Pushed film for the first time...

**lithedreamer** · 12-23-2016, 08:21 PM - **1 Like**

Everything turned out!

**Alex645** · 12-23-2016, 10:06 PM

Kudos! Iʻve shot many different emulsions but never Neopan. Was there a specific reason you chose to push Acros 100 to 200? What developer did you use?

**lithedreamer** · 12-23-2016, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Alex645

Kudos! Iʻve shot many different emulsions but never Neopan. Was there a specific reason you chose to push Acros 100 to 200? What developer did you use?

Thanks! I bought the film in summer, but it's been getting darker whenever I shoot, so the extra stop of light helped. Last round of film was all Kodak, so this time I decided to do all Illford (DD-X). 14 minute develop time, 10 second stop bath, 3 minute fixer, 10 minute distilled water bath.

I've never worked with dilution-based chemicals before, so I wanted to trial with this film before I developed those professional wedding photos I shot on HP5+.

wombat2go · 12-23-2016, 11:55 PM

I only use Microphen and the multi-lingual check lists for development , I think must have been designed by a convoluted math guy who probably
takes delight in all the pain felt by us poor guys trying to follow it.

By the way, I always get very good results with Microphen with HP5+, and I have used FP4 and HP5 since 1985 or so.

**lithedreamer** · 12-24-2016, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by wombat2go

I only use Microphen and the multi-lingual check lists for development , I think must have been designed by a convoluted math guy who probably
takes delight in all the pain felt by us poor guys trying to follow it.

By the way, I always get very good results with Microphen with HP5+, and I have used FP4 and HP5 since 1985 or so.

Hmm. What made you choose Microphen?

wombat2go · 12-24-2016, 12:32 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by lithedreamer

Hmm. What made you choose Microphen?

I forgot as it was a long time ago !
My plan with b/w /// C41 is to stay with Ilford microphen and/// Digibase C41 as long as possible.
Home developing is tough and time consuming and I strictly follow the instructions/past good results/ as far as possible.
I keep a log in the day book and write in all ...problems / variations/ observations

!! Bon Chance ! with your b/w photos ,
Regards!

Jonathan Mac · 12-24-2016, 02:26 AM

Acros is not most people's first choice for pushing but I have read that it can be done without any problems, so not sure why it's not regarded as a "pusher".

pathdoc · 12-24-2016, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by lithedreamer

14 minute develop time, 10 second stop bath, 3 minute fixer, 10 minute distilled water bath.

Do you agitate the distilled water (e.g. as per the developing phase), simply immerse ("stand rinse", as it were), or recirculate it somehow?

(Which reminds me, I should try pushing a pack of Tmax 400 soon and see what happens.)

**Alex645** · 12-24-2016, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by lithedreamer

Thanks! I bought the film in summer, but it's been getting darker whenever I shoot, so the extra stop of light helped. Last round of film was all Kodak, so this time I decided to do all Illford (DD-X). 14 minute develop time, 10 second stop bath, 3 minute fixer, 10 minute distilled water bath.

I've never worked with dilution-based chemicals before, so I wanted to trial with this film before I developed those professional wedding photos I shot on HP5+.

For years I just used Kodak D-76, but then tried ID-11 and ended up with Kodak XTol. DD-X is probably my favorite, but itʻs a bit pricier and seems best suited for Ilford Delta films, whereas the XTol has been the best compromise when using many different emulsions.

**lithedreamer** · 12-24-2016, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by pathdoc

Do you agitate the distilled water (e.g. as per the developing phase), simply immerse ("stand rinse", as it were), or recirculate it somehow?

(Which reminds me, I should try pushing a pack of Tmax 400 soon and see what happens.)

I agitated for about 30 seconds at the start of every step, then for 15 seconds every minute after that.

Push, push, push!

---------- Post added 12-24-16 at 09:47 AM ----------

Originally posted by Alex645

For years I just used Kodak D-76, but then tried ID-11 and ended up with Kodak XTol. DD-X is probably my favorite, but itʻs a bit pricier and seems best suited for Ilford Delta films, whereas the XTol has been the best compromise when using many different emulsions.

Interesting. What differences does the developer make?

**Alex645** · 12-24-2016, 01:12 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by lithedreamer

Interesting. What differences does the developer make?

Other than price, speed of developing, ease of prep, and shelf life, the main differences are in the shadow detail, grain, and acutance or sharpness.

For my school lab, Iʻve been using XTol because it has a good balance of all of the above, but is a compromise on all as well. For example D-76 is cheaper, but XTol doesnʻt require the very hot water for prep. Diafine is better than XTol for contrast, grain, and sharpness, but has a much slower developing time, etc.

Tons of articles online about this. Here are a few:

Choosing a B&W Film Developer | La Vida Leica!

How to Choose A Black and White Film Developer | Analog Film Photography

Nothing beats your own trial and error experience, but Iʻve found that D-76 or ID-11 are the least expensive general use for many different film stocks. At a higher price, XTol and Perceptol is a significant notch above. If youʻre shooting specific films, then specific developers are better such as Tmax developer for Tmax films and DD-X for Delta films.

