PDA

View Full Version : Two Bath Developing?


photorat
11-20-2008, 15:27
If you read this (http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Using-two-bath-developers), one does indeed wonder why the hell one hasn't done it all one's life. But before I try two bath development, I wonder if anyone here has some experience with it and could testify to its effectiveness. Is this really the miracle solution for guesstimated exposures and slap-bang development?

cjm
11-20-2008, 15:49
I was hooked the first time I tried Diafine (2-bath). I usually shoot between 400-1600 and the exposure is fine for my taste. If I need more control over exposure, I use HC110.

Roger Hicks
11-20-2008, 15:53
With modern films there is little if any net advantage in two-bath.

I used to do it 40 years ago, with outdated FP3, and even then, it was marginal. I liked the tonality. With modern films, there's even less advantage.

It's cheap, long-lasting and if not idiot-proof, then at least idiot-resistant. But anyone who tells you it's completely independent of time and temperature, instead of tolerant of sloppy time and temperature control, is outside even the idiot-resistant camp.

Cheers,

R.

lkgroup
11-20-2008, 16:36
I have used a two bath developer called TD-201. the film I have used mostly is Eastman Double XX 250 ASA film.

Read in this thread for the formula and information on Eastman XX Film. This film is said to in the similar to the old style film.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52426

Leo

vieri
11-20-2008, 16:39
I used (still do when needed) Diafine for Tri-X @ 1250-1600, and like what I see. However, I'd suggest to add a 4th possible answer to the poll:

"Like it and use it occasionally"

or something like that - none of the answers you offered suits in my case :D

charjohncarter
11-20-2008, 16:58
I've read that piece and I decided to do the 'two teaspoon two bath development.' I altered it, but I use it all the time. In fact, I used it today. Here are two from today:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3047/3047049714_bc7e31cb62.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3293/3047041280_1c79d4dcb3.jpg?v=0

I couldn't resist the second one; two bath development and a Brownie Hawkeye lens (flipped) mounted on my Pentax 6x7.

dazedgonebye
11-20-2008, 17:28
I use Barry's 2 bath developer as my primary and Diafine for pushing tri-x.

I use the Barry's at room temperature and am not precise about the time. It seems to work great for me for Efke 25, Efke 50, Efke 100, Ilford PanF and Ilford FP4.

It certainly has proven "Idiot resistant" enough for this particular idiot.

Morris
11-20-2008, 17:48
It certainly has proven "Idiot resistant" enough for this particular idiot.

This one too!

Tri-X @1600 in Diafine is beautiful and great for scanning.

charjohncarter
11-20-2008, 17:50
Steve, my method which is just my own fooling around is to use my primary developer (in my case HC-110h or Rodinal 1+50), and then cut three minutes off my normal time time and then use 5.0 Cs (about a teaspoon and half of Twenty Mule Team Borax 500 per ml of water) for the final three minutes. Agitation stays the same. Here is one in HOC-H:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/2978140323_ba2b9a1a43.jpg

Taken at AM, no inside lighting.

dazedgonebye
11-20-2008, 17:58
Steve, my method which is just my own fooling around is to use my primary developer (in my case HC-110h and Rodinal 1+50), and then cut three minutes off my normal time time and then use 5.0 Cs (about a teaspoon and half of Twenty Mule Team Borax 500 per ml of water) for the final three minutes. Agitation stays the same. Here is one in HOC-H:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/2978140323_ba2b9a1a43.jpg

Taken at AM, no inside lighting.

That's interesting John. Why do you chose to do this?

BTW, I rate tri-x at 1250 iso in diafine...opinions differ on that rating, and I haven't shot enough to say anything definite either way.

dagabel
11-20-2008, 20:00
I got started with B&W development a couple of years ago and used Diafine exclusively (mostly with Arista EDU Ultra) until it gave out a couple of months ago. I've recently been trying HC-110 dilution h with 4x5 sheets (again, Arista EDU Ultra), but it requires obviously more discipline. As an aside, I also notice that developing with HC-110 requires a bit more water (pre-soak, one-shot development and water stop). I like the idea of gaining more control over my development than Diafine offers, but I still have yet to achieve any kind of competency.

