View Full Version : What kind of developer do you guys (and some girls) use?
I am lazy, and prefer HC-110 because it is easy to mix, it is cheap and it is fast. Hate standing MORE than 6 minutes waiting for another 5 minutes in the fix.
I only use Tri-X 400 because I want to be consistent, and get the results I expect.
6 minutes in HC-110 (B) and AGEFIX (1+5) in 5 minutes.
Sivert
hmm been wanting to try Tri X with HC110, currently using Rodinal with Tri-X in 12min @ 20C (68F)
The other developer i use to use was TMAX with TMAX 400 and 100.
Developers aren't that critical now that the films are so good.
Mackinaw
08-06-2005, 01:58
Rodinal is now my primary developer (mostly at 1:50). Gives excellent results with APX 100, Delta 100 and Efke 25.
Jim Bielecki
I've used Rodinal a lot with the more traditional films like HP5, It last for a long time as well. I like the sharpness and the clear grain.
Although more expensive I prefer using TMAX dev for the more modern T grain films like Delta and TMAX100/400 though. For me I think I get better graduation over the tones, certainly when using 120 roll film.
Roger Hicks
08-06-2005, 02:59
The same film in different developes may exhibit more speed, but coarser grain (Microphen); finer grain but less speed (Perceptol); greater sharpness but usually coarser grain at the rated speed (Paterson FX39); and low speed and huge grain (Rodinal when used with the wrong film). The true ISO speeds for an ISO 400 film can vary from 200 or below to 650 or above.
There are also 'magic' combinations such as Foma 200 in FX39, HP5 in DD-X, etc., but these tend to be very personal. I do not see how anyone can say that developers aren't critical.
Cheers,
Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)
Diafine has been my staple with Plus X and Tri X. I use D-76 with other films I shoot and I have some DD-X to process a few rolls of Delta 3200 sitting on the shelf.
with my 50mm, i've been shooting tri-x in diafine. with my 28mm, tri-x in d76 1:1. same conditions outside, i just want the dof.
sljm: Tri-X 400 and HC-110 (B) here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=15863
Sivert
At the moment I'm experimenting with Tetenal Neofin Blue and APX 100, Tetenal Ultrafin plus and ID-11 for HP5 and Tura 400. It became pretty hard to get developer here so I'm trying what is left.
Skinny McGee
08-06-2005, 04:30
Tri-x @ 400 d-76 Tri-x pushed rodinal 1:50
After experimenting with a lot of developers, ended up going back to Xtol 1+1. Simple, cheap, good. Nothing more to it.
Rodinal, HC110 and Diafine for APX100, FP4+, HP5+ & Tri-X. APX & FP4+ in Rodinal @ 1:50, iso100 for the pleasing b&w look. HP5+ in HC110 dilution B, ususally iso 400, but the occasional push to 800. Tri-X & Diafine, iso 1250-1600.
Rodinal & HC110 both keep very well, cheap and in small bottles too. I've mixed ID11 & Microphen, and both are good dev's, but dislike the room it takes up, and the trouble of powders. Ilfosol S was okay, but too expensive and poor shelf life.
Diafine, I now have 8 gals of the stuff, but it's cheap, fast and very good with Tri-X (only film tried so far). As soon as I get around to figuring out what EI to use with APX, FP4+ & HP5+, I'll likely be using it more.
disclaimer: I don't have a "critical eye", I value convenience, I scan and do wet prints.
After experimenting with a lot of developers, ended up going back to Xtol 1+1. Simple, cheap, good. Nothing more to it.The same. I use Fuji Neopan film which is currently getting developed in a lab with XTOL because all the Neopans look fantastic in it. Soon I'm going to develop myself and I'll be using XTOL. It ain't broke so I'm not fixing it. :)
Rodinal, Ilfosol, and have been waiting to try the Sprint. I really like Rodinal because it keeps so well and is easy to mix.
wlewisiii
08-06-2005, 07:01
I use Diafine for everything. Generally at box EI or thereabouts. The convieniance of it is a major plus and since I scan, the negs come out just right for that.
William
The same film in different developes may exhibit more speed, but coarser grain (Microphen); finer grain but less speed (Perceptol); greater sharpness but usually coarser grain at the rated speed (Paterson FX39); and low speed and huge grain (Rodinal when used with the wrong film). The true ISO speeds for an ISO 400 film can vary from 200 or below to 650 or above.
