Ilford developer with FP4 Plus, Tri-X and Neopan 1600

[JPSuisse]

Hi all,

So I'm getting ready to go into developing, finally, and after many delays... The films and speeds I typically use are:

Ilford FP4 Plus (would like to pull and box 125)
Tri-X (@ box 400 and push 800)
Neopan (@ box 1600)
Ilford Delta (@ box 3200)

Now, what single developer should I use for this combination... I'm an amateur and really want to avoid the complication of 2 developers, if there is a reasonable way to avoid it. Since I scan, I am looking for a fine grain developer, and I do like good acutance.

I thought about Prescysol EF, but then I heard that it doesn't work well with Neopan 1600. Also, my local shop actually sells Ilford developer and I'm never around to receive parcels.

So, is Ilford developer a good option? What would some experienced users here recommend?

Thanks in advance for some input!!!

Best, JP

 

[Uncle Bill]

My recommendation would be Kodak's Xtol It plays well with the above mentioned films well. especially Tri-x 400. Dilute it 1+1 with water and you will get magic.

 

[kully]

DD-X is great with Neopan1600.

 

[Tim Gray]

I'd go with XTOL, but that's what I use. Know that Neopan 1600 isn't ISO 1600, so it's a push already. Same is true with Delta 3200 at 3200, but from what I've seen, Delta will have more shadows at 3200 than Neopan will at 1600, though the grain will be bigger.

 

[JPSuisse]

Tim, thanks. I didn't know that about Neopan 1600.

I'm mulling this info over and will wait a few days to see what people say and then make a decision of some sorts.

Thanks for the replies!

 

[Al Kaplan]

Ilford ID-11 alias Kodak D-76

 

[Trius]

If you really want to shoot Neopan @ 1600, I would say Ilford ID11, which is pretty much the same as Kodak D-76. XTol may work as well, but I haven't tried it ... Bill may have something to contribute on that.

 

[Lilserenity]

If it weren't for Delta 3200 I'd say D-76/ID-11, but on balance, Xtol is excellent too, I just for some reason love the D-76 results with Fp4 and Tri-X (ie: older non t-grain emulsions) but Xtol flies with the t-grain emulsions at higher speeds, just resolves a little bit more mid-tone, what there is to be had a 3200 compared to D-76 on Delta 3200. Tri-X behaves surprisingly well with D-76 at an effective ISO 3200 but not so in Delta 3200's case in my experience.

 

[JPSuisse]

Trius:

I'm just shooting Neopan 1600 at box speed. I know there is a separate Neopan that is sold at a different speed rating. Tim mentioned though that Neopan 1600 really isn't 1600. I have to find out about that one... Maybe it makes most sense to just push Tri-X to 1600.

The proposal from Al and you to use ID11 is really good, because I can just buy the stuff locally without mail ordering it. I just didn't know, if there was a developer from Ilford that would really work with ok with all these different films!

JP

 

[Jaans]

JP: Neopans real ISO is not 1600, hence that is not box speed but rather a one step push. Its real speed has been reported to be between 640-800.

There is excellent advice from the posters before me regarding developer selection. XTOL is excellent for this one step push with said film, 1600.

Also, Microphen or DDX will also get you that speed of 1600, but with more grain if that is what you like. With the Delta 3200, Microphen and DDX are also the recommended products according to many.

It all comes down to you and your preferences - do you like the grainy look or do you prefer a look that is more slick? Because XTOL will be a lot more smoother, but one developer that I have found that does it all, but with grain is D76. TRI-X just loves that match, so does FP4. They were made for it. The Neopan 1600 looks super at EI 800 - my routine is 7:45, 20C, agitate the first 50 seconds, then 2 agitations ever minute after that, at the start of the minute. Fuji is very specific with this agitation technique.

However, I never got good results with Ilford 3200 and D76, so if you want the one developer for them all, then XTOL may be the guy. If you can afford the time, money then a combination of 2 developers may be your best option. Pros will often keep a shelf of different developers deciding which one to use according to the situation.

So:

A) D76 for box speed or one step push + Microphen for that Delta 3200

B) XTOL for all of it.

Just my two cents, good luck!