Duane

kaiyen
11-20-2008, 20:21
Duane's comment at the end is what nails it for me. I just like having more control over all the variables. Exposure to the various areas based on my pre-visualization. Development of highlights to get tonal range desired. Change exposure and development to get the contrast desired.

Depends on my goal.

And I rewind film half way all the time if I suddenly need something totally different. Only way to fight it with roll film, though my fine art work is all medium or large format so that's a lot easier. 35mm is more for street or just for having with me at random times.

charjohncarter
11-20-2008, 20:35
Steve, I modified Barry's method because I wanted a little more shadow, but I didn't want to mess with all that mixing. Now I only have to put the Borax in a graduate, so one more step. Control, as Kaiyen says, is the answer, but it takes a lot of testing to great what you want. I thought I had it a year ago, but then it started doing this method. I just hope I don't get another brain storm.

wintoid
11-20-2008, 22:18
I've been using Barry's 2-bath for a few weeks but haven't liked the results much. I've used Diafine, and usually keep some on hand because it's so useful, but it's never going to be my primary developer.

Roger Hicks
11-21-2008, 02:11
Perhaps I should add that when I said 'idiot proof' and 'idiot resistant' , I was NOT calling anyone an idiot for using it -- I LIKE stuff that's idiot-resistant as it greatly reduces my own chances of making stupid mistakes.

All I meant was that some users make wildly exaggerated claims for two-bath (especially Diafine, for some reason). Yes, it is very tolerant -- but equally, yes, you can go beyond even its tolerance levels, for example by using it too cool; or leaving the film so long in the first bath that significant development takes place in that bath (many two-baths can be used as fine-grain, speed-reducing developers by omitting the second bath and greatly extending the first); or not leaving the film in the second bath long enough to exhaust the developing agent; or of course any combination of the above.

It also tends to be in the nature of two-baths that they are compensating developers, so either you like the tonality for your subjects, or you don't.

Cheers,

Roger

varjag
11-21-2008, 05:39
I agree there is a lot of myths about Diafine in particular.

I don't get why folks claim that Tri-X is "natural" 1250 in it: shouldn't they surely notice the blank shadows?

At EI 800 it is close to what I get in EI 640 in Microphen, except highlights tend to be denser. The grain however is not nice.

Matt(1pt4)
11-21-2008, 05:47
But anyone who tells you it's completely independent of time and temperature, instead of tolerant of sloppy time and temperature control, is outside even the idiot-resistant camp.

Cheers,

R.

Indeed, and the crud that accumulates in the bottom of your diafine bottles eventually gets all over your negs:bang:

Ronald_H
11-21-2008, 06:00
Indeed, and the crud that accumulates in the bottom of your diafine bottles eventually gets all over your negs:bang:

Two words: Coffee filter.

Anyway, I love Tri-X in Diafine for high contrast work. 1250 seems about right. But I moved on since then. Diafine was just the first step in my 'home development' career. Fine if you know its limitations, but pretty darn handy all the same.

Posted this pic many times before. From the first roll I ever developed at home. Tri-X in Diafine rated at 1250ISO. Reason enough to stick with it I'd say.

http://members.chello.nl/~r.hogenboom/temp/Image037_sb.jpg

dazedgonebye
11-21-2008, 06:16
I certainly take on offense at the term.
I chose my processes largely because of the idiot proof factor. The level of precision needed for some aspects of photography does not appeal to me...sucks the fun right out of it.

Perhaps I should add that when I said 'idiot proof' and 'idiot resistant' , I was NOT calling anyone an idiot for using it -- I LIKE stuff that's idiot-resistant as it greatly reduces my own chances of making stupid mistakes.

All I meant was that some users make wildly exaggerated claims for two-bath (especially Diafine, for some reason). Yes, it is very tolerant -- but equally, yes, you can go beyond even its tolerance levels, for example by using it too cool; or leaving the film so long in the first bath that significant development takes place in that bath (many two-baths can be used as fine-grain, speed-reducing developers by omitting the second bath and greatly extending the first); or not leaving the film in the second bath long enough to exhaust the developing agent; or of course any combination of the above.

It also tends to be in the nature of two-baths that they are compensating developers, so either you like the tonality for your subjects, or you don't.

Cheers,

Roger

shadowfox
11-21-2008, 09:05
IF there is a two-bath developer that doesn't involve mixing any powder, I'll try it. Is there?

dazedgonebye
11-21-2008, 09:18
IF there is a two-bath developer that doesn't involve mixing any powder, I'll try it. Is there?

I don't know, but the Barry's is very easy. You don't mix every time.
I make a 1 liter batch of both developers and use it for 10 or 12 rolls then mix again. The volume of chemical is small as well. I have 3 small plastic bottles containing the chemical powders and a $20 digital scale to make measurements easy.

Morris
11-21-2008, 09:23
IF there is a two-bath developer that doesn't involve mixing any powder, I'll try it. Is there?


With Diafine you only need to mix-up once per year.

There's an excellent tutorial HERE (http://figitalrevolution.com/2008/03/20/processing-black-and-white-film-for-scanning-diafine-and-tx/). (Be sure to watch both videos.)

bcostin
11-21-2008, 09:46
Thanks, that article looks pretty interesting. Like a lot of people, I got started with Diafine. I still use it for almost all of my Tri-X/Arista Premium 400, for when I know I have iffy exposures, and when I have a mixed batch of different films that I want to develop all at once.

The most tedious part of developing for me is standing around and doing regular agitation. That's another reason I like Diafine, with its "agitate when you feel like it" approach. I've started using traditional developers more often now that I've switched to rotary agitation with a Uniroller.

charjohncarter
11-21-2008, 13:18
IF there is a two-bath developer that doesn't involve mixing any powder, I'll try it. Is there?

Will, try the one I use. HC-110h subtract 3 minutes from your time, dump, fill with 5.0 cc Borax to 500 ml H2O finish to your normal time. You do have to mix the Borax but I use one shot and it can go down the drain.

wlewisiii
11-21-2008, 18:10
Will, try the one I use. HC-110h subtract 3 minutes from your time, dump, fill with 5.0 cc Borax to 500 ml H2O finish to your normal time. You do have to mix the Borax but I use one shot and it can go down the drain.

Interesting. What do you feel you gain with this & what film/EI combinations do you use?

Thanks!

William

shadowfox
11-24-2008, 09:20
Steve, where can I get Barry's developer? do you use the 1-liter mix as use-it-once, or do you re-use it for the 10-12 rolls?

Morris, thanks for the video.

John, I'm also curious as to what is the advantage, do you have any sample photos developed this way?

sanmich
11-24-2008, 09:37
Tri-X + Emofin
It simply works great.
I don't have the experience or skills to really compare to other good options. I simply like the results very much (I disliked the results from Tmax, but that's another story)
A friend of mine which IS very knowledgeable about developement has tested this combo and since then swears by it. good contrast control and fine grain...

dazedgonebye
11-24-2008, 09:51
Steve, where can I get Barry's developer? do you use the 1-liter mix as use-it-once, or do you re-use it for the 10-12 rolls?

Morris, thanks for the video.

John, I'm also curious as to what is the advantage, do you have any sample photos developed this way?

You can get the chemicals to make Barry's at freestylephoto.

You need:
sodium sulfite
metol
sodium metaborate

This is the formula I use.
-------------------
Bath A
80 g sodium sulfite
6.5 g metol
Make up to 1 L with water

Bath B
12 g sodium metaborate (Kodalk)
Make up to 1 L with water
-------------------

I make up a liter and use it for 12 or more rolls. I ditch it about the time that the second bath starts to smell like last week's gym socks. No idea if that is a meaningful test, but it happens sometime after a dozen or so rolls, which is what I've read is about the limit.

Papercut
11-24-2008, 09:58
I know that Photographer's Formulary sells two of Thornton's recipes already pre-mixed. Like Steve, I mix his basic formula up myself -- the 3 powders are cheap (photographer's formulary has these too) and simple to mix with an accurate scale. The one-liter solutions last 12-15 rolls; though I might start straining it with coffee filters as suggested, because by the last couple of rolls the particulate "crud" is rather bad.

I certainly don't think two-bath is a perfect method (is there such a thing? I doubt it!), but it works for me for much of my work. If I did wet printing, I might not use it at all because the negatives come out quite flat (low contrast). But my workflow is hybrid (film + scanning negatives + printing digital files), and for this I think the two bath works well: good resolution, high accutance, controlled highlights, and low contrast. Contrast is easily dialed in (or out) in PS with adjustment layers (levels and curves), so a flat negative is just fine by me -- I also tend to like a softer tonal scale than seems currently fashionable (especially in online photo circles). Thornton's two-bath is also not well suited to films that are faster than 400 ISO, or films shot at EI's greater than that. So, when I shoot AP400 at 800, 1200, or 1600, I use something else (HC-110, Xtol, or Rodinal stand development -- currently experimenting to see which look I like best under which conditions).


-- Kevin


Steve, where can I get Barry's developer? do you use the 1-liter mix as use-it-once, or do you re-use it for the 10-12 rolls?

charjohncarter
11-24-2008, 13:20
Interesting. What do you feel you gain with this & what film/EI combinations do you use?

Thanks!

William


William, I have used TriX at 250 and Tmax100 at 50 using this method. I liked the HC-110h (vs Rodinal) the best. But that is just personal taste.

dazedgonebye
11-24-2008, 13:44
I return the developer to the bottle with a filtered funnel. So far, that's been enough to keep things pretty clean.

I know that Photographer's Formulary sells two of Thornton's recipes already pre-mixed. Like Steve, I mix his basic formula up myself -- the 3 powders are cheap (photographer's formulary has these too) and simple to mix with an accurate scale. The one-liter solutions last 12-15 rolls; though I might start straining it with coffee filters as suggested, because by the last couple of rolls the particulate "crud" is rather bad.

I certainly don't think two-bath is a perfect method (is there such a thing? I doubt it!), but it works for me for much of my work. If I did wet printing, I might not use it at all because the negatives come out quite flat (low contrast). But my workflow is hybrid (film + scanning negatives + printing digital files), and for this I think the two bath works well: good resolution, high accutance, controlled highlights, and low contrast. Contrast is easily dialed in (or out) in PS with adjustment layers (levels and curves), so a flat negative is just fine by me -- I also tend to like a softer tonal scale than seems currently fashionable (especially in online photo circles). Thornton's two-bath is also not well suited to films that are faster than 400 ISO, or films shot at EI's greater than that. So, when I shoot AP400 at 800, 1200, or 1600, I use something else (HC-110, Xtol, or Rodinal stand development -- currently experimenting to see which look I like best under which conditions).


-- Kevin

titrisol
11-28-2008, 00:31
2 bath development is fine, it works for some occasions, the learning curve is quite easy and you can get consistent results
It is not a silver bullet, and like Roger Hicks said it maybe idiot-resistant but idiots are very smart.
Give it a try and see if you like it.

photorat
11-28-2008, 01:16
Thanks for all the informative, down-to-Earth replies and useful tips. To summarize, the various split developers are a good option for high contrast situations but only with older style emulsions that are responsive to them (I gather Tri-X or EK 5200 are candidates). And of course, it is not a silver bullet. Idiots are indeed intelligent and resourceful people. They invariably find ways of circumventing even the most idiot-proof system.

Ronald M
12-06-2008, 10:40
I used the Leica formula in the 1980s with plus and tri x. Results were nice in controling contrast at the penalty of less separatio in the highlights.

As films changed to thinner emulsions over the years, it became less effective. I increased the concentration of developing agents in bath A and that helped some, but the negs just lost the sparkle completely.

I went to D76 and stayed with it to this day.

The Leica formula was basically D23 for bath A and sodium carbonate for B. I found it in a book by HS Newcomb I purched in 1966.

I did muck around with some of the formulas for two bath in the Darkroom Cookbook. One of the simpler ones listed early with basic ingredients wotked well with Delta 100 original version. We are now on version 2 and have been for 10 years.

D76 and give enough exposure and keep the time short and you will be happy. Except the current version of Delta 400 which works best by far in Xtol or the Expensive liquid put out by Ilford, DD X. D76 used to work fine with original Delta 400, but not worth beans today.

If you have a tough problem, do water bath developing where you swap between developer and water 4 times.

KenR
12-08-2008, 18:05
A full discussion of this topic with the pros and cons of several formulae can be found in Anchel's "The Film Developing Cookbook". I tried Vestal's Two Bath D-76 formula as listed and got nice results with street photo's taken in NYC where the contrast between the shady side of the street and the sunny side seemed to be tamed by this method. Like any other non-commercial formula, it is a bit time consuming to make up, so I have given up on the 2-bath method and have been using semi-stand methods with HC-110 to accomplish the same thing.

Tom A
12-08-2008, 18:35
The small, but dedicated Double X "gang" on Rf is perpetually trying out new and improved ways to soup the stuff.
I did do about 85 rolls in the Td 201 formula (Anchell/Koop "the Film Developing Cookbook" - essential reading for any serious bl.w user).
Most split developers work less well with modern thin emulsion films - but the Td 201 is fine. I tried it with Acros 100/Presto 400/ Tmax and Tmax-2 and of course with the old standby's TriX/XX. I also tried it with Efke 50 and some other slow films.
I make up 2000ml of the A and the B bath - my tanks need 1500 ml for five reels. As you run the film, you loose about 8-10ml/film for each run and after 50 rolls, the A bath is down to about 1500 ml (and starts looking rather "grotty" too). Thats when I dump it and remix. The B bath seems to last a long time, but I usually changed it after 20-25 rolls as it too starts looking bad (and smelling bad). Still cheap though and very consistent.
On Flickr I usually tag films with which developer/time used - so try typing in the tag "Td 201" and see what comes up.

charjohncarter
12-09-2008, 10:58
Tom A, I looked at you Flickr TD201, I liked them. My aim with Two Bath is to increase shadows. I can never really tell if it happens. Here are a couple from my latest Two Bath, Rodinal 50+1 for 10 minutes, one teaspoon of Borax in 500 ml water for 2 minutes, rating TMY-2 at 250, 30 seconds agitation at first and then 3 inversions per minute. One was in flat light on a foggy morning and the other was in doors:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3150/3095320197_408a64037f.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3173/3096161974_02d3e2f015.jpg?v=0

Tom A
12-09-2008, 12:40
The shots look fine, though a bit "flat" but as you said, so was the light. You could try a higher concentration of Rodinal (1:25) for maybe 6-7 min and the do the Borax thing.
What could be interesting is to do the development for 60-70% of the time in Rodinal and then add something like 30 min. stand development in Borax.
The weather is too crappy here for anything interesting to shoot at the moment (1/60 @f2.8 with Tri X at 400!!!!!), but once it improves I might try something like that.

charjohncarter
12-09-2008, 15:16
Tom A, interesting thoughts, I especially like the Borax standing for 30 minutes. I might try that. I'm not sure that anything happens though with these thin emulsions. Maybe I'm just remembering the good old days better than they really were. Yes, we had real fog yesterday, but sure as I shot that roll in less than 60 minutes, today was full sun no clouds.

dazedgonebye
01-13-2009, 15:37
I'm still loving the Barry's formula, but now that I'm going to shoot some large format, I have another problem/question.

With the slow large format lens and my lack of lighting gear, I find my usual FP4 in Barry's to be on the slow side for portraits.
This was f5.6 at 1/30th...pretty much at the limits of what I want to shoot with a fidgety little boy.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3488/3187968831_5e67c834e3_o.jpg

So, I don't want to abandon the Barry's. It works too well for me and I love the ease of it.
Any recommendations as to a faster 4x5 film that might work well?

charjohncarter
01-13-2009, 16:38
You could try Tmax400 (new). That would buy you two stops; therefore f5.6 at 1\125. I use Rodinal 1+50 for 10 minutes, 68 degrees, 30 seconds to start and then 3 inversions per minute (maybe that is meaningless with 4x5), and then (second bath) 500ml plus 5.5ml Borax and stand for five minutes. You could then do the mix up versions and see if there is a difference. That boy looks pretty calm to me though.

philipp.leser
01-14-2009, 02:26
I use Diafine with Fuji Neopan Acros 100 and Neopan 400 and love the results. I took the time to test everything by making densitometer measurements to determine the right EI for the films I use. For me, this put things in perspective regarding the "shoot at any EI you like" myth.

Harry Lime
01-14-2009, 06:32
I've developed thousands of rolls of film, using everything from D76 and Rodinal to Xtol, DD-X and who knows what else and nothing has ever given me better and more consistant negatives than 2-Bath developers.

With 2-bath it is next to impossible to blow out highlights and shadow detail is excellent. Because 2-bath developers are less affected by temperature and need little or no aggitation, the results are extremely repeatable and stable.

I highly recommend Barry Thornton's 2-Bath for anything up to and including 400 asa. Divided D76 and Tri-X @ 400 are a perfect match. I use Diafine for push processing. The only time I still use a single shot developer, is if I need to push Tmax P3200 to 1600 or 3200 and then I go for Tmax developer. Otherwise I shoot P3200 @ 1250 and develop in Diafine.

jwhitley
01-14-2009, 09:56
I've been pondering giving two-bath development a try ever since I read Barry Thornton's Edge of Darkness. But I read that just before I started to do my own development. When I did, I started with D76 for a while, then switched to Pyrocat-HD and haven't looked back.

dazedgonebye
01-14-2009, 10:21
I've developed thousands of rolls of film, using everything from D76 and Rodinal to Xtol, DD-X and who knows what else and nothing has ever given me better and more consistant negatives than 2-Bath developers.

With 2-bath it is next to impossible to blow out highlights and shadow detail is excellent. Because 2-bath developers are less affected by temperature and need little or no aggitation, the results are extremely repeatable and stable.

I highly recommend Barry Thornton's 2-Bath for anything up to and including 400 asa. Divided D76 and Tri-X @ 400 are a perfect match. I use Diafine for push processing. The only time I still use a single shot developer, is if I need to push Tmax P3200 to 1600 or 3200 and then I go for Tmax developer. Otherwise I shoot P3200 @ 1250 and develop in Diafine.

I read your thread on this on APUG.
You use barry's with tri-x 400, but I don't think that's available to me in 4x5 film. Near as I can tell, my only faster film options are HP5, Tri-X (320) and T-Max.
Have you tried any of those?

FWIW, I've done efke 25, 50 and 100, PanF, FP4 and now that I think of it, 1 roll of tri-x (400) in barry's and I am very pleased.

dazedgonebye
01-14-2009, 13:14
Ok, I've finally hit on the easy way of settling the matter for myself.
I've bought a roll of Tmax in 35mm. I'll fire that off pretty quick and develop it in barry's.

RayPA
01-14-2009, 16:26
I've used it. Don't know if I necessarily "swear by it," to the point that it's my standard developer. It's the old H4C (horses for courses) drill. I used to use a divided D-type (e.g. D76) a lot when I shot in the summer during the extended-range light period (that dreaded 10 Am - 2 PM). It helps to hold or compress the highlights.

.

charjohncarter
01-14-2009, 17:27
I'm not sure that I swear by it, but HC-110h and then a second bath of Borax for 3-6 minutes: stand; gave me this, 8 plus maybe 9 stops and as per Barry Thornton the rest of the negatives on this roll were fine:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/2978140323_ba2b9a1a43.jpg?v=0

CarlRadford
01-21-2009, 12:13
I have read somewhere the main problem with two bath processing is compressing the midtones and am surprised that no-one has mention this. I will try and dig out the source of this information.

charjohncarter
01-21-2009, 17:04
Here is what Dave Karp (and Barry Thornton) wrote about compressed midtones, Carl. Although, I'm not sold on two bath 100% with roll film I don't get muddy midtones like I can with compensating development when developing roll film:

You must remember that higher standards are in the eyes of the beholder, and may even vary by conditions or the subject being photographed. For example, compensating development with dilute developers has its own effect. As Thornton wrote: "The effect is not the same as the well known technique of compensating development by diluting developers, which does work in holding back dense highlights, but can give muddy mid tones and does not have the same automatic contrast equalisation as the two bath." If you want to avoid compression of midtones while still retaining detail in the highlights, a two bath might be superior for your purposes.

CarlRadford
01-22-2009, 12:46
Thanks for the info, I have Barry's books and will need to reread parts of them. I want to settle on one or two devs for HP5+ and FP4+ for use with 35mm that will give full speed or thereabouts. Mytol is a possible as is pyrocat hd that I already use pretty much exclusively but have not tried it at full speed!

charjohncarter
01-22-2009, 16:08
Carl, full speed is a problem for me. I just like separate tones all the way down the scale. Both Rodinal and HC-110 do not give me full speed. Kaiyen on this forum knows a lot about different developers, but I have seen him on here lately. He, I think, recommended Microdol (or maybe it's Microphen??) for full speed. You could wade though his posts. I also read that Tmax developer gives close to full speed. I don't think Rodinal would be a good choice. I use it regularly and have found that I lose at least a stop with it.

I looked up Kaiyen's developer page, Carl here it is:

http://photos.kaiyen.com/pages/dev_chart.html

Harry Lime
01-22-2009, 16:39
I read your thread on this on APUG.
You use barry's with tri-x 400, but I don't think that's available to me in 4x5 film. Near as I can tell, my only faster film options are HP5, Tri-X (320) and T-Max.
Have you tried any of those?


Tri-X 400 should be available in 4x5 and 8x10.

I've also developed the new Tmax-2 400 in Thornton's 2-bath and it works very well. Tmax is a little more prone to blowing highlights than Tri-X, but 2-bath really helps prevent that.

Freakscene
01-22-2009, 20:01
The only Tri-X available in sheets is the ISO 320 TXP, which is also available in 120 and 220. Tri-X 400 (TX) is only available in 135 or 120.

Marty

dazedgonebye
01-22-2009, 20:03
The only Tri-X available in sheets is the ISO 320 TXP, which is also available in 120 and 220. Tri-X 400 (TX) is only available in 135 or 120.

Marty

Harry had me hopeful for a minute there...but I've just confirmed this at the kodak site.

je2a3
06-24-2010, 21:08
Diafine user for quite a few years and also used D76, DDX and Rodinal successfully. Rodinal is always on stand by when schedule permits. Since I'm now based in the tropics with no dedicated darkroom aside from a changing bag, I can swear by Diafine as practical and consistent for my purpose...just have to choose what film to use.

Have to qualify though, that I'm not trying to be a perfectionist, just aiming for consistency....:)

Ronald M
08-28-2010, 19:57
It hold highlights in check at the expense of low contrast in the highlights.

Works poorly with modern films even if I juice up the active ingredents in A bath.

I put it away for history to ponder. Leica developer, not unlike D23 split, was a favorite for 20 years.

Arjay
09-17-2010, 01:58
Hm - this thread is an interesting read for sure. I must admit I haven't yet tried two-bath development.

When I did my research to get me restarted with film last year, I read a lot about compensating developers and finally decided to standardize my neg dev workflow to tanning & staining developers. These seem to work on a similar principle by inhibiting local highlight development while allowing prolonged development in shadow areas.

Most of my bw photography I am showing on RFF has been shot on Tri-X and developed in Prescysol EF, and I like the way how this process provides nice tonality and good tonal latitude. There's a similar developer - Moersch Tanol - that might be available more easily in continental Europe, which should work analogously.

Has anyone of you compared 2-bath development with tanning & staining (pyro) development?

wlewisiii
09-17-2010, 10:18
I'd be interested in hearing that as well as I've been seriously thinking about adding Pyrocat-HD for my LF development along with the Diafine I've been using.

William