Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-18-2018, 09:35 PM   #16
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lawrence, KS
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,066
Original Poster
Been doing some serious push work with Ilford HP5 and Clayton F76 lately. Here's something I took recently;



It seems close but possibly no cigar. Trying for EI 3200 and developed the film in a 1+9 dilution at room temp for 22.5 minutes. The shot was taken with either my M 50 1.4 or M 50 1.7. The results are usable but the cat seems just a bit too dark to be realistic. Am I hitting the limit of this combination? Next time around I think I'll try to give it a tiny bit more time, like 23 full minutes, and see how that works.

So far I really like HP5 a lot and would probably call it my favorite black & white film.

11-21-2018, 07:44 PM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,732
QuoteOriginally posted by pres589 Quote
...
It seems close but possibly no cigar. Trying for EI 3200 and developed the film in a 1+9 dilution at room temp for 22.5 minutes. The shot was taken with either my M 50 1.4 or M 50 1.7. The results are usable but the cat seems just a bit too dark to be realistic. Am I hitting the limit of this combination? Next time around I think I'll try to give it a tiny bit more time, like 23 full minutes, and see how that works.
I can't say how far you can push the film. But think 10-15% increases in your development time. A 2% increase is not really even noticeable. How long does it take to drain the developer out of your single/double size tank and get it filled with the stop bath, for instance.
11-21-2018, 11:20 PM   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lawrence, KS
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,066
Original Poster
I think it's about 7 minutes to not push HP5 at all in F76. So I'm already at a huge increase in time to try to hit EI 3200 with HP5. 23 minutes probably isn't enough; was considering 24 instead for the next roll.

The shot is close. It doesn't need a whole lot more time in the developer. Playing with the sliders in Lightroom might be "good enough" for this one.
11-24-2018, 06:39 PM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 541
I assume this stuff is a chemical clone of D76?

If so, have you tried any pull processing? A recent roll of Tri-X reminded me how much I love it, the problem is I rarely shoot EI 400, 100 speed is more my cup of tea. So I tried shooting a roll at 100, and pulling it with Xtol. It lost some of its contrast, which is a shame. I’d love something that looks like Tri-X but at 100 speed. Being that D76 is the classic developer for Tri-X, I’d wonder if it, or F76 would do any better.

11-25-2018, 07:33 AM   #20
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lawrence, KS
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,066
Original Poster
abruzzi, the chemical makeup of F76 doesn't seem that similar to D-76. The MSDS sheet for F76 that I found only lists a couple of the compounds used to make the stuff so there may be some overlap but I'm not aware of any based on my incomplete information.

Now that I have a second film camera, my plan is to try different things with that, where EI 100 or 200 are viable, and keep doing the push work with the other. My plan was to try pulling a roll of Foma 400 after I finish the roll that's in there now. My thought was to meter for 200 and reduce development time by 10% and see how that works out. Probably be a while before that's done and shared here. Will have some pushed Tri-X to share here later today.
11-25-2018, 10:55 AM   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lawrence, KS
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,066
Original Poster
Back to Tri-X 400 pushed to what should be an EI of 3200. 1+9 solution, 23 minutes total agitation, with 1 minute initial + 10 seconds every minute after that.



There's grain but it's not too distracting for my tastes.



I think I passed the cat test with this one. Here he looks like how he looks in real life with decent detail still shown.
11-25-2018, 02:56 PM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 541
QuoteOriginally posted by pres589 Quote
abruzzi, the chemical makeup of F76 doesn't seem that similar to D-76. The MSDS sheet for F76 that I found only lists a couple of the compounds used to make the stuff so there may be some overlap but I'm not aware of any based on my incomplete information.
Interesting, Iím not a chemist, but D76 lists 4 chemicals, and F76 only lists the two, however the health effects section discusses hydroquinone, which isnít in the chemical list (but is for D76.). Iím not a chemist at all so I canít say what that means. The purchase page on Freestyle says it should match D76 in tone, grain, and contrast.
11-25-2018, 03:06 PM   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 541
After a little googling, I found this post on Photrio from someone that sounds like they work for Clayton:

QuoteQuote:
Clayton F76plus Developer(phenidone) is not like D 76 (metol). F 76 is a second generation formula of our Clayton F 60 Film Developer. F 60 was first introduced in 1960. Given this time line, Ilford DDX is very similar to Clayton F 76, not the reverse. F 76 is a "gamma 1" developer with a very wide processing latitude. F 76 Developer is recommended for both manual and machine processing. Depending on the machine, dilutions, processing temperatures and processing times vary. Yes, Freestyle and Clayton do have a very close working relationship.
Source: thinking about trying Clayton F76

11-25-2018, 04:27 PM   #24
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lawrence, KS
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,066
Original Poster
I think I found that thread a long time ago. The images shared there are very nicely contrasty. I have wondered if D-76 would give more detail and less contrast, all else being equal. Obviously the film used has a huge impact as well as accuracy of exposure.

