TimSmith-Laing
Established
Hi guys, really need some advice here. I'm pretty new to developing, and find the choice of developers 1 overwhelming, 2 confusing. So I just lumped for some perceptol and crossed my fingers. Ilfosol 3 was fine, but I thought I'd try something new. This time though, I'm looking for expert opinions before I start. And this is my place for those.
I'm just about to try some films in my first batch of perceptol. I have some Acros 100 and Tri-x 400 waiting to be developed, all shot at the box ISO.
Now, the massive dev chart turns out to be not so massive for acros 100. It gives 16 mins at 1+2 and 24 degrees c. Does anyone have experience of this and its results?
I found a post elsewhere bu Sal Santamura - who seems to know exactly what he's about - suggesting 1+3, 18mins 45s, 20 deg c. Now, anyone willing to specify dev times down to a quarter min has me believing in their expertise; amirite? Thought I'd give this a go. What do you reckon?
For the Tri-x, I only find dev times for 320asa. More fool me, maybe, but I shot it at 400. Will this make a substantial difference? The time on the massive dev chart is 1+3, 16mins, 20 deg c.
So what do you reckon?
Also, I've just picked up some fomapan 200. I'm planning to try it at either 125 or 160 and develop accordingly. Tips please!
Tim
I'm just about to try some films in my first batch of perceptol. I have some Acros 100 and Tri-x 400 waiting to be developed, all shot at the box ISO.
Now, the massive dev chart turns out to be not so massive for acros 100. It gives 16 mins at 1+2 and 24 degrees c. Does anyone have experience of this and its results?
I found a post elsewhere bu Sal Santamura - who seems to know exactly what he's about - suggesting 1+3, 18mins 45s, 20 deg c. Now, anyone willing to specify dev times down to a quarter min has me believing in their expertise; amirite? Thought I'd give this a go. What do you reckon?
For the Tri-x, I only find dev times for 320asa. More fool me, maybe, but I shot it at 400. Will this make a substantial difference? The time on the massive dev chart is 1+3, 16mins, 20 deg c.
So what do you reckon?
Also, I've just picked up some fomapan 200. I'm planning to try it at either 125 or 160 and develop accordingly. Tips please!
Tim
charjohncarter
Veteran
You will get differing advice, but you should, IMHO, read up on perceptol. Set an approximate EI(ISO) for the film you intend to use. Shoot a roll, and develop it by the manufacturer's recommendation. See what you have, be sure to check for shadows and highlights: too much, too little. Then adjust your development time OR your EI, not both at the same time.
One trick that I do is in a roll shoot one with the lens cap on, then focus to infinity and shoot one framed on a gray card but 4 stops below meter reading (aperture closed). Shoot one at meter reading and then 4 stops over and one 5 stops over. I think that is five frames (?). when they are developed you should, looking at the negatives, be able to see a difference between all frames. (The most transparent frames are to hardest to check.)
One trick that I do is in a roll shoot one with the lens cap on, then focus to infinity and shoot one framed on a gray card but 4 stops below meter reading (aperture closed). Shoot one at meter reading and then 4 stops over and one 5 stops over. I think that is five frames (?). when they are developed you should, looking at the negatives, be able to see a difference between all frames. (The most transparent frames are to hardest to check.)
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Tim, Perceptol is an uncommon developer, used when a photographer has special requirements. If you are new to the game, I'd advise D-76 or similar to begin with. Experimenting with different soups is pointless, I think, unless it is done for specific purposes.
jaykuhlmann
Member
Tim, I often use Perceptol and find it to be an excellent all-purpose developer. I don't shoot much Acros, but for TX 400, try 1:2, 75 degrees for 12 minutes (EI 320). The Damascus photos on my website (www.jaykuhlmann.com) are TMY in Perceptol processed as above. TX results have been very similar, but with a bit more grain. Good luck.
TimSmith-Laing
Established
Jay, those are fantastic shots, wow!
I'll try the Tx as you suggest. Can I ask a novice question though? When you and John say develop at EI 320, what if I shot at 400 (which I did)?
Tim
I'll try the Tx as you suggest. Can I ask a novice question though? When you and John say develop at EI 320, what if I shot at 400 (which I did)?
Tim
charjohncarter
Veteran
Nothing wrong with 400, I just choose to shoot it at a lower EI(ISO). Shoot whatever you like, but be consistent enough though the complete process to be able to evaluate your one at a time changes.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Tim,
Ilford put out comprehensive data sheets on all their products which you can find on the internet. They list suggested times for other brands of film too. (Kodak don't!)
Perceptol is a specialty fine grain developer which isn't commonly used but the offset is a decrease in effective film speed so you have to give slightly longer exposures - hence the 320/400 issue. For Fuji Acros shot at 100 they recommend 12min 30sec in Perceptol at stock strength (i.e. undiluted) and 20C. By way of comparison, ID-11 at stock strength is 6m45s.