There are also 'magic' combinations such as Foma 200 in FX39, HP5 in DD-X, etc., but these tend to be very personal. I do not see how anyone can say that developers aren't critical.
Cheers,
Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)
Roger: I learned that true film speed is based on densitometry of a Zone I exposure. I can't remember the values, but an empirical test can be done using test negatives and properly exposed and processed contact sheets/prints. This method is based on the assumption that proper exposure for shadow value is the the criterium for film speed.
My understanding was that using this method, a developer made little or no difference in true film speed. So are you saying something quite different? Or do you have different criteria for what constitute true film speed?
I don't want to hijack this thread, so if it needs to be moved (or has been discussed elsewhere,) I'm open to that.
I also want to state that I don't consider my perspective, even though it has worked very well for me, as gospel. I'm always open to new ideas, and perhaps my previous understanding was not complete.
Trius
phototone
08-06-2005, 07:53
i have standardized on D-76 1:1 dilution for all my b/w roll film and 35mm processing, except on rare occaisions I will use Rodinal. For sheet b/w film, I tend to use D-76 straight, no dilution. I use Kodak Rapid Fix w/Hardener for fixing all film.
John Robertson
08-06-2005, 08:04
Yes Roger. My standard brew is Rodinal. Konica IR750 + Rodinal 1+50 5mins, another magic combination. But Rodinal + Ilford SFX Nooooooooooooooo!! Grain like golfballs, OK if you like that sort of thing!!
What is FX39 like with Foma 100??? :angel:
Roger Hicks
08-06-2005, 08:09
Dear Trius,
ISO speeds are based on a given shadow density (0.10 above fb+f) at a given contrast (approximately 0,62), and the ISO speeds I gave above are based on those criteria.
It is widely believed, and widely reported even in print, that developers don't affect true film speed much. This is a flat error. They do. The figures I gave came from Ilford and I have confirmed with others (Kodak, Geoffrey Crawley and many more) that similar considerations apply to all films and all developers. Indeed, if you read the Fomapan 200 spec sheets you'll see that they quote the ISO speeds in different developers (and it only approaches ISO 200 in things like Microphen).
Incidentally, film speed is nothing whastsoever to do with Zone 1 or any other aspect of the Zone System, which is a (rather limited) subset of sensitometry. This is a rigorous science which goes back to Hurter and Driffield's seminal paper in 1890, well over half a centiry before the Zone System. A lot of Zone devotees seem to think that the Zone System is the basis of sensitometry, where in fact the exact opposite is true.
Take a look at 'Film Speeds' in the Photo School on www.rogerandfrances.com for more detailed information, or read Chapter 6 of 'Perfect Exposure' (David & Charles/Sterling -- again you'll find details on the site)
Cheers,
Roger
Roger Hicks
08-06-2005, 08:11
Deasr John,
Never tried it personally but the results I've seen have been excellent.
Actually I'd say that ANYTHING Ilford in Rodinal was more likely than not to be a disaster in 35mm; not too bad oin 4x5 inch and above (super tonality, still lousy grain but you can't see it at a 3x enlargement).
Cheers,
Roger
I am lazy, and prefer HC-110 because it is easy to mix, it is cheap and it is fast. Hate standing MORE than 6 minutes waiting for another 5 minutes in the fix.
I only use Tri-X 400 because I want to be consistent, and get the results I expect.
6 minutes in HC-110 (B) and AGEFIX (1+5) in 5 minutes.
Sivert
"I am lazy..."
Ah-Hah! A man after my own heart. ;)
You have come to the right shop my lazy friend. From one sloth to another, go buy yourself a 1 gallon Diafine kit and live happily everafter.
It will last an unbelievably long time (no "one-shot" mixing, just mix it, use it, pour it back into its jug and and forget it 'til next time), gives superb results with the film you like (Tri-X) and is the very definition of consistency.
No watching a stop watch, 6 minutes start to finish, dead simple and not the least bit finicky about either time or temperature.
