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:

Oh for the grain.

It is a fact of life for film users, if it was not for the those tiny light sensitive particles we would not have some of the world greatest pictures. All the same overly grainy negatives are a pain if you have not planned for it to happen it's a big let down. You must not forget that it is not all about the journey it is about the results as well and what looks like rubbish to you now. Maybe an inspired choice to others.

The fact you have a negative to look at is a result and something that will print and or scan. At one time grainy pictures were all the rage. Producing some wonderfully expressive images. Admittedly they are not everyone's cup of tea. In other words keep an open mind.

The object of developer is to bring out the latent image held in the emulsion. This is achieved by a chemical reaction, acting on the silver, producing dark areas where it is light and bright areas where there is shadow. The negative is reversed later with the print. There are three important things to keep at the front of your mind are: the development time, the temperature and dilution. It is these three factors that ensure the ultimate image quality when it comes to printing. Too short a development time will produce too thin a negative, like wise too long a process time will make the negative too dense, leading to very short and very long print times respectively.

Agitation is important as well and one of the most over looked parts of the film development, it can in some cases make the difference in how well your negatives turn out. As the developer interacts with the emulsion of the film, it vigorously attacks the silver it comes into contact with and becomes exhausted. By inverting the tank you refresh this action, producing evenly developed negatives. It is important to get this right. To little agitation will allow by-products of the process to build up, leaving pale-toned streamers as they slide to the bottom of the film. Likewise excessive inversions will produce currents in the developer, creating uneven development. Most process times allow for agitation.

Developers:

The first thing to look at is the developer. This has the most influence over how your negatives will look. Before you settle on one in particular make sure you understand its attributes. On a practical note you also need to know how often you will process a film. If you are going to process a film every week or so then it may be better to use one in powder form like ID11 or D76. Or a one shot liquid for occasional use, like Ilfotec HC or Kodak HC110. I have suggested these developers because they are main stream fine grain developers. RO9 is not recognized as a fine grain.

For example:

Ilford ID11: A full speed developer with fine grain. Supplied as a two pack powder. Down side is that you have to make up 5 liters of stock solution. This then leads to question over it's keeping qualities. ( I have taken a year to use a 5ltr batch without any loss of quality) It can be used as one shot or multi use with allowance for depletion. ( I have only ever used as a one shot.)

Ilfords Ilfotec HC: A highly concentrated, fine grain liquid developer. It is suggested that this is the liquid equivalent to ID11.

Kodak D76: Fine grain developer recognized as Kodak's ID11. It has been reformulated as a one pack powder. The down side is that it needs very hot water to mix it easily.

Kodak HC 110: A fine grain sharp working developer. In a highly concentrated liquid syrup form. This is Kodak's answer to ID11/D76 as a liquid.

One more developer to what could be a very long list and that is:

RO9 Special/ Studional. These are the finer bred brothers of RO9 and Rodinal. They are very concentrated liquids with the good keeping qualities you would expect from this family. 

The unexpected.

It is the developer you choose that has the most influence over what your negatives and grain looks like. Inter mixed with the way you apply the agitation method you adopt and making sure that the temperature is right. Master this and the rest will fall into place. Yes you will make mistakes we all do even with years and years of experience it is all part of the rich tapestry of processing. It is and can be a pain when the results effect that special set of negatives. I know, it's that spanner that has landed with a big thud at times. The trick is understanding what went wrong, then put it right and move on. Now a days there is no such thing as a bad set of negatives - just conceptually challenging. You just have to look at all the apps you can get now that put back all things analogue photographers try to avoid. So what maybe unacceptable at first will change over time.

Really what I'm saying is to keep an open mind, the analogue process can, if you embrace it, give an unexpected creative lift to your images. Which today is more acceptable than it used to be. 

RO9 special/studional six months from dulition.

Fomapan 200 test negatives.

I'm now six months down the line with this litre of RO9s/Studional and nine completed developments to date. With it now being three months on from it's suggested 'best before' time I started this processing session with the last seven frames from my out of date Fomapan 200, to check that the developer was still viable.

 The Fomapan was in the developer for eight minutes this included the 20% compensation for developers age. For me anyway this developer was now in completely unknown territory and the 20% adjustment was under review again. Although the last time I used the developer the urge to increase was very strong, I considered it again and dismissed the idea very quickly this time. Remembering what I had said last time.

