6 Developers & Kentmere 200

[Andrew O'Neill]

Here's the video I promised. Hey, I even set up my old Fujimoto enlarger and contact printed the negatives!

 

[ags2mikon]

And I liked the music.

 

[Ben 4]

I haven't used most of those developers, but, based on the ones I have and on general reputations, I was surprised that D-23 did not produce the least highlight contrast. I too was struck by the very notable differences between the scans and contact prints—contrast appeared very different (though presumably the scan contrast could be adjusted to match?). Nice work, even if packing in six different developers was a lot of information to keep up with (for me as a viewer—I'm sure you had no trouble!

 

[pentaxuser]

The D23 neg seemed to have much less shadow detail in the trunk area than the rest of the negs. It may be that D23 is far from the best to use at box speed and needs a lower E. I. to capture shadow detail fully

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

I was surprised that D-23 did not produce the least highlight contrast.

D-23 was not set up to produce much in the way of development inhibition effects. It is a bit less active than D-76, and that convinces people that it must be inherently less contrasty. Something like Beutler will produce inhibition effects via metol exhaustion.

In comparison, Xtol was designed with full knowledge of development inhibition effects, and aimed at maximising shadow speed with well controlled highlight density and as optimal a grain/ sharpness balance as possible.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

The D23 neg seemed to have much less shadow detail in the trunk area than the rest of the negs. It may be that D23 is far from the best to use at box speed and needs a lower E. I. to capture shadow detail fully

pentaxuser

All rolls were exposed at EI 125.

 

[pentaxuser]

All rolls were exposed at EI 125.

Oh dear, I had missed that so thanks. That's 2/3rds over so unless a full stop over makes a real difference then I am beginning to lose faith in D23 as a developer for me - at least with Kentmere 200

One or more of a stop in speed is a lot to lose unless D23 makes up for the loss in other ways?

pentaxuser

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have a bottle of Ilfosol 3 I was saving in the fridge to do a head-to-head test against FX39II, but you saved me the trouble Andy. I was surprised at how well Ilfosol 3 did with Kentmere 200.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Oh dear, I had missed that so thanks. That's 2/3rds over so unless a full stop over makes a real difference then I am beginning to lose faith in D23 as a developer for me - at least with Kentmere 200

One or more of a stop in speed is a lot to lose unless D23 makes up for the loss in other ways?

pentaxuser

ID11 1+1 would have been a better choice.

 

[Dave Lusby]

The only part of the video that I find useful is the beginning, with the actual negatives on the light table. All of them show adequate detail in the shadows, so the obvious differences in overall density mean that some give higher effective speed. Thanks for the comparisons!

 

[pentaxuser]

ID11 1+1 would have been a better choice.

Well all the other developers appear to be a better choice than D23 and it looks as if the reason might be that they achieve better speed. If ID11 1+1 fits into this category in terms of being better then no need to reply but if there is something else at work which makes D23 a poorer choice than D23 then can you say what this is?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[dcy]

Oh dear, I had missed that so thanks. That's 2/3rds over so unless a full stop over makes a real difference then I am beginning to lose faith in D23 as a developer for me - at least with Kentmere 200

I always struggle to see significant differences between developers, and this was no exception. I didn't like the blown highlights of Pyrocat-HDC and Ilfosol-3, but that's it. For the shadows, I *really* cannot see the difference. I would be curious to know if you see a difference between D-23 and Thorton 2-Bath on the shadows.

 

[Pieter12]

Where’s Rodinal?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Where’s Rodinal?

Not a fan. Sorry.

 

[GregY]

I always struggle to see significant differences between developers, and this was no exception. I didn't like the blown highlights of Pyrocat-HDC and Ilfosol-3, but that's it. For the shadows, I *really* cannot see the difference. I would be curious to know if you see a difference between D-23 and Thorton 2-Bath on the shadows.

D, the super bright highlights are just that. The staining developers are typically very good at separating highlights....but the highlights in that image by Andrew are like the reflection off chrome, they're not "blown" they're specular highlights. In a finished quality print, you might need some burning or dodging to get the exact shadow or highlight densities you want. Hard things to evaluate in a simple contact print.

 

[koraks]

@Andrew O'Neill sorry if I missed it - how did you determine the development times? I'm asking because when trying or even contemplating comparisons like this one, I personally get stuck usually at that point. I generally don't have a set of times for different developers that will truly achieve the same gamma. So I find myself looking at least in part at differences in the absolute degree of development, on top of the more qualitative differences the developers would yield.

And also sorry if I missed this - did you take densitometer measurements in these negatives in a few places (e.g. shadow -midtone - highlight)? This may help interpreting the differences we're seeing.

For instance, I wonder if the xtol and pyrocat outcome is really so different if we compensate for the apparent difference in absolute rate of development. Simply put, the xtol strip just looks like it received less development overall than the
Pyrocat strip.