Tom
PS: Did I mention I LOVE Diafine? :D
TPPhotog
08-06-2005, 11:11
My main films are HP5+ and Tri-X souped in either Rodinal or ID-11 depending on the look I'm after. As I have a handful of films after a whole day out shooting at a living museum today and I'm also lazy, it will be Rodinal for those as I don't have to spend so much time souping ;)
Thanks, Roger. You jogged my memory that .1 is the density I couldn't recall, so we are working from the same base. I realize the Zone system is not synonymous with densitometry. I have worked with both in the past.
The developers I have used in the past are FG-7, Rodinal, HC-110, D76 and some others. With TriX in 35mm & 4x5 some 25 years ago, I found true film speed to be at 200.
Of all those developers, I prefer Rodinal & HC-110, and give the nod to Rodinal.
Trius
Honu-Hugger
08-06-2005, 14:48
T-Max diluted 1:9 for T-Max films and a few others; D-76 for Plus-X, Tri-X and IR
Roger Hicks
08-06-2005, 14:51
Dear Trius,
I'd have been surprised if you hadn't known that, from the way you phrased the question; my Zome caveat was aimed at lurkers. Sorry.
And with those criteria of density and contrast, film speeds really do vary that much.
Cheers,
Roger
photodog
08-06-2005, 15:09
This is my all time favorite developer. The only comment I would make is not to take the manufacturer's developing times as gospel, only use them as a starting point for your own tests. The developing times that Kodak recommends for the new Tri-X films are just wrong in my opinion.
I am a bit unusual, in that I use a number of different developers and films based on needs.
FP4+ in Rodinal 1+50
Delta 100 usually in ID-11 1+1, but recently in Paterson FX-39
(I'm still testing this one. I like the sharpness and increased speed, but the grain in 35mm is a bit much).
TXT from 320-3200 in ID-11, Rodinal 1+50, or Microphen
Delta 3200 from 1600-6400 in Microphen.
I try to rotate my films and shooting situations to keep me on my toes.
allan
Stephanie Brim
08-06-2005, 17:37
D76 is the first one I was able to get my hands on. Diafine is coming in the mail sometime next week and I'm pretty sure that I'm going to want to switch completely to that. I'm not lazy, but I know that I don't like waiting. :P
One way to become "happy" with 7-12 minute dev times is to start using higher dilutions and minimal agitation. You can easily climb into the 20+ minute range. Yes, you get compensation, and better speed with less contrast, but that's a long time to have the film in the dev stage. Add a 2 bath fix stage and it's like 45 minutes or so per tank.
allan
I use Rodinal for films up to 125 speed. I also use D-76 (1:1) and Acufine. I have Diafine but have yet to mix it up.
Walker
XTOL and Rodinal for 35mm/120, Pyrocat HD for 4x5 and 8x10
D-76 1:1 for Tri-X and Plus-X Once in a while I'll use HC110 if I'm pushing or if I want grain enhancement (HC110 is much the same as Rodinal in that respect).
titrisol
08-06-2005, 19:32
Rodinal and DDX/Clayton F76 are my main developers
Couple of stints with Diafine here and there.
Have experimented with many developers but settled for those 2
The Zone system is a boring, compulsive cult that turns out some of the most mind-numbing salon pictorialist junk ever committed to film.
And yes, I say that developers aren't critical today. The formula-first brigade came up in the 30's, 40's, and 50's, when films were either very slow or very grainy or plagued with untamable contrasts. Multi-coated lenses helped ameliorate what the wizards of Rochester couldn't, and today everything is virtually tack-sharp and smooth-grained. The cheapo film you buy at a dollar store is better than what was available to Erich Salomon or Martin Munkacsi.
So develop it in whatever you want. Try my one-minute-in-Dektol recipe if you doubt. Or keep worrying about your developer if that's what floats your boat.
Roger Hicks
08-07-2005, 03:40
Dear Poptart,
I'd agree completely with your assessment of the zone system, and with the improvements in films, but surely you must accept that if one developer gives ISO 200 and another ISO 650 with the same film -- which no-one who knows the sensitimetry would dispute -- then the choice of developer is hardly a trivial matter?
I'd also suggest that while you are perfectly correct that the majority of developers work well with the majority of films, there are still 'magic' combinations (eg Fomapan 200 in FX39) and complete lemons (slow, grainy Delta 3200 in Rodinal, where DDX or Microphen will give finer grain and more speed with the same film).
