Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film > Film / Developing / Chemistry

View Poll Results: Which is your main B&W film developer?
Kodak D76 / Ilford ID-11 (or equivalent) 101 28.06%
Kodak T-Max / Ilford Iflotec DD-X (or equivalent) 21 5.83%
Kodak XTOL / Ilford Ilfosol 3 (or equivalent) 55 15.28%
Kodak HC-110 / Ilford Ilfotec HC (or equivalent) 92 25.56%
Adox Rodinal (or equivalent) 104 28.89%
Pyrogallo Type 2 0.56%
Pyrocat Type 11 3.06%
OTHER - Commerical Product 27 7.50%
OTHER - Home Brew 15 4.17%
OTHER - Home Brew of Commerical Prods (e.g. XTOL+RO9) 4 1.11%
These Options are too [email protected]#$%! 11 3.06%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 360. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 12-18-2018   #81
colker
-
 
colker is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: rio de janeiro
Posts: 763
D76 produces better tonality on trix than microdol or HC110. That´s all i know. I checked what other photographers whose BW i admire the most and it was always 120 trix developed w/ D76.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-18-2018   #82
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
 
Moto-Uno's Avatar
 
Moto-Uno is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: The Wet Coast
Posts: 1,638
HC-110 for a few years , but have taken to Caffenol CM(RSA) after quite a prolonged testing procedure ( with slower films ) . FWIW , this is a rather green kinda developer ! Peter
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2018   #83
bhop73
Registered User
 
bhop73's Avatar
 
bhop73 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 710
I've been using Clayton F76+ for probably 10-ish years now.. no reason to change, although, curiosity makes me want to try some other stuff just to see how it is.

some of my bw film pix:
https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_...stingness-desc
__________________
my flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhop73/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2018   #84
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,063
Back when I was big into b/w film I tried a bunch -- DD-X, Rodinal, Diafine, HC-110 (maybe XTOL too) but always came back to D-76. I got the most consistent results with it, negs always looked good, and it's easy to use. It was also available locally "then" and could walk to a nearby camera store and buy a pack if needed. The rest had to be ordered online. Very forgiving, almost impossible to screw up. Downside was it might oxidize but I bought these collapsable bottles that kept air out. Seemed to work. Rodinal has a virtually indefinite shelf life and was a little sharper (but really, not all "that") and lasts forever but not versatile and definitely more visible grain. Also it had to be diluted so much I never felt confident I got the ratio right (but always did). Diafine caused bromide streaks in some rolls. You can keep it. DD-X was good too but a bit pricey iirc. I didn't see what all the hubbub was about with HC110. It was "okay" but never got on with "the goo" and didn't see it as any better than D-76, so why bother?

So good ole D-76 it was for me.

So here's my "controversial" statement that will upset some. "I" think D-76 is seen as a "for kids" or "starter" developer. Something you use in HS photography class. Grown-ups use (fill in the blank) developer. Kinda like "real" photograhers shoot RAW. Baloney. (And I think that's why although the poll has D-76 in a virtual tie for first? Few people jumping on this thread talking up D-76. C'mon D-76 users. Come out of the closet. It's okay! We both know that this is the best developer out there... No need to be shy.)

Meanwhile, D-76 is perfect. Plentiful, inexpensive, easy, versatile, forgiving, consistent. You can push with it, pull with it mess with the dilution. Forget you have negs in the Jobo, pull them out a week later, they look fine.

Yeah. I'm on team D-76.

But I no longer fool with black and white film. But if I did?

THE MIGHTY

D. SEVENTY. SIX!

The rest you can keep.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2018   #85
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
 
Moto-Uno's Avatar
 
Moto-Uno is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: The Wet Coast
Posts: 1,638
^ Understated as always , Peter
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2018   #86
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 13,018
I'll put in a good word for Diafine I had a lot of trouble getting it to work for me early-on, but I finally realized that my frequent under-development symptoms were caused by over-agitation in B. Even though my agitation regimen would have been normal for other developers. This agitation would wash much of the A out of the emulsion before it could fully work.

Agitation is essentially irrelevant in A, where the only thing happening is letting it soak into the emulsion for later activation in B. In B it's critical be be gentle, only enough occasional fluid movement to let development byproducts drift away from the film surface. Time in both A and B is not critical, but be a bit generous, doesn't hurt to let it proceed to exhaustion.

