A combination to avoid? Illogical film/developer pairings.

[koraks]

And how does the OP know how many developing agents are there in a commercial package?

The MSDS generally gives some clues. But not all will be inclined to dive into them. More importantly, I doubt if the >2 developer agent criterion makes much sense.

 

[pentaxuser]

Pixophrenic, my question was somewhat tongue in cheek because with every thread like this, my experience is that most of the answers quickly become tongue in cheek. At least you have made an attempt to summarise as far as that is possible what might be OK and not-so-OK combinations in your experience in terms of film groups and developers.

I have no idea how experienced Waffles is nor how experienced he is in the "ways of Photrio " when it comes to these kind of questions but we certainly need to ask ourselves how much our answers are an attempt to satisfy and help the OP and how much they are an attempt to satisfy ourselves.

pentaxuser

 

[Wallendo]

I have struggled with Tech Pan and HC-110.

Of course, I have struggled with Tech Pan and every other developer also.

 

[waffles]

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.

Props to you for actually answering my question and staying on topic

So far we have:

1. Don't mix low-speed films (RPX 25, Pan F+ 50, etc) with high-sulphite developers (Xtol, Microphen, etc)
2. Don't mix high-grain films (UltraFine 400, Arista 400, etc) with high-accutance developers (Rodinal, R09, etc)
3. Don't mix technical films (Retro 80, CMX 20, etc) with MQ developers (D-76, ID-11, etc)

Are there any other combinations that are chemically incompatible? For right now, lets avoid the esoteric and alternative processes and stick to what you can usually find in your average camera shop

 

[waffles]

Don't use Pan F for a one photo a week time lapse project.

Lol, that is true! I've heard that Pan F+ had image latency issues, and needs to be developed within 24-48 hours after its been exposed.

 

[removed account4]

XTOL bigot! Never misses a chance to dis XTOL

YAWN ... not really, maybe read what I usually write ?? Didn't the OP ask for Opinions and Experiences?

- used it for years every way possible, different water, different exposed film, different films, dilute, replenished, straight, as directed, over-develping &c and didnt' work and was terrible;

- wish it worked for me, otherwise why would I waste hundreds maybe thousands of exposures, on it over a handful of years, trying to get it to work;

- glad it works for others, and if had been mixing developers as I do with coffee based stuff, maybe I'd still be using it....

 

[koraks]

Are there any other combinations that are chemically incompatible?

No. It's all silver based. Any developer in principle will work with any film, personal taste and purpose aside.

 

[Pixophrenic]

Pixophrenic, my question was somewhat tongue in cheek because with every thread like this, my experience is that most of the answers quickly become tongue in cheek. At least you have made an attempt to summarise as far as that is possible what might be OK and not-so-OK combinations in your experience in terms of film groups and developers.

I have no idea how experienced Waffles is nor how experienced he is in the "ways of Photrio " when it comes to these kind of questions but we certainly need to ask ourselves how much our answers are an attempt to satisfy and help the OP and how much they are an attempt to satisfy ourselves.

pentaxuser

There are such tools as sticky threads and resources. Perhaps these tools could be employed here.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Props to you for actually answering my question and staying on topic

So far we have:

1. Don't mix low-speed films (RPX 25, Pan F+ 50, etc) with high-sulphite developers (Xtol, Microphen, etc)
2. Don't mix high-grain films (UltraFine 400, Arista 400, etc) with high-accutance developers (Rodinal, R09, etc)
3. Don't mix technical films (Retro 80, CMX 20, etc) with MQ developers (D-76, ID-11, etc)

Are there any other combinations that are chemically incompatible? For right now, lets avoid the esoteric and alternative processes and stick to what you can usually find in your average camera shop

I am not sure I agree with point #2 for two reasons. First, I don't think Ultrafine 400 is a high grain film like foma 400 (in hc-110 I find it significantly less grainy than tri-x and a orders of magnitude less than foma 400. Honestly I think ultrafine 400 is a better-HP5 but I understand that might be a controversial statement). Second, people seem to love tri-x, which I definitely think is a grainy film, in rodinal.

 

[Cholentpot]

Rodinal stand has it's place.

I've been shooting a lot of 16mm Kodak Microfilm. Rodinal 1:150 for two hours gives excellent tones and results. Otherwise I get high contrast with no grey tones.

Kodak Instamatic 60, Kodak Microfilm rated at ISO 25 more or less, Rodinal 1:150ish two hours stand.

This was a test, ignoring the dirt, grit and scratches I managed to get decent tones out of a toneless film.

That being said, Rodinal and most films don't play very well unless you love grain. At least in 35mm.

 

[MattKing]

So far we have:

1. Don't mix low-speed films (RPX 25, Pan F+ 50, etc) with high-sulphite developers (Xtol, Microphen, etc)
2. Don't mix high-grain films (UltraFine 400, Arista 400, etc) with high-accutance developers (Rodinal, R09, etc)
3. Don't mix technical films (Retro 80, CMX 20, etc) with MQ developers (D-76, ID-11, etc)

I wouldn't agree with the first two.
The first one relates to a subjective choice. If you are looking for a certain very smooth appearance (baby photos come to mind), high sulphite developers are excellent.
The second one is also quite subjective (and I don't think Rodinal is technically a high-accutance developer). If you are looking for the atmosphere that goes with grit and grain, then those combinations are perfect, and you get better apparent sharpness as a bonus.
As for number 3, the technical films aren't really designed for normal continuous tone results, so in order to re-purpose them for that use, you need to use special developers.
If the initial question had made reference to particular sorts of characteristics - something like "If I wish to achieve high resolution results, what combinations of film and developer should I avoid?" - then the combinations you refer to above make total sense. The problem is that while one photographer is looking for resolution, the next is looking for sharpness, the third is looking for subtle tonal gradation and the fourth is looking for speed enhancement, and all of them may need different combinations to meet there needs.