Ilford don't give times for either HP5 or TriX in Perceptol at 400, which probably means they don't recommend it! They do give 18 mins for HP5+ exposed at 320 in Perceptol 1+1.
So you've probably not made the best choice of developer at the moment. I'd suggest putting the packet aside until you are ready to expose a film according to recommendations to test it out and meantime get some ID-11 or Kodak D-76 (which are roughly equivalent) - or even go back to Ilfosol. It's all I used for several years and is a very convenient one-shot liquid developer.
As for the film you've exposed at 400, well if you think about it if you'd exposed it at 320 it would actually have a little more exposure than you've given it. To some extent that can be overcome by extending the development time recommended for 400 a little, but don't overdo it because extended development tends to increase contrast more than increase detail so I'd give no more than an extra 5-6% time.
There's apparently some mystery around the Foma emulsions. Some people have suggested that they are almost the same, just re-rated and with development times adjusted accordingly. But I don't know if that means it's a 200 speed emulsion downrated for 100 or vice versa. I also don't know if that information is correct.
Foma give 5-6 mins for their 200 film in stock ID-11 and 8-9 mins for ID-11 at 1+1. Those times look too short to me, compared with other film data from Ilford. Ilford FP4+ is box-rated at 125 but many say it's really a 100 emulsion. The times Ilford give for FP4+ when rated at 200 in ID-11 are 10 min and 15min for stock and 1+1. So for a first Foma 200 film I'd probably go for the midpoint between the two - say 8 mins or 12 mins. Either way you should get a printable negative and if you bracket your shots (one stop more, one stop less) you'll soon get a hold on what speed you need to shoot at.
Having decided that, you can play around with development times on future films until you get a combination you like.
In the end, the only way you'll figure out what suits you is to try different combinations but the fewer variables you have to contend with the sooner you'll get some clarity. I'd recommend that you choose a general purpose developer (liquid or powder) and leave the Perceptol/Microphen ones alone for now. Until you find out otherwise, stick to the manufacturers processing recommendations and adjust your exposures to suit. Once you've taken several rolls of the SAME film with bracketed exposures, and developed them all the same way you'll start to see some options.
Ilford put out comprehensive data sheets on all their products which you can find on the internet. They list suggested times for other brands of film too. (Kodak don't!)
Perceptol is a specialty fine grain developer which isn't commonly used but the offset is a decrease in effective film speed so you have to give slightly longer exposures - hence the 320/400 issue. For Fuji Acros shot at 100 they recommend 12min 30sec in Perceptol at stock strength (i.e. undiluted) and 20C. By way of comparison, ID-11 at stock strength is 6m45s.
Ilford don't give times for either HP5 or TriX in Perceptol at 400, which probably means they don't recommend it! They do give 18 mins for HP5+ exposed at 320 in Perceptol 1+1.
So you've probably not made the best choice of developer at the moment. I'd suggest putting the packet aside until you are ready to expose a film according to recommendations to test it out and meantime get some ID-11 or Kodak D-76 (which are roughly equivalent) - or even go back to Ilfosol. It's all I used for several years and is a very convenient one-shot liquid developer.
As for the film you've exposed at 400, well if you think about it if you'd exposed it at 320 it would actually have a little more exposure than you've given it. To some extent that can be overcome by extending the development time recommended for 400 a little, but don't overdo it because extended development tends to increase contrast more than increase detail so I'd give no more than an extra 5-6% time.
There's apparently some mystery around the Foma emulsions. Some people have suggested that they are almost the same, just re-rated and with development times adjusted accordingly. But I don't know if that means it's a 200 speed emulsion downrated for 100 or vice versa. I also don't know if that information is correct.
Foma give 5-6 mins for their 200 film in stock ID-11 and 8-9 mins for ID-11 at 1+1. Those times look too short to me, compared with other film data from Ilford. Ilford FP4+ is box-rated at 125 but many say it's really a 100 emulsion. The times Ilford give for FP4+ when rated at 200 in ID-11 are 10 min and 15min for stock and 1+1. So for a first Foma 200 film I'd probably go for the midpoint between the two - say 8 mins or 12 mins. Either way you should get a printable negative and if you bracket your shots (one stop more, one stop less) you'll soon get a hold on what speed you need to shoot at.
Having decided that, you can play around with development times on future films until you get a combination you like.