Also, I think the high ISO claims with Diafine are exaggerated.
I do like Diafine's convenience and longevity.
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2018   #87
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
 
rbiemer's Avatar
 
rbiemer is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cortland, NY
Age: 59
Posts: 4,971
Waaay back in high school, we used TriX and D76.
When I started processing my own 4x5 film recently in 2017, I settled on HC-110. It seemed to offer what I was looking for: ease of storage and use (the liquid concentrate is simple to mix and the concentrate seems to be stable for quite a long time) and consistent results.
Works for me. Still using the first bottle I bought and have no reason to change, so far.

Rob
__________________

You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.
--Mark Twain
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2019   #88
Ricoh
Registered User
 
Ricoh is offline
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 171
I'm just about to get back into B&W processing after many, many years and this thread has been very helpful to me. I like the sound of HC-110, the shelf life being a big plus, but I understand it's quite a viscous solution. Is it difficult to dissolve fully, any tips? For instance is it better to mix (and how) at a higher temperature and let it cool before use?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2019   #89
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
 
rbiemer's Avatar
 
rbiemer is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cortland, NY
Age: 59
Posts: 4,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricoh View Post
I'm just about to get back into B&W processing after many, many years and this thread has been very helpful to me. I like the sound of HC-110, the shelf life being a big plus, but I understand it's quite a viscous solution. Is it difficult to dissolve fully, any tips? For instance is it better to mix (and how) at a higher temperature and let it cool before use?
In my limited experience, HC-110 is not difficult to mix. It is easier, for me, than mixing powdered chemicals.

I make up 500ml of working solution at a time--I use it in a Stearman SP-445 daylight tank--and it was a bit fiddly to measure the small amount I needed but, since I figured that out it is quick and repeatable.

I mix using water at my desired temperature and the HC-110 at room temp.

I use 1:31 ratio ( dilution B) which means 16ml HC-110 and 484 ml water.
I have a blunt tipped syringe marked in ml that I thought I'd use to measure the 16ml but that proved to not work very well because of the viscosity. What I did to solve that was to get a small plastic cup, use the syringe to measure 16ml of water, squirt that into the cup and mark the level. With that level marked I now just carefully pour the HC-110 to the mark.
I then rinse the HC-110 into my larger graduate with the water I'm using for my working solution. Once the small cup is well rinsed, I then simply add water to the larger vessel to the 500 ml mark. Mix in normal light and you'll be able to see whether or not the HC-110 is well mixed. And, the working solution will be a homogeneous, pale yellow-ish color.

Easier to do than to describe!

I will also suggest using the "Massive Dev Chart" as a good starting point for times/temps and there is a very useful "Volume Mixer" that makes getting your measurements quite a bit easier. See here:
https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php

Good luck and have fun!

Rob
__________________

You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.
--Mark Twain
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2019   #90
ACullen
Registered User
 
ACullen is offline
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 159
I still can’t decide which developers to stock . My list of favourites varies quite widely to make it tough to narrow down to just two or three choices.

So far favourites are

Acros Rollei Retro.80s- both shine in Rodinal
HP5+ and FP4 - at box speed they look best in Ilfosol 3
HP5+ pushed to 1600 , I can’t decide between DDX, Ilfotec HC and Microphen
Delta 3200- Microphen or Ilfotec HC

So for me DDX looks soft, HC looks decent in all situations but nothing riveting , Microphen can look pretty crude which is fine if that’s what you are after. Ilfosol 3 has the Achilles of short life and being a poor choice for pushing. May be in 2019 I’ll come to a decision on films and developers to stick with.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2019   #91
Ricoh
Registered User
 
Ricoh is offline
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbiemer View Post
In my limited experience, HC-110 is not difficult to mix. It is easier, for me, than mixing powdered chemicals.

I make up 500ml of working solution at a time--I use it in a Stearman SP-445 daylight tank--and it was a bit fiddly to measure the small amount I needed but, since I figured that out it is quick and repeatable.

I mix using water at my desired temperature and the HC-110 at room temp.

