper at grade three and processed in Moersch 6 blue tone developer. Which produces a rich blue black that does not translate very well from scanned pictures.

Looks like coffee not multigrade?

Ilford multigrade paper developer

It has been sometime since I have entered the orange light district. Upon entering recently the darkroom looked a mess, something I don't remember leaving.! It could do with a good clear out and clean up but that will have to wait. I'm in desperate need of print therapy. I do a quick clean of the enlarging easel and lens. Then check the chemicals in the paper processor.

 The developer has gone a very deep brown, the stop and the fix look OK they were all fresh the last time. Even so I change the fix. Now what to do about the dev? In the end I emptied out half so I could refill it with fresh. Your thinking 'it's knackered why bother?' but I prefer the tone you get when fresh and old are mixed together. The slight depletion gives a warmth to images I like.

Contact prints.

I opened a partly used bottle of Ilford multigrade and poured out some of the contents to be met by a liquid the colour of black coffee! That's a new one on me never had that before! Which makes me think - ( expletive ) Mmmm! I'll use it anyway see what happens. I do not have a choice as I do not have a fresh bottle on the shelf.

First test print

It was my intention to get on with some enlargements, but I decide to contact print three sets of freshly developed 35mm negatives as this will test the strength of the developer. It turns out that the dev is more depleted than I had expected ( you were right). The contacts are taking nearly two minutes to reach full development and that is a very long time for resin coated paper, which is usually fully done in a minute.

Before I start work on the enlargements I drain another litre of developer and add some more 'black coffee' (developer) to the mix. Then load the first negative into the enlarger. I find I can be a little apprehensive getting ready to do my first print after a long absence. I'm not sure why, as it always works well.  

Second test print

With the first test strip exposed, into the dev it goes. Ah! I was a little quick off the mark the developer has not reached 20C yet as it takes a little over a minute to fully develop. As it turn out the test strip shows that I was being optimistic with the F8 aperture I had set. The test strip is not showing any exposure in the first four, five second segments. Indicating it will take more than fifty seconds to reach a base exposure time. That's far to long so, I adjust it to F5.6 effectively doubling the light. The next test strip I start at fifteen second and go on from there at five second intervals. Sometimes I can over develop the negatives and this is the first indication of it. Which I don't mind. The trick is not to over do it as it leads to loss of detail. That's better! the test strip was fully developed in less than a minute.

How the areas were dodged showing
how much extra light was added to each
section

With the second test strip in the holding try I take my time looking at the segments. My vision for the image has already formed and with a plan. All I need now is get off the fence and decide what time the first print should be exposed at. I plump for twenty two seconds at F5.6 at grade three on Kentmere RC gloss 9x12. I have already noted that the Ro9s negatives are a little softer than the normal Ro9 and not as grainy.

I need to point out here that I always work from wet test strips and automatically add a dry down factor without thinking. Ansel Adams used to tell a story of how he came to recommend that you should always work from dry test strips and prints. He had produced a particular photograph that was a delight to the eye so much so that he went ahead and printed a large number of them. Only to throw the whole lot out the following day as they did not look as good as when they were wet. I don't very often do long print runs and if I do it is not until I have studied the print dry in day light.

Final print.

As I look at the photograph in the holding tray with the rooms light on I can see it is over exposed, dull and muddy looking. It lacks the luminosity I have come to expert from analogy prints.

I already new that the picture would need dodging to recreate my vision. I inspected the test strip again and cut the overall exposure time to fifteen seconds. I then dodged the foreshore and wooden posts while I added a further seven seconds to the water above them and the sky.

 

Again I studied the second print in the holding try. Although it had improved, It still fell short of my vision. It is a good idea to have a notebook to hand in the darkroom so you can keep track of the adjustments. I have now cut the overall exposure to eleven seconds. I will add a further seventeen seconds in three sections. First of all I will add four sec's from the edge of the water to the rest of the picture. Next, seven sec's from where the wooden posts finish and finally seven more seconds to the upper part of the sky.

These last adjustment have improved the image no end. Bringing it very close to what I had in mind and giving it the luminosity it lacked. There maybe some fine tuning needed when I print it on FB paper but I will only do that once the photograph is fully dry.

With the three prints side by side
You can see how the image has changed.

The coffee coloured developer has worked well even with the heavy oxidation of liquid. A change in colour does not always mean it has lost it's potency. Now that the photograph is dry the image has a very gentle warmth to it. I have found that the tone a photograph takes is more pronounced once it is fully dry.