Ilford presently makes 11 different B&W film developers simply because each one has a different characteristic that photographers need or desire.

Welcome to ILFORD PHOTO

And then youʻve got your Diafine/Acufine and other branded enthusiasts.....

Lots of variables which includes the film youʻre using, the process, and what results youʻre after.

**ChrisPlatt** · 12-24-2016, 04:07 PM

No developer is economical if you are throwing away half of the stock solution unused due to oxidation.
At home I develop only occasionally and find concentrated syrup-type developers with long shelf-life
like HC110, Rodinal and their clones to be the only reliable and economical alternatives.

Chris

**lithedreamer** · 01-05-2017, 08:59 PM

Here's one of the shots that came from this roll that I'm happiest with,

pathdoc · 01-06-2017, 04:59 AM - **1 Like**

It's good in the foreground, very grainy towards the mountains. That being said, most of my unpushed work isn't any better, so I am merely offering comment, not judging harshly!

My current roll is in a P3 and can't be pushed (Dx coding only, no EV offset), but the one after? We shall see.

tuco · 01-18-2017, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by lithedreamer

... I decided to do all Illford (DD-X). 14 minute develop time, 10 second stop bath, 3 minute fixer, 10 minute distilled water bath.

Originally posted by lithedreamer

I agitated for about 30 seconds at the start of every step, then for 15 seconds every minute after that.

Some general film developing information. Ilford's published development times in their DD-X Data Sheet for a given exposure index rating is a function of how they agitated the film. If you use a significantly different agitation profile then what they used to establish a rated exposure index, you can expect to get different results.

That is, if you agitate the film more than what Ilford did ( eg more inversions in shorter period of time) , then you can expect the film to speed up and get more of a push processing effect even though you used the same development time. Similarly, a slower film speed results if you agitated it less then they did. You can compensate for that agitation profile by adjusting the development time within a range that's not too extreme. But that means you're establishing your own development time.

And per the DD-X data sheet under the Manual Processing Spiral Tanks, they say to invert the tank 4 times within 10 seconds of each minute of development. It's a good idea to read the data sheet for every chemical and film you use.

12-23-2016, 08:21 PM - 1 Like	#1
lithedreamer Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,799	Pushed film for the first time... Everything turned out! Pushing Fuji Acros to ISO 200

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Film only,,, for the time being!	shaneb	Welcomes and Introductions	13	09-29-2016 04:30 AM
Young Sparrow for the first time at the water	coyote	Monthly Photo Contests	11	07-13-2016 03:44 AM
How many have only recently started shooting film again, or for the first time? Why?	MD Optofonik	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	28	10-12-2014 12:40 PM
Newb question for a first time film user	MSM	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	13	08-11-2011 10:18 PM
Considering film for the first time...	R.ticle One	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	34	03-23-2008 11:14 PM

12-23-2016, 10:06 PM	#2
Alex645 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Kaneohe, HI Photos: Albums Posts: 3,526	Kudos! Iʻve shot many different emulsions but never Neopan. Was there a specific reason you chose to push Acros 100 to 200? What developer did you use?

12-23-2016, 11:10 PM	#3
lithedreamer Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,799 Original Poster	Originally posted by Alex645 Kudos! Iʻve shot many different emulsions but never Neopan. Was there a specific reason you chose to push Acros 100 to 200? What developer did you use? Thanks! I bought the film in summer, but it's been getting darker whenever I shoot, so the extra stop of light helped. Last round of film was all Kodak, so this time I decided to do all Illford (DD-X). 14 minute develop time, 10 second stop bath, 3 minute fixer, 10 minute distilled water bath. I've never worked with dilution-based chemicals before, so I wanted to trial with this film before I developed those professional wedding photos I shot on HP5+.

12-23-2016, 11:55 PM	#4
wombat2go Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	I only use Microphen and the multi-lingual check lists for development , I think must have been designed by a convoluted math guy who probably takes delight in all the pain felt by us poor guys trying to follow it. By the way, I always get very good results with Microphen with HP5+, and I have used FP4 and HP5 since 1985 or so.

12-24-2016, 12:04 AM	#5
lithedreamer Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,799 Original Poster	Originally posted by wombat2go I only use Microphen and the multi-lingual check lists for development , I think must have been designed by a convoluted math guy who probably takes delight in all the pain felt by us poor guys trying to follow it. By the way, I always get very good results with Microphen with HP5+, and I have used FP4 and HP5 since 1985 or so. Hmm. What made you choose Microphen?

12-24-2016, 12:32 AM - 1 Like	#6
wombat2go Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	Originally posted by lithedreamer Hmm. What made you choose Microphen? I forgot as it was a long time ago ! My plan with b/w /// C41 is to stay with Ilford microphen and/// Digibase C41 as long as possible. Home developing is tough and time consuming and I strictly follow the instructions/past good results/ as far as possible. I keep a log in the day book and write in all ...problems / variations/ observations !! Bon Chance ! with your b/w photos , Regards!

12-24-2016, 02:26 AM	#7
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,887	Acros is not most people's first choice for pushing but I have read that it can be done without any problems, so not sure why it's not regarded as a "pusher".