 

[Jaans]

Forget to mention, if you push TRI-X past 1250 then you will lose a lot of shadow detail and the highlights will get hot, the contrast will be difficult to control unless using Diafine. But I would not recommend using Diafine at TRI-x box speed as the results are not optimum compared to D76, ID11, XTOL. I would suggest Neopan 1600 for any EI between 650-1600, then Delta as you suggested for EI3200 with DDX, Microphen, or PTMAX3200 with TMAX developer per Kodak's instructions.Many have said that Ilford's 3200's times are too short. Kodak's times are more on the money with these two fast films^^

 

[Turtle]

DDX or Xtol 1+ something

Hi all,

So I'm getting ready to go into developing, finally, and after many delays... The films and speeds I typically use are:

Ilford FP4 Plus (would like to pull and box 125)
Tri-X (@ box 400 and push 800)
Neopan (@ box 1600)
Ilford Delta (@ box 3200)

Now, what single developer should I use for this combination... I'm an amateur and really want to avoid the complication of 2 developers, if there is a reasonable way to avoid it. Since I scan, I am looking for a fine grain developer, and I do like good acutance.

I thought about Prescysol EF, but then I heard that it doesn't work well with Neopan 1600. Also, my local shop actually sells Ilford developer and I'm never around to receive parcels.

So, is Ilford developer a good option? What would some experienced users here recommend?

Thanks in advance for some input!!!

Best, JP

 

[Austerby]

DD-X and ID11 both fully capable for these - ID11 is a lot less expensive and don't be put off by having to mix it from a powder, it's very easy. Best thing would be to get a 1l package of ID11 and use it to see. When that's run out then try DD-X.

If the full range is available then try the rest of the range too - LC29 and Ilfosol 3 are both good for slower speed films.

Full details and technical information on Ilford's website.

 

[Rhodes]

If the full range is available then try the rest of the range too - LC29 and Ilfosol 3 are both good for slower speed films.

Full details and technical information on Ilford's website.

Yes, I bought Ilfosol 3 (thinking of S, but that another thing) to develop ilford fp4+ since I have a bulk film of that kind and saturday I use in one 120 fp4+ film and like the resault!

I also used t-max with this film and also like what I got!

 

[Roger Hicks]

All developers are a compromise on speed, grain, sharpness and tonality. Fine grain developers cut speed. Speed increasing developers give bigger grain. Surprise! The same film -- FP4 Plus, for example -- can range from true ISO 80 or less in fine grain devs to nearly 200 in (say) DD-X or Microphen. By 'true ISO' I mean meeting ISO standards for shadow detail and contrast.

'Compensating' developers necessarily compress the mid-tones and 'acutance' or high-sharpness developers normally increase grain size. Take what you want, and pay for it, saieth the Lord!

'Pulling' is often meaningless: simple overexposure is a better bet in many case, from the point of view of tonality, though underexposure = finer grain and better sharpness.

Increasingly, I base dev choice and EI on tonality. After that, it's convenience and shelf life. Personally I like DD-X for most films. You might care to look at a module on my site about dev choice: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps neg development 1.html. Or you might not.

For scanning, I'd back Ilford XP2 Super every time, preferably home- or professionally-processed in the interests of a decent wash (instead of just stablization). Dye image = no grain aliasing.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Turtle]

ID11 has fair speed but is well short of Xtol 1+X and DDX (in my experience 1/2-2/3 stop). I personally would not recommend Neopan 1600 at anything more than 800 and D3200 at more than 1600 in DDX/Xtol unless you are prepared to lose shadow speed as both have true speeds well under their box speed. DDX/XTOL will give more speed and shadow detail than ID11/D76 for sure. No need to pull FP4+ in DDX if you like the grain and tonality. If you want ultra fine grain, try Delta 100 which makes good speed in either dev and has tiny grain and great sharpness.

 

[Uncle Bill]

If you really want to shoot Neopan @ 1600, I would say Ilford ID11, which is pretty much the same as Kodak D-76. XTol may work as well, but I haven't tried it ... Bill may have something to contribute on that.

I stopped using Delta 3200 when I started pushing Tri-x to 3200 and two hour stand develop in Rodinal 1:100. However, it has been my experience with Xtol 1+1 you do get a bit of a speed bump.

 

[JPSuisse]

OK, all you helpful RFFs! That was really a lot of good advice. After mulling it over, I'm going to try to use DD-X.

I should get my developing cannisters next week some time, so let's see what happens.

Thanks a lot for all the help. I'll post some shots with the first results.

JP

@ Roger Hicks --> I really liked the tutorial on your website. Thanks!

 

[Trius]

Wait, wait!!! We haven't fully discussed HC-110 yet! 😀 😀 😀

 

[degruyl]

Wait, wait!!! We haven't fully discussed HC-110 yet! 😀 😀 😀

Feel free, I'm interested. I have never used it.

As for the stuff above: I use TMax dev for TMax (and PTMax) and D-76 or Microdol for everything non-t-grained.

I use microdol if I want to fuzz up and smooth out the results. For nudes and portraits. It is a low acutance and low grain developer.