I use 1:31 ratio ( dilution B) which means 16ml HC-110 and 484 ml water.
I have a blunt tipped syringe marked in ml that I thought I'd use to measure the 16ml but that proved to not work very well because of the viscosity. What I did to solve that was to get a small plastic cup, use the syringe to measure 16ml of water, squirt that into the cup and mark the level. With that level marked I now just carefully pour the HC-110 to the mark.
I then rinse the HC-110 into my larger graduate with the water I'm using for my working solution. Once the small cup is well rinsed, I then simply add water to the larger vessel to the 500 ml mark. Mix in normal light and you'll be able to see whether or not the HC-110 is well mixed. And, the working solution will be a homogeneous, pale yellow-ish color.

Easier to do than to describe!

I will also suggest using the "Massive Dev Chart" as a good starting point for times/temps and there is a very useful "Volume Mixer" that makes getting your measurements quite a bit easier. See here:
https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php

Good luck and have fun!

Rob
Thanks Rob, extremely helpful tips for me to follow.

Thank you kindly
Steve
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2019   #92
roscoetuff
Registered User
 
roscoetuff is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Washington DC
Age: 62
Posts: 518
So almost 18 months later, I've basically come to the conclusion that the difference a developer makes is harder to discern in most cases. For me, a good part of the problem lay in the variability of my hand agitated so-called technique. To fix this, I picked up a used Jobo, and yes, it fixed a lot of problems. There are certain types of low agitation, stand development approaches that a Jobo won't work with, but for many, it eliminates problems.

Even so, seeing the difference between an XTOL, ID-11, D-76 developer... takes a trained eye. Even Pyrocat-HD can be be less of a holy grail than it's often cracked up to be. While it won't be news to a lot of folks, I've come around to the position that 95% of our results won't be differentiated on the basis of developer or film choices, but by lighting and composition. Duh. So I've spent a year with the one film, one camera, one lens, one developer mantra... and there's a lot to be said for keeping it simple and focusing on what comes under the lens rather than the rest.

That said, which ones can make a difference in your confidence in getting the results you want. For me, the year's been all about Delta400, Rollei TLR 3.5F, and Bergger Berspeed. I've also used color: Portra400 and C41 (where the developer manufacturer doesn't matter all that much). C41 processing experience went a long way in terms of convincing me that there's a lot less value derived in these discussions than I'd have thought at the beginning. And Jobo literature will tend to convince you as well that the artsy fartsy agitation techniques have less merit than we want to believe as well.

To use the C41 podcast line, "Just go out and shoot some film, dang it!" Keep it simple and don't get lost in the details. Been there, done that. Glad to have moved on.
__________________
-JW Mersereau ("Skip")

"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer
"If a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it's as though I've neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up." Richard Avedon, Photographer
“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” Ansel Adams
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2019   #93
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
 
rbiemer's Avatar
 
rbiemer is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cortland, NY
Age: 59
Posts: 4,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by roscoetuff View Post
So almost 18 months later, I've basically come to the conclusion that the difference a developer makes is harder to discern in most cases. For me, a good part of the problem lay in the variability of my hand agitated so-called technique. To fix this, I picked up a used Jobo, and yes, it fixed a lot of problems. There are certain types of low agitation, stand development approaches that a Jobo won't work with, but for many, it eliminates problems.

Even so, seeing the difference between an XTOL, ID-11, D-76 developer... takes a trained eye. Even Pyrocat-HD can be be less of a holy grail than it's often cracked up to be. While it won't be news to a lot of folks, I've come around to the position that 95% of our results won't be differentiated on the basis of developer or film choices, but by lighting and composition. Duh. So I've spent a year with the one film, one camera, one lens, one developer mantra... and there's a lot to be said for keeping it simple and focusing on what comes under the lens rather than the rest.

That said, which ones can make a difference in your confidence in getting the results you want. For me, the year's been all about Delta400, Rollei TLR 3.5F, and Bergger Berspeed. I've also used color: Portra400 and C41 (where the developer manufacturer doesn't matter all that much). C41 processing experience went a long way in terms of convincing me that there's a lot less value derived in these discussions than I'd have thought at the beginning. And Jobo literature will tend to convince you as well that the artsy fartsy agitation techniques have less merit than we want to believe as well.

To use the C41 podcast line, "Just go out and shoot some film, dang it!" Keep it simple and don't get lost in the details. Been there, done that. Glad to have moved on.
Hard to rationally argue with this, so I won't!
I will say, that I decided that since there are so many other variables, I felt the need to minimize as much as I could the variables in my own process. For me, that has meant choosing a single film for my 4x5 use, a single developer, and as standardized a regime as I can make it. Something like a Jobo would probably work very well toward standardizing my development but I do have a budget and going with the tank I chose and assiduously practicing my agitation are working well enough for me that I can be fairly confident that my failings are not in that part of my photography. If I've composed and exposed well/"correctly", I get good results. If not, I don't.

