Moving to Ilfosol 3 from HC:110, (18 months on).....

[John Bragg]

It has been 18 months since curiosity got the better of me, when I heard that HC:110 was to change formula. I though "Holy crap ! Time to find something else. I had used Ilfosol S previously and had good results, as long as the stuff was kept airtight in full bottles. I felt that it had an undeserved bad rep, but the longevity issues were like Xtol. When it failed it was a complete and sudden failure. Fast forward 15 years and.I thought, time to try the improved version. I duely ordered a 500ml bottle and set to finding dev times for me. I nailed it first go with 6 minutes @20°c. A complete SWAG (scientific wild arsed guess) and haven't changed since. The chief things I look for in a dev are that it must play nice with minimal agitation and it must be easy to use with crisp grain and good microcontrast and sharpness. Ilfosol 3 ticks all those boxes and also gives great tonality, espescially in skintones. Does anyone else enjoy using this brew ?

Lian Portrait by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr


Kids Play 1 by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr


Vivienne Portrait by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr


The Quiet Man by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr

 

[robert blu]

I used Ilfosol 3 as my main developer.

This is Ilford Delta 100

Sorry I have not a larger version around.

 

[Calzone]

These results look great.

Hmmm...

Cal

 

[John Bragg]

I used Ilfosol 3 as my main developer.
This is Ilford Delta 100

Sorry I have not a larger version around.

Nice pic Robert

 

[Highway 61]

Ilfosol 3 ticks all those boxes and also gives great tonality, espescially in skintones.

Not to stir things up, but the first picture shows lacks of detail (hence, much scanning noise) in the shadows, and blown out highlights, both at the same time : there is something wrong.
Hard to tell without having the negative in hands over a luminous board, and, moreover, without knowing what film it is, and at which ASA setting it got exposed.
Could also be the scanner, and the film scanning method.

 

[John Bragg]

Not to stir things up, but the first picture shows lacks of detail (hence, much scanning noise) in the shadows, and blown out highlights, both at the same time : there is something wrong.
Hard to tell without having the negative in hands over a luminous board, and, moreover, without knowing what film it is, and at which ASA setting it got exposed.
Could also be the scanner, and the film scanning method.

Film is HP5+ and the scan is true to the lighting at the time. Bright late evening sunshine from a window. That isn't noise in the shadows, it is texture in the leather chair she is on.
Thanks for your opinion though.

 

[Doug A]

After talking about developers with a friend who uses Ilfosol 3 and comparing his prints with mine we have come to the conclusion that Ilfosol 3 is the Anti-Rodinal. If you love Rodinal it is likely that you will not like Ilfosol 3, and vice versa. YMMV.

 

[John Bragg]

After talking about developers with a friend who uses Ilfosol 3 and comparing his prints with mine we have come to the conclusion that Ilfosol 3 is the Anti-Rodinal. If you love Rodinal it is likely that you will not like Ilfosol 3, and vice versa. YMMV.

That makes sense as Ilford claim it replaces Xtol