In the end, the only way you'll figure out what suits you is to try different combinations but the fewer variables you have to contend with the sooner you'll get some clarity. I'd recommend that you choose a general purpose developer (liquid or powder) and leave the Perceptol/Microphen ones alone for now. Until you find out otherwise, stick to the manufacturers processing recommendations and adjust your exposures to suit. Once you've taken several rolls of the SAME film with bracketed exposures, and developed them all the same way you'll start to see some options.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Tim,
If anyone specifies a developing time of nearly 20 minutes to the nearest quarter-minute, it argues rather strongly that actually, he doesn't know what he's talking about. This is less than a 2% variation, well inside experimental error. In your situation I'd try 20 minutes, and if that's too contrasty for you, reduce dev times by 1 minute for each subjequent film until you get what you like. You might find that you eventually develop to the nearest half-minute, but a quarter-minute is false precision, even with a finicky film such as Acros.
Far more important is the fact that Acros only tops 100 in speed-increasing developers, and that in Perceptol you'll be lucky to see 64; 50 is likelier.
Likewise, Fomapan is effectively identical in speed to FP4 Plus, i.e. it gets in sight of 200 in Microphen but never reaches it. Not just my tests but also Ilford's and indeed Foma's own spec. sheets. In Perceptol I'd reckon that 80 is the likeliest bet. The apparently very short dev times are because the emulsion is loaded with development accelerators (as is Fuji Neopan 1600, incidentally).
You might care to look at http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps neg development 1.html for both theoretical and practical information on developer choice and development technique.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
FP4+ @ box speed - Perceptol - 15mins.1+1
Dave.
Dave.
Last edited:
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
FP4+ (box speed) Perceptol 1+1 - 15mins. (Nikkormat FT2 Tamron 24mm f2.5)
Dave.
Dave.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Foma 200 in Perceptol @ box speed - sorry can't remember the time! 
Dave.
Dave.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Foma 200 in Perceptol @ box speed - sorry can't remember the time!
Dave.
Dear Dave,
Lovely shot, but all the important stuff is in the highlights or mid-tones, so how much would it be harmed by 1 stop under?
Cheersm
R/
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
You are right, of course Roger! - and the shots were posted to show that Perceptol at 'box speed' was viable, not from a belief of any special advantage. The sad fact is - Perceptol ( and occasionally ID11 ) are about all I can buy off the shelf, these days!. Rodinal was my staple diet for years - mainly because of the amazing longevity, once opened!, it's still available by mail order, but some such suppliers have a quite large minimum order rule, which - being a pensioner, and 'tight' Yorkshireman, I usually object to on principal!.
Cheers, Dave.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Dave,
And beautifully demonstrated! But how much would your pics have suffered from +1 stop? Not much, I think: slightly bigger grain, slightly reduced sharpness, which you'd never see on the internet, nor for that matter worry about in a 'real' print. If anyone notices the technical shortcomings in a pic then either (a) the aesthetic shortcomings are greater than the technical or (b) they have no awareness of aesthetics.
Indeed you can have too much shadow speed. I just scanned a tranny which had rather more detail than I needed in the shadows. But I'd rather throw away detail I don't need than scrabble for detail that I do need...
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
TimSmith-Laing
Established
Roger and Leigh, that's great advice; thanks so much. Leigh, I suspect you're right. I have a run before walk mentality...and I think the darkroom is definitely not the right place for it.
For now, I might save the perceptol and go with ID-11. Maybe I'll save the perceptol for the neopan 1600 i have sitting around...or even some 3200 shot at 1600.
I think I really have to start shooting and developing much more consistently. At the moment I only develop extremely sporadically, when I have a bunch of exposed films and plenty of time. An early new year's resolution.
Roger, I should say I've spent many hours browsing your site. It's an amazing resource, for which I'm very grateful. Thank you! That and I'm a regular reader of your posts here, of course.
Dave, those are great shots. Like the tonality too, but for the moment I think I'll try a more standard developer.
Will post some scans and a verdict on the Fomapan soon!
Thanks guys...
For now, I might save the perceptol and go with ID-11. Maybe I'll save the perceptol for the neopan 1600 i have sitting around...or even some 3200 shot at 1600.
I think I really have to start shooting and developing much more consistently. At the moment I only develop extremely sporadically, when I have a bunch of exposed films and plenty of time. An early new year's resolution.
Roger, I should say I've spent many hours browsing your site. It's an amazing resource, for which I'm very grateful. Thank you! That and I'm a regular reader of your posts here, of course.
Dave, those are great shots. Like the tonality too, but for the moment I think I'll try a more standard developer.
Will post some scans and a verdict on the Fomapan soon!
Thanks guys...
TimSmith-Laing
Established
Ha, Dave jut saw that last shot.Stunning!
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Thanks Tim.....just reminded me why that lens - the Nikkor 105mm f2.5 ( Sonnar type ) Is my favourite!
Dave.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Perceptol is great stuff. I use it 1+2 at 23 degrees Celcius. TriX rated at 320 ISO 9 minutes. Tmax400 rated 320 ISO 10 minutes. Fine grain, beautiful tones. Shake your tank every 30 seconds.
This shot is on TriX.
Erik.
This shot is on TriX.
Erik.
Last edited: