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

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months on from it's suggested 'best before' time I started this processing session with the last seven frames from my out of date Fomapan 200, to check that the developer was still viable.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.

RO9 special/ Studional three months on.

Out of date Fomapan 200

Another month on and I'm back to using the turquoise Studional and a further cutting from the Fomapan 200, only this time there are couple of dozen images to muck up. The chances of something going wrong diminishes as you get used to the way the developer works, the only spanners are out of date film and senior moments, if it all go's wrong I may learn my lesson.

Out of date Fomapan 200

So far the developer has been used seven times without it missing a step. When comparing the negatives with the naked eye or in this case a magnifier the density between the batches looks to be identical. As far as the compensation factor is concerned this is uncharted territory for me. The question is, does 20% allowance still apply two months on? Thinking on it carefully the answer is yes. My reasoning is that to increase it without knowing whether the suggested compensation worked or not does not make sense. I should test the information and not do my own thing.

 

The information on this developer states that once it is diluted one litre should be good for three months or 12 film processes which ever you arrive at first if stored properly. I will admit that the bottle this is stored in is to big leaving an air gap that will allow the developer to deteriorate more quickly according to the data sheet. I have not done this on purpose I didn't have a container the right size and yet it still works well. Obviously it is better to do what manufacturer recommends to get the best results but in the real world we all make compromises. So is it such a surprise that I'm getting good results? The real test will be at four, five or six months after dilution.

Out of date Fomapan 200

 I processed the negatives as previously mentioned and the results are just as good so much so that I also developed a roll of Agfa APX 100. It just so happens that the dilution for this film is 1+15 (the same as HP5+) or 1+31 for 4 and 8 minutes respectively at 100 ISO. With the 20% adjustment added it took all of five minutes in the developer to receive another set of good looking negatives.

 

 

 

The more I use this developer the more impressed I am with it.

 The table below shows ten popular film that use the 1 +15 dilution. The ones marked with * are the ones I have had good results with at the suggested times with the compensation added.

The double ** is my suggested time for this film at this dilution.

Dilution of 1+15
Film	ASA/ISO	TIME
Adox CHM125	100	3.5
Agfa APX 100 *	100	4
Fomapan	100	10
Fomapan **	200	6
FP4+ *	125	4
HP5+ *	400	4
Neopan	400	6
PAN F+	50	3
Rollei Retro S	400	8.5
Tri-X	400	05/03/05

All the images that appear in this post were Developed in RO9 special
Studional.

This image is from the Agfa APX 100 film mentioned.

Black developer!?

I have gone back to using 35mm film, in so doing I have resurrected an old and long running project of portraits. I have never been backward in coming forward to ask people I meet if I can take their picture. When asking my chosen subject I'm polite and friendly with a little charm. It is not often that I receive a straight rejection. I've noticed that it tends to stop people for a moment, at which point I tell them it's a film camera. It appears that this is a reason for them to say yes when chatting with them.

This new interest in lugging my Nikon F5 around with me has also reunited me with a long time favorite film Agfa APX 100. I cannot remember exactly the last time I used this film but I do know it was back in the days when I regularly used ether ID11 or PMK Pyro. I still have both these developers on the shelf in powder form. Which led to a bit of a  dilemma once the new roll of
APX was ready for developing. Should I make up a new batch of these old friends to keep the look of the negatives the same or go with the current ones???.

                                                        

I chose to go with RO9 partly because I wanted to see what sort of negative it would produce with the APX.                                                                      

Agfa APX  negatives developed with
RO9 special.

Before starting I made up a litre of fresh stop, fix and 300 mls of developer. I processed the film for the suggested thirteen minutes. The time counted down, as I poured out the developer, I was shocked to see this black liquid fill the measuring cylinder what the Hell! My first thought was that all the emulsion had come off, stupid I know but it always interests me what thoughts come into your head when things take you unaware. Needless to say that when I looked at the negs after they were fixed, all was OK. The negatives are nicely toned. I am not sure yet how grainy they are as Ro9 tend to be more grain than ID11.

It's just another colour to add to an increasing list of used developers.