Agfa APX 100 negatives

As soon as the film had been fixed I pulled it out of the developing tank to check. On first look it looked like it had not worked but on closer inspection there was a very good looking negative peering back at me. Great! Now I can get on with the others.

including the 20% and a roll of Fomapan 400 which stopped me in my tracks for a while as I had no suggested development times for it. Ah! What to do? I was processing this for someone else. Don't panic Mr Mannering. I checked through the Massive dev charts 400 ISO film times for Studional with dilutions of 1+15. It was saying that between four and eight minutes. Which is quite a leeway to pair down. I then looked at the Agfa and Rollei times for 400 ISO film to try and shrink the time difference. This helped a lot, it was suggesting five and a half minutes as an average. So me being me rounded it up to six and added 20% which worked out at a bit over seven minutes.

 I intended to develop for seven minutes and ended up doing eight I was interrupted loosing track of the time. It is possible that the mix up has made for a better developed set of negatives which may have worked in my favour this time. Which leaves a dilemma for the next roll - what time should I use?

Fomapan 400 negatives

All in all this out of date developer has proved its self to be a good performer, out of the three newly processed film the Fomapan 200 is disappointing in that the negatives are a bit thin. Some of this is to do with bad exposure and not the development. On closer inspection of this last length of film it looks as though the surface has been contaminated with sweaty finger marks, some scratches and a lot of dust marks on the negatives. Not surprising really seeing that the film has been cut into sections on three other occasions.

It turns out that the Agfa APX 100 has been over developed. I have also noted that the negatives are a bit more grainy than they should be. This could be the down side of using the RO9s outside the three month best before date.

So what now? The developer is good for another three film but I think it will be discarded for a new batch. The reason for using this developer in the first place is because of it's finer grain. If I want it coarse looking I'll use RO9.

Using RO9 special/ Studional as it was intended.

Negatives are FP4+ and Fomapan 100

I have had the opportunity to use RO9s/Studional as it was intended. Multiple development from the same batch of developer (1 litre will do 12 films). This is a new departure for me, I prefer the single use type. I was a little apprehensive with this decision but gathered four 120 format films together so I could put to the test the assertion that you can develop any number of film on the same day it was diluted without having to add a compensation factor for each film involved, as you do with other developers. This was something I had not heard of before.

Made using a Zero multi format pinhole camera.

 The two makes of film were FP4+ and Fomapan 100 in both cases at box speed. It just so happens that the dilution for these films is 1- 25 with a big time difference - four minutes for the FP4+ and ten for the foma 100.

As mentioned before in another article the developer has a syrup consistency to it as you pour it out. At this point I must add a warning because of the concentrated nature of RO9 special/Studional you need to take precautions when pouring it out to make up the working solution. I have found out to my cost that if you get it on your hands it has a nasty bite. Something I have not experienced when mixing up other developers.

Made using Bronica SQAi.

 With the developer made up the first film to be treated was the FP4+. I was curious to know how well the short process time would work. This will be the quickest I have ever produced the latent image. The actual time suggested was three and half minutes - you need to be careful of short times when it comes to processing film, so I upped it four minutes. Not a lot I know but it could mean the difference between a reasonable set of images and a good set. I can report that it was a good set of negatives with good density across the whole film. The next film out of the processing tank was the Fomapan 100 processed at the suggested time of ten minutes. Again a good set of negatives in fact when held up against the FP4+ film they looked Identical in density. To cut this short the third and fourth films were the same in look as their predecessors. I was not expecting such good results.

Made using a Bronica SQAi.

  The method I used was made up of my trusted inversion procedure and a returning of what was left of the 600 mls of developer back to the storage bottle. Let me explain, when you pour the developer out of the tank there is a a certain amount of fluid lost to this action. It is only a small amount but can be enough to stop the top edge of the film being fully immersed. With this in mind I poured the developer back into the litre bottle and then poured it out again into the measuring cylinder before each film processed. I could have just topped up the difference. This is me erring on the side of caution. This action may have rejuvenated any depletion that had occurred but I suspect that this is not the case with this developer.

Idle time between two batches	Development lengthened by
few hours (but development none *on same day)	None *
1 – 3 days	5.00%
4 – 8 days	10.00%
1 – 2 weeks	15.00%
over 2 weeks	20.00%

 
Related posts:

RO9 special developer
One month on

RO9 Rodinal film Develper

Having used up all the ID11 on the four film project and a backlog of exposed film building up, I thought it was about time I break out 'my something for the weekend' developer. I have always kept a backup developer for those occasions when I get caught out. This time I reached for a small bottle of RO9/ Rodinal. This little bottle has been on the shelf for years and in that time it has slowly turned to a rich red brown colour. This single shot developers keeping qualities are legendary. Silverprint has a forty year old bottle that they use from time to time! It still produces good quality negatives, so my 'youngster' should have no problems.

RO9/ Rodinal is not classed as a fine grain developer. It is famous for it's contrast control and flexibility. It's high acutance produces very sharp looking negatives a bit like sharpening a digital file in Photoshop.