 

Intermittent visit from the mottle crew bad for negatives

 Up until 2012 I had not experienced any problems with my negatives apart from the problem of water marks. The amount of times prints had been ruined because I had missed one of those dam circles. Life went on, I slowly got the hang of checking for these marks and dust.

Around about the time I started to investigate other developers. Among my group of photographer friends a number of them were talking about PMK Pyro and how it produced super fine negatives with it's staining action. I was told it came in powder form and once made up would last for almost ever.

It became my main developer producing some wonderfully smooth toned negatives and some super smooth prints I was over the moon with the results. That is until a roll of FP4+ produced this mottled affect I was stumped to the cause. The next film I developed was clear of it and so it remained for years. Over time trying a number of different developers along the way without the affect. 

Then all of a sudden three film in a row one FP4+ developed in RO9 and two rolls of Fomapan 100 one in RO9 the other Studional. So it had now't to do with the developer but something common to all three. At the time I traced it to contaminated developing tank and spirals with wetting agent and wrote an article on how I traced it. There will be a link to it at the end. 

The up shot of it was I stopped using wetting agent completely leading to negatives that dry twice as fast and with no water marks. I have been using a soft wet leather to wipe the negatives dry with no ill affects for years. The mottling disappeared as well or did it?

Until recently it is back with a vengeance it has appeared on half a dozen rolls of Fomapan 100. All processed one after the other using HC 110 the difference this time is I know it is not the developer or wetting agent contamination. I was put out only in the sense of its unpredictability I have embraced the mottle as a creative tool and like the affect it has on the photographs produced.

The one bit of information missing so far is that all the affected rolls of film have been 120 format. I went to the film cupboard there was a new unopened pack of 10 Fomapan 100. I opened it and pulled out a roll. Took it out of it's rapper ready to load in the Bronica. What is this? It has the same white silky backing paper as Ilford? Slowly the cogs clanked round.

I still had some from the pack I just processed, what's the best before date? 2018. it would seem you are more likely to get the affect the more out of date the film is. It has also become clear that it is the backing paper casing the mottle. from what I can work out it is the papers expanding and contracting at a different rate to the film base bring into sharp focus how you store the film pointing the finger at big swings in temperature say from fridge to room or freezer to room maybe adding to the increased possibility of it happening. 

On further consideration it maybe also be small amounts of moisture caught between the layers causing the large mottle I have experienced over the years along with the film being out of date. The thing that adds to this idea is the insult of the new Foma backing paper having a hole punched in it leaving a circle on the processed negative.

Once I have used up all my 120 Foma I may not replace it as I cannot trust it not to ruin a good negatives in the future. Which will be a shame as I like to use it with my pinhole camera.

I should not have to add this to the article  the copyright of Mitch Fusco 2022 all rights reserved.

Technical data:

Film I have used that's been affected Ilford FP4+, Fomapan 100, Rollei RPX 400, Agfa 400s. 

All images scanned from photographs.

 It could have been the backing paper all the time and not the wetting agent.  

   Wetting agent contamination link

Understanding how to keep Dust at bay.

Have you ever sat and looked at that shaft of light streaming into the room revealing all those microscopic particles dancing in the air. Then blowing in that direction to watch them swirl around. It always makes me think how is it that our lungs do not fur up like that of untouched dust on a flat surface. 

With all those bits hanging around it is a wonder that the film photographer produces any sort of fine-looking photograph. What with having to check and clean inside the back of the camera where the film sits, the camera lens, the film when processed, the enlarging lens, the negative carrier with glass it just wares you out just thinking about it.

But we don't think about it seriously enough that is why we end up buying all these lens cloths, antistatic brushes, compressed air cans. The amount of time spent on blowing, wiping and brushing only to end up with more dust stuck to our optical surfaces than when we started. It is a wonder that a picture is produced at all.

What is it we need to understand? That the human body is a massive generator of static electricity. We have all experienced at some point walking up to the car and just as we are about to open the door, we get a shock off the car. Wrong you have just shocked the car it is an overload of static in your body grounding itself hence the shock as it leaves you. Yes! You.

The static builds up in us because of the manmade fibers rubbing against our bodies (plastic) acting as an insulator. If you have not earthed yourself, say by washing your hands and or walking around in bare feet. The static continues to build in extreme cases you can get fly away hair. This is where your hair starts to lift up from your head. Before it gets to this point most of us earth ourselves in some way dissipating the static before we get to that shock the car.