Developer choice affects speed, grain, sharpness and (for my money above all) tonality. It is complete nonsense to say that (for example) D-76 is all anyone needs -- everyone has theoir own preferences, and I can think of a dozen developers I happily use or have used, and as you say, 'develop in whatever you want' -- but equally I'd say it is hardly realistic to isuggest that all developers are completely interchangeable.
Cheers,
Roger
The Zone system is a boring, compulsive cult that turns out some of the most mind-numbing salon pictorialist junk ever committed to film.
At the risk of starting yet another flamewar over the Zone system, I just want to say that what I think you mean to say is not that the Zone system itself turns out "junk", but that many photographers who use it do so. It's just a tool, a lifeless set of ideas that, if used properly and appropriately by a good photographer, can be helpful in technically achieving what the photographer envisioned. OTOH, as you point out, in the hands of someone with little or no creative vision, it can produce technically "correct" photos that are pretty yet lifeless, boring, sillly, or whatever.
Minor White, one of the early developers and proponents of the Zone system as a tool, was hardly a pictorialist. I admire his work a great deal.
Trius
Roger Hicks
08-07-2005, 04:28
Trius,
You are of course absolutely right: for some (though far from all) photographjers,. the Zone System is at best an excellent tool, and at worst, harmless.
Cheers,
Roger
eric mac
08-07-2005, 06:38
I returned to the darkroom 25 years out of high school. Staying with the KISS principle, I decided on HC110. I did go through the zone system testing and came up with HP5 @ 200 with Hc110 dilution b for around 6 minutes. Now if I can graduate from taking snapshots to producing photographs, I'll have gotten somewhere.
Whether one uses the zone system or the 3 P's method ( Point, press, and pray it comes out), it all comes down to a persons vision and their ability to execute. While I may be able to produce a technically ok picture, it doesn't necessarily mean that the photo will have an impact to the viewer. Admittedly, my wife with her autofocus slr has always been able to produce better photos than I have been able to. They may not be as technically well done, but they are visually more striking and pleasing than mine.
I guess it comes down to striking a balance between the technology and the methodology and not get bogged down by the nuances of either. My advice is always to go out and take more pictures.
Eric
vincentbenoit
08-07-2005, 10:41
Tri-x @ 400 d-76 Tri-x pushed rodinal 1:50
Why not use Rodinal for Tri-X exposed at 400?
eric mac: what you said.
Slainte,
Trius
I scratch mix my developers from expired aerial film development kits, these days it is usually Microphen substitute. I often shoot in available darkness so that extra notch of speed comes handy. Microphen or other speed enchancing developers are great when you intend to push film. I only ever pushed Tri-X to 1600, but I do like the results:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=9472&cat=5069&page=1
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=15945&cat=500&page=1
I've used D-76, stock and 1:1, and Russian ST-2 developer; both are in the same league. The supposed finer grain of these developers isn't obvious enough to me though to justify lesser effective speed.
Hope to mix some Diafine one day, but so far I can't locate its crucial component, kodalk, anywhere here in Minsk.
titrisol
08-08-2005, 10:13
Kodalk is Sodium Metaborate
100 g Kodalk (sodium metaborate octahydrate) == 40.5 g borax + 9.53 g NaOH
Look at this:
http://www.apug.org/forums/article.php?a=33
sunsworth
08-08-2005, 10:35
Xtol for most things - diluted 1:3 where that works. Rodinal for the slower Efke films - i.e. ISO 25 & 50.
Steve
impact07
08-08-2005, 10:37
Diafine for pretty much everything.
Inedeed titrisol, but creating kodalk requires precise weighting and high temperatures, not something I can do easily yet. Don't have pure Natrium to obtain NaOH so far, too.
Ilford HC 1:31with delta 100 & 400 and Rodinal 1:25 or 1:50 with Efke 25. HC-110 will do if i don't have Ilford HC.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
Any homepage for Diafine so I can read up on the tech-specs?
It seems a bit strange that dev.time is not that important, and that it can be used "forever" and with different filmspeeds (and filmtypes) in one go.
As I have gathered, Rodinal and Diafine seems to be the favourite developer. Perhaps we are all a bit lazy =)
Sivert
Roger Hicks
08-09-2005, 00:31
Dear Siverta,
I believe that Diafine is a 2-bath developerv (I have never used it) which explains its properties.