It's character to a certain extent is governed by it's dilution.

For example:

• 1+10 will develop ortho film.

• 1+25 produces high contrast negatives and the most obvious grain.
• 1+50 Is the standard dilution producing crisp, normal contrast negatives, with slightly more grain than a fine grain developer.
• 1+75 and 1+100 will render high contrast negatives as normal.
• 1+300 can be used with document type films.

This is another developer I have not really used before so when I picked a Fomapan 100 ISO 100 to try it out on there is a little first use nerves! - How will the negatives look? How much is a little more grain than a fine grain developer? Is the time suggested going to produce well toned negatives? All questions that cannot be properly answered until the film has been fixed. My mantra is “keep it simple” and chose the standard dilution 1+50 as this comes close to the development time I use for ID11, which means I can compare these neg's against the ID11 negatives.

I used my long standing agitation method, although on the bottle it gives a different one. Agitate for the first thirty seconds and then tilt the tank at thirty second intervals.

I have used this developer with FP4+,Fomapan 100 and the Rollei 400s and again I'm having trouble with the latter. The other two have presented nicely toned negatives that have been easy to print. They are slightly more grainy than the ID11 negatives I am use to. But you would not think so when you look at the prints, I'm hard pressed to see a difference when comparing them side by side.

The pictures that appear with this article have been scanned from 9 x 12 prints produced on Kentmere variable contrast paper RC. I have found that grade two works better with these negatives than my usual grade three. This maybe down to its contrast controlling attributes. I have also used a couple of negative with the split grade method and again no appreciable difference. I do all my test prints on RC papers and then do my final prints on FB papers. Here again there has been no sign’s of increased grain.

All the pictures were developed in a mature Ilford multigrade developer - by mature I mean at least a month old, that has been replenished once or twice. I find that the prints take on a warmer tone than those first produced in the developer when fresh. It also takes longer for the first signs of the print to appear when fresh, about ten or so seconds and as it matures twenty seconds or so. This is not a method for the faint hearted as it can deplete very quickly in a matter of one print to the next. I have been caught out and ended up with a print that does not fully develop.

Overall I am very pleased with the negatives RO 9 presents. Yes they are more grainy but that does not translate to the final print. While I was looking into the use of RO9 Rodinal I came across a gentleman that has indicated that the original Rodinal could be used as a print developer and it was the exception to the rule in this respect. Does anyone know differently? 

Easy Lith 200 Results.

This is my follow on post explaining what happened and how it was done. Not everything went according to plan, but more about that later.

Being in a fortunate position of owning a second slot processor I decided to set this at 26 degrees for the lith developer. I did not add stop or fix to the other slots but continued to use what was already available in the other slotty, keeping the temperature to 20 degrees. It is just as well I did as one of the papers emulsion became very soft.

I chose high contrast negatives that I had already printed. I looked back through my notes on how long each was exposed for and added one and half times more exposure to see how things worked. I chose to follow the instructions when it came to diluting part A and B at 2X 1+25+1000 mls water. (20 mls of each 40 mls in total in 1000 mls of water). The paper I chose to start with was Kentmere RC because it was the paper originally used with these negatives. All the prints were exposed to white light, no grades were set. I had no idea how they would turn out or what sort of tone would be produced. I used two other varitone RC papers to see which produced the best results with this mix of A and B.

Kentmere paper

This is the original Kentmere print exposed at grade zero and developed as normal.

Kentmere paper

This is the first print out of the easy lith on Kentmere paper. It took over three minutes for it to reach full development. A very faint out line of the picture started to show about 30-40 seconds in. It was difficult to see whether the print had toned or not with the red light on.

Foma 131 paper

Second print was on Foma 131 varitone. This took a full twelve minutes to develop fully and is what I had in mind as a lith look.

Ilford paper

Third print was on Ilford multigrade paper, I pulled the paper early because I thought it may go completely black.

Conclusions:

Not knowing what to expect from this process makes it difficult to be to critical with the results. One of my main mistakes was to treat this like a normal developer, I should have mixed the two parts separately so I could vary the strengths of each part to get a look that was in my opinion more lith like, this may have lead me to make changes to the amount of over exposure as well. The problem I think in these early stages of getting to grips with a new process such as this is there are a lot of variables to take into account. With more practice I suspect I will arrive at something more my taste.

A side affect of using the Lith process has shown up a weakness in what I considered a well vented darkroom. This is the first time I experienced a build up of fumes. Some updating needs to be carried out if I wish to continue printing using lith chemicals. After a bit of thought I feel it should be upgraded regardless!

Over all I am pleased with the outcome, for a first attempt. Others may not, but I would prefer to get as many of the mistakes out of the way now so I can concentrate on producing finer prints in the future.

