D76 vs Thornton's 2 Bath HD developer, Ilford Delta 100 in 4x5

[Milpool]

Stand development and variations on that theme (ie dilute developer, long development time with minimal or no agitation) are extreme procedures so generalization regarding the sensitometry / curve shape is problematic. It will depend on the film but also likely be quite variable depending on the developer composition and dilution. One developer/dilution might tend toward compression at one or both ends of the characteristic curve while a different developer/dilution might not do that. Repeatability is also somewhat less straight forward than people might assume.

When I first saw Milpool’s straight, linear divided-development curves, I thought: ‘Great. This is what I think I want!’

I read about how testers do not like the slow toe on Tri-X, as it doesn’t give them adequate separation in the shadows.

At the same time, it seems that there is the expectation that a compensating developer will deliver an even slower shoulder. Stand development is seen to deliver a high degree of compensation.

In one of his very informative videos (on Youtube), Analogue Andy created a curve for stand development in a Pyro developer. The curve was described as similar to wet spaghetti thrown against the fridge. This curve is not at all linear, and in the high values it shows the totally opposite of a shoulder. You can probably fit this part of the curve with an exponentially increasing curve.

(101) Pyrocat HD: Edge Effects Via Stand & Semi-Stand Development - YouTube at 1:08 into the video, he looks at the curves.

From a curves-viewpoint, it is not what I expected, but maybe my understanding is limited. It seems that only the mid-tones are compressed. In any case, I wish that I had seen Andy’s curves before trying stand development. His video also demonstrates key points regarding the frequency of agitation. Very informative.

I assume that users are happy with the result of stand development and the associated shoulder/highlights representation. If Andy’s curve is anything near usual for stand development, I would conclude that the straight line divided-development curve also would be acceptable from a high-lights viewpoint.

Currently, I am thinking that I want my developer to yield a long straight, linear curve without too much contrast. Then, for a particular film, I could use only one EI and one development process. For the contrasty scenes, exposure could be placed on Zone VIII and for the rest of the scenes Zone III would be used.

Maybe it would be similar to using Kodachrome 200 (long time ago) or a digital camera at ISO 200, converted to monochrome afterwards. I don’t know about the linearity of Kodachrome, but I think of the digital sensor as having very linear curves in use.

Looking at the various recipes (Stoeckler, D-23, BT2B), I agree with Milpool that they are all very similar. I have been thinking of using bath A at 1:1 (with the same agitation!) to get longer, more controllable development times. Or instead maybe adding a small amount of Potassium Bromide.

I have unsystematically been using the higher definition Kates version with Tri-X and HP5+ and I have not noticed any issues regarding uniformity, but would like to learn more about this.

It seems that there are a number of old threads about Divided-Development that I need to read.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I do see a slight difference when I switch back and forth between the two. I see it in the contrast of the belfry shutters and the shadows under the shrubs, but both pictures are very, very close for sure.

not enough difference for me to deal with a two-bath developer.

 

[Alan Townsend]

This thread is interesting to me because it touches on several issues that have been on my mind. Developer preference is a complicated thing and based on many ideas. What is being photographed and how do we want that to look, how are we printing our negatives and what process do we use for that, and which film do we use, among many others including our states of mind and body, which can also change over time. Too many variables.

In recent years, I am a woodland photographer. In the woods we have mostly low ket situations with mostly darker tones with occasional clouds in the sky or sunlit patches of earth among shadowy details. I like compensating developers because they raise the contrast in the lower tones, which is mostly what I have in my photography. The high tones are not as important but do need some control to avoid muddy looking overall low contrast development. That's my interpretation of this dilemma.

My developer of choice for many years has been D23 at a 1:3 dilution. This gives a very compensating curve that I like along with excellent edge effects and mackie lines that emphasize the complex texture of the woodland. I print using alt processes using enlarged positives/negatives that I make in my darkroom. I recently decided this developer was too compensating, so began experimenting with other metol based developers such as Suzuki's DS1 and DS2 developers and most recently Gainers Original MC developer. My negatives are having the blahs now. Low contrast muddiness to include all the tones without any emphasis. These viatamin C developers have much finer grain, but are also much less compensating and have lower acutance as well, which go together.