12-24-2016, 04:19 AM	#8
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by lithedreamer 14 minute develop time, 10 second stop bath, 3 minute fixer, 10 minute distilled water bath. Do you agitate the distilled water (e.g. as per the developing phase), simply immerse ("stand rinse", as it were), or recirculate it somehow? (Which reminds me, I should try pushing a pack of Tmax 400 soon and see what happens.)

12-24-2016, 04:31 AM	#9
Alex645 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Kaneohe, HI Photos: Albums Posts: 3,526	Originally posted by lithedreamer Thanks! I bought the film in summer, but it's been getting darker whenever I shoot, so the extra stop of light helped. Last round of film was all Kodak, so this time I decided to do all Illford (DD-X). 14 minute develop time, 10 second stop bath, 3 minute fixer, 10 minute distilled water bath. I've never worked with dilution-based chemicals before, so I wanted to trial with this film before I developed those professional wedding photos I shot on HP5+. For years I just used Kodak D-76, but then tried ID-11 and ended up with Kodak XTol. DD-X is probably my favorite, but itʻs a bit pricier and seems best suited for Ilford Delta films, whereas the XTol has been the best compromise when using many different emulsions.

12-24-2016, 10:45 AM	#10
lithedreamer Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,799 Original Poster	Originally posted by pathdoc Do you agitate the distilled water (e.g. as per the developing phase), simply immerse ("stand rinse", as it were), or recirculate it somehow? (Which reminds me, I should try pushing a pack of Tmax 400 soon and see what happens.) I agitated for about 30 seconds at the start of every step, then for 15 seconds every minute after that. Push, push, push! ---------- Post added 12-24-16 at 09:47 AM ---------- Originally posted by Alex645 For years I just used Kodak D-76, but then tried ID-11 and ended up with Kodak XTol. DD-X is probably my favorite, but itʻs a bit pricier and seems best suited for Ilford Delta films, whereas the XTol has been the best compromise when using many different emulsions. Interesting. What differences does the developer make?

12-24-2016, 01:12 PM - 1 Like	#11
Alex645 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Kaneohe, HI Photos: Albums Posts: 3,526	Originally posted by lithedreamer Interesting. What differences does the developer make? Other than price, speed of developing, ease of prep, and shelf life, the main differences are in the shadow detail, grain, and acutance or sharpness. For my school lab, Iʻve been using XTol because it has a good balance of all of the above, but is a compromise on all as well. For example D-76 is cheaper, but XTol doesnʻt require the very hot water for prep. Diafine is better than XTol for contrast, grain, and sharpness, but has a much slower developing time, etc. Tons of articles online about this. Here are a few: Choosing a B&W Film Developer \| La Vida Leica! How to Choose A Black and White Film Developer \| Analog Film Photography Nothing beats your own trial and error experience, but Iʻve found that D-76 or ID-11 are the least expensive general use for many different film stocks. At a higher price, XTol and Perceptol is a significant notch above. If youʻre shooting specific films, then specific developers are better such as Tmax developer for Tmax films and DD-X for Delta films. Ilford presently makes 11 different B&W film developers simply because each one has a different characteristic that photographers need or desire. Welcome to ILFORD PHOTO And then youʻve got your Diafine/Acufine and other branded enthusiasts..... Lots of variables which includes the film youʻre using, the process, and what results youʻre after.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-24-2016, 04:07 PM	#12
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,692	No developer is economical if you are throwing away half of the stock solution unused due to oxidation. At home I develop only occasionally and find concentrated syrup-type developers with long shelf-life like HC110, Rodinal and their clones to be the only reliable and economical alternatives. Chris

01-05-2017, 08:59 PM	#13
lithedreamer Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,799 Original Poster	Here's one of the shots that came from this roll that I'm happiest with,

01-06-2017, 04:59 AM - 1 Like	#14
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	It's good in the foreground, very grainy towards the mountains. That being said, most of my unpushed work isn't any better, so I am merely offering comment, not judging harshly! My current roll is in a P3 and can't be pushed (Dx coding only, no EV offset), but the one after? We shall see.

01-18-2017, 12:04 PM	#15
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,020	Originally posted by lithedreamer ... I decided to do all Illford (DD-X). 14 minute develop time, 10 second stop bath, 3 minute fixer, 10 minute distilled water bath. Originally posted by lithedreamer I agitated for about 30 seconds at the start of every step, then for 15 seconds every minute after that. Some general film developing information. Ilford's published development times in their DD-X Data Sheet for a given exposure index rating is a function of how they agitated the film. If you use a significantly different agitation profile then what they used to establish a rated exposure index, you can expect to get different results. That is, if you agitate the film more than what Ilford did ( eg more inversions in shorter period of time) , then you can expect the film to speed up and get more of a push processing effect even though you used the same development time. Similarly, a slower film speed results if you agitated it less then they did. You can compensate for that agitation profile by adjusting the development time within a range that's not too extreme. But that means you're establishing your own development time. And per the DD-X data sheet under the Manual Processing Spiral Tanks, they say to invert the tank 4 times within 10 seconds of each minute of development. It's a good idea to read the data sheet for every chemical and film you use.