Fabulous video...I convinced myself I had a light leak in one of my Leicas...no, It was not enough developer...I always put 400mls in my paterson tank now and gone are the air bells, edge marks etc etc...Thank you so much....really looking forward to your developer comparisons! Many Thanks again !
Thanks For your kind words, John. Yes, I wonder how many other folk have had problems and never known why? And, I'm looking forward to the battle of the giants too! Which developer will come out on top? Time will tell :)
You are not the only one John. I had a great Rollie 3.5F and was convinced it was light leak. It was only later I realised it was not enough developer.
This was useful in confirming my suspicions. I have just bought a small tank and have yet to develop any film but tried putting liquid in and did find that 290 does not cover the spool. My immediate thought was I need to use more, but as the tank says 290ml I wondered whether I should be questioning the experts. I'm glad to see I was right and that I have learned so before developing any negatives. Thank you for the reassurance.
Yes, the manufacturers don't leave much room for error. With a full length film the liquid will rise a little but I think one should start with more volume for many reasons such as air bells, uneven development, and even to make it easier to calculate the amount of developer to mix from concentrate. 290ml is a strange number to choose.
Such a simple consideration, yet I have always gone with a rounded up amount based on the embossed recommendation... Looking forward to the Developers series. I've just begun using 510-pyro, have ingredients for FX55 due this week; have thought about both D23 and D19. Basically, anything that is fairly simple to make at home, although getting hold of some ingredients is not straightforward for the amateur..!
Great point but I think you have to also load a film as this will take up space and reduce the amount of developer required. Agree though entirely with what you say and I have always added 400cc to adequately cover the film. Regards
Nice video John! May I add that in my case for the tanks that take more than 1 reel, using this approach has caused me agitation-related issues when processing a single reel at a time. I've had vertical, higher density streaks from the sprocket holes when inverting as per one of your videos due to increased developer flow. Tried slowing down the inversions, which got rid of the streaks, but caused another issue: the long sides of the negative got progressively denser towards the edge. Now I've started using 600ml developer solution in a two-reel Patterson tank when developing a single reel, and neither of the issues have happened again.
@@PictorialPlanet Before, I've tried all permutations of initial from 4 inversions to full minute, and 4 per 30s to 2 per 5 minutes. The results were often faulty in one or another way, and it was really hard to nail the sweet spot. Now it seems no matter how much agitation I use (semi-stand to 4 inversions per minute), the negatives come out evenly developed, with the expected changes in contrast and relative highlights density. Gonna pay attention to not only covering the reel fully, but also to how much air to developer there is in the tank from now on.
This is a good comment, Ian. Some of us bulk load short lengths that would not make much difference and, to lesson the chance of uneven development and air-bells the higher level of 400ml offered in the video helps a lot.
@@PictorialPlanet Good point and well raised 10 frames is not a lot of film and the tank manufactures are expecting 24 or 36, its never a bad thing to make sure the film is well covered. I always go a bit extra.
Would the film on the reel not take up more of the volume and therefore 290ml cover it sufficiently? I’ve been using that number rounded up to 300ml for some years now without any issues...
Thanks for your comment, Michael! This tip lifts the volume of liquid high enough to reduce the chance of dreaded air bells. Some developers are worse for this than others. I recommend it to increase your safety margin. For just 100ml more liquid it can protect your precious negatives.
@@PictorialPlanet morning John, only just found your videos, I do however have an earlier edition of your book and would like to say how much I'm enjoying actually seeing these videos. Hopefully your subscriber numbers will grow," Shoot film like a boss" for one, has got a large, growing following and film photography appears to be gaining acceptance from younger people looking to either move on from digital or just explore film, so in my opinion information presented in a clear concise manner, such as your videos, will become more important in the future, for all lovers of photography.
Of course, you also have to bear in mind the minimum amount of the developer required to process the film. e.g. Perceptol requires 250 ml stock per 35mm roll but as I use it 1:1 I have to use 500 ml even though a lesser amount would cover the film in the tank.