Over the last year, I've been mostly experimenting with developers and doing much less really good photography, at least in 35mm. For my 35mm woodland photography using Kentmere 100, I've returned to using D23 at 1:3 which gives the best results for my case. However, for HRU xray film that I shoot in 4x5 I have switched to Gainers MC original developer. This Xray film likes a low contrast development where it approaches a strait line film curve. It likes D23 just fine, but that is too expensive for this film in large format in my opinion. That's another factor.

Experimenting with films and film developers takes lots of time and is usually not as productive as time spent photographing. But from time to time it has to be done.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

This is the issue I refer to in #7 and I think the root cause of the problem is that people easily conflate "density" and "contrast". It's nice if you're printing that the highest values have densities that aren't too ridiculously high. But the question is whether there will still be sufficient gradation to allow for textures to print well. I think this what @bernard_L is referring to.
I personally think there's a difference between an easy print and a pleasing print. Of course, ideally, you get both.

It must be remembered that with a condenser enlarger, the greater the density, the greater the contrast. So, the contrast produced by a given interval of density at a low value will be less than that of the same interval at a greater density. Thus, a compensating developer is ideal for condenser use.

 

[snusmumriken]

My developer of choice for many years has been D23 at a 1:3 dilution. This gives a very compensating curve that I like along with excellent edge effects and mackie lines that emphasize the complex texture of the woodland. I print using alt processes using enlarged positives/negatives that I make in my darkroom. I recently decided this developer was too compensating, so began experimenting with other metol based developers such as Suzuki's DS1 and DS2 developers and most recently Gainers Original MC developer. My negatives are having the blahs now. Low contrast muddiness to include all the tones without any emphasis.

Could you show us examples, so we understand how big a difference in tonality you are describing?

 

[Alan Townsend]

Could you show us examples, so we understand how big a difference in tonality you are describing?

Thanks for asking. I don't have any final print comparisons ready, but have some negative scans that show the differences fairly well. These images were taken at different times of the year with different lighting, and different scan settings but with the same film using the two developers. D23 13 is similar to Thornton 2 bath and GOMC similar to D76 1:1.

D23 1:3 summer 2024

GOMC11 is Gainers original metol vitamin C developer at 1:1 dilution. Early spring 2026

These are photos of the same subject using same film but not under similar lighting or processing conditions. However, the main point is illustrated. The D23 13 has highlights of sun showing through holes in leaves in tree canopy that are slightly burned out, but that's not important in this case. The lower tones, of which this photo is mostly, have much higher contrast and these tones look look much better than in the GOMC developer, which has an overall washed out and low contrast look to it even though it was taken in sunlight. I tried to process that image to make them look more similar, but that didn't work out very well. Point is that with compensation, the highlight having lower contrast is not the only feature. The lower tones have higher contrast is the other feature. With woodland photography, which is low key, the low tones are the important ones.

 

[Lachlan Young]

At the same time, it seems that there is the expectation that a compensating developer will deliver an even slower shoulder.

Unless you are getting a curve shape like Ilford XP2 Super, you really aren't getting highlight compensation effects. Achieving DIR analogues in B&W emulsion/ developer relationships was the target of quite a few big manufacturer patents and are in commercialised products. Non-solvent developers (with highly specific exceptions from the big manufacturers) and questionable agitation techniques aren't going to maximally access these components/ effects.

 

[snusmumriken]

Thanks for asking. I don't have any final print comparisons ready, but have some negative scans that show the differences fairly well. These images were taken at different times of the year with different lighting, and different scan settings but with the same film using the two developers. D23 13 is similar to Thornton 2 bath and GOMC similar to D76 1:1.