Link back to first post easy lith 200

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.

Colour film well out of date.

The friend that gave me the out of date colour film did so in part for the removal of a partly exposed roll of film from her Dads camera a week or so earlier. She was not sure if it had become stuck or not.

The camera was an Olympus OM707. The battery carrier lid was broken and held in place with sticky tape and not working. The batteries were flat, so I tried some new ones but there was still no life which is a shame as it was in good order otherwise and had been in regular use up until eight years earlier. I had not come across this camera before so was not sure if I would be able to unwind the film manually. I found a re-wind button on the base plate, pressed it and went into the darkroom and opened the back. I took the cassette out first then gently pulled on the film and to my surprise it started to unwind. Once the film was fully removed I wound it back into the cassette.

A couple of weeks later I found out that the film had been developed and to her surprise it had produced some excellent results. It just goes to show even with a partly exposed colour film that has been sitting in a camera for eight years and extremely out of date, it can still produce some unexpectedly good results!

Yes I will admit that it is a risk when using film well outside the bbd; even more so with colour but I do not believe, like some, that you should only use this film with a so called toy camera as it suggests that if it goes wrong then it's “OK!” You just have to look at the lomograph site to see some excellent photographs. Personally you should have the courage of your conviction, use the best camera you can lay your hands on and embrace the results no matter what!

The colour pictures attached to this post were taken on my F5 on Agfa vista neg film that could have been out of date by fifteen years or so and kept in “iffy” conditions. So I walked into Lincoln on a warm sunny day with this film     and an open mind.  If I had listened to the doom and gloom merchants it was likely a waste of time! As it happens it was a good result even though I would have liked some colour shift to the pictures.

Related Posts:

Film Storage



The results of my first use of PMK Pyro

The results are not faultless. I will come to that later, first I have forgotten to mention that the films being processed are Ilford FP4+, used at ISO 125. 120 format producing a 6x6 negative. Now I'll outline the procedure used.

1. The working solution was made up using filtered tap water at 21 degrees C and poured in straight away.
2. Once the developer was in the tank I agitated it continuously for the first minute.
3. The tank was inverted twice every 20 seconds and tapped to dislodge any bubbles.
4. stopped, fixed and washed as normal.

I did not re-dip the film in the developer after fixing to intensify the staining. This is up to you but I was advised it did not make a noticeable difference.

Whenever I process a film I find that I'm a bit apprehensive as to what the outcome will be, even more so with a new developer! so just before I wash the film I have a little look to see if there is a negative, so far I have not been disappointed.

First impression, once the film was dry I noticed there weren't any water staining marks, that's a bonus. The film base has a slight mauve colour to it which increased in strength slightly with longer development times. The negatives overall were evenly processed. The contact prints revealed that there are dark spots on the neg's which I think may have been caused by air bubbles. I have just processed another film this time I gave it a two-minute pre-soak and there are no black spots on the negs.

To re-cap: Two minute pre-soak, pour developer in and agitate for first minute, then invert tank twice every twenty-seconds, stop,fix and wash as normal. You should get some very very fine grain negs.

I have printed four pictures so far. The first two on Foma 113 variant gloss, F11 grades 2.5 and 3 and they have a cool tone to them. The next two on Ilford multi-grade gloss, F11 grade 2 and 2.5, these have a warmish tone to them. Both papers were developed in Ilford -multi-grade print dev.

The pictures that appear in this post have been scanned from prints and do not convey how well they have printed. These are straight prints with no dodging or burning in. I wanted to show how well the negatives have printed and how evenly they have developed. I will be producing a final print set on FB paper at a later date using a mix of ordinary and warm tone developers.

Will I use Pyro again? Yes! it is likely to become my default film developer. The grain produced by this developer is minut to the point of making it difficult to see when focusing the negative for enlargement. I feel that the twenty-second double inversions of the tank is a bit fraught but I think it will get better the more I get used to it. Without Trevor's advice it may have taken a few more films to get it right. Thanks Trevor!


Other articles from this blog on PMK Pyro

What next?

Agfa test strips.

Working solution

Solution B

After bath

FP4+ development

Adox art 

PMK Pyro raw

Making up PMK Pyro from raw

Adox results

Negative comparison with PMK Pyro

PMK Pyro grain comparison

What temperature?

20 degrees centigrade is the standard temperature that film development should be carried out at. It is also important that this temperature be maintained throughout the process. You may use a higher or lower temperature which will shorten or lengthen the development time. There is a risk that the negatives may not be fully developed; you should wherever possible follow the instructions as to time and temperature unless an alternative has been suggested by those instructions. With experience you will know what temperature and time combinations give good results. I personally always develop my film at 20 degrees C unless a higher or lower temperature is recommended.