Bluefire development question...

[Stillphotog]

So I have two rolls of Bluefire police that I want to develop, one at a time (in case I screw up). Directions say "Add one part of Bluefire HR concentrate to approximately 16 parts of water (15ml of concentrate to 235 ml of water is a convenient amount, sufficient to process one 35mm 36-exposure roll of film)" which would yield me a working solution of 250 ml.

My tank, on the other hand, calls for 325 cc or ml to cover one roll of 35mm.

If I add another 75 ml of water so that I cover my film sufficiently, how much will I have to increase my dev time due to dillution?

Current directions state 12 minutes (continuous agitation) or 16 minutes (compensating agitation).

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

[Julio1fer]

I don't know the Bluefire developer but know a thing or two about chemistry.

I would recommend as your best option to increase the volume of concentrate in the same relationship of tank volumes, i.e. using 20 ml of concentrate instead of 15 ml, and complete with water up to the 325 ml of your tank.  That would allow you to use the 12 min continuous agitation, or 16 minutes compensating agitation (what is compensating agitation?) recommended times and the standard concentration, which is always a good thing as a starting point.

(20 ml comes from 15 ml times 325 divided by 250, or 325 divided by 16)

On the other hand, if you want to try a more diluted developer, you can use the 15 ml but compensate with more time. Given typical chemistry of developers, that would be about 14 min and 19 min as starting points, depending on the agitation used.

Typical variations in home developing (temperature control, agitation, washing technique, etc) would give effects of the same order as the concentration difference between using 15 and 20 ml in your tank; probably you could also get reasonable results if you use 15 ml and develop for 12 / 16 minutes.

Look out for shadow detail in your negatives, if it is too low you need to increase concentration or development time. 

[Stillphotog]

Great info, thank you. That's exactly what I was looking to hear.  The reason I wanted to not use more developer is due to the fact that I'm trying a sample set of the film, so it came with enough developer to process 2 rolls... Didn't want to beef up one roll's mix at the expense of the other.

On the topic of agitation, this is from the site I bought the film:

1. Make up a working solution of developer. Add one part of Bluefire HR concentrate to approximately 16 parts of water (15ml of concentrate to 235 ml of water is a convenient amount, sufficient to process one 35mm 36-exposure roll of film). The working solution will deteriorate if stored for longer than about a day. Mix it fresh before each use, use it only once, and discard the used developer. An opened bottle of Bluefire HR concentrate has limited life and should be used before it begins to darken and turn red.

2. Develop your film in the working solution at 20°C for 12 minutes (continuous agitation) or 16 minutes (compensating agitation).

For consistency from roll to roll, use continuous gentle agitation. A Jobo rotary processor or equivalent is recommended for consistency. Manually rolling a processing tank back and forth along a tabletop will yield acceptable results. Roll it at the rate of about two feet (about 50-60 cm) in about two seconds, with about one or two seconds between rolls. At the end of 12 minutes, drain the tank.

For the best image, use "compensating" agitation. Agitate gently and continuously for 30 seconds after filling the tank. Then, every 30 seconds, give the tank a gentle up and down shake for about 5 seconds. After three minutes have lapsed,  allow the tank to sit undisturbed for three minutes between 5-second agitations. At the end of 16 minutes, drain the tank.

[LarryD]

I wrote to the main dealer for the Rollei films in Europe and this is the answer I got about these films. Seems the Bluefire is sold under other names and there are different types.

Hi Larry,

All those micro films are comming from Agfa Gevaert in Belgium.
This film was previous used for sattelite picture.

The Copex micro films have more versions:
ATP1.1 is the extended red version of Copex.

The Adox CMS20 is the Ortho version of Copex. Same film is the SPUR Orthopan UR and I think also the Blue Fire Police film. This Copex version has the highest resolution but is rather slow: 800lp/mm (1000:1) and iso 10-12. In a special developer you can get iso 15-20.

The ATP1.1 is 400lp/mm and a bit faster: iso 20 and in the special ATP-DC developer you can get iso 25-32.
It's even available in 120 roll film too.

SPUR made a new universal developer for all micro films:
SPUR Modular UR. Parts A/B/C/D depending on which version micro film you have and which format.

Best regards,

Robert

[Julio1fer]

OK, point understood about compensation agitation. 

Another option, if you want to save developer, is to increase exposure. This would give better tonal gradation but less contrast overall.

I'd say that about half a stop extra exposure should allow you to get by with the more diluted developer (i.e. 15 ml in your full tank) and still keep the same developing times.

Bluefire Police looks like an interesting film from its web site in Adox. I suspect that this film may be a bit tricky to find an optimal development time.

If your objective is to test the film, I'd recommend trying bracketing exposure, shooting each subject five times in increments of 1/2 stop (or three times in increments of 1 stop, if you are as impatient as I am). Center the bracket in box ISO or a bit below it (for instance, a half stop below box ISO). Develop for standard times and concentrations and then choose the best overall EI for the time and concentration used. From that solid data point, you can work out your options.

You should be able to use other developers as well.  I'm sure that T-max, HC-110, Diafine, D-76 or Rodinal would work well with that film, provided you work to try an optimal combination of exposure, dilution and time.

[LarryD]

I use Diafine on Microfilm and Technical Pan. 3 +1 or 2 fore some and others are right up 3+3. Super dilute Rodinol works but you lose speed with an already slow film.

[Stillphotog]

So I developed the first roll... 16 minutes, the more diluted developer, compensating agitation, 74 degrees.

Really nice ultra clear base, super thin film stock. Only issue - they look a bit thin. Not sure if that's just the way this film is or not, since some online info states that it might not have solid blacks when enlarging because of the added shadow detail. Guess I could try giving the other roll another minute or two and see if that helps.

Funny thing as I was mixing the developer, I measured out 15ml into my measuring beaker, and realized it looked like there was more than half left in the bottle. Reading the extremely fine print next to the "30ml" on the bottle it reads "at least." So after all that, I probably could have used 20ml. Oh well haha.

So what says you guys? More dev time?

[Julio1fer]

Is average density about right?  More developing time = more contrast, more exposure = higher average density.

When in doubt, increase exposure.

[Stillphotog]

Well looking at the leader, which should have been dense black, it's actually quite easy to see through... Could I have bleached it via over-fixing?

[Julio1fer]

It is very unlikely that you are bleaching the silver - it would take many hours in the fixing bath.  I'd bet that blacks are intended to look like that. Conventional wisdom is you can (barely) read newspaper print through the blacks in the frame, though maybe not through the leader!

So I developed the first roll... 16 minutes, the more diluted developer, compensating agitation, 74 degrees.

What dilution did you use? I understand that you used 15 ml concentrate in your 325 ml tank, is that right?

That concentration would need about 19 minutes (ballpark figure) at 20 C (68 F), which would be about equivalent to 16 min at 74 F, which is what you used. In order to have an effect in the leader, the shortage in development time would have to be horrendous, like half the correct time or less. This does not seem to be the case.

The telltale sign of too short a development time is too low contrast.  Look at a frame of a subject with high contrast and a full range of tones. You should see the whole range of tones in the negative, from black (almost as in the leader) to almost as clear as in unexposed areas. You should also see good detail in both black and clear areas of the negative. Detail in the clear areas (shadows in the subject) is put there by exposure. If you have bad detail in the shadows, you need more exposure. If you have bad detail in the highlights (black areas in the neg) you need more development.

More developing time will give you more contrast, but the increase in average density will not be very high after a certain point. If you want to try for effect of more time, increase time significantly - one or two minutes would be fine tuning. For instance, do 24 minutes instead of 16.

Another factor may be agitation. I'd do a run with standard agitation instead of compensating, to compare. Standard agitation is more reproducible; your technique may be different than what the manufacturer had in mind when they recommended times for compensating agitation.

OTOH thin negatives scan well, and can be enlarged easily (contrast can be controlled in wet printing) so maybe you could try your results before correcting.

I'm not even considering patological factors - bad chemicals in the developer, for instance. That could also be a cause of problems.

[Stillphotog]

Figured I'd try to scan some of them and see what they looked like... All I did was retouch out dust / spots, and sharpened it a tad. No density / curves yet.



Seems to have a nice tonal range, and the shadow details seem intact. As advertised, the grain is really non-existant (of course that's coming from a Tri-X lover). Not quite sure what's going on in the background near the center of frame. Guessing it might be halation due to how thin the film stock is, even though it has an anti-halation backing? Luckily not moire.