 

[pentaxuser]

I always struggle to see significant differences between developers, and this was no exception. I didn't like the blown highlights of Pyrocat-HDC and Ilfosol-3, but that's it. For the shadows, I *really* cannot see the difference. I would be curious to know if you see a difference between D-23 and Thorton 2-Bath on the shadows.

I too struggle to a greater extent than most here seem to in terms of differences between developers but I can see a very small difference in the trunks details between D23 and Thornton 2-bath. The Thornton 2-bath has a little more detail. If it were not a video devoted to comparisons where the viewer's eye is drawn to examine such differences as opposed to viewing a series of prints for the overall scene then this difference might have passed me by.

On the other hand were I to have started examining a set of prints for the overall impression and had not become eye and brain weary from so doing then I might still have detected the difference as the trunk is such a large part of the foreground

However even at browsing speed the improvement in shadow detail in the Pyrocat neg would have remained clear but would the rest? Well I think so in the sense that there was group of other developers that were better in giving shadow detail than D23 but were more difficult to rank in order

This might be me "rationalising" here but in previous videos where Andrew has used D23 my impression was of a developer that didn't seem to fail in any way in producing good shadow detail

What worries me and it was the reason for my participation is that once I was told that these were all negs produced at EI 125 or a 2/3rd stop more exposure is the seemingly poorer shadow detail

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

@Andrew O'Neill sorry if I missed it - how did you determine the development times? I'm asking because when trying or even contemplating comparisons like this one, I personally get stuck usually at that point. I generally don't have a set of times for different developers that will truly achieve the same gamma. So I find myself looking at least in part at differences in the absolute degree of development, on top of the more qualitative differences the developers would yield.

And also sorry if I missed this - did you take densitometer measurements in these negatives in a few places (e.g. shadow -midtone - highlight)? This may help interpreting the differences we're seeing.

For instance, I wonder if the xtol and pyrocat outcome is really so different if we compensate for the apparent difference in absolute rate of development. Simply put, the xtol strip just looks like it received less development overall than the
Pyrocat strip.

Dev times determined by extrapolating and experience. Yes, densitometre was used. Dmax/min and DR written on the negatives starting at 0:33 in the video.

 

[Vetus]

Dev times determined by extrapolating and experience. Yes, densitometre was used. Dmax/min and DR written on the negatives starting at 0:33 in the video.

Have you ever mixed and tried FX37, I was wondering how close it is to Adox FX39 II ?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Have you ever mixed and tried FX37, I was wondering how close it is to Adox FX39 II ?

I do have FX37 on my list, to try it with Tmax films. A comparison with FX39 II sounds interesting...

 

[John Wiegerink]

I do have FX37 on my list, to try it with Tmax films. A comparison with FX39 II sounds interesting...

Andy,
I'd be curious to see how FX-37 does in comparison to FX-39II myself. I haven't used FX-37 in a few years now since Adox reintroduced FX-39 as "New FX-39II". I'm using FX39II where I would normally use something on the order of Rodinal. I did do a very informal look at negatives and some scan between FX-39II and FX-37 with Delta 100 and my eyes said FX-39II had the edge. Like I said, this was very informal testing and even before I did a personal speed test on FX-39II. Thanks for the above video and the time/work you put into it is appreciated by me at least. Buy you a fritter if we run into each other.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thanks, John! I'll be looking at FX-37/39 II and see how it does with TMY, and D400. If I can find a roll of Tmax 100, I'd like to do that as well...and D100.

 

[mshchem]

Andy, always look forward to your videos. I tend to develop everything in XTOL stock, kinda boring.

I use the infernal Jobo machines that agitate the daylights out of things.

I wonder if your classical approach to agitation doesn't have a great effect?

The way you agitate without all the inversions or the constant rolling, has to make a huge impact.

I grew up learning from my father, the side to side figure 8 pattern was how we did it. No inversions at all. Always got good results.
Best Regards Mike

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Well all the other developers appear to be a better choice than D23 and it looks as if the reason might be that they achieve better speed. If ID11 1+1 fits into this category in terms of being better then no need to reply but if there is something else at work which makes D23 a poorer choice than D23 then can you say what this is?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Hello Mike,

The reason I mentioned ID11 was because it's the developer that Ilford base their ISO/ ASA ratings rather than a criticism of D23.
Therefore I think ID11 or D-76 would have been a good yardstick to compare the other developers with. The dilution of 1+1 seems to be the most common way of using D-76/ID11.

All the developers tried have their merits and Andrew has been kind enough to share his findings.

 

[loccdor]

Thank you for continuing to make great videos. I liked Pyrocat HDC the most of the scans and FX39 the most of the wet prints.

I thought that Xtol's excellent preservation of shadow detail was actually a drawback here artistically, because it made the tree too bright and less dramatic. Of course, all of this can be adjusted with optical printing contrast or digital curves, which makes the developer's contrast curve less significant to me. With this in mind I'd tend to go with the option that preserves a good amount of fine detail - but all of these options seem capable enough of that, realistically.