Some years ago, I spent a lot of time try to remove some spots of dust from the glass of the negative carrier, having removed it, to have it all come back tenfold as soon as I touched it with my bare hand. The air was blue with my frustration. 

Slowly the penny dropped I was the problem I was magnetizing the glass with the excessive static in my body. Time to sort this once and for all. I had sitting in a draw an earthing band that I used when building a computer. 

The earthing strap was set up by the enlarger where it has remained. It has put in sterling service over the years it's still a wonder, to watch the dust fall off the glass of the negative carrier when I touch it to it. It is also one of the first things I do when entering the darkroom is to touch the earth before I start setting things up. 

Occasionally you get a stubborn particle needing wiping off but nowhere near as much trouble to remove. Once done a touch to earth again making it ready to load the film that is earthed just before loading. 

This article is the copyright of Mitch Fusco 2022 all rights reserved 

Trouble in the darkroom

My darkroom is a very personal space, the only acknowledgement to it being standard is the separation of wet and dry working areas. It is just big enough for one person to work in comfortable. A bit of a glorified closet really! which has meant I have had to find ways of making the space work hard to meet the needs of both wet-and dry sides working areas.

One of the things I have had to do is to put the 12 x16 paper processor under the work top on a pull out shelf. It was done originally to save space but has proved to be inspired in a way I had not foreseen. Being able to look down on the print process has made it a more relaxed way to work. Keeping the work top clear for other wet side needs has not worked so well, the top is being dominated by the tray I use to put the tube covers that keep the chemicals fresh in the slot processor. It was a large tray so that the tops could be spaced far enough apart to stop cross contamination. 

However, it all came to a head when I wanted to try a new print developer and use it with a tray so I could monitor when the first signs of the image appeared, then transfer it to the processor for stop and fix. I should explain that the darkroom does not have running water. I usually part fill a tray with water to put the fixed photographs in then wash them at the end of the session in the bathroom. Anyway I had the water tray precariously balanced on top of the slot covers in their tray as the rest of the top was taken up with the developing tray. It must have been a good day as I did not manage to tip the whole lot over myself. 

I now seriously considered ways of storing the slot tops that would keep the worktop clear. It came to me that the best way was to stand them on end. My first thought was to use a number of metal clips attached to the wall. I cannot understand why I had not come to this conclusion sooner. Once I had thought about it. It was not such a good idea as fix attacks metal. I decided it would be better to use plastic, so took some measurements, sat down and did a number of drawings of a tray that would hold the tubes upright. Then thought about how to stop cross contamination, so added sections to the base. Once I had refined the basic look and measurements I showed the idea to my mate at Plasweld, he helped to simplify the design and added a splash back to stop chemicals running all over the place when loading the tops into the stand. 

A few weeks later the stand is finished. It works very well and has freed up lots of space on the worktop allowing me to work more safely. Such a simple idea that has made a big difference.

A typical layout for a darkroom

20 x 24 photographic paper out of date challenge

I have been having a clear out in the darkroom. More like seeing what printing paper I have in stock and how close to date they were getting. While checking I came across a pack of Ilford multigrade 4 peal RC 20 x 24 to large to miss but I have managed not to notice it for a long time.

It has been over looked all this time partly because it is pearl paper and that I am unable to use paper this size. I know why, then why have you not cut it down to size? Without trying to make excuses it is difficult to cut any size papers when you only have enough space on the dry side of the darkroom for your enlarger and I did not want to waste it if I could help it. A sort of unintended waiting game for the right project only I did not think it would take about 15 years.

A few days ago I was setting up the enlarger to make some 9.5 x 12 prints from Kentmere 100 35mm film. That had some images of poppies made in the garden. All though they all turned out well. I had noticed, I was loosing about an inch or so off the side of the negative.

I started to speculate wouldn't it be nice to include that missing edge at the same ratio of enlargement without having to down size it to make it fit. This idea was going to be difficult to fulfill as my main sizes are 8 x 10 and 9.5 x 12. This left the 20 x 24 this maybe it's finest hour. 

After a certain point in time old paper starts to increase their latency. This means you need to start adding more exposure time (light ) to the paper to receive the same results you would get with the fresh stuff.

With paper this old you may as well chuck it in the bin. Yes! it is coming, if it was this article would be at an end. But! while I am processing anyway I may as well see if I can get any sort of image.

Where to start? a Segmented test print. Where you increase the amount of exposure at set times. The problem with this is you have no idea how many increments of light will be needed to arrive at the exposure. I short cut it by using the exposure time from the negative already set up using that exposure time as a starting point.

Fortunately the developer was fresh in that it had only half a dozen prints through it. To allow for the sluggish latency I would develop the print for two minutes. Twice normal for RC papers to give it a chance to produce tones.

Before we go any further we need to look at the negative I was using. It had been exposed to Foma 311 RC paper. It took 27 seconds at grade 3 with the lens set to F5.6. This would be the starting point then with one change the enlarger had to have the filter setting changed for multigrade 4.

After a little bit of contortionist cutting, the paper was in two bits of equal size well almost and the easel adjusted to allow for the new size, the paper was exposed. 

Surprisingly when I remove the paper from the processor after 2 mins there was a soft image, emboldened I increased the exposure to 30 secs. A slight increase but not enough. Time to get radical and doubled the light by opening the enlarging lens to F4.

The print was darker again but not enough to get a good black, so I opened the lens to f 2.8 at 30 secs. Effectively four time the light from when I started. When the print came off of the processor this time it was nearly perfect. I did another print adding 15 sec burn to the highlighted poppy. Done.

I did consider pre-flashing the paper this is where you add light to the point just before recording a tone to overcome the latency. I explain how it is done in a previous article link at the bottom of the page. You will properly have to make time changes from part seconds to seconds in the case of old papers. A case of testing to see what works to get the right result. There is also double grade printing a link at the bottom of the page explains this method as well.

A note of caution what works well for one pack of paper may not for another keeping your grey matter on its toes. It will be the case that no matter what is done you will not get the result you are looking for it is at that point a decision needs to be made to bin it.

I am pleased that I had a go with this paper. It has introduced me to a new format size for 35mm printing. I feel it is more pleasurable to look at with that bit of extra width. A sort of shortened panoramic feel.

When the same image is compared with the Foma 311 version it has a slight warmth to it which could be down to its age, if anything this adds to it. Making the Foma composition a little clinical looking. It is a unintended consequence of mixing different papers and throws up a question about creative choice. Which I'm go to leave you with to ponder.

All the photographs were reproduced using a phone camera and edited in Photoshop.

The first four pictures were made using Ilford multigrade 4 pearl RC.

The fifth is on Foma 311 gloss RC.

Links 

Paper flashing

Paper flashing more examples

Double grade printing

  

 

Taking the stop out of printing?

An acquaintance recently posted that he was having trouble with his photographs. The prints were producing brown stains on the edges and face of the paper which he had not seen before. He went on to describe a process that does not include stop bath. I have always accepted that stop was essential when printing.

This revelation made me stop and think about all of the books I have read over the years on photograph production. As far as I was aware none of them said that there was a choice. Just to be sure I went back to the reference books on the subject I trust most. After consulting Tim Rudman  Master Printing course, Michael Langford Basic Photography and Ansel Adams The Print - by the way this is the only book to explain what happens when stop is omitted.

Ansel Adams writes: That stop bath is a weak solution of acetic acid that neutralizes the alkalinity in the developer stopping development straight away. Fix being acidic would have the same affect as stop bath but it prevents the contamination of the fix from the alkaline in developer which quickly exhausts the fix making it more likely that the prints will stain.

I should point out that my acquaintance has been producing prints that have not shown any signs of staining till now. It turns out that it was a lack of proper washing before the fix that was causing the problem and not exhausted fix.

The question that keeps coming into my head is why wouldn't you use stop? It makes no sense from my point of view. I spend a lot of time in the darkroom making test prints carefully choosing the right amount of light for exposure. Once in the developer I watch and wait for what I judge to be the right amount of development so I can remove it to the stop, freezing it at that point in the process. If this was substituted for water this would not be the case it would only slow down development making a mockery of all the careful planning gone before and adding a degree of uncertainty as to whether or not it was going to stain.

This is one of the main issues I have with not using stop bath which for me translates to film as well. You spend all that time getting the time, temperature and inversion right, - for what? Because you can not be bothered to use stop?it's to expensive? I will admit to not using stop at one point but not for the reasons given earlier when developing film. I reverted back to stop mainly because I did not like the look of the negatives it was producing. They seemed to have a soft look to them.

I know that this must sound like a bit of a rant and to a certain extent it is. Sometimes it's good to get things off your chest. As far as I'm concerned there are many different paths to creative nirvana and how you reach it is up to you.