I am still very early in this part of my photography, having only shot about a hundred or so sheets in the last year or so, but, for now, I have no real reason to change either my film nor my processing. At some indeterminate point later I might want to try another film, possibly a slower one, but the HP5+ is serving me well so far.

The one thing I am planning on changing this year will be to get one more lens. I'm currently shooting with a 135 and want to add or switch to a 150. This would bring me to three options: 35, 150, and the pinhole lensboard. Ought to keep me happy for a while.

Rob
__________________

You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.
--Mark Twain
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2019   #94
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricoh View Post
I'm just about to get back into B&W processing after many, many years and this thread has been very helpful to me. I like the sound of HC-110, the shelf life being a big plus, but I understand it's quite a viscous solution. Is it difficult to dissolve fully, any tips? For instance is it better to mix (and how) at a higher temperature and let it cool before use?
Not even slightly difficult to mix into water. It is 100% water soluble and goes into water with even the most minimal agitation. The viscosity of HC-110 is higher than water but extremely low by any other standard. I use a simple 3ml syringe to add it to water. Takes about 45 seconds to measure, add, and mix into 20 C water.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2019   #95
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
I didn't see what all the hubbub was about with HC110. It was "okay" but never got on with "the goo" and didn't see it as any better than D-76, so why bother?
HC-110 was formulated to produce the same results as D-76 but in concentrate form as opposed to powders.

HC-110 is far easier to mix, is unaffected by oxidation so has a much longer shelf life than D-76. Plus, with the various dilutions, one can adjust the timing of their development far more than with D-76.

Basically using HC-110 gives you all the advantages of D-76 without the oxidation that you worry about.

Why bother with D-76?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2019   #96
gb hill
Registered User
 
gb hill's Avatar
 
gb hill is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North Carolina
Age: 59
Posts: 5,871
I voted HC-110 but I use D-76 & Rodinal. I love Perceptol when I’m looking for a fine grain.
__________________
Greg
flickr
Bessa R & L
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2019   #97
Ricoh
Registered User
 
Ricoh is offline
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
Not even slightly difficult to mix into water. It is 100% water soluble and goes into water with even the most minimal agitation. The viscosity of HC-110 is higher than water but extremely low by any other standard. I use a simple 3ml syringe to add it to water. Takes about 45 seconds to measure, add, and mix into 20 C water.
Well, that's good enough for me. Thank you very much.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2019   #98
roscoetuff
Registered User
 
roscoetuff is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Washington DC
Age: 62
Posts: 518
Rob:

One of the great things I enjoyed playing with in HC-110 is the level of dilution to use. I don't know whether there's a more flexible developer out there. It's amazing stuff! The only thing I didn't like was that the viscosity is so thick, and the stuff ran so slowing out of the bottle and into the beaker, that I used to worry whether I had too much or too little. Truth is that precision isn't all its cracked up to be. You gotta be close, but you don't have to be precise or you're gonna ding dang dong die. But I only came to that with experience... experience of making mistakes and the stuff still turned out fine.

BTW, I like the shots you've linked to. Yep: you could develop with shoe polish and your content would still look great. Don't do it! Just saying.
__________________
-JW Mersereau ("Skip")

"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer
"If a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it's as though I've neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up." Richard Avedon, Photographer
“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” Ansel Adams
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2019   #99
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by roscoetuff View Post
Rob:

One of the great things I enjoyed playing with in HC-110 is the level of dilution to use. I don't know whether there's a more flexible developer out there. It's amazing stuff! The only thing I didn't like was that the viscosity is so thick, and the stuff ran so slowing out of the bottle and into the beaker, that I used to worry whether I had too much or too little. Truth is that precision isn't all its cracked up to be. You gotta be close, but you don't have to be precise or you're gonna ding dang dong die. But I only came to that with experience... experience of making mistakes and the stuff still turned out fine.

BTW, I like the shots you've linked to. Yep: you could develop with shoe polish and your content would still look great. Don't do it! Just saying.
Use a syringe to measure out HC-110. I have a very small beaker where i pour enough concentrate so that I can fill the syringe. This minimizes the waste and is very accurate. The viscosity of the material makes adding it any other way much more inaccurate and wasteful.

