[tuco]

...
So what does this mean?

Perhaps send an email to Ilford with that sample picture.

[Derek]

I've recently been experimenting with shooting Ilford FP4plus in 120.
Results have been good however on both of the 2 rolls so far there's visible 'spotting' on some of the shots after scanning.
When viewing the negatives I can sometimes see a kind of 'grit' that looks tiny bits of emulsion.
Appearance in scanned photos is less noticeable than I expected when looking at the negatives, although it is still visible in some scenes.

For an example please see the attachment. Note that some photos are a bit worse than this one. I have had similar 'spotting' with other films, however nothing to the extent of this. I can remove it in Lightroom but the sheer volume of spots make that a time consuming exercise.

Does anyone have any suggestions as to why this is happening?

My development procedure
- Ilford FP4plus exposed as ISO 100
- Developed in ID-11 1+1 to the timings listed with the developer for ISO 125 (I think this roll was 11 minutes at 20 degrees)
- agitate for 5 seconds every minute
- stop in plain tap water at say, 25 degrees, for 2 minutes
- Ilford rapid fixer, 5 minutes at ~ 25 degrees (I don't bother to chill the fixer to 20 degrees)
- Rinse with tap water first and finish with demineralised water

I regularly use the same procedure for other films, such as Tri-X, without any issues.

And the fullsize photo below:

I wonder if you're suffering from a bit of reticulation which can be caused by an abrupt temperature change.
Are you chilling your dev to 20C but running everything everything else at 25C? You could try running your dev at 24C for about 7 minutes instead.It might help.
Perhaps try googling "film reticulation" and also tropical developers which are formulated to deal with the softer emulsions that can result from higher process temperature.

[tuco]

I wouldn't expect reticulation from temperature difference on a modern film from Ilford. It would have to be a huge temp difference. But an alkaline developer with a strong acid fixer is also a source of reticulation. I disregarded that in my case because I don't use an acid fixer but an alkaline based one.

[Wheatfield]

The Skyline in North America was called the Maxima, which is why I mentioned it. My dad recently passed away and your photo, micro spots and all, still brought back good memories. He owned two Maximas before his last car, a 2005 Toyota Avalon that he drove for 13 years until last November at the age of 96.

Not to ruffle the feathers of current Nissan fans, but back in the day, Datsun/Nissan made quality cars that matched the competition like Toyota and Honda. However when they merged with Renault and Mitsubishi in '99 they haven't made cars of the same calibre as before. The same fate has happened to others that have merged in other industries...but I must give credit to Ricoh for the quality they've maintained with Pentax. But I suppose an outright acquisition is different than a merge.

In the late 1980s, I had a funny little Nissan called an Axxess. I had the top line model that was made in Japan. My brother liked it enough that he bought one, but he got a lesser model that was made in Smyrna Tennessee. Mine was, by far, the more trouble free vehicle.
I’m on my third Nissan Titan. I wanted a full sized truck for construction and trailer towing and decided that I would stay with Nissan. My first truck was quite good, the second had been taken swimming by a previous owner, so I let it go very quickly, and the one I am driving now is a Cummins diesel model.
Why I went with Nissan rather than a domestic was that even though the Titan is an American design and manufacture, I was hoping that having adults in the room would make for a better quality truck. So far, it seems to have worked out. My Titans have been more trouble free than the big three vehicles that construction industry friends drive, though there were problems with the Cummins block heater that caused quite a bit of grief for owners.

---------- Post added 04-20-19 at 11:07 AM ----------

I've recently been experimenting with shooting Ilford FP4plus in 120.
Results have been good however on both of the 2 rolls so far there's visible 'spotting' on some of the shots after scanning.
When viewing the negatives I can sometimes see a kind of 'grit' that looks tiny bits of emulsion.
Appearance in scanned photos is less noticeable than I expected when looking at the negatives, although it is still visible in some scenes.

For an example please see the attachment. Note that some photos are a bit worse than this one. I have had similar 'spotting' with other films, however nothing to the extent of this. I can remove it in Lightroom but the sheer volume of spots make that a time consuming exercise.

Does anyone have any suggestions as to why this is happening?

My development procedure
- Ilford FP4plus exposed as ISO 100
- Developed in ID-11 1+1 to the timings listed with the developer for ISO 125 (I think this roll was 11 minutes at 20 degrees)
- agitate for 5 seconds every minute
- stop in plain tap water at say, 25 degrees, for 2 minutes
- Ilford rapid fixer, 5 minutes at ~ 25 degrees (I don't bother to chill the fixer to 20 degrees)
- Rinse with tap water first and finish with demineralised water

I regularly use the same procedure for other films, such as Tri-X, without any issues.

And the fullsize photo below:

I used to have that crop up from time to time. I put a good quality water filter onto my supply, and started pre wetting my film for several minutes prior to developing and that seemed to help.
Make sure you are using a very dilute stopbath, try ~2% acetic acid and also if you have hard water, you might want to start using demineralized water for your chemistry.
Note that a water softener does not solve any problems in this regard.

---

Last edited by Wheatfield; 04-20-2019 at 11:20 AM.

[abruzzi]

I don't have a light table or loupe.

I know you have already eliminated the scanner as a problem, but, FYI a fast 50mm lens opened wide open works pretty well as a loupe.

[goddo31]

Still haven't got to the bottom of this, although I did shoot a roll of FP4plus yesterday so will develop that soon.

Meanwhile I bought some Ilfosol 3 and a fresh box of ID-11. I want to vary the developer with the FP4plus and see whether I get any different results.
My current batch of ID-11 stock solution is a few months old now and I was starting to suspect that this could be a contributing factor. I'm starting to see some floating 'gunk' towards the bottom of the bottles.
Saying that, I developed a test roll of another film recently and it turned out fine.
What I can't quite fathom is that regardless of the cause of this - why is the FP4plus somehow more susceptible?

I really ought to email Ilford about it soon. And thanks for the continued comments, all.

[tuco]

...
My current batch of ID-11 stock solution is a few months old now and I was starting to suspect that this could be a contributing factor. l.

Why bother with developers that age with time and use? Add a one-shot developer to your tool belt. It makes things easier and consistent, IMHO.

[stevebrot]

Why bother with developers that age with time and use? Add a one-shot developer to your tool belt. It makes things easier and consistent, IMHO.

I learned early on that other than one-shot was false economy for most hobbyists.

Steve

[TomB_tx]

50 years ago when processing at least a few rolls a week, I used both UFG and Acufine, with their replenishers. You would mix a qt. of developer and a qt. of replenisher, and add a small amount of replenisher after each roll of film to make up for lost volume. Developing times stayed constant, and I’d often use the developer until the replenisher was gone.
But very few folk develop enough to make that work now. Within the last decade you could still get Acufine replenisher, but since the product line moved to a new company it seems only the developer is available.
Now I use only 1-shot - normally either Rodinal or DD-X.

[goddo31]

Why bother with developers that age with time and use? Add a one-shot developer to your tool belt. It makes things easier and consistent, IMHO.

I learned early on that other than one-shot was false economy for most hobbyists.

Steve

To be clear, what I have done is mix up a 5L batch of ID-11 stock solution from powder and filled several 750ml glass bottles. I've then been opening the bottles of stock solution one by one and diluting it to 1+1 when I develop some film. I'm not re-using the stock solution at all, and when diluted to 1+1 I'm treating it as one-shot and throwing it out after development.
What I meant is that the bottles of stock solution from that 5L batch are now a few months old. Actually I think I only have one bottle left. I've not noticed any deterioration in effectiveness in the developer and haven't needed to adjust times at all. It's just this spotting that I've had a problem with. Although I have noticed a little floating gunk as mentioned previously. Also the stock solution is still clear.

With that said, are you guys recommending something like a concentrated liquid developer that I can mix up on demand and use as a one-shot?

cheers
Jason

[tuco]

...
I'm not re-using the stock solution at all, and when diluted to 1+1 I'm treating it as one-shot and throwing it out after development.
...
With that said, are you guys recommending something like a concentrated liquid developer that I can mix up on demand and use as a one-shot?

Okay, mixing a stock solution and using it one-shot isn't bad. The only variable it would introduce is age. There is also long shelf life, one-shot developers that you mix for each use or can be mixed in small enough quantity to be used as one-shot.

[goddo31]

Yesterday I finally got to developing another roll of FP4plus, this time using a new bottle of Ilfosol 3 liquid developer. The Ilfosol is available locally so i thought I'd give it a try as I wanted to change the ID-11 variable. Mixed up the Ilfosol 1+9 with demineralised water and also used a rinse aid in the final step.
The result... still getting the spotting

I'm wondering whether this is some kind of contamination that's happening in my process, regardless of developer used. For the stop bath I just use plain tap water. During the stop I pour out the developer, refill the tank with tap water, agitate 5 times, dump and refill the water, agitate 10 times, then dump and refill the water once more, leaving the tank alone for about 1.5 minutes. After that I drain the water and fix.

Do you think that I should try using an actual stop bath? eg. Ilfostop or similar.
Because if there is somehow developer remaining, I assume that the acidity of the stop bath would quickly neutralise it.

Also I I've just emailed Ilford about it.

[Alex645]

Yesterday I finally got to developing another roll of FP4plus, this time using a new bottle of Ilfosol 3 liquid developer.
The result... still getting the spotting

For the stop bath I just use plain tap water.

Do you think that I should try using an actual stop bath?

It doesn't seem to be caused by your developer.

"Plain tap water" can have all sorts of issues from ph extremes to contaminants. Even if you use a stop bath, it is still typically going to be diluted 1:10 with water, so you're going to want to eliminate the stop bath as the cause by using some sort of purified, non-mineral water such as distilled water.

But even before you did that, pick up a roll of anything other than your FP4+ and see if the spotting persists. You need to methodically eliminate the cause, as it could be the film, one of the chems, or even a combination of elements.

Can you verify that the spotting is visible on your negs on a light table with a loupe?

[TomB_tx]

I assume the “spotting” you are seeing is the lighter dots on the prints. That, of course, would be dark dots on the negative. This would seem to rule out bubbles and such causing under-development, as that would cause lighter spots on the negative and darker on the print. The lighter dots would be consistent with dust or other specs of foreign matter on the negative, but they aren’t opaque, or pure white as you see grain texture in them, and they are only slightly lighter than the underlying image. Perhaps it is uneven clumps in the emulsion itself. As I recall, FP4+ combines two types of grain structures to give wide latitude, so perhaps it is more susceptible to such issues than simpler coatings.

[goddo31]

It doesn't seem to be caused by your developer.

"Plain tap water" can have all sorts of issues from ph extremes to contaminants. Even if you use a stop bath, it is still typically going to be diluted 1:10 with water, so you're going to want to eliminate the stop bath as the cause by using some sort of purified, non-mineral water such as distilled water.

But even before you did that, pick up a roll of anything other than your FP4+ and see if the spotting persists. You need to methodically eliminate the cause, as it could be the film, one of the chems, or even a combination of elements.

Can you verify that the spotting is visible on your negs on a light table with a loupe?

You may have a point about the 'plain tap water'. I will use de-mineralised water for the stop bath next time.
I'm kind of relieved that it doesn't seem to be the developer to be honest.

Earlier in this thread I mentioned how I developed a roll of 400TMY-2 and noticed the spotting in a couple of shots. It was less noticeable though. Other than that I haven't noticed the spotting in other films. A roll of Tri-X that I developed around the same time as the first roll of FP4plus was very clean and free of spots.

I assume the “spotting” you are seeing is the lighter dots on the prints. That, of course, would be dark dots on the negative. This would seem to rule out bubbles and such causing under-development, as that would cause lighter spots on the negative and darker on the print. The lighter dots would be consistent with dust or other specs of foreign matter on the negative, but they aren’t opaque, or pure white as you see grain texture in them, and they are only slightly lighter than the underlying image. Perhaps it is uneven clumps in the emulsion itself. As I recall, FP4+ combines two types of grain structures to give wide latitude, so perhaps it is more susceptible to such issues than simpler coatings.

Yes, the lighter dots in the scanned images. I guess it could be something with the emulsion, and that the FP4plus is somehow more susceptible to it in my process. Then again, I did see similar at least once with the Tmax 400. Will be interesting to see what Ilford themselves say.

Earlier this week I also developed a roll of Tmax 100, without any evident spotting.