A combination to avoid? Illogical film/developer pairings.

waffles

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
175
Location
United States
Format
Medium Format
There’s at least 100 threads on this forum asking what the best developer is for such-and-such film, or what the best film is for this-and-that developer. But it seems there is no consensus and everything is in the eye of the beholder (with probably a healthy dose of superstition/witchcraft involved too!)

I’m curious if there are any film/developer combinations that *objectively* don’t make sense, from a chemistry point of view ... so that I can try everything else without wasting time or money beating a dead horse

For example, I’ve been told that Ilford Pan F+ and Kodak Xtol don’t interact well, because the high sulfite content of Xtol will slow the developing time of Pan F+ so much that you lose a lot of the benefits of a slow-speed, fine grain film.
 

NB23

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
4,307
Format
35mm
Just avoid the worst method on the planet and you should be fine.

Stand development.

Or do the opposite: stand-develop all your films, stubbornly, and come back asking why film photography is such a pita.
 

jim appleyard

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
2,413
Format
Multi Format
Although I've never used Pan-F with X-tol, I was unaware that this was a problem combo. I would think most people dilute it 1+1 or more and that in itself is usually an improvement over a stock solution. Microdol-X and its clones have lots of sulfite in them and many folks use use this with Pan-F with great results, myself included.

I tried stand dev once and was very disappointed; some folks swear by it, tho'.

Caffenol was another disappointment for me, but again, it seems to work well for others.

There are some real real dumbo combos, tho', Tech Pan in D-19 comes to mind. A bit like welding a roll bar onto a Cooper Mini. It works, but...
 

abruzzi

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
3,058
Location
New Mexico, USA
Format
Large Format
I’ve found that Ultrafine Xtreme 400 developed with rodinal is unbearably grainy, and not, pleasant “this is film” grainy, but rather “I’m trying to tune my 1960’s TV without an antenna” grainy.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
avoid xtol with just about anything, it is just terrible, unless of course you add dektol, ansco130 or rodinal to it, then it is probably fine.
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,635
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
Avoid XTOL in the beginning. It's a powder that requires mixing 5L at a time. I've been using it for 20 years, I love it but it can be a pain to mix. Kodak HC-110 has a great 50 year track record, can be replenished, the concentrate keeps well. I used HC-110 dilution B for many years, replenished. It can be used as a one shot developer as well.

If you follow the instructions, Ilford, Adox, Tetenal, Kodak all make a liquid developer concentrate that's a very good place to start.

I shoot a lot of Tmax 400, great film. If you want to start with a traditional film Kodak Tri-X, Ilford HP5 or a lovely film Ilford FP4 plus. The FP4 is a classic fine grain film much like the old Kodak Plus-X and Panatomic-X films that are long gone.

I think ILFORD does a great job of supporting these kind of decisions, maybe start there at Ilfordphoto.com .

Follow the manufacturer instructions. When in doubt the films and developer combinations that have been around for ever, the 3 films I've mentioned and Kodak HC-110, D-76 OR the Ilford equivalent. MHO
Best Regards Mike
 

NB23

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
4,307
Format
35mm
jnantz said:
avoid xtol with just about anything, it is just terrible, unless of course you add dektol, ansco130 or rodinal to it, then it is probably fine.
Click to expand...

Worst advice ever. Xtol is Kodak’s latest and most advanced formulation yet. 100 years of photo knowledge all there in each of those xtol bags, prepared expressly for you, dear photography lover. No more, no less.

Also, adding anything into it can alter its ph and not make it work properly.
Properly as in “you’re not a chemist therefore you have no clue, therefore wtf are you doing!”.
 
Last edited:

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid

blech ...
nnaah, properly as in >> terrible developer.
Les McClean suggested putting rodinal in there. I use caffenol c which is similar ( and better ) than xtol, and its even better with a spash of dektol or ansco 130 in it. i've never even seen a bottle of rodinal.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,894
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Assuming you are speaking about main stream developers for continuous tone films and main stream continuous films, there aren't any.
You might very well discover combinations that don't appeal to you or meet your particular needs - such as needs for full or even enhanced emulsion speed, or distinct vs. fine grain, or ???
Or you might discover a combination that doesn't fit your practical needs - the minimum 5 litre quantity for X-Tol being an example of that.
But most developers perform reasonably well with most films, and the same applies in reverse.
And the final choices respecting presentation - whether darkroom printing or the scan and display digitally route - affect the results considerably more.
 

NB23

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
4,307
Format
35mm

My grandma too, dislikes

Pure nincompoopery.
 

Alan Edward Klein

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,446
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
I don't develop my own film. But I was thinking that the film manufacturer's recommendations might be a good place to start.