Two-bath developers are interesting things. All the dev agent is contained in bath 1, with only enough sulphite to act as a preservative, while the active alkali is in bath 2. Development in bath 1 alone is very slow -- 15-20 minutes -- but the normal drill is a variable time in bath 1 (to control the amount of solution A imbibed) followed by a fixed time in bath 2, where ijn effect, all the dev agent from solution A is used up.
This is why time and temperature are less critical than for conventional devs: the rate of imbibition in the first bath is reasonably constant regardless of temperature (though as noted, time should be varied, shorter for slow film, longer for fast film), while development in the second bath need only be long enough to exhaust the first bath: in other words, it can be prolonged a great deal, but not shortened below the point where the dev agent is used up.
It also explains the long life: A is a stock solution, with the long life that implies, and B isn't a developer at all, just an alkaline solution, so there's nothing to go off.
The way in which films of different speeds can be developed for the same time can be explained in several ways, not all of them flattering. First, there is the enormous flexibility inherent in B+W photography, despite the maunderings of the Zone System. Second, there is the fact that many people are just plain sloppy and don't care about small variations in speed and density.
Third, as Diafine is promoted (I believe) as a speed-increasing developer, the soak time in A is presumably long enough to ensure a high level of imbibition in any film, which is therefore 'pushed' to a greater or lesser degree, i.e. the contrast varies quite widely, higher (and with more of a push) for slow films, closer to normal (less of a push) with faster films.
In other words, it isn't a speed increasing developer in the same sense as Microphen or DDX, which give higher toe speed at ISO contrast, but merely a means of over-developing with an inbuilt limit on the degree that you can over-develop (the dev agent runs out).
Lest anyone take this as a personal attack on them for using Diafine or other 2-bath developers, it isn't: if it works for you, it works for you. I used the Leitz 2-bath formula in the 60s with HP4 and got nice tonality, but when I made some up again a few years ago I saw no advantages and reverted to proprietary developers.
Likewise, I don't much care for Rodinal: lovely tonality with some (but not all) films, but big grain and poor film speed. Because there's a wild excess of dev agent in it, the stuff lasts forever, and I suspect (perhaps unkindly) that this is why so many people like it so much: it's cheap and long-lived. Again, if it works for you, don't knock it.
Cheers,
Roger
Any homepage for Diafine so I can read up on the tech-specs?
It seems a bit strange that dev.time is not that important, and that it can be used "forever" and with different filmspeeds (and filmtypes) in one go.
As I have gathered, Rodinal and Diafine seems to be the favourite developer. Perhaps we are all a bit lazy =)
Sivert
I have used Diafine for literally decades. If you have any specific questions, please feel free to ask.
As for a formal "home page" for Diafine, I do not believe there is one. However, do a search on this site and you will find LOTS of Diafine info. Also, a Google search will turn up tons of stuff.
Tom
I scratch mix my developers, as well. Right now I'm primarily using a 2 bath/split D23 (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=15395), but recently I've mixed a D76 variant (both as a whole and split), and FX15.
:)
:)
Eric Mac: I have that same Argoflex75 camera; how's it do? (I've yet to try mine out.) Cheers!
mattmills
08-14-2005, 04:50
I'm using d-76 straight for tmax 400, 5 minutes at 76 degrees. and my push formula is a two bath variant (lots of extra accelerator in the first bath, with a longer time) that only sort of makes sense; it's explained in another thread, anyway.
Matt
Roger Hicks
08-15-2005, 13:50
Dear Matt,
Accelerator in the first bath? I am intrigued. What's the other thread?
Cheers,
Roger
Outside of the recommended minimum, time in either bath has no effect with diafine. In bath A, the emulsion soaks up as much developer as it can hold and no more, no matter how long it stays there. In bath B, once the developer absorbed in bath A is exhausted, no further development takes place no matter how long it soaks. This is unlike most other two stage developers.
projectbluebird
03-23-2006, 12:30
For a long time I used HC-110 (dil B) because that's what we had at the darkroom here. I works quite well with HP5+@200. But after a temporary switch to ID-11 while the HC-110 was on backorder, I have to say, I like that too!
and of course, when grain is paramount, nothing beats Rodinol@1:25 or more.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.