Since writing this I have discovered a number of print developers that do not require a stop bath. As long as you use running water in its place for at least thirty seconds. These developers use Amidol in the formula. They can be found in The darkroom cookbook.

You maybe interested in this article on Fixing faults

 

XP2 super is pulled in to the darkroom screaming

On the frontier of a new discovery in the darkroom A bit dramatic I know but that is how I felt. All rubbish, I'm not the first to travel this route. It is new ground for me and this time I have left the research alone.

Fotospeed RCVC paper

With no preconceived ideas as to what was going to happen. I'm free to experiment. The first and most noticeable problem is the colour of the film base. Will I be able to set the grade of paper I want?

 Before the film got anywhere near the darkroom I found my old Ilford multigrade filters and looked through them to see if the film base had a close relation. It is lighter in colour to filter number four in the set but will it interfere? I did try to duplicate the filter grade on my colour enlarger the closest I could get was what I set for grade three and that was darker.

Multigrade filters with XP2s film

To stop the speculation I contact printed all the film using white light at two seconds with the lens fully open. These are some of the best contact prints I have had, nicely toned and detailed. I was not expecting that!

The next thing to do was to scale it up to a print size in this case 8 x 10. I would do a segmented test print using white light and then set to grade three. I chose Fotospeeds RCVC to do the test on. (A much under rated paper ). I did the first print F8 for 4 sec's using white light and set grade three at F8 for seventeen sec's. 

HC 110 processed XP2s

 The results I received plays into my assertion that multigrade papers can produce well toned prints without filtration. That's not quite true in this case as the film bass is close to the shade of one of the multigrade filters. 

Here is a thought, if film base was the colour of a particular filter would all the negative on the film print at that grade? And would you need graded filters any more? There's something to ponder while you develop your prints. If you have any thoughts please share.

Where was I hum! Yes the results of course. The difference between the white light and grade 3 print? In short not a lot if you did not know which was which you would be hard pressed to tell but there is a subtle one it shows as an increase in the strength of tone and a slight uplift in contrast.

 

XP2s contact prints exposed
with 2 sec white light

I was expecting a difficult time in getting good results because of the colour of the film base. This is partly because of what others had suggested when they had a go at printing. In fact I have found so far it very easy to print the XP2s negatives. I think if anything the tint of the film base has enhanced the results.

This was the first graded print the
white light print
was slightly brighter

If we go back to when the film was exposed it was a very bright day with lots of contrast and if this had been a normal black and white film the contrast would have lead to a grade zero when being printed. Instead the prints have been at my normal grade three. Thinking on what others have said it leads me to believe that XP2s under represents contrast levels which would explain the flat looking prints when used normally. To counter this I would suggest using a harder filter grade and or Kentmere RC to lift the contrast to a better level.

Printed on Ilford
multigrade FB paper

Back in the darkroom getting sharp focus was difficult. The grain seen in the focus finder is very fine and the window of sharpness is very small unlike traditional film emulsions. What I mean by this is when turning the focus wheel on the enlarger the grain of the film sharpens If you keep turning it stays sharp for a few degrees of turn and then go's soft. With the XP2s it go's out of focus almost as soon as it is sharp.

 I did try other grades of filter to see if they worked they did but made the picture look muddy and very dark. Under normal circumstances I would interpret this as the  wrong grade being selected and or over exposed.  

In answer to my question Will I be able to set the grade of paper I want?

No! I am of the impression that the colour of the film base plays a part in the amount of contrast the paper displays. I have not really forced the issue because the level of contrast I'm getting is to my liking. But you may know differently in which case please share.

You maybe interested in this The first part of this post:

XP2 super meets Zero pinhole camera and then mugged by Kodak HC110

All of this film is beyond it's best
before date.

They say that fact is stranger than fiction - but this is not fiction! I have processed XP2 super 400 in Kodak's HC 110. It has produced some wonderfully smooth toned negatives with just the right amount of contrast. I really will not know how good these negatives are until they are darkroom printed.

This adventure started with my pinhole camera and the crazy idea that I would like to use the out of date XP2s sitting in my film cupboard. I have used this film in the past and been completely under whelmed by the flat looking photographs I received back from the lab. That is why I think I am being crazy!

So for the first time I am going to see what others have done and said about this film. I started with a bit of research something I do not usually do. When using a film product for the first time I like to approach it fresh without all the hurly burly from other people.

HC 110
Not to be mistake for golden syrup. 

First I should explain that XP2 super is a chromogenic black and white film designed to be processed using the C41 process for colour film. Super is the updated version of the original XP2 first released in 1981.