Hi deemdoubleu Can you provide a reference for your assertion that Perceptol requires 250ml stock per 35mm film? According to the Perceptol technical data sheet this is only for reusing stock developer multiple times. There's plenty of developing agent for 1+3 development in 250-300ml of working solution to fully develop a film. Compare to FX1 which has only 0.5g metol developing agent per litre and can develop a 35mm film with only 300ml of that working solution.
@@PictorialPlanet Hi it states on the inside of the box 1l = 4x135-36 or 4x120. I know the pdf mentions this in terms of re-use or replenishment but there is a thread on phototrio where someone asked for clarification from Ilford and this was their response (copied from the thread): /// Good afternoon , I'm so sorry that you have found conflicting information - I appreciate its left you confused as to which is safe/correct. If you are ever in doubt re anything/see conflicting info as that in the future, my advice would always be to go by whats on our website as opposed to the cartons - because website errors tend to be swiftly corrected, whereas carton artwork updates can take several months to get through stocks / be corrected. But to help clarify all for you now - the technical information sheet number is the correct version - it is 4 films 35mm/120 films per litre. That is says 5 x 35mm/120 films on the chemistry carton interior - is incorrect. To be honest - if you had put 5 films through, its likely you would not really have detected any obvious deterioration. Its more if you started to put say 6 plus films through - you would. I think the reason you are seeing the conflicting info - is because your 93E batch of Perceptol is now quite old. It was made June 2012. It looks like although the artwork at that time was incorrect, all has since been corrected - as my checking current carton artwork seems to now correctly show it as 4 films per litre (exact as on the website). I hope all now makes sense for you, and you can get some pleasing results with your films Kind regards, Sue Evans ///
Very interesting. Thank you for sharing that thread. I re-read the Perceptol sheet and it doesn’t mention this at all except for replenishment. In my experience it is just not necessary to use 250ml stock per film. As I think about it it’s rather strange that for a dilution of 1+3, a totally valid Ilford dilution for Perceptol, I would need 1 litre of working solution for one film, a rather large amount by any standard. I, and many people, have processed films in 1+3 Perceptol in 300ml tanks so I think it’s very strange.
@@PictorialPlanet I think there is a typo in the pdf: " provided that the developer is reused" should read " provided that the developer is NOT reused". They do mention that with 1+1 and 1+3 that they do not recommend re-use for the reasons they specify. So anyway, that is the recipe I follow i.e. 1+1 = 500ml volume in my tank. I would process 2 rolls in my tank but it won't hold 1l of 1+1 dilution. I suspect that in reality it would be abslutely OK but like most beginners, I don't like to bend the rules too much from fear of the unknown.
Here’s a thread of another who contacted Ilford about this same question: “ Mike O'Pray 1st May 2016, 05:56 PM Interesting and comprehensive report, Svend. As you know, I also contacted Ilford and had a quick and good response back from a David Abberley at Ilford. It seems that Ilford bases its 1+3 dilutions on a minimum of 280ml total liquid.This gives a stock solution quantity of 70mls and with the likes of Paterson tanks (300ml) it is 75mls He went on to say that as a one-shot and dump, 1L of stock will do at least 13 films which accords with Ilford's statement that its 1+3 film capacity is based on a minimum of 280mls liquid(70-75mls of stock per film = 13-14 films). As I use Jobo or Durst tanks which only hold 250mls for inversion agitation, I asked him what the absolute minimum of stock might be. He was brave enough to say that he would not want to use less than 60mls of stock and added the usual caveats about extended development times and the possible risk of exhaustion at 60mls I think that I have used a 1+3 with 135 HP5+ in a Jobo tank and from what I recall the negs looked OK. Although the tank's capacity for 135 film is 240mls I usually use 25O mls which gives me 62.5ml of stock solution. Not a big margin over 60 but maybe just enough Clearly there is no issue with 1+3 for 120 film owing to the required liquid to cover the film There would clearly be an issue with Jobo rotary processing if you stuck to the minimum 140mls total quantity as that is only 35mls of stock solution. You might just about get away with rotary processing a 120 film(240mls of total liquid required) as the stock solution required is 60mls but it would be a whole lot safer to use say 280mls Interestingly John Tinsley in his book" Rotary Processing" mentions successfully processing with Perceptol but only at stock or 1+1 which gives 70mls of stock solution So in conclusion and these are my conclusions and not Ilford's but is based on my correspondence with Ilford 1. Based on a tank of at least 280-300ml as in Ilford's statement it would appear that 70-75ml of stock is the safe minimum limit for 1x135 film. 2. You might get away with 60mls but there may be risks as Svend's evidence suggests 3. Using rotary processing with a 135 Jobo tank and using the 140ml capacity in a 1+3 dilution results in only 35ml of stock and this looks to be way below the minimum required. I think I can remember the scenes from my HP5+ in Perceptol 1+3 and from that memory I'll try and find those negs and have a look at them. I cannot recall exactly what the light conditions were like but it was summer in mid afternoon and I think a mixture of "bright with clouds" Certainly not dull and overcast I can say that I would have followed the Ilford speed for this combination which is EI 320 and not 400 but then again Perceptol usually means a lowering of film speed. I think this has been the first time for a long time that I have asked a question of Ilford and I have to say I was impressed with the speed and quality of its answers Mike “ www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/archive/index.php/t-10978.html
You spend valuable time and money on film and the cost of just taking photos. Then some get into splitting hairs in the comments over whether tis better to add 25ml of working dilution developer to safely develop that film. That "opportunity cost" of the extra developer is what, maybe 10 cents. So you want to save that 10 cents and risk your film? The one point related to the discussion but not discussed is that whatever the volume requirements of the tank may be, there is also the requirements that you get enough actual developer into the tank for a given amount of film in order for the film to developproperly from a chemical perspective. This can become a problem when you use highly diluted developers.
Dare I ask how much liquid to use in the 3 x 120 tanks perchance? (Yes I know 3 x 500 is 1500ml alas it may be actually correct in the real world given the thickness of reels).
So your glass beaker is calibrated to 50ml increments (hardly accurate) and you fill the water to around 250ml as I can see at 3:02 hand held - again not accurate - Why would a manufacturer such as Patterson mark on their equipment something false?
Check the volume ourselves…Good point. However: A beaker is not a “graduate” {graduated cylinder). Nor as accurate. Regarding “difficult math” - in calculating the correct volume of developer for one’s chose dilution: a slide rule or calculator will make quick work of the tank volume even if it’s not rounded to the nearest 100 ml. To say otherwise risks insulting the intelligence of some of your viewers. Exec Summary: excellent point. Thanks for making it clearly.
Fabulous video...I convinced myself I had a light leak in one of my Leicas...no, It was not enough developer...I always put 400mls in my paterson tank now and gone are the air bells, edge marks etc etc...Thank you so much....really looking forward to your developer comparisons! Many Thanks again !
Thanks For your kind words, John. Yes, I wonder how many other folk have had problems and never known why? And, I'm looking forward to the battle of the giants too! Which developer will come out on top? Time will tell :)
You are not the only one John. I had a great Rollie 3.5F and was convinced it was light leak. It was only later I realised it was not enough developer.
I have learned so much watching your channel. Can't believe you don't have more subscribers.
Good tip, wish I had seen this before I half developed a film. Took me a while to work out what went wrong.
I'm sorry that happened. I've lots more tricks as tips for you in my other videos and book.
I just purchased your book, John. I can't wait to get the knowledge to start to flow heh thank you
Thank you very much for purchasing my book! I'm very grateful. I hope you really enjoy it.
Great information as always. Cannot beat tips from a seasoned practioner. Keep em coming! 🙂
Just a small note. A beaker is not the correct glassware for accurate measurements. You should use measuring cylinders.
This was useful in confirming my suspicions. I have just bought a small tank and have yet to develop any film but tried putting liquid in and did find that 290 does not cover the spool. My immediate thought was I need to use more, but as the tank says 290ml I wondered whether I should be questioning the experts. I'm glad to see I was right and that I have learned so before developing any negatives. Thank you for the reassurance.
Yes, the manufacturers don't leave much room for error. With a full length film the liquid will rise a little but I think one should start with more volume for many reasons such as air bells, uneven development, and even to make it easier to calculate the amount of developer to mix from concentrate. 290ml is a strange number to choose.
Such a simple consideration, yet I have always gone with a rounded up amount based on the embossed recommendation...
Looking forward to the Developers series. I've just begun using 510-pyro, have ingredients for FX55 due this week; have thought about both D23 and D19. Basically, anything that is fairly simple to make at home, although getting hold of some ingredients is not straightforward for the amateur..!
Yes, it's quite a shock to see how low that recommendation is :(
Very good demonstration John. Thankyou
Thanks Patricia
Great point but I think you have to also load a film as this will take up space and reduce the amount of developer required. Agree though entirely with what you say and I have always added 400cc to adequately cover the film. Regards
Good point and 400ml is also my lucky number 🍀
Excellent as usual, excited for the BATTLE!
Nice video John!
May I add that in my case for the tanks that take more than 1 reel, using this approach has caused me agitation-related issues when processing a single reel at a time.
I've had vertical, higher density streaks from the sprocket holes when inverting as per one of your videos due to increased developer flow. Tried slowing down the inversions, which got rid of the streaks, but caused another issue: the long sides of the negative got progressively denser towards the edge.
Now I've started using 600ml developer solution in a two-reel Patterson tank when developing a single reel, and neither of the issues have happened again.
That's good that you have sorted out your issue. How long are you agitating for each time?
@@PictorialPlanet Before, I've tried all permutations of initial from 4 inversions to full minute, and 4 per 30s to 2 per 5 minutes. The results were often faulty in one or another way, and it was really hard to nail the sweet spot.
Now it seems no matter how much agitation I use (semi-stand to 4 inversions per minute), the negatives come out evenly developed, with the expected changes in contrast and relative highlights density.
Gonna pay attention to not only covering the reel fully, but also to how much air to developer there is in the tank from now on.
If you had a film in the reel it would displace more liquid and the level would be higher so using an empty reel is not giving the correct level.
This is a good comment, Ian. Some of us bulk load short lengths that would not make much difference and, to lesson the chance of uneven development and air-bells the higher level of 400ml offered in the video helps a lot.
@@PictorialPlanet Good point and well raised 10 frames is not a lot of film and the tank manufactures are expecting 24 or 36, its never a bad thing to make sure the film is well covered. I always go a bit extra.
Great video, wondered where those bubble marks came from on one of films.
Yep, this will help stop them.
Aways such good and useful information. Thanks John!
Cheers Anthony!
Great info. thank You.
Thank you, Geert!
Simple and good :) - I really do look forward for "The battle of the Titans" !
And what a battle it's going to be! (Love that you used the word 'Titans')
Tested my Paterson Universal tank right after I bought it, and sure enough, 290 was NOT enough indeed
I'm glad I'm not the only one. I use 400ml now all the time.
Would the film on the reel not take up more of the volume and therefore 290ml cover it sufficiently? I’ve been using that number rounded up to 300ml for some years now without any issues...
Thanks for your comment, Michael! This tip lifts the volume of liquid high enough to reduce the chance of dreaded air bells. Some developers are worse for this than others. I recommend it to increase your safety margin. For just 100ml more liquid it can protect your precious negatives.
Can you do a video on constant agitation with a motor base vs hand agitation? How much developer to use and how to test it.
Hi David. I don't have a motor base to be able to do this.
Great vid, very interesting.
Excellent advice, thanks
My pleasure, Stephen!
@@PictorialPlanet morning John, only just found your videos, I do however have an earlier edition of your book and would like to say how much I'm enjoying actually seeing these videos. Hopefully your subscriber numbers will grow," Shoot film like a boss" for one, has got a large, growing following and film photography appears to be gaining acceptance from younger people looking to either move on from digital or just explore film, so in my opinion information presented in a clear concise manner, such as your videos, will become more important in the future, for all lovers of photography.
I use 300ml for 35mm and 500ml for 120 film with universal tank without any issues
I was surprised that my new 2 reel Paterson tank requires 600ml minimum, preferably 650 or 700. Good thing I checked before ruining my film
Thank You
Cheers
Of course, you also have to bear in mind the minimum amount of the developer required to process the film. e.g. Perceptol requires 250 ml stock per 35mm roll but as I use it 1:1 I have to use 500 ml even though a lesser amount would cover the film in the tank.
Hi deemdoubleu
Can you provide a reference for your assertion that Perceptol requires 250ml stock per 35mm film? According to the Perceptol technical data sheet this is only for reusing stock developer multiple times. There's plenty of developing agent for 1+3 development in 250-300ml of working solution to fully develop a film. Compare to FX1 which has only 0.5g metol developing agent per litre and can develop a 35mm film with only 300ml of that working solution.
@@PictorialPlanet Hi it states on the inside of the box 1l = 4x135-36 or 4x120. I know the pdf mentions this in terms of re-use or replenishment but there is a thread on phototrio where someone asked for clarification from Ilford and this was their response (copied from the thread):
///
Good afternoon ,
I'm so sorry that you have found conflicting information - I appreciate its left you confused as to which is safe/correct.
If you are ever in doubt re anything/see conflicting info as that in the future, my advice would always be to go by whats on our website as opposed to the cartons - because website errors tend to be swiftly corrected, whereas carton artwork updates can take several months to get through stocks / be corrected.
But to help clarify all for you now - the technical information sheet number is the correct version - it is 4 films 35mm/120 films per litre.
That is says 5 x 35mm/120 films on the chemistry carton interior - is incorrect.
To be honest - if you had put 5 films through, its likely you would not really have detected any obvious deterioration. Its more if you started to put say 6 plus films through - you would.
I think the reason you are seeing the conflicting info - is because your 93E batch of Perceptol is now quite old. It was made June 2012. It looks like although the artwork at that time was incorrect, all has since been corrected - as my checking current carton artwork seems to now correctly show it as 4 films per litre (exact as on the website).
I hope all now makes sense for you, and you can get some pleasing results with your films
Kind regards,
Sue Evans
///
Very interesting. Thank you for sharing that thread. I re-read the Perceptol sheet and it doesn’t mention this at all except for replenishment. In my experience it is just not necessary to use 250ml stock per film. As I think about it it’s rather strange that for a dilution of 1+3, a totally valid Ilford dilution for Perceptol, I would need 1 litre of working solution for one film, a rather large amount by any standard. I, and many people, have processed films in 1+3 Perceptol in 300ml tanks so I think it’s very strange.
@@PictorialPlanet I think there is a typo in the pdf: " provided that the developer is reused" should read " provided that the
developer is NOT reused". They do mention that with 1+1 and 1+3 that they do not recommend re-use for the reasons they specify. So anyway, that is the recipe I follow i.e. 1+1 = 500ml volume in my tank. I would process 2 rolls in my tank but it won't hold 1l of 1+1 dilution. I suspect that in reality it would be abslutely OK but like most beginners, I don't like to bend the rules too much from fear of the unknown.
Here’s a thread of another who contacted Ilford about this same question:
“ Mike O'Pray
1st May 2016, 05:56 PM
Interesting and comprehensive report, Svend. As you know, I also contacted Ilford and had a quick and good response back from a David Abberley at Ilford.
It seems that Ilford bases its 1+3 dilutions on a minimum of 280ml total liquid.This gives a stock solution quantity of 70mls and with the likes of Paterson tanks (300ml) it is 75mls
He went on to say that as a one-shot and dump, 1L of stock will do at least 13 films which accords with Ilford's statement that its 1+3 film capacity is based on a minimum of 280mls liquid(70-75mls of stock per film = 13-14 films).
As I use Jobo or Durst tanks which only hold 250mls for inversion agitation, I asked him what the absolute minimum of stock might be.
He was brave enough to say that he would not want to use less than 60mls of stock and added the usual caveats about extended development times and the possible risk of exhaustion at 60mls
I think that I have used a 1+3 with 135 HP5+ in a Jobo tank and from what I recall the negs looked OK. Although the tank's capacity for 135 film is 240mls I usually use 25O mls which gives me 62.5ml of stock solution. Not a big margin over 60 but maybe just enough
Clearly there is no issue with 1+3 for 120 film owing to the required liquid to cover the film
There would clearly be an issue with Jobo rotary processing if you stuck to the minimum 140mls total quantity as that is only 35mls of stock solution. You might just about get away with rotary processing a 120 film(240mls of total liquid required) as the stock solution required is 60mls but it would be a whole lot safer to use say 280mls
Interestingly John Tinsley in his book" Rotary Processing" mentions successfully processing with Perceptol but only at stock or 1+1 which gives 70mls of stock solution
So in conclusion and these are my conclusions and not Ilford's but is based on my correspondence with Ilford
1. Based on a tank of at least 280-300ml as in Ilford's statement it would appear that 70-75ml of stock is the safe minimum limit for 1x135 film.
2. You might get away with 60mls but there may be risks as Svend's evidence suggests
3. Using rotary processing with a 135 Jobo tank and using the 140ml capacity in a 1+3 dilution results in only 35ml of stock and this looks to be way below the minimum required.
I think I can remember the scenes from my HP5+ in Perceptol 1+3 and from that memory I'll try and find those negs and have a look at them. I cannot recall exactly what the light conditions were like but it was summer in mid afternoon and I think a mixture of "bright with clouds" Certainly not dull and overcast
I can say that I would have followed the Ilford speed for this combination which is EI 320 and not 400 but then again Perceptol usually means a lowering of film speed.
I think this has been the first time for a long time that I have asked a question of Ilford and I have to say I was impressed with the speed and quality of its answers
Mike “
www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/archive/index.php/t-10978.html
Never understood why the tank states 290 when it's obvious that isn't enough.
I've always put more in then is stated.
You spend valuable time and money on film and the cost of just taking photos. Then some get into splitting hairs in the comments over whether tis better to add 25ml of working dilution developer to safely develop that film. That "opportunity cost" of the extra developer is what, maybe 10 cents. So you want to save that 10 cents and risk your film? The one point related to the discussion but not discussed is that whatever the volume requirements of the tank may be, there is also the requirements that you get enough actual developer into the tank for a given amount of film in order for the film to developproperly from a chemical perspective. This can become a problem when you use highly diluted developers.
Dare I ask how much liquid to use in the 3 x 120 tanks perchance? (Yes I know 3 x 500 is 1500ml alas it may be actually correct in the real world given the thickness of reels).
I don't know, you'll have to measure it, sorry.
Exellent
So your glass beaker is calibrated to 50ml increments (hardly accurate) and you fill the water to around 250ml as I can see at 3:02 hand held - again not accurate - Why would a manufacturer such as Patterson mark on their equipment something false?
Mr Jolly, aren't you missing the point?
Check the volume ourselves…Good point.
However: A beaker is not a “graduate” {graduated cylinder). Nor as accurate.
Regarding “difficult math” - in calculating the correct volume of developer for one’s chose dilution: a slide rule or calculator will make quick work of the tank volume even if it’s not rounded to the nearest 100 ml. To say otherwise risks insulting the intelligence of some of your viewers.
Exec Summary: excellent point. Thanks for making it clearly.
Thanks Larry and you make some good points.