Developer for FP4+ poll result

And so we have a winner ....

Firstly, thanks to everyone who took part. As a little bit of fun, I asked readers to vote for their favourite developer for FP4+, based on Pebble Project gallery results. Naturally, the result is limited by the nature of on-screen viewing and the imperfections of the little poll (sample size and so on). Not a scientific endeavour!

Having said that, the results were interesting. Out of 25 responses (pleasantly surprising in itself), DDX came out on top with 8 votes. It was followed closely by R09, which received 6. Perceptol had 4 votes; Ilfosol and HC garnered 3 each. LC29 received but 1, which is quite surprising given its balance of qualities. I did wonder how much the voters' own experiences influenced their vote (i.e. was the vote for developer familiar to them, rather than a judgement of the Pebble results). 

I will leave the poll open, which opens up the possibility of returning to it at future date to see if the results remain the same.

Which developer for FP4+ film?

Here's a bit of fun.

I thought I'd run a little developer popularity contest, based on Pebble Project results and FP4+ film (which I have the most results for). I'm asking you to take a stab at your favourite using on-screen results, so no need to be too precious (of course, you may have your experiences to draw on too).

Results to follow!

P.S. Pebble Project gallery can be accessed under 'resources' on the main menu, or just click this link:

FP4+ in Ilfotec HC

Another sample is added to the Pebble Project Galleries. This time it's the turn of Ilfotec HC, used on FP4+. Looks to have a nice open tonality, holding the highlights well. Grain is quite evident, but sharpness is not lacking either.

Pebbles in R09

A bottle sits on the film developing worktop. A treacle-brown liquid meets an equal quantity of air in the container, and, as film developers go, it looks to be in a sorry state. Air = oxidation = spent developer, right? In film developing terms this bottle is however half-full, not half empty.

(Please excuse the terrible pun.)

I don't know precisely how old this bottle is. It seems to have escaped my usual practice of labelling with an opening date in marker pen (definitely recommended). Looking at my negative collection, I estimate it was opened in 2013.

R09 - a modern day copy of the famous Rodinal - is liked by many photographers for its tonality. I haven't developed very much with it in comparison to other developers, so I won't make a judgement on this. You will notice the grain in your image with this developer (especially with medium speed and fast films).

It was always purported to have a splendid shelf-life, but today I confirmed that for myself. I present below the latest addition to my Pebble Project, FP4+, developed in the formula in question. I was very pleasantly surprised to see a half-opened bottle of some age produce a perfectly good looking negative. A fresher batch may produce better results (the label on the bottle recommends not exceeding six months when opened).

It looks like I have found a good developer to keep at the back of the cupboard for emergencies.

FP4+ R09 (Rodinal) 1+50 15mins 20c

To access the full gallery so far, go to Resources on the main menu above and select Pebble Project Galleries.

Pebble Project update: into the darkroom

Today I bring you a little update of my Pebble Project in the form of some darkroom prints. I have printed the first four FP4+ negatives from the project (results shared in the previous Pebble post) on Ilford Multigrade Resin Coated Gloss paper. I will share these in a larger and more accessible form in a future post, but for now they read: LC29 top left, Perceptol top right, Ilfosol S bottom left, DDX bottom right (with development times as per the previous post).

The darkroom prints make the differences more obvious, and, on a cursory look, I felt they were somewhat more in keeping with what I'd initially expected from the different developers. No surprise here, as negatives are obviously designed to be printed in the darkroom and my expectations (and data such as that from Ilford) were shaped there.

I have more technical information to share on this (such as my darkroom printing decisions) and some more observations and corrections. The project is not at all straightforward - and certainly has its limitations -  but I am learning a lot which is great.

I am working on a little gallery of results for this site, which will enable the reader access to all the Pebble images in one place and to view larger versions. I'll publish this in the near future and add to it with more film / developer combinations as things progress. Watch this space.

New blog series: Pebble Project

2. FP4+ in Perceptol, 1+1, 13 mins, 20C

I begin to today with a comparison of two film shots.

Both shots are on Ilford’s FP4+ film. The first is developed in Ilfotec LC29; the second Perceptol, a developer that begins life as a powder. The studio setups were identical in each, at least as far as I could make them. The stones are stuck to a sheet of perspex, making the exercise potentially repeatable.

I have some observations, although these alone aren’t the purpose of this post, as I shall elaborate in a moment. Frankly, I expected the tones of Perceptol to be more different from LC29 than they are. Personally (and subjectively), I see this as ‘win’ for LC29, as Perceptol is a personal favourite and in my mental map of film tonally very distinct. (I should really say, for completeness, that this notion is actually built on my use of HP5+ film.) I can see that the grain is pushed back in the Perceptol version. Grain is still there, but it is very smooth. The highlights are a tiny bit ‘longer’ in the Perceptol version, at least to my eye.  Naturally, as I provide images, the reader is invited to make his or her own conclusions.

Enlargement from sample 1. FP4+ LC29

Enlargement from sample 2. FP4+ Perceptol

Now, notwithstanding the special alchemy that happens when different photographers put the same films (and developer) to use in differing circumstances, thus leading to unfathomably different results (and this is a huge factor), I think the idea of trialling different film and developer combinations in a (sort of) standardised setup* has intriguing potential, and, furthermore, may be of genuine use to a film-using community. Maybe this is the geek and obsessive in me rather than the artist, but my mind races with what I might learn as I compare films in this way. How might Delta 100 compare to FP4+ in LC29 (some of you could make a good guess, I’m sure)? In Perceptol, to itself in LC29 and FP4+? What about HP5+? Or DD-X?

You will see where I am going with this. As I’m keen to reiterate, you won’t necessarily get the same results as me; yet with my standardised pebble shot, some legitimate practical comparisons can still be made. I think this could be good knowledge to take into the field. I could spend a long time shooting different films and subjects without being able to make such sound comparisons.

So I end with a modest plan. I will run this as a series of occasional blog postings reporting on different films and developers. If the results build up as I anticipate they will, I should get to a position where I can share an additional summary post (or even article). I envisage maybe four weeks between postings, to give me time to produce the results and write short instalments, although due to my other commitments this may vary somewhat. Feel free to comment or email me with your thoughts (see the ‘contact’ link above), or you can contact me through Twitter (@richard_pickup).

*A brief note on the method behind the samples, and a caveat.

The studio setup is identical in each shot (position of light, light power setting, reflector placement, tripod position). The same camera and lens have been used, along with the same exposure settings. The chosen focus point on the pebbles is the same. Due to the time between the shots (and the necessary time between any shots I may make for the series in future), the framing of the pebbles varied slightly. After processing the film to the times and temperatures stated, both negatives were scanned on a dedicated Nikon film scanner and imported into Lightroom. I made no adjustments to exposure, nor did I sharpen the images. Images were cropped for neatness.

I think it’s worth making this declaration, because with such tests anomalies creep in, and one has to be aware of possible variables. For instance, focussing is prone to small differences and may impact on perceptions of sharpness. Who is to say that the camera was not subject to small vibrations in one of the shots. (Naturally, I’ve been very careful, but we should not entirely rule such things out.) Any conclusions drawn should therefore be taken with a small pinch of salt. As I say above, they should have useful validity but they shouldn’t be taken as gospel. I’ve done these tests in my spare time, out of curiosity and in the spirit of exploration.

Thanks must go to Jevon Tooth for the idea using a collection of stones in a test shot of film tonality.