Tammo
I’m having a bit of a problem with the development time for ADOX 400 Pro (supposed to be HP5). When I expose the film at 320 ISO and then develop it for 11 or 12 minutes in D-76, the negatives come out very soft. I’ve ruled out exposure errors, as I get good results with other films. Does anyone perhaps have any experience with this film and D-76?
Gast
Tammo,
It’s HP 5; otherwise, it would say something like ‘genuine classic original ADOX reportage film, just like in the 1960s, with great tonal range’.
What were the other films you had no problems with? Was there an HP 5 among them?
As a high-speed film, the HP 5 is naturally a bit softer.
If you used ID-11 times, you’ll need to add a little extra time for D76.
Roland
Tammo
My go-to film is usually TriX developed in D-76. So I used the development times specified by Ilford in the data sheet (11 mins). As the negatives turned out too soft after a while, I tried 12 mins, but they’re still too soft. I’d therefore be interested in some suggested development times.
cfb_de
Hi Tammo,
Let’s start with the key question. Have you tried printing yet? What were the results? Were the negatives underdeveloped, too soft, or even subject to underexposure?
If so, you already know the answer to your question. I’d say 320 ISO is already slightly subject to underexposure for HP5+. For me, it works best between 200 and 250 ASA (HRX-II, ID-11); in Rodinal with a slight push to 400, anything above that gets a bit too intense. But it also depends on the light meter: modern gadgets, optimised for colour film with >1 measuring points, sometimes do things you really don’t want with a black-and-white film.
But a lot of what doesn’t look ‘nice’ on the negative can be enlarged perfectly. Negatives that look too ‘soft’ usually even come out spot on at grade 2, with great tonal range and shadow detail... That’s what some people dream of.
Best regards,
Franz
Tammo
So far, I’ve only made prints from HP5 that was developed for 11 minutes. The result was that I still ended up with prints that were too soft at size 4. Does HP5 tend to produce negatives that look rather soft? With TriX, they’re always beautifully high-contrast. What about push processing times? I’ve actually been hoping to get around 400 ISO.
cfb_de
Hi Tammo,
The result was that I was still getting prints that were too soft at size 4.
Then the film is either subjected to underexposure or underdevelopment. What does the edge exposure look like? Nice and black? Then it would be subjected to underexposure.
How do you agitate? Ilford recommends the following: four times in the first ten seconds, then the first ten seconds of every minute.
Does HP5 tend to produce rather soft-looking negatives?
Not really.
What about push processing times?
I can only help you with times for Rodinal 1+50 (Agfa agitation: continuously for the first minute, then once every 30 seconds): 400 ASA at around 12–13 minutes, 800 ASA at 17–18 minutes. You get that ‘reportage look’ with crisp grain using Rodinal 1+25, Ilford agitation, 800 ASA and 8 minutes. I agitate quite vigorously.
Best regards,
Franz
Tammo
What do the edges look like? Nice and black?
It turns out better with my TriX.
How do you develop it?
Continuously for the first minute, then every 30 seconds for three seconds.
So one or two negatives might be slightly (1/2 stop) underexposed, but it’s unlikely that the whole roll was exposed incorrectly. As I said, I haven’t had any problems with other films (APX100, TriX, FP4, T-Max100 + 400).
Gast
Tammo,
Why don’t you post a photo? Then we might be able to make out more.
What one person finds too soft, another might think is fine, and so on.
You said you haven’t had any problems with other films, so I’m surprised by your HP 5 result.
Just conduct development for 30% longer (a single strip will do; it doesn’t have to be a whole roll) than is correct for ID 11 if you’re using D76; D76 is less efficient.
Lacklustre negatives can also result from overexposure (I only mention this because the prevailing view is that this only happens with underexposure and underdevelopment), as the curve flattens out towards Dmax.
I tend to find HP 5 rather soft, Franz doesn’t; that’s partly down to the developer (I don’t know of any film that can’t be developed with high contrast in Rodinal 1+25).
Roland
Gast
Addendum: Extend by 30% and perform exposure at 27 DIN
Tammo
I can’t show you any photos, as I’ve already thrown them all away. I’m going to give a 30 per cent extension a go. Does anyone have any experience with this combination? It’s not exactly anything out of the ordinary, is it? :unsure:
heinrich
Hello,
How much developer did you use per roll of film? With D76, you need around 250ml of stock solution per roll of 35mm film, which means a total of 500ml for a 1+1 dilution. ID11, on the other hand, only requires 100ml of stock solution. I made exactly this mistake at the start and began with 100ml of D76 per 35mm film. The result was very soft negatives, only printable at gradient 4 or 5. The film I used at the time was HP5.
Best regards,
Heinrich
Tammo
I’ve never heard of that before. I always use 150 ml of stock solution. How on earth are you supposed to develop two films at the same time? :unsure:
cfb_de
So how are you supposed to develop two films at the same time?
In a development tank that’s big enough.
huehnerhose
Hello,
I’ve got exactly the same problem :unsure: With D76 and Ilford, the negatives come out very, very soft even when I follow the recommended development times, but the same thing happens with Neopan 400 and 1600, which I’ve all developed in D76 – what’s the deal with this minimum amount of developer? Can you give me an explanation somehow, or a link/search term to find an explanation?
Regards,
Sebastian
Edit: I’d almost rule out underexposure with my negatives, as I used a flash for all of them and the flash tends to cause overexposure.
cfb_de
Hi Sebastian,
To put it very simply: during development, the silver in the image is reduced (strictly speaking, this process is catalytically enhanced where physical reduction has already taken place: the latent image) and the developer oxidises. After that, it’s gone and is no longer available.
That’s why there should be enough developer in the tank to ensure there’s sufficient supply right through to the end of the development process. Otherwise, at some point nothing will develop in the tank anymore.
This is precisely what determines the minimum quantity, which manufacturers round up with a degree of tolerance (for Rodinal, 10ml is recommended as far as I know, but five is enough for some lab technicians).
Best regards,
Franz
huehnerhose
Hi Franz,
Thanks for the explanation. So basically, if I want to use D76, I might as well use it 'straight', because for 300ml of 1+1 developer I’d have to mix up 500ml... what a pain
Do the manufacturers at least specify the quantities? (Agfa seems to do/have done so)
Regards
Sebastian
heinrich
Hello,
With ID11, the capacity is stated on the packaging (10 films/1 litre of stock solution = 100 ml per film); with Kodak, you need to download and read the relevant ‘Technical Data Sheet’.
D76 can be found at www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.pdf
Best regards,
Heinrich
