Developing issue, very annoying & mysterious too

[m1ks]

I generally use three developers, (thus far), being Jessops own Unidev, (I use this for paper too), Ilfords Perceptol and ID11.
Needing to dev a roll of 400 Delta recently after testing a new camera and having only perceptol mixed I cracked open the Unidev, (have used this many times previously but this is a fresh bottle), developed the film by hand as I couldn't be bothered to get the rotary process out and the whole thing came out very pale as if overdeveloped, even the numbering and name of Ilford was the same and I use this as a guideline as generally if this is well contrasted then i know the fault lies with the images, OK I thought, haven't hand developed in a little while i've messed up somewhere, ditched the stop and fix and remade fresh as a matter of course, dev is used as one shot only.
Shot another roll through of Delta 100, rotary processed and results OK, maybe not quite as contrasty as normal, tried a roll of HP5 I had laying around, OK, so things looking OK I then developed a couple of submini FP4+ and again same results as the first, very nearly clear with just a hint of the frames.
I'm a bit baffled and as it's been a while since i've worked in the darkroom wonder if i'm missing something obvious here.

All times and temps OK within 1 degree either way, measurements for dev accurate and consistent with chart
Anyone with similar expereince I'd appreciate some ideas?

Cheers

M

[taxor]

Have you tested your camera to make sure it's exposing correctly? Maybe you need to run a test to determine your personal film speed for your chosen emulsion.

Are you using the same development time for hand processing as you do for rotary? Manual processing would need a longer dev time.

Are you using the right dev. time for the dilution of developer?

Is your Jessops developer exhausted?

[beejaybee]

Have you tested your camera to make sure it's exposing correctly?

Surely that wouldn't affect the density of the film ID etc in the edges which never meet the light coming through the lens

[Woolliscroft]

Have you tested your camera to make sure it's exposing correctly?

Surely that wouldn't affect the density of the film ID etc in the edges which never meet the light coming through the lens

Absolutely. You might just have a duff batch of dev. I have never used this developer, so can't really comment further, but it might be best to sling it, rather than keeping on trying it with yet another film type. One thought, though, you say the temp is right to a degree (I always try to get it bang on), but at this time of year room and equipment temperature can be a good bit lower, so that the dev will cool during use. It might be worth putting the tank in a water bath between agitations and giving a pre wash to warm the pot as it were and get the film and tank interior up to temp before putting the dev in.

[zx9]

Have you tested your camera to make sure it's exposing correctly?

Surely that wouldn't affect the density of the film ID etc in the edges which never meet the light coming through the lens

Yes the edge markings will be correct on an unexposed film, assuming it has been developed correctly.

the whole thing came out very pale as if overdeveloped, even the numbering and name of Ilford was the same

Underdeveloped not overdeveloped, overdeveloped would be darker.

Rotary processors do cut process times, if times are not reduced you will get darker and higher contrast negs.

Edited to include:
Sorry David, I was a little slow typing there.

[nimbus]

Sounds like the developer may be 'off'. What colour does it look? The local Jessops once tried to sell me some developer that was mahogany in colour!

[m1ks]

Taxor

The 35mm is a new purchase and this a test roll, the submini is tried and tested
Hand proc adjusted accordingly, sit tank in tub of water at 21 deg in between inversions
Right dev time according to prev exp and charts
Dev new and clear, has worked on three films hence confusion

Woolliscroft

Tank pre warmed in bath at 21 deg, dev mixed immediately prior to use and checked for 20 deg, tank in water bath between agitation, when in processor it's kept at a constant 22 deg in the tank which maintains accurate temp of 20 deg
Essentially as accurate as you can be at home but still the slim chance of a degree difference

ZX9

Apologies I meant overprocessed rather than overdeveloped, as if the concentrate was too high and has dissolved nearly all the emulsion as the edge markings are faint too? Does this make sense?

p.s. Good choice in Bike mfr, I'm a bit more retro but you're on the right track

Nimbus

The dev is the right colour, (clear), and has only recently been opened but has been sitting in my darkroom box for a while, i've used Unidev after it's exceeded the recommended 'Straw tint hurl the lot' stage

So anyone else?
I guess i'll try out another few rolls and if theres still inconsistency bin it and get some fresh, have gone through two bottles prior to this with no issues but haven't used it for a ear or so after the second one as I was almost exclusively developing in ID11
thanks for the suggestions all

[beejaybee]

So anyone else?

The only thing I can think of that you haven't ruled out is some contaminant getting into the developer and poisoning it. I take it tanks etc. are thoroughly washed ... which still leaves the water. I don't know what your tap water is like but round here the quantities of chlorine (added as a bactericide) vary greatly. There may be other chemicals which get added which are (allegedly) harmless when drunk but might affect the developer - in particular alum, used to precipitate silt so the water looks clear. Try using demineralized water, or even cheap supermarket bottled water, instead of mains supply, to make up your developer.

[wesforee]

If it has been overdeveloped the edge lettering will be darker and the negs will be denser too. With serious over development you'll end up with a base fog on the negs.

Did you use the same dev times when processing by hand as you would with the rotary processor? If so then it has been under developed. Constant agitation during development can knock a third off dev times (a trick we used to use when I worked a t a newspaper, along with making the dev warmer to seriously shorten dev times).

If your film only had intermittent agitation then the film would have effectively had less development.

Hope this helps

Matt

[m1ks]

Thanks and this certainly casts a new light on things, shows I was thinking about it all the wrong way round.
The hand dev was 15% longer as per the rotary reductions scale, (i.e. book time), temp was as consistent as possible agitation was constant for the first 30s then 1 inversion every 15s after which follows previous hand inversion use to my knowledge, (it's been a while since i've used either Unidev or hand agitated)
I've not discounted the dodgy dev idea & will test further before discarding it, thanks for the further info however, one thing noted though making me think of overdevelopment is that on the sub film the areas exposed to daylight before loading are thick blocks of black as ou'd normally see but the frames are barel visible

[taxor]

[quote
One thought, though, you say the temp is right to a degree (I always try to get it bang on), but at this time of year room and equipment temperature can be a good bit lower, so that the dev will cool during use. It might be worth putting the tank in a water bath between agitations and giving a pre wash to warm the pot as it were and get the film and tank interior up to temp before putting the dev in.

[/QUOTE]
David is correct. I always use a 5 minute pre-soak. It takes quite a bit of time for the film/reel/tank combo to come up to operating temperature with a water bath alone (take the temperature of you dev immediately after use - you might be surprised at how much it can fall at this time of year) but an additional pre-soak helps admirably. My developer temperature rarely varies by any more than 1/4 a degree - tops. There are other subtle benefits also, but let's not get sidetracked

[John_K]

I have posted this a few times before.

The developing times for Ilford film are one of the great mysteries of life. However the way to break the spell and obtain the correct times is to burgle the Ilford website ond download the developing times as per the list shown.

There are SIGNIFICANT differences between that and those printed on bottles, and inside the paper cartons.

Apparently the films are updated/tweeked every so often and the only way to keep up to date is to use the times shown on the website

[spinno]

I have posted this a few times before.

The developing times for Ilford film are one of the great mysteries of life. However the way to break the spell and obtain the correct times is to burgle the Ilford website ond download the developing times as per the list shown.

There are SIGNIFICANT differences between that and those printed on bottles, and inside the paper cartons.

Apparently the films are updated/tweeked every so often and the only way to keep up to date is to use the times shown on the website

yes but are they only valid for the updated film...some of us use "older" film

[John_K]

[/QUOTE]yes but are they only valid for the updated film...some of us use "older" film

[/QUOTE]

Just use the updated times they are usually correct. Why/how the older times were issued again is one of lifes great mysteries.