Agfa film grain comparision.

This set of images proved more difficult than the last set of grain pictures. I think I need more practice or a better method.

Developer ID11

I checked back through my archive of negatives and found that over the years I have used four makes of developer with this film - ID11, PMK Pyro, RO9, and RO9s. 

The RO9s negatives were processed in developer that was more than the suggested best before time of three months. Although this developer was still viable it starts to produce a courser looking grain pattern than when it is used fresh. 

 

 

 

 

Developer RO9 Special

Developer RO9

Developer PMK Pyro

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

PMK Pyro negative comparison.

Fg 1

Over the past several weeks I have been tidying up and cleaning out the darkroom making it ready for the winter season.  I don't know about the rest of you but I end up with a number of storage leaves full of negatives hanging around from previous printing sessions. While sorting them into order I noticed that a number of them were marked PMK Pyro afterbath. Wait a minute, these negs look more tanned than when I first processed them!. I did mention in another post that on first comparison the differences were slight and therefore not worth doing. On comparing the negatives now, the afterbath tinting stands out. ( see Fg1) Which would suggest that the developer continues to oxidise over time to some degree.

After giving this some thought I wondered if there would be any differences in how they printed, the only way to find out would be a practical comparison. I didn't think it would be enough to judge PMK against its self so I introduced a set of ID11 processed negatives to the equation. Both developers produce a fine grain just how fine I was not sure.

Materials for the comparison.

ID11 negative.

All the negatives are FP4 + 120 format and 6x6 in size. (the 6 x 4.5 negatives in Fg 1 were substituted for another set) Surprisingly they were all developed for 14 minutes in their respective developers. The afterbath neg's were exposed using a Zero Pinhole camera and to be honest is the only time I have used the afterbath. All the negatives are printed on Ilford Multigrade RC gloss  and processed in Ilford MG developer using the split grade printing method.

In the darkroom.

The first thing I noticed was the difference in the clarity of the grain in the focus finder. The ID11 negatives were easy to focus, they had a defined grain pattern. The next neg I looked at was the PMK without afterbath these had a smoother looking grain pattern making it a little difficult to focus. The afterbath negatives had an even finer grain pattern, taking longer again to bring into sharp focus.

PMK Pyro negative without afterbath

The printing of each negative was straight forward. Once the pictures were completely dry I placed the three of them together in front of the window on a bight day to study them.  The first thing I noticed was that the PMK negative prints looked warmer than the ID11 print; had a cooler more black and white look. I find that Ilford papers tend to have a warmer feel in comparison to the Foma papers I use. Next I noticed that the ID11 print looked crisper, sharper perhaps than the others this maybe be because the contrast was more defined or as other people have suggested that PMK negatives are softer due to the staining affect this developer has. One thing is for sure the afterbath neg is softer contrast wise, this was noticeable when it was being printed; as a rule of thumb I have found when setting the contrast part of the split grade method the timing is about half the time needed for the toned section. In this case it needed more and still looks soft. 

Conclusions.

PMK Pyro negative with afterbath

It would be unfair to conclude that the afterbath negatives were less sharp as they were taken with a lens-less camera and softer to start with. But when considering the other PMK Pyro negative I can say that it appears to be softer in sharpness when compared to the ID11 picture. With that in mind you could conclude by association that they would have been softer again. Therefore adding credence to those claims that PMK Pyro used with afterbath are less sharp but more subtly toned. When compared in isolation you would be hard pressed to notice a difference at all.

I believe that it is down to individual tastes when it comes to sharpness and if it was not for this comparison I would be none the wiser as far as my eyes are concerned. And that is all that counts.

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.

Mistaken identity Agfa APX developed in ID11



Agfa APX negatives developed in Ilford ID11

This is not the post I was expecting to write. I recently made up five litres of ID11 so I could develop a roll of out date HP5+. An extravagance you may think but really it was the catalyst for me to bring back an old friend into regular use. 

The other day I processed a roll of 35mm monochrome film but there was something wrong with the results. For starters the negatives looked wrong they didn't have the round look you get with a fisheye lens.  I could not get my head round how the fisheye two from lomography could change the look and shape of the negatives so completely. I'm going mad! a senior moment! brain in neutral! I need help! Up to this point I had been completely convinced that it was the roll of HP5. Then I noticed a black film canister on my desk, opened it and found a reel of HP5!! What the ...! what was developed then?? It turned out to be a roll of Agfa APX 100, that I had forgotten all about and mistakenly processed as HP5. Now this is a first for me, get it wrong and land on your feet! this has got to be one of the jammiest balls up ever!

Now I'm over the shock, I do not know why I should be surprised that they are a good set of negatives. Film emulsion has a large latitude of forgiveness before it looses its temper.  I checked what the timing should have been for Agfa APX and believe it or not my notes say that APX in ID11 at ISO 100 should be developed for thirteen and a half minutes at 20C. I had decided to process the out of date HP5 to fourteen mins.

Agfa APX  Film ISO 100
Developed in ID11 for 14 mins
Printed on silverproof matt
Developed in Moersch 6 blue tone.

So this has turned into a post about Agfa APX 100 developed in Ilfords ID11 results!

The method used:

•         I did not use a pre-soak. 

•         Develop for 14 minutes instead of 13.5. It would not have made much difference to the quality of the negatives.

•         Invert for the first thirty seconds and then for ten seconds every minute (which is about four inversions)

•         stop, fix and wash as usual.

The main test of a good negative is when it is printed. Showing you how much detail there is to be coaxed out of the high lights and shadows by dodging (holding back) and burning in (extra exposure) to arrive at that stunning final picture. 

  

For a film I had mistaken for another make, the results are excellent, I have no complaints!... except one; check what's written on the film canister first!