What I am noticing with pushing with F76 is a huge increase in development time when going from a two-stop push to a three-stop. It doesn't seem usual with other developers but I think other developers are more intended for use when pushing.

I hope to have another roll developed later this week.
11-25-2018, 05:21 PM   #25
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,363
MSDS only list ingredients with safety concerns and should be assumed to be incomplete. The form (powder, liquid concentrate, or dilute solution) may also influence what ingredients are listed.

The MSDS for D76 lists:
  • Sodium Sulphite (antioxidant/silver solvent)
  • Hydroquinone (developing agent and/or regenerative agent for metol)
  • Bis(4-hydroxy-N-methylanilinium) sulphate (developing agent, aka metol)
Likely missing is something for pH adjustment such as sodium/potassium hydroxide as well as various pH buffers.

The same for F76+ (described as a phenidone developer) lists:
  • Potassium metabisulphate (inhibits bacteria)
  • Sodium hydroxide (pH adjustment)
  • Hydoquinone (developing agent and/or regenerative agent for phenidone)
Phenidone is not on the list, probably due to its relatively low toxicity. Sodium sulphate is almost assuredly an ingredient as well along with pH buffers.

The two formulae may be equivalent for most purposes without being chemically identical. Difference will show at or near the point of exhaustion, with high dilutions, and/or temperatures other then recommended. Therein lies the question of suitability for push processing and also the raw edges of what I know about this stuff. For a long discussion of the matter, this thread on the Digital Truth forum might be helpful to those who are patient.

Hydroquinone with Metol and Phenidone. - Digitaltruth Photo

Also useful might be the information on developers in Ansel Adams' "The Negative". An inquiry to Freestyle regarding suitability of F76+ (or Arista Premium Liquid, their brand for the Clayton product) for push processing might also bear fruit.


Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 11-25-2018 at 05:45 PM.
12-03-2018, 08:52 PM   #26
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lawrence, KS
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,066
Original Poster
How about another round of F76 and Ultramax 400?



1+9, 7.5 minutes, traditional development scheme. This is 30 seconds longer than what I used the last time I did this. I think I like the 7 minute results better. I was using a new to me camera as well, a Ricoh Singlex TLS, and I think I need to shoot slightly over-exposed if I can help it next time around. Not bad results but could be better.
12-05-2018, 01:10 AM   #27
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,781
What is F76 like for stand processing? Anyone tried?
12-07-2018, 10:38 PM   #28
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lawrence, KS
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,066
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by beachgardener Quote
What is F76 like for stand processing? Anyone tried?
I made a very half-hearted attempt at stand development with F76 and Ultramax 400. I think there might be something workable with that combination but I don't know that it's really worth the bother. Meaning, I could see going through a lot of film to try and figure out the right combination of time and developer concentration.

---------- Post added 12-07-18 at 11:44 PM ----------

First attempt at a two stop push of Foma 400 in F76; this is 1+9 concentration, 21 degrees C, and I used 19.5 minutes of development time. Very gentle agitation which may help keep the grain in check. Here's some results;





Both shots taken with my M 50 1.4. I don't think I quite nailed it on development time. I called Freestyle for guidance and they gave a very loose "2.25 x normal dev time with F76 for a two stop push, so for this, try 18 minutes" approximation. Looking at the Massive Dev Chart and D-76 times for Foma 400, I estimated I would need 21 minutes of development time. So I averaged the two amounts of time. Negatives came out a bit thin on some shots; I think I would have failed the cat test but the cat wasn't around while I had this roll loaded in my camera. Next time I might try a full 22 minutes of dev time.

There's obvious grain here but I don't find it distracting. I actually kind of like it although I don't think it would work with every shot I could think to take with a camera.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, cat, clayton, concentration, dev, development, f2, film, minutes, photography, roll, shots, time, try
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Small Waterfall at Mt. Diablo, Clayton CA Y_V_E_S Post Your Photos! 4 08-17-2018 06:09 AM
Landscape Clayton Beach Sunrise & Water fall jnguyen Post Your Photos! 4 03-04-2013 08:35 PM
Landscape Clayton Beach jnguyen Post Your Photos! 5 02-17-2013 06:18 PM
Hello from Clayton, NC claskowski Welcomes and Introductions 2 08-20-2008 10:56 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:49 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top