HansDerHase
Hello everyone,
I’m having a beginner’s problem with Emofin. I’m conducting the development of FP4 in Emofin for 4+4 minutes at 20.5°C. Including the time spent decanting, it comes to 8 minutes 30 seconds. As recommended, I turn the tank upside down every 3 seconds throughout the entire process – in other words, practically continuously. In short, I’m following Tetenal’s instructions to the letter. What I end up with are negatives that are probably too dense (the scanner’s light barely gets through) and have huge grain. Although at first (beginner’s?) glance and under a magnifying glass, they still look quite usable.
Now my question: Am I right in assuming that I’m overdeveloping?
Should I tilt the tank less aggressively? - However, I did get streaks in the negative when I once agitated a film just three times every minute.
Should I develop for a shorter time? - 4 minutes is already quite short. If it’s any shorter, it becomes difficult to control, doesn’t it?
Or is it perhaps due to something else entirely?
What development times and agitation regime are recommended here for FP4 in Emofin?
Thanks in advance and best regards,
Hans
Gast
Hi Hase,
Regarding the question: Yes! Developed over the norm. Because of the grain.
Regarding exposure: You’re aware that Emofin, by definition, is normally ‘over- or heavily developed’, but that this is limited in the highlights due to the consumption of the developer? Hence the ‘sensitivity-enhancing effect’.
Regarding tipping, I’m not entirely sure anymore, as it’s been ages since I last used a bottle of Emofin, but with Tetenal it always says suspiciously clearly/vaguely
Pour in Solution 1, tip
Pour in Solution 2 ------
Is it tipped in Solution 2 at all?
Regards
Martin
HansDerHase
In the meantime, I’ve had a bit of a look around online and came across the following regarding agitating the second bath:
>Tetenal replied to my email and said that you agitate the second bath in the same way as the first. They also >said that this doesn’t negate the compensation effect... So now I don’t know what to think.
>
> -- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), 1 October 2001.
Hmm, regarding the exposure: I think I exposed at somewhere between 100 and 200 (I expose using the Sunny-16 rule and if I’m not at all sure, I check with my Twinmate); besides, my Zorki is certainly not entirely accurate :-)
I’d best do a few tests. How about this:
Expose a roll cyclically at 50/100/200/400, then take four or five shots and develop them at 2.5+2.5 for 3 seconds, 3+3 for 3 seconds, 4+4 for 1 minute, 6+6 for 1 minute.
Does anyone have any other suggestions for the procedure or for the combinations?
Roman
Is there a specific reason why you want to use the combination of FP4+ and Emofin?
I’ll be honest, I just don’t like Emofin, but if I had to, I’d use it to push ‘fast’ films – but why Emofin? The stuff is expensive, not straightforward to use (as your experience shows), and in my opinion, the results aren’t exactly thrilling – why not just use Rodinal or ID11, both of which work brilliantly with FP4+?
Petzi
Large grain isn’t necessarily caused by the development process; it could also be what’s known as ‘wrinkle grain’, which can be caused by significant temperature fluctuations during processing. For example, using developer and fixer at room temperature, and then cold tap water for rinsing.
When developing film, it’s best to fill a container with a few litres of water at room temperature (always check) and use that for rinsing. I’ve always liked to use a method that I believe was recommended by Ilford: fill a container with water and swirl it five times, empty it, fill it again and swirl it ten times, empty it, fill it again and swirl it twenty times. To be absolutely sure, I usually do one more cycle. This way, you only need a few litres of water, which you can easily bring to the right temperature.
Roman
Well, wrinkled grain does look quite different from coarse grain; it’s more of a mosaic-like pattern...
Roman
cfb_de
Hmm. I once went to great lengths to try and achieve the much-vaunted ‘cold-water’ technique using films far more sensitive than the run-of-the-mill FP4 – specifically older, less-coated R50s with a coarse grain.
No such luck; it just doesn’t work that easily. If the fixer is at 20°C and the water running from the tap is only 6°C, nothing happens.
With a fixer bath temperature of 30°C and washing at around 2°C, it worked. At the cost of losing the emulsion at the film edges.
A 14°C difference wasn’t enough for me to get a wrinkled grain effect, but a 28°C difference did the trick.
In a normal black-and-white process, I consider a 28°C temperature difference to be virtually impossible, and a range of 14–20°C difference achievable only with the coldest, freshly drawn spring water in winter.
Best regards,
Franz
Wolf_XL
...I used the Emofin and FP4 combination as my standard setup several years ago. Back then, that combination easily delivered 400 ISO. I reckon it’s probably no different today – so your film, with its 100–200 ISO, is likely subject to overexposure. The ‘monster grain’ also points to that...
HansDerHase
Thanks in advance for the tips.
I’d rule out grain etching, as I use Ilford washing solution and leave all the liquids I use to reach the right temperature in the same place for a few hours beforehand.
I’m using Emofin for FP4 simply because that’s what I have at the moment (actually intended for Neopan 400). I got the FP4 cheaply (no, it hasn’t gone off). I also read somewhere that FP4 and Emofin actually go together quite well – or was it FP4 and Diafine?
Kind regards,
Hans
HansDerHase
...I used the Emofin and FP4 combination as my standard setup several years ago. Back then, that combination easily delivered 400 ISO. I reckon it’s probably no different today – so your film, with its 100–200 ISO, is likely subject to overexposure. The ‘monster grain’ also points to that...
[right][post="7624"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]
Does anyone know if you can tell the difference between over-development and overexposure when looking at the negative? (Only a magnifying glass is allowed as a technical aid!)
Kind regards,
Bernd
Wolf_XL
...it’s not always possible to tell the difference with absolute certainty. However, the best way to tell is to look for a pattern in the shadows. If the film is over-developed, it will generally appear quite steep, yet the shadows will still lack definition – which makes sense, because where there is nothing, even extended development cannot conjure anything up. An overexposed film looks very dense but low in contrast. That makes sense too, as the highlights can’t get any blacker than black... On the other hand, the shadows are usually very well defined and rich in detail.
Wolfgg
Overdevelopment: The margin markings (image numbers, film designation) have higher density than during normal development.
Best regards, Wolfgang
HansDerHase
I’ve now developed several exposure series and lo and behold:
I had significantly over-developed the film using the manufacturer’s recommended 4+4 × 3 sec. agitation. I get a negative that scans well at 2.5+2.5 × 3 sec. agitation when I expose FP4+ at ISO 200. ISO 400 works fine too. At 3.5+3.5 × 3 sec. tilt, the negatives are already too dense for scanning.
I also get good results at 3.5+3.5 × 1 min. tilt.
In other words, manufacturer’s settings vs. mine =
4+4 vs. 2.5+2.5
or
6+6 vs. 3.5+3.5
Can anyone explain why ‘I’ deviate so significantly from the manufacturer’s specifications?
Kind regards,
Bernd
FrankJBeckmann
Hi Osterha – er – Bernd,
There’s no need to post your question here more than once.