View attachment 423706
D23 1:3 summer 2024


View attachment 423708
GOMC11 is Gainers original metol vitamin C developer at 1:1 dilution. Early spring 2026

These are photos of the same subject using same film but not under similar lighting or processing conditions. However, the main point is illustrated. The D23 13 has highlights of sun showing through holes in leaves in tree canopy that are slightly burned out, but that's not important in this case. The lower tones, of which this photo is mostly, have much higher contrast and these tones look look much better than in the GOMC developer, which has an overall washed out and low contrast look to it even though it was taken in sunlight. I tried to process that image to make them look more similar, but that didn't work out very well. Point is that with compensation, the highlight having lower contrast is not the only feature. The lower tones have higher contrast is the other feature. With woodland photography, which is low key, the low tones are the important ones.

Many thanks for posting these. That’s certainly a big difference, and I can understand why you are disappointed. I’ve not used that Gainer OMC developer, and I’m not competent to suggest why it gives you such flat results, except that it’s not characteristic of the 2-bath metol-only developers I’ve used.

I notice in this other thread that you are measuring metol in 1/64 teaspoon = 0.05g amounts. You also mention that the negatives are really thin. I’ve not attempted the maths, but are you certain there’s then enough metol in the tank to develop the film properly?

 

[Alan Townsend]

Many thanks for posting these. That’s certainly a big difference, and I can understand why you are disappointed. I’ve not used that Gainer OMC developer, and I’m not competent to suggest why it gives you such flat results, except that it’s not characteristic of the 2-bath metol-only developers I’ve used.

In my example of GOMC, the lighting was very flat in early spring with no leaves on the trees and the sun almost directly behind me, so this is a somewhat unfair comparison. The D23 13 example was in late summer with full leaves on all trees, hence the holes in foliage highlights, and the shadows were illuminated by the chlorophyll green filters of the leaves. So the lighting was very different. The GOMC is much less compensating than D23 at 1:3 and much less acutance. The contrast difference is mostly the lighting. I do not have any better comparisons available than this one.

I notice in this other thread that you are measuring metol in 1/64 teaspoon = 0.05g amounts.

I verified the spoon measures using my digital scale, so am sure the amount is correct for the dilution.

You also mention that the negatives are really thin.

I had severe trouble using measuring syringes. I kept using too little concentrate in error when I used the glycerol and that gave thin negatives. After using spoons, the negatives are correct densities as measured earlier.

I’ve not attempted the maths, but are you certain there’s then enough metol in the tank to develop the film properly?

Pretty amazing using such a small amount, but that is correct. This wass in half a liter of developer at a 1:1 dilution. The ascorbic acid was ten times that, which is 0.5 grams. This is a very alkalin devloper and similar to d76 at 1:1 dilution in developing times. It works great on my Fuki HRU xray film, but not so great on the Kentmere, which is similar to fp4 or delta100.

 

[Molte]

Stand development and variations on that theme (ie dilute developer, long development time with minimal or no agitation) are extreme procedures so generalization regarding the sensitometry / curve shape is problematic. It will depend on the film but also likely be quite variable depending on the developer composition and dilution. One developer/dilution might tend toward compression at one or both ends of the characteristic curve while a different developer/dilution might not do that. Repeatability is also somewhat less straight forward than people might assume.

Yes, agreed.

My point, perhaps not very clear, was that some photographers are happy to use this process, despite all the things you mention. When I tried it some time ago, I was only seeking a value of 0.1 over fb. Andrew's video was an eye-opener. It is rare to see the curves. I will make a new post.

 

[Molte]

Unless you are getting a curve shape like Ilford XP2 Super, you really aren't getting highlight compensation effects. Achieving DIR analogues in B&W emulsion/ developer relationships was the target of quite a few big manufacturer patents and are in commercialised products. Non-solvent developers (with highly specific exceptions from the big manufacturers) and questionable agitation techniques aren't going to maximally access these components/ effects.

Ok, thank you. (I had to Google a bit to understand). I have not tried XP2 much. I understand that it is very compensating in C41, but the opposite in traditional B/W developers. XP2 has an interesting foot; the shoulder looks more like traditional dilute B/W developers. Maybe I will try it one day, to avoid having to develop it myself.