Does that makes sense? - film developing question

[sanmich]

Considering that the end of the world is imminent (or maybe it's only Arista Premium, can't really remember) I was pondering a possible switch to HP5, and had a look at its developing times, hoping I could mix both emulsions.

In one developer (D-76), HP5 seems to need more development time (13 vs 10 min - source the massive dev chart), in the other (Emofin) it requires less time (3 vs 4 min - source the Tetenal leaflet)

does that make sense??

 

[venchka]

3-4 minute developing time is a recipe for disaster and inconsistent results.
Any 2 bath formula allows mixing of emulsions. Diafine, Thornton's, Divided Pyrocat to name a few.
Is the Arista Premium the ASA 400 relabeled Tri-X? Just curious. I'll check my sources and see if anything looks promising for mixing Tri-X & HP5+.
You could drop both in highly diluted Rodinal, 1:100 or more, and let them sit for an hour or 3 and everything should be fine. Explore the Rodinal 1:100 thread here at RFF.

Wayne

 

[sanmich]

3-4 minute developing time is a recipe for disaster and inconsistent results.
Any 2 bath formula allows mixing of emulsions. Diafine, Thornton's, Divided Pyrocat to name a few.
Is the Arista Premium the ASA 400 relabeled Tri-X? Just curious. I'll check my sources and see if anything looks promising for mixing Tri-X & HP5+.
You could drop both in highly diluted Rodinal, 1:100 or more, and let them sit for an hour or 3 and everything should be fine. Explore the Rodinal 1:100 thread here at RFF.

Wayne

Emofin is a two bath developer, and I have souped TX pretty successfully in it with 4 min in each bath.
Yes arista premium is TX.
My main concern was that the times seems to be inverted in the two developers.
Basically, it looks strange to me that one film is more reactive than the other in on dev, and the other way around in another developer.
Of course, the ability to soup everything together is very nice (and rodinal 1+100 is good for that, but I wonder how is the grain...)

 

[Roger Hicks]

Considering that the end of the world is imminent (or maybe it's only Arista Premium, can't really remember) I was pondering a possible switch to HP5, and had a look at its developing times, hoping I could mix both emulsions.

In one developer (D-76), HP5 seems to need more development time (13 vs 10 min - source the massive dev chart), in the other (Emofin) it requires less time (3 vs 4 min - source the Tetenal leaflet)

does that make sense??

Dear Michael,

Not usually.

It's not that hard to imagine a specific set of circumstances -- gelatine type, hardening, developer pH, accelerators, bromide concentrations, whatever -- in which this could happen, but equally, I have some difficulty in believing that it actually would happen.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sanmich]

Roger thanks
well, first correction of the massive dev chart: HP5 is 11min by the Ilford chart.

 

[mfogiel]

It might be a question of a different Contrast Index desired. However, personally I regard HP5+ as probably the best film from MF up, but it tends to be a bit too grainy in 35mm. The tonality at normal speeds is really excellent. I have found similar observations from Roger Hicks, and also in the Developing Cookbook. Already at 645 size, the results are very nice, here's a photo from Pentax 645 I have posted today:


MF20122813 by mfogiel, on Flickr

 

[john_s]

Dear Michael,

Not usually.

It's not that hard to imagine a specific set of circumstances -- gelatine type, hardening, developer pH, accelerators, bromide concentrations, whatever -- in which this could happen, but equally, I have some difficulty in believing that it actually would happen.

Cheers,

R.

To this we could add that manufacturers often give different times for the same film and developer. An example is that Fuji's recommendations for their films in Kodal Xtol differ from those of Kodak for the Fuji films.

Example:
35mm Neopan400, inversion agitation, 20degC, box speed, normal contrast (0.58 in the case of Kodak), undiluted Xtol:

Fuji's recommendation 6.25min
Kodak's recommendation 8.25min (with more agitation, half minute intervals not 1 minute intervals as Fuji recommends)

Which one is "right"? I would go for Fuji's for my first try.

 

[rlouzan]

Years ago a photojournalist friend of mine told me, that the newspaper lab he worked at used ID-11 to develop their photographer's Tri-X and HP-5 film, all mixed in the same tank. Don't remember the Tri-X, ID-11 EI or Dev. time.

 

[venchka]

Interesting. I have no knowlwdge of Emofin. I do have a passing knowledge of divided developers. Most of which seem to be oblivious to variable times in Part A and Part B.
The Rule remains the same: Individual testing Rules the Day!
However, in all cases and all dilutions, Kodak's times for Tri-X 400 are shorter than Hp5+. Go figure.
Aside: Maybe Kodak wanted Tri-X negatives to look better than Hp5+ negatives? Merry Christmas!

Wayne