PS> When I send out my Tmax100, the pro developer uses XTOL as standard which I believe is recommended by Kodak.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
NB23 said:
My grandma too, dislikes


Pure nincompoopery.
Click to expand...
whatever you say, sir.
I used xtol for YEARS trying to get it to work when it came out and then in the early mid 2000s. every fiilm i could find. bracketed exposures like mad bracketed developing times and even used it straight. straight up worst developer i have ever used. used 3 or 4 different water sources always the same flat boring negatives. glad it works for you ! i wish it worked for me, that is why i used it for YEARS to get it to work. instead i have flat grade 4 film.
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,635
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
XTOL is the developer that Kodak says gives the best results with their films. I've never had any problems as long as I followed the instructions. I generally shoot TMY and TMX in rolls and sheets.
If you want an all around economical developer D-76 is about as tried and true as it gets. Rodinal has been around and loved for well over a century. Another can't go wrong.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,775
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
MattKing said:
Assuming you are speaking about main stream developers for continuous tone films and main stream continuous films, there aren't any.
Click to expand...
I agree. Having said that, I personally stay away from rodinal and especially for high speed (400 and faster) films; the speed loss and high grain of rodinal seems to defy the purpose, in my view. However, several people would vehemently disagree, and who am I to say that they are wrong? If it woks for them, the combination is evidently legitimate.
 

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,942
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format
Avoid pretty much any developer which has more than two developing agents and avoid stand development unless you are going for ugly flaws/ effects.

There's no need to mix random developers together - it's almost always easier and better to adjust dilution or change to a more suitable developer.
 

John51

Member
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
797
Format
35mm
Don't use Pan F for a one photo a week time lapse project.
 

MNM

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
116
Location
ATL
Format
35mm
I developed a roll of Arista EDU 400 in Rodinal. I'd put that on the "will not recommend" list. I'm learning, just not fast enough to avoid that particular decision that day it seems.
 

StepheKoontz

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
801
Location
Doraville
Format
Medium Format
One developer I never was able to get even decent results with was ilfosol. No matter how much I exposed the film, all I got was thin, very weak negatives. Maybe it was just a bad bottle but I'll never use it again. Lately I just use D76 for everything except for VERY slow fine grain films, then I use rodinol.
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,079
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
foc said:
Never try and develop a traditional B&W film in C41.
Click to expand...
Occasionally a student would develop a roll of C-41 B&W film in D-76. Works...sort of...
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,359
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
jnantz said:
avoid xtol with just about anything, it is just terrible, unless of course you add dektol, ansco130 or rodinal to it, then it is probably fine.
Click to expand...

XTOL bigot! Never misses a chance to dis XTOL.

XTOL is a very forgiving developer which provides excellent grain and tonality. It is a great developer for beginners. It is easy to mix if one will take the time to read the instructions and actually follow them. One must use warm water, the hotter the better within the temperature range.

I use XTOL and replenished XTOL. Replenished XTOL gives even better grain, tonality and sharpness.


 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,941
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Well, Waffles, it will soon be time to tells us what you have learned and give us your conclusions

pentaxuser
 

Pixophrenic

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
370
Location
Canada
Format
Multi Format
pentaxuser said:
Well, Waffles, it will soon be time to tells us what you have learned and give us your conclusions

pentaxuser
Click to expand...

While OP feedback is important, and everybody is having fun, the answers do not even begin to cover the subject. I asked essentially the same question two years ago under the title "which films are retro and which are not". Well, two years later I could say that clearly there are three categories of film and three of developers (an oversimplification, obviously). With regard to films, there is clearly a big difference how a film would perform in, say, D-76 stock. Films like Rollei Retro 80S and 400S, Agfa Copex Rapid, Adox CMS 20 and a few others are technical films, they will be essentially ruined if developed in D-76, while "traditional" continuous tone films like FP4, Agfa APX, Rollei RPX, Kentmere (ISO 100) and HP5, Tri-X, Kentmere 400 will perform very well in D-76, even better in 1:1 dilution of it. Now, there is one category of developer where one needs to measure out small volumes of concentrate, avoid these at all costs, if you are just starting out. Developing flat grain films, avoid them too, if you fancy developing "at room temperature", that is without a good thermometer. Powders excluded, this leaves us with only a few developers, like Ilford DD-X, Ilfosol 3 and Kodak T-Max. Finally, remember, it is just my opinion, man.
 

Pixophrenic

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
370
Location
Canada
Format
Multi Format

And how does the OP know how many developing agents are there in a commercial package? And Caffenol in stand development actually worked in my hands, but I'd redirect the OP to a specialty forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…