An insight into making up ID11

Ilfords ID11

Ilfords ID 11 is the starting point for many a photographer wishing to develop there own monochrome negatives. It is one of the most popular pre-packaged powdered developers on the market along with Kodak's D76. The attributes of these developers are almost identical. Some photographers are put off initially from using these developers because it is in powdered form, but you needn’t be, they are straight forward to make up.

I have used both these developers before and for a long time almost exclusively when it came to processing my film. I recently exposed an out of date roll of 35mm HP5 film. I decided to make up a new batch of ID 11. I know how good or bad these negatives will be without having to do a test.

The kit: (to make up five litres)

The mixing kit.

• Measuring jug, that will take at least Four litres of fluid.
• Thermometer.
• Mixing stick
• Five litre storage container
• Bucket if you do not have large enough measuring jug for mixing.
• Disposable gloves, Face masks if you think it is necessary.
• Ilfords ID 11, in this case.

If you are new to making up ID 11 take your time.

Remove the two packets from the box and then tear or cut the box open. On the inside are the instructions for making the powder into a fluid. What follows is how I made up the developer from those instructions.




Adding packet A of the waterr

The box of powder I have purchased will make up five litres of stock solution enough to process fifty roll 35mm or 120 film (medium format). Once I have all the equipment in place, I warm the measuring jug and bucket with boiling water to stop the water loosing heat to the containers by conduction. Then bring the water to a temperature of 40 degrees centigrade (104 degrees F) making up 3.75 litres. Which I transfer to the bucket ( do not forget to remove the boiling water first) for mixing, checking to make sure that there has been no heat loss with the thermometer. I use this method because my measuring jug will only make up 2 litres at a time. Once the water is ready open packet marked A and pour in the powder slowly, while you stir, making sure that the powder does not clump together. Keep string until it is all dissolved (Always pour the powder into the water and not the other way round and add the powders in the right order) it will not take very long to add the contents of packet A. Now open the packet marked B and again add to the solution slowly stirring all the time this will take longer to add as it is a far larger amount of powder (make sure you do your mixing in a well ventilated room). Keep stirring after all the powder has been added to make sure it has all dissolved. Now stir in another 1.25 litres of water at room temperature making it up to the full 5 litres. With the help of a funnel I pour the developer into its storage container and allow it to cool.



Adding packet B of the developer

I usually make up my ID11 the day before. It will take an hour to cool ten degrees depending on what material your storage container is made of.



Pouring developer into storage container after the
Final  2Litres of water have been added.

I use this developer at 1+1 in most cases and as a single shot (use once and throw away) but it can be reused as long as you adjust the time to allow for it:

• Two film add ten percent.
• Three film add twenty percent.
• Four film add Thirty percent.
• Five film add forty percent.
• Ten film add Ninety percent do not re-use above this amount.



Developer in storage container
coolling down before cap is
secured.

ID11 can be used with the following film from the Ilford range and many other makes besides: HP5+,Fp4+, Pan F+, Delta 100 Pro Delta 400 Pro, Delta 3200 Pro, SFX 200. It can also be used at three different dilutions: stock, 1+1 and 1+3. So the times for HP5+ exposed at 400 ISO, developed at twenty degrees C would be 7.30 minutes at stock, 13 minutes at 1+1 and 20 minutes at 1+3.

For more film makes, developer combination and times visit digital truthsmassive Dev chart.

  

How did the roll of HP5+ turn out? You will have to wait and see.

Pyro PMK Raw what is needed

I have been purchasing PMK Pyro as a set of pre-mixed powders just like ID11 and D76. Two of the most popular mass produced powdered film developers; just add water and away you go. Recently I have needed to replace my stock of PMK developer so went to Silverprint my regular supplier to replenish the stock, only to be told that they no longer did mixed batches for sale over the counter. They advised me they stock all the ingredients for self mixing. This took me aback, several expletives entered my head (which were not expressed) what was I going to do! I have a number of tests planned for developing other makes of film let alone the projects on going.

Raw chemicals to make up PMK Pyro

I raised the question on the film and darkroom forum and after the responses  came back (thank you all) I decided to buy the individual ingredients; it is quite expensive to set up, partly due to the way the powders are sold but should make it cheaper over time. This raised the thought of making up all the chemicals I used in the darkroom from powder, meaning they will be as fresh as possible at the point of use. 

What will you need? To start with a set of scales, they do not have to be that expensive but should be able to read very small amounts. The relevant powdered chemicals which are, Metol, Sodium Bisulphite (Sodium metabisulphite), Pyrogallol, EDTA di-Sodium (optional) and Sodium Metaborate (Kodalk).

Enlarging a section of the negative.

Picture from a 120 FP4+ ISO125 6x6 negative
 developed in ID11 and printed on Ilford MG paper
 Processed with Ilford MG Developer.
Landscape format

There are no rules when it comes to enlarging your negatives. Cropping, re-formatting and partial enlargement are all part of the creative process. Changing horizontals to verticals and diagonal is also part of this rich tapestry of creativity. The only time I feel this looks odd is with waterscapes and their horizons.

Portrait format

As one of those people that works with 6x6 negatives, cropping and reframing is all part of making the picture fit the paper. I'm not complaining but the fact is all paper sizes are oblong. I think this has helped me in getting the best from my pictures. I do not waste time in trying to make the whole negative fit the page; this is heresy to some who believe that having carefully framed the view that you should print as you saw it! This is not always possible, especially when you have a certain size of print in mind. Sometimes this careful framing once projected on the enlargers baseboard may look better with horizontal or vertical framing. Do not be afraid to play.

Square Format

Which do you prefer?