I can measure out 21.8 mls of HC-110 in 45 seconds using a 3ml syringe, 1 minute tops.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2019   #100
colker
-
 
colker is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: rio de janeiro
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
HC-110 was formulated to produce the same results as D-76 but in concentrate form as opposed to powders.

HC-110 is far easier to mix, is unaffected by oxidation so has a much longer shelf life than D-76. Plus, with the various dilutions, one can adjust the timing of their development far more than with D-76.

Basically using HC-110 gives you all the advantages of D-76 without the oxidation that you worry about.

Why bother with D-76?
Because IME D76 gives better tonal range and better defined grain. YMMV.
I believe Herb Ritts lab developed his 120 TriX in D76. Ritts BW is the top when it comes to tonal range on film exposed under a bright sun.
HC 110 is good at raising ISO. D76 is the standard for 200 to 320 asa metered Trix. again... ymmv.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2019   #101
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
 
rbiemer's Avatar
 
rbiemer is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cortland, NY
Age: 59
Posts: 4,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
Not even slightly difficult to mix into water. It is 100% water soluble and goes into water with even the most minimal agitation. The viscosity of HC-110 is higher than water but extremely low by any other standard. I use a simple 3ml syringe to add it to water. Takes about 45 seconds to measure, add, and mix into 20 C water.
Clearly I ought to try a different syringe than the one I have now. I have a couple of blunt tipped 5 ml syringes that I bought originally to use with my fountain pens--refilling cartridges mainly--and they work very well for that. Probably the needle bore is too small to handle the HC-110.
Going to see if either a glue syringe or something from my local drug store or veterinary supply place has something better suited.


Rob
__________________

You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.
--Mark Twain
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-02-2019   #102
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbiemer View Post
Clearly I ought to try a different syringe than the one I have now. I have a couple of blunt tipped 5 ml syringes that I bought originally to use with my fountain pens--refilling cartridges mainly--and they work very well for that. Probably the needle bore is too small to handle the HC-110.
Going to see if either a glue syringe or something from my local drug store or veterinary supply place has something better suited.


Rob
Ah, that is the problem. You dont need to use a needle. I remove the needle from my syringe and throw it away. No need to use that!

Edit: Reread your post and it may be that you are not using a needle. Too early to post for me I thinK!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-02-2019   #103
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
 
rbiemer's Avatar
 
rbiemer is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cortland, NY
Age: 59
Posts: 4,971
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
Ah, that is the problem. You dont need to use a needle. I remove the needle from my syringe and throw it away. No need to use that!

Edit: Reread your post and it may be that you are not using a needle. Too early to post for me I thinK!
Oh, for pete's sake. You did read my post correctly. I was using the needle that came with the syringe. of course I was.

What's really making me laugh at my self is that the syringes I have shipped with the needle dismounted and when I use them with my pens, I need to attach them. And again dismount them once I'm done using them.

Thank you, sir, for the epiphany this morning as I read your reply!

Rob
__________________

You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.
--Mark Twain
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-02-2019   #104
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbiemer View Post
Oh, for pete's sake. You did read my post correctly. I was using the needle that came with the syringe. of course I was.

What's really making me laugh at my self is that the syringes I have shipped with the needle dismounted and when I use them with my pens, I need to attach them. And again dismount them once I'm done using them.

Thank you, sir, for the epiphany this morning as I read your reply!

Rob

Excellent. Toss the needle and you will find HC-110 far easier to use!


Enjoy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2019   #105
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 1,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Back when I was big into b/w film I tried a bunch -- DD-X, Rodinal, Diafine, HC-110 (maybe XTOL too) but always came back to D-76. I got the most consistent results with it, negs always looked good, and it's easy to use. It was also available locally "then" and could walk to a nearby camera store and buy a pack if needed. The rest had to be ordered online. Very forgiving, almost impossible to screw up. Downside was it might oxidize but I bought these collapsable bottles that kept air out. Seemed to work. Rodinal has a virtually indefinite shelf life and was a little sharper (but really, not all "that") and lasts forever but not versatile and definitely more visible grain. Also it had to be diluted so much I never felt confident I got the ratio right (but always did). Diafine caused bromide streaks in some rolls. You can keep it. DD-X was good too but a bit pricey iirc. I didn't see what all the hubbub was about with HC110. It was "okay" but never got on with "the goo" and didn't see it as any better than D-76, so why bother?