With a quick search a number of references came up, the first one I went to was the online photographer blog. Written by Mike Johnston. I took two things away from this blog. First was how to get the best from the film in different light if you are using the C41 process. He suggests altering the ISO depending on the lighting conditions as the film can become very contrasty. Not from my experience.

• For regular shooting in normal lighting ISO 200
• For shooting in extremely bright and or contrasty light ISO 100
• For shooting in low and low contrast lighting indoor or out ISO 400
• He does not recommend using it at ISO 800

The other bit of information that took my eye but was not part of the post was about cross processing using the monochrome chemicals. This made me sit up and take note. I like the idea of using black and white material to process and print the film because I could do it in my darkroom without a costly upgrade.

I found the write up about using black and white chemistry on the Ilford photo web site. It is very informative and took some time to read. The author Chris Moss has not only developed XP2s in HC 110 but has also used Rodinal and Ilfotec HC. He has posted a lot of images to back all his work up.

HC 110 in syringes

It became apparent that he preferred HC 110 as most of the work described is devoted to this developer. It was at this point I decided to use HC 110 myself so I could in part test his results and cut out a lot of trial and error on my own account - a short cut so to speak. I was however disappointed to find that all his negatives had been scanned and not printed in the darkroom. The short cut in the beginning means I will have more time to experiment in the darkroom.

Lastly before I move onto my results it is worth mentioning Erik Gouldproject web site and in-particular his article on using HC 110 to control contrast by varying the dilution of the developer. This is mainly in response to Mike's assertion that XP2s can get very contrasty in certain situations. Most of this he relates to the C41 processed negatives he has produced. This could be the case for monochrome work.

Lets just check those setting again.

What have I gotten myself into! this was going to be a straight forward article about using XP2s and my pinhole camera. I'm pleased to say we are now getting on with the photography. The good thing about it is that I will be able to take part in world pinhole Day for the first time.

 I was able to go out over a number of days with my Zero that included world pinhole day to make the images. The sun was out which made a change from the dullness we had been experiencing, but it still had a bite.

I used three rolls of XP2s that I rated at 100 ISO I did this because it was a bright day and I wanted exposures that were seconds long rather than part seconds that a faster ISO would have produced. It also occurred to me after exposing a roll of delta 100 that I could do a comparison between the two films. In most cases it took about eight seconds for each exposure or round about as I can be quite cavalier when it comes to closing the shutter. This does lead to over exposing the film, something I should take in hand because I end up with longer printing times in the darkroom due to the density of the negatives.

XP2 S 400 negatives this shows
the colour of the neg base.

 It is the first time I have experienced scepticism and anticipation in relation to the results. A bit of an April fool feeling, no matter what happens I have a plan B or do I?

Right! I loaded the first roll into the tank. Developed it for 5 mins as suggested being a first for me, I develop one film at a time so I can adjust the dev time if needed. I used the HC 110 at a dilution of 1+49. Woe! this stuff is so concentrated it is like syrup. I was warned, which means using a normal graduated measure is out. You will need to use syringe/s to get the right amount of HC 110 out of the bottle if you are not going to end up with sticky fingers etc everywhere. They should be marked out in mls and part mls as the 49 works out at 12.3 mls in 600 mls of water. I wanted it to be the exact amount that was used.

Please note: that this article was written before Kodak changed the formulation of HC110 to make it easier to pour. This makes certain bit of this post superfluous but does not take away from the overall results. 

Contact print. 2 sec using white light.

When it came to processing the film I kept to my standard method 12 inversion for the first 30 seconds and then four inversion every minute there after. the stop was for two minutes with the same inversion count as the developer. I did the same for the fix, fixing for 5 mins and then checking to see if the film base had cleared. I did this partly because there can be an issue with under fixing if the fix is old which mine was having been used for five previous film. When I looked the base appeared a little foggy so I put it back in for a further two minutes.

While I was checking the film base I was relieved and pleased to see the tell tail squares that images were there. I now had the unspooled dripping wet film in my hand. To be presented with some wonderfully toned negatives on a pinkish magenta film base, was something I had not been prepared for. What wonders are to be had in the darkroom! Let the fun begin!? 

I recently exposed and developed some XP2s that is ten years out of best before date. There is an issue with fixing, you may find that after ten minutes of fixing that the base is still quite white looking  and has not cleared.  It is a normal situation that will clear once the film has been washed and dried.   



If you are interested The second part of this post: