# Using Ilford universal paper Developer with film



## stowpirate (Sep 15, 2009)

Has anybody any idea on what the develpment time and mix for Using Ilford Universal Paper Developer with film. I am going to try 1+9 mix for 6 minutes on HP5 film and see what happens. Before I ruin a film somebody may have already tried this and worked out the mix and times for various films? This was forced on me when I ran out of Jessops developer and find I have loads of unopened Ilford Universal Paper Developer which I do not want to go to waste.


----------



## Herbsman. (Sep 15, 2009)

dont do it


----------



## Wilson (Sep 15, 2009)

no idea, could you not do a clip test?


----------



## cybertect (Sep 15, 2009)

http://www.retrophotographic.com/PDFs/Ilford Paper Developers Data Sheet.pdf




			
				Ilford said:
			
		

> *ILFORD PQ UNIVERSAL developer*
> 
> PQ UNIVERSAL is a liquid concentrate dimezone- s/hydroquinone developer suitable for the dish/tray developing of all RC and FB black and white photographic papers. Used at a dilution of 1+9 it is clean working and has excellent keeping properties. It gives a slightly warm of neutral image tone with most papers.
> 
> In addition PQ UNIVERSAL can be used to dish/tray process ILFORD and some other technical films. It is also suitable for dish/tray developing of general purpose sheet films when a fast working, high contrast developer is needed and a high degree of enlargement is not required. For film processing applications it is diluted either 1+9 (high contrast) or 1+19 (pictorial contrast). PQ UNIVERSAL is not recommended for processing general purpose 35mm and roll film formats.



suggests you're going to get grainy, contrasty results.

A bit of googling found this (which ties in with the above) and this



> From my old "The Manual of Photography" (formerly "The Ilford Manual of Photography")...
> 
> ID-36 MQ universal developer for films and papers:
> 
> ...


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 15, 2009)

cybertect said:


> http://www.retrophotographic.com/PDFs/Ilford Paper Developers Data Sheet.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the info. Looks as if 1+19 mix at 6 minutes might work albeit hp5 it is not a slow film.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 15, 2009)

It could be an interesting experiment. I'd sort of missed the fact you were using HP5. 

I wouldn't expect much shadow and highlight detail - shoot accordingly.


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 15, 2009)

cybertect said:


> It could be an interesting experiment. I'd sort of missed the fact you were using HP5.
> 
> I wouldn't expect much shadow and highlight detail - shoot accordingly.



Using PhotoScape after scanning I might be able to recover any lost detail or fool the eye.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 16, 2009)

Don't do it stowpirate!

On of the first lessons I learned when starting out in photography is never to use print developer with film.  No matter how much you dilute it, it will never give you a proper range of tones.  There used to be a developer called Technol that was sold to schools as an all purpose developer.  It set a whole generation of starting photographers back because they could never get a whole range of tones in their negatives.  It made for more difficult printing and the tendency to jump to high contrast printing (something young inexperienced photographers think is good).

Don't do it stowpirate.  Just because you have no standards is no reason to spread your gospel on to the internet.  Old cameras with perhaps dodgy lenses, yes, but exhausted developer or print developer used for film NO.

When will you ever learn, you stubborn romantic.

If you are messing with unknown hardware, then use state of the art software, that is to say photographic paper and developer.

If Ilford or Kodak or Fujifilm tells you to stand on your head wearing a red jumper and singing Waltzing Matilda while developing their film, then do it.  They have worked out how to get the best quality from their product.  They do this because they want you to come back and buy some more.  It is good business sense.

Stowpirate I despair of you.  You will end up with lots of photographs of your family that will be of poorer quality than they need to be.


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 16, 2009)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Don't do it stowpirate!
> 
> On of the first lessons I learned when starting out in photography is never to use print developer with film.  No matter how much you dilute it, it will never give you a proper range of tones.  There used to be a developer called Technol that was sold to schools as an all purpose developer.  It set a whole generation of starting photographers back because they could never get a whole range of tones in their negatives.  It made for more difficult printing and the tendency to jump to high contrast printing (something young inexperienced photographers think is good).



Here we go again, I know the problems and I know it will work in a fashion. You have to have some self belief, either the negs will be a complete disaster and I will save some of them in photo editing or it will produce acceptable results. If I try this on two or three films and it does not work I will throw the damned stuff away. Failure is not an option 



Hocus Eye. said:


> Don't do it stowpirate.  Just because you have no standards is no reason to spread your gospel on to the internet.  Old cameras with perhaps dodgy lenses, yes, but exhausted developer or print developer used for film NO.



Sorry that sounds like your own  gospel. I have very high standards which I think if you look at all my photographs you will agree. I would hope this type of thing would inspire some to return to film and have a go. As for chemicals, you are correct my stock has probably had it and should be thrown away. But I am still going to use it all up as it cost me next to nothing.



Hocus Eye. said:


> When will you ever learn, you stubborn romantic.
> 
> If you are messing with unknown hardware, then use state of the art software, that is to say photographic paper and developer.



I have to agree totally with that rule. But rules like that ask to be broken  



Hocus Eye. said:


> If Ilford or Kodak or Fujifilm tells you to stand on your head wearing a red jumper and singing Waltzing Matilda while developing their film, then do it.  They have worked out how to get the best quality from their product.  They do this because they want you to come back and buy some more.  It is good business sense.



Because they tell you to do it that way is a good enough reason for me to do my own thing, well mostly. I have stop and wetting agent but never use them as it adds to the process time and has no real advantage. The grease on your fingers can be used to remove dried water droplets on the shiny side of the negatives. Dust scratches or even defects introduced when battling to get a film on a development tank spool in a daylight changing bag can all be corrected in software. Medium format can sometimes refuse to go on them spools  



Hocus Eye. said:


> Stowpirate I despair of you.  You will end up with lots of photographs of your family that will be of poorer quality than they need to be.



I take far too many photos to worry about that. It is all about the challenge and not the photographic quality.  I do not take this as seriously as some and think my style of grey grainy maybe out of focus images is something more interesting from the normal high quality stuff. A final point is that some photographs print out better than they first look.

Have you any suggestions on dev mix and time for both HP5 or FP4 film?


----------



## Herbsman. (Sep 16, 2009)

REAL photogra... oh I'm getting bored of this now.


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 16, 2009)

Herbsman. said:


> REAL photogra... oh I'm getting bored of this now.



It is getting a tad serious now


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 16, 2009)

First attempt and it looks as if it is possible. Dev time was 5.5 minutes at 1+19 mix. I am going to use this with 120 film as it is very grainy and not really usable with 35mm. I will try and fine tune the dev time mix over the next few films. The camera used was a Graflex Ciro 35


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 16, 2009)

From same film and camera tweaked in Gimp


----------



## boskysquelch (Sep 16, 2009)

stowpirate said:


> I am going to use this with 120 film as it is very grainy and not really usable with 35mm.



it'll be as grainy, same size grainy, but more of it. 

you shure itsnot _r e t i c u l a t i o n_. 


*prolly not but the werd makes me larf.


----------



## boskysquelch (Sep 16, 2009)

stowpirate said:


> tweaked in Gimp



_reaLLY_?


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 16, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> it'll be as grainy, same size grainy, but more of it.
> 
> you shure itsnot _r e t i c u l a t i o n_.
> 
> ...



You know what I am getting at? Them larger negatives mean the grain becomes a none issue


----------



## boskysquelch (Sep 16, 2009)

stowpirate said:


> You know what I am getting at? Them larger negatives mean the grain becomes a none issue


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 16, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


>



I need to add some Guiness to the developer to give some extra tonal range or even scan in colour


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 16, 2009)

Hocus Eye you was right - proved wrong again


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 16, 2009)

Stowpirate

I had a go at post-processing your picture of your boy using PS Elements.  First I used Noise Ninja to reduce the grain a bit, and then used Elements own noise reduction filter, opting for _Despeckle _ which I have never used before.  This gave a smoother effect on the face albeit slightly soft focus.  I then used Levels and darkened the mid tones a bit bringing a bit more solidity to the image.

You may be able to do something similar with Gimp or that other program that you have referred to recently.  I didn't save the result as it isn't my picture, but you may be able to get something out of the picture.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 16, 2009)

was this an exercise in the aid of experimentation or did you just not have any film processor about?


----------



## boskysquelch (Sep 16, 2009)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Stowpirate
> 
> I had a go at post-processing your picture of your boy using PS Elements.  First I used Noise Ninja to reduce the grain a bit, and then used Elements own noise reduction filter, opting for _Despeckle _ which I have never used before.  This gave a smoother effect on the face albeit slightly soft focus.  I then used Levels and darkened the mid tones a bit bringing a bit more solidity to the image.
> 
> You may be able to do something similar with Gimp or that other program that you have referred to recently.  I didn't save the result as it isn't my picture, but you may be able to get something out of the picture.



my version went along the lines of..._"Wa_hi_tf do you bother using GIMP if you don't *USE* it...aight!!!?"_ ...I did have a more growned up version...but I'm sure you know what I mean.


----------



## boskysquelch (Sep 16, 2009)

sim667 said:


> was this an exercise in the aid of experimentation or did you just not have any film processor about?



re-read the OP


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 16, 2009)

sim667 said:


> was this an exercise in the aid of experimentation or did you just not have any film processor about?


I think it was the latter.  Stowpirate takes the idea of 'make do and mend' to the nth degree.  Read this thread and some of his others about getting old cameras, film and photo chemicals from car boot sales.  I have tried to remonstrate with him but to no avail.  Sailing against the wind is his hobby, borne from lack of funds but now a complete lifestyle.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 16, 2009)

I suggest that, if you're going to use paper developer with HP5, embrace the grain and make it a feature. Attempts to reduce it will negate the point; unless the point is pure economy and even then I think it's a better course to steer.

Random-ish selection from the Flickr BW Grain pool

http://www.flickr.com/photos/toki_dub/3881278499/sizes/o/in/pool-50887705@N00/

[the same guy's stream has some other nice examples]

e2a: He seems to be using Tri-X (which is comparable with HP5) at 1600 ASA.


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 16, 2009)

sim667 said:


> was this an exercise in the aid of experimentation or did you just not have any film processor about?



Both really, I have loads of this Ilford Universal Paper developer and only film to use it with.


----------



## boskysquelch (Sep 16, 2009)

stowpirate said:


> Both really, I have loads of this Ilford Universal Paper developer and only film to use it with.




The first darkroom I built with a mate, as a 10 year old, was also similarly provisioned. We "bought" the entire contents of police station dark room for a quid. Took us a day to empty it by wheel barrow into a garden round the corner from the station being decommissioned... a fully professional darkroom for a quid!!!!!!!! Dursts, plastic & ceramics trays, sheet film, lith etc etc... the only thing that there was NONE of was film developer...but we had BARRELS of paper developer that were used for the next 5 years or so...

There was a book that Focal Press or similar did about the Vogue Photographers using TRI-X & different devving techniques for effect... Arthur Elgort was my favourite I seem to remember.

eg...which in my opinion was achieved with trix devved upto the eyeballs and print around grade4...slowly.







awwwr a mate of mine who appeared on Facebook the otherday ran away with her on a cross US trip on a Harley...onceuponatimeaboutthen...


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 16, 2009)

boskysquelch - Interesting story and great photo. 

You might be able answer this? If I use a slower film,  something like FP4 125  and develop it in say 1+49 mix for 10 minutes or so will I get better results?


----------



## boskysquelch (Sep 16, 2009)

stowpirate said:


> boskysquelch - Interesting story and great photo.
> 
> You might be able answer this? If I use a slower film,  something like FP4 125  and develop it in say 1+49 mix for 10 minutes or so will I get better results?




simply yup...more fun though would be to up the temp of the dev & decrease the time...but then you will have to be careful of reticulation(phnaaar)..and I'd prolly go for a bit of over exposure to also "try" to get the neg as thick as poss....

And all that being said I would regularly have dev time up in the 16 min range.. I also recall. 

Fixing is important toooo...on this playing field...it's a bugger keeping on top of things...you make sure it's strong enuff with the tail of yer film?..quicker & cleaner it goes clear the better? 

I'm off for a walk on the harbour & to bed N_N


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 16, 2009)

Thanks Bosky, I now know about Arthur Elgort - and I didn't before - and also Christy Turlington.  Hmmm a very stylish photograph.  I can't imagine her going on the back of a motorbike though.  I thought these models were rather precious and expected luxury all the time.


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 16, 2009)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I think it was the latter.  Stowpirate takes the idea of 'make do and mend' to the nth degree.  Read this thread and some of his others about getting old cameras, film and photo chemicals from car boot sales.  I have tried to remonstrate with him but to no avail.  Sailing against the wind is his hobby, borne from lack of funds but now a complete lifestyle.



You should see my car. Nothing works, but it still gets through the mot. Secondhand parts, car boot sale tyres anything to save money 

Hocus Eye my negatives from this film are more or less unusable. The very high contrast shots are not even worth editing. Also if I had known the grain was going to be such an issue I would have used 120 film and obviously something a tad slower.  Thanks for having a go at editing my photo. It would have been interesting to see the results.


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 16, 2009)

cybertect said:


> I suggest that, if you're going to use paper developer with HP5, embrace the grain and make it a feature. Attempts to reduce it will negate the point; unless the point is pure economy and even then I think it's a better course to steer.
> 
> Random-ish selection from the Flickr BW Grain pool
> 
> ...



I agree the grain has to stay maybe even enhanced in photo editing. Thanks for the links.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 16, 2009)

Stowpirate

I agree with Bosky about longer developing times.  If you dilute the developer more and develop for longer, it should give a smoother tonal range and also with developing times over 15 minutes the margin of error for timing is much greater.  

I don't agree with the esteemed Bosky about raising the developing temperature though in the absence of professional lab equipment, because it requires some means of maintaining the temperature, such as a water bath around the measuring cylinder which has to be topped up  with warmer water regularly.  Also hotter developer especially highly diluted will oxidise (there is dissolved oxygen in the water) during the time it takes to process and will add to your problems.  The reason Ilford et al recommend 20 C as developing time is that this is standard room temperature.  As a side issue, according to Langford*, Reticulation is a thing of the past because the gelatine in modern films is more stable.


*Michael Langford _Basic Photography_


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 16, 2009)

These two worked out a tad better- I think 
Edited in ShowFoto DigiKam which I think is better than Gimp's limited black and white control.






Second attempt at this one






Might be some problems introduced by this camera lens and shutter. I imagine the shutter speeds are a tad out!

Hocus Eye. Next time I am going for a longer dev time and more diluted mix. I already know all about the temperature thingy. My cold tap water sometimes comes out in the summer at exactly 20C which is helpful. So what I need now is some FP4 120 film which will cost me some money!!!


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 17, 2009)

Decided to start again as first film was a disaster, meaning neg scans were unusable. The film amongst other things was well over developed, with Ciro 35 camera being an unknown quantity. This time I have tried to work from data sheets etc and used a better suited Ilford FP4 125 film I had waiting to be developed. I decided on a conservative dev time of 5 minutes at 1+19 mix. Results suggest the same mix for HP5 would require about 4 minutes!!!  Next try will be 1+24 mix for 7 minutes or 6 with HP5. Then maybe to 1+49 and 16 minutes!  The camera used was a 1932 Leica II with Industar-22 Lens.


----------



## boskysquelch (Sep 17, 2009)

you can extend the devving time by lowering the temperature!


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 17, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> you can extend the devving time by lowering the temperature!



What do you suggest and how will it help? I have now got a sort working system within 30 seconds of ideal for this paper developer.


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 17, 2009)

Here is another one from the Ilford FP4 125 film. Tried to rescue this one in Paint Shop Pro but really a lost cause


----------



## boskysquelch (Sep 17, 2009)

stowpirate said:


> but really a lost cause



hardly... ... you've jus gotta learn how and what to do to do what you want to see...once you work out your techniques and how to implement them ...and where and when...then you'll jus schweeeeeng thru shizzle...eventually.

Layers/Masks/Selections/Levels/Curves etc etc... they make appear hardcore as first...but tis all tools as a means to an end blah blah blah.


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 17, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> hardly... ... you've jus gotta learn how and what to do to do what you want to see...once you work out your techniques and how to implement them ...and where and when...then you'll jus schweeeeeng thru shizzle...eventually.
> 
> Layers/Masks/Selections/Levels/Curves etc etc... they make appear hardcore as first...but tis all tools as a means to an end blah blah blah.



It is not the photo editing but the crap negatives, albeit half the time I cannot be bothered to sort the image out properly and use auto everything. I really think i need to get a better scanner and sort out this developing lark. Epson 2480 running Xsane does not make a happy combination.














Here is another go using Virtual Studio


----------