So good ole D-76 it was for me.

So here's my "controversial" statement that will upset some. "I" think D-76 is seen as a "for kids" or "starter" developer. Something you use in HS photography class. Grown-ups use (fill in the blank) developer. Kinda like "real" photograhers shoot RAW. Baloney. (And I think that's why although the poll has D-76 in a virtual tie for first? Few people jumping on this thread talking up D-76. C'mon D-76 users. Come out of the closet. It's okay! We both know that this is the best developer out there... No need to be shy.)

Meanwhile, D-76 is perfect. Plentiful, inexpensive, easy, versatile, forgiving, consistent. You can push with it, pull with it mess with the dilution. Forget you have negs in the Jobo, pull them out a week later, they look fine.

Yeah. I'm on team D-76.

But I no longer fool with black and white film. But if I did?

THE MIGHTY

D. SEVENTY. SIX!

The rest you can keep.
I have been using D-76 with Tri-X since I picked up shooting b&w film a few years ago now. It's a standard of course, but I remember specifically that Tom Abrahamson recommended this combo so I resisted adopting XTOL at the beginning - and right now I have some D-76 that is awaiting use. When looking back at my very modest archive the D-76/Tri-X combo has given the best results, hands down. I have also worked on the idea that each film type takes its own developer - so I have used XTOL with Fomapan 200 and 400 - often with good result and I have used Rodinal with Fomapan 100 and T-Max 100. In the later case I got better results with D-76 than Rodinal. Oh yes - HC-110 like Rodinal cannot be brought aboard a plane. I tend to bring chemicals back with me from the States to avoid the awful prices one is required to pay here. D-76 can be put into checked baggage.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2019   #106
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by traveler_101 View Post
I have been using D-76 with Tri-X since I picked up shooting b&w film a few years ago now. It's a standard of course, but I remember specifically that Tom Abrahamson recommended this combo so I resisted adopting XTOL at the beginning - and right now I have some D-76 that is awaiting use. When looking back at my very modest archive the D-76/Tri-X combo has given the best results, hands down. I have also worked on the idea that each film type takes its own developer - so I have used XTOL with Fomapan 200 and 400 - often with good result and I have used Rodinal with Fomapan 100 and T-Max 100. In the later case I got better results with D-76 than Rodinal. Oh yes - HC-110 like Rodinal cannot be brought aboard a plane. I tend to bring chemicals back with me from the States to avoid the awful prices one is required to pay here. D-76 can be put into checked baggage.
+1. You can take D-76 on a plane. Can't take HC-110. Tri-X and D-76, classic combo. Really, D-76 and anything. I really didn't see an improvement using any other developer. But you fool around with this stuff because it's fun to fool around with. Far worse things you can fool around if you're fooling around than developer and film combos.

Actually, my favorite film stock was Kodak BW400CN. No developer needed. Great tonality. May it rest in peace.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2019   #107
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
+1. You can take D-76 on a plane. Can't take HC-110.

Freestyle will ship a liter of HC-110 from California to Michigan via Fed Ex overnight so I'm thinking it is traveling by plane.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2019   #108
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 1,047
"All substances, which pose a risk of fire, corrosion or the development of toxic gases, are completely forbidden in the checked baggage as well as in the carry-on baggage."

It's not really flammable but it is toxic. Frankly as someone who flies frequently I hope they don't allow HC-110 or other liquid chemicals on the plane. You might get away with it, but I wouldn't bet on it. If they confiscate it costs you $28.50 for a one later bottle. In the meantime D-76 is only $6.95 to make a gallon.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2019   #109
webOSUser
Registered User
 
webOSUser's Avatar
 
webOSUser is offline
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 233
Rob,

The pharmacy or veterinary supply place should have something that will make your HC110 measuring much easier.

Check the pharmacy for Oral Syringes. The one that I bought is a 10ml / 2 tsp syringe with a short piece of blue tubing. It worked well enough for measuring HC110.

Photographers Formulary has a 12 cc Micro Mixer. It is a 12 ml syringe with a short piece of 1/8 in tubing. It has worked better for HC110 as I generally use about 11 ml of HC110 at a time.

In both cases, the tubing is too short. I picked up Du-Bro Super Blue Silicon Fuel Line Part No 223 at a local hobby shop. It is 2 feet long . Six inches of the hose works well sucking HC-110 out of the bottle.

I cover the markings on the syringes with clear packing tape to prevent them from wearing off.

Steve W

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbiemer View Post
Clearly I ought to try a different syringe than the one I have now. I have a couple of blunt tipped 5 ml syringes that I bought originally to use with my fountain pens--refilling cartridges mainly--and they work very well for that. Probably the needle bore is too small to handle the HC-110.
Going to see if either a glue syringe or something from my local drug store or veterinary supply place has something better suited.

Rob
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2019   #110
creenus
Registered User
 
creenus is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 154
Ilford DD-X for the moment.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2019   #111
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,453
Ilford Perceptol for TMY2-400.


Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2019   #112
Solinar
Analog Preferred
 
Solinar's Avatar
 
Solinar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 2,536
Nice to see what others have as a favorite developer - but I won't be able to vote, because I regularly use both HC-110 and Rodinal.
__________________
- Andrew in Austin, Texas -

35mm Gear Bessa R, Leica II, - IIIg, - M2
Just for fun 35mm Gear a Kodak Retina IIa, a Rollei 35 S, plus an Oly 35RD and a Voigtlander Vito II
Modern Medium Format Fuji GW 690III
Vintage MF Folders a Voigtländer Perkeo II and Bessa II, 2 of them - a ZI Mess Ikonta 524/2 - plus an Agfa Super Isolette & a Record III
Digital a D300 and a D700 with some primes - still going over a decade later

"Who spilled the Dektol on the bathroom carpet?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2019   #113
steveyork
Registered User
 
steveyork is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 697
HC110 and Rodinal -- cheap, easy and lasts a long time, though I go through at least 1000 ml of each every year. I do experiment with others just to shake things up a bit.
  Reply With Quote

HC110 over D76?
Old 03-14-2019   #114
Tom R
Registered User
 
Tom R is offline
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 43
HC110 over D76?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
HC-110 was formulated to produce the same results as D-76 but in concentrate form as opposed to powders.

HC-110 is far easier to mix, is unaffected by oxidation so has a much longer shelf life than D-76. Plus, with the various dilutions, one can adjust the timing of their development far more than with D-76.

Basically using HC-110 gives you all the advantages of D-76 without the oxidation that you worry about.

Why bother with D-76?
I have not done a side-by-side comparison, but numerous members of this forum have most likely done so. If I recall correctly, HC110 is fine with 120 and larger format films but results in more *apparent* grain on the smaller format 135 films ... especially so for TriX. Again, I've yet to see any scientific comparison here, but perhaps others participating in this discussion might provide some link(s)?

TR
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2019   #115
olifaunt
Registered User
 
olifaunt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 249
How do you all dispose of developer/fixer? At school they make a rather big deal of contamination risks and safe disposal into special tanks that then get taken somewhere, which is one of the things holding me back from home development so far.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2019   #116
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
 
Moto-Uno's Avatar
 
Moto-Uno is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: The Wet Coast
Posts: 1,638
^ Do some research into Caffenol , Peter
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2019   #117
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
 
davidnewtonguitars's Avatar
 
davidnewtonguitars is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Beaumont, TX
Posts: 1,374
ID11 dry kits make 5 liters. You have 5 liter bottles in Europe?!
__________________
Leica M2 / 7artisans 35-f2 / Canon 35-f2 ltm
http://davidnewtonguitars.squarespace.com/
  Reply With Quote

Hc110
Old 04-28-2019   #118
KenR
Registered User
 
KenR is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 693
Hc110

I have standardized on HC110 dilution H for 35mm, 120 and even LF work. It is just so convenient that any theoretical or real drawbacks to it seem minor by comparison. Tmax400 for 11 min in dilution H with 6 twists every minute, then water as stop for 30 seconds and then fix for 10 minutes. Simple and always ready to go.
My problem with D76 was that whenever I would get around to having a few rolls to develop, my D76 was a deep oxidized brown - and so I would have to wait a day after making up a fresh batch, assuming that I had a fresh pouch around. Otherwise more delay in going to the one remaining camera store in my area or an on-line order. HC100 always available even a year or so after opening the bottle. You can't go wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:49.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.