 

[twelvetone12]

Any developer but with a faulty thermometer...

 

[Pixophrenic]

I wouldn't agree with the first two.
The first one relates to a subjective choice. If you are looking for a certain very smooth appearance (baby photos come to mind), high sulphite developers are excellent.
The second one is also quite subjective (and I don't think Rodinal is technically a high-accutance developer). If you are looking for the atmosphere that goes with grit and grain, then those combinations are perfect, and you get better apparent sharpness as a bonus.
As for number 3, the technical films aren't really designed for normal continuous tone results, so in order to re-purpose them for that use, you need to use special developers.
If the initial question had made reference to particular sorts of characteristics - something like "If I wish to achieve high resolution results, what combinations of film and developer should I avoid?" - then the combinations you refer to above make total sense. The problem is that while one photographer is looking for resolution, the next is looking for sharpness, the third is looking for subtle tonal gradation and the fourth is looking for speed enhancement, and all of them may need different combinations to meet there needs.

I'd say all three are safe choices specifically when it applies to 35mm format. There is really no point ruining fine grain film using solvent developer, but there are several other possibilities to modify that grain without making it even smaller. On the other hand, 400+ ISO grain looks quite different in medium format and up.

 

[tedr1]

to the OP

life can be really simple if you want it to be, here is a suggestion

use Ilford film
use Ilford chemistry
follow Ilford instructions

you will be delighted with the results and be able to produce magnificent prints

after having mastered the skills of exposure and conventional processing and printmaking you may feel like experimenting with exotic combinations of film chemistry and processing when you have explored to the limits all the capabilities of conventional mainstream film processed normally, some people follow this path others don't, it is optional. My suggestion when starting out is to eliminate as many uncontrolled variables as possible and using conventional chemistry the normal way is a good way to eliminate some uncontrolled variables so that you are better able to concentrate on picture making, which is the purpose, isn't it?

 

[Sirius Glass]

to the OP

life can be really simple if you want it to be, here is a suggestion

use Kodak film
use Kodak chemistry
follow Kodak instructions

you will be delighted with the results and be able to produce magnificent prints

after having mastered the skills of exposure and conventional processing and printmaking you may feel like experimenting with exotic combinations of film chemistry and processing when you have explored to the limits all the capabilities of conventional mainstream film processed normally, some people follow this path others don't, it is optional. My suggestion when starting out is to eliminate as many uncontrolled variables as possible and using conventional chemistry the normal way is a good way to eliminate some uncontrolled variables so that you are better able to concentrate on picture making, which is the purpose, isn't it?[/QUOTE]

 

[removed account4]

getting back to your main question, its kind of a weird one because everyone seems to be a fanboy or fangirl of their favorite developers and films and it ends up being a pie throwing contest if someone says something bad about someone's favorite combination ( as you have seen )

I really don't think there are any film and developer combinations to avoid, most developers are pretty much the same to tell you the truth just avoid being part of the "flavor of the month club", that is using a different roll of film every time you make photographs, and a different developer every time you develop your film. One of the best ways to learn photography, is to use 1 general purpose film, like tri x or hp5+ or whatever, and 1 developer like d76 or ID11, or sprint, or HC110 or whatever, and maybe 1 camera and use it and use it and use it and use it until you know what is going to happen before you develop the film, so it is all second nature. bracket your exposures so you know what over and under exposed negatives look like, scan like, print like, bracket your developing and change your agitation technique so you see what over+under processed and over+under agitated negatives are like. Then when you feel comfortable do whatever it is you want to do with other films and developers. Too many people change everything, including cameras &c so much they don't really know what is going on and they get discouraged. Do you have Henry Hornstein's book yet ? It is pretty much the GO TO manual... https://www.amazon.com/Black-White-...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0316373052

 

[jim appleyard]

Props to you for actually answering my question and staying on topic

So far we have:

1. Don't mix low-speed films (RPX 25, Pan F+ 50, etc) with high-sulphite developers (Xtol, Microphen, etc)

I beg to differ. I've done a fair amount of Pan-F in Microdol-X and it's worked well. Photos are of a burned stump in the High Peaks of the Adirondacks from the fires of the early 20th century.

 

[fs999]

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.

It is very difficult to say that a combination film-developer will not work.
Perhaps there was a parameter that was not respected.
I had a lot of problems developing Rollei R3 in Caffenol CL. If I had stopped at the first experiment, I would say it doesn't work. But I have found that because of the three layers the development had to be much longer.
There are so many factors why a development does not work : room temp., bath temp., water temp., dilution or mix, exhausted, no prewash, fixer problem, even exposure can be the problem !

I would say try it yourself, is the best answer.

 

[lpt10]

Rodinal stand has it's place.

I've been shooting a lot of 16mm Kodak Microfilm. Rodinal 1:150 for two hours gives excellent tones and results. Otherwise I get high contrast with no grey tones.

Kodak Instamatic 60, Kodak Microfilm rated at ISO 25 more or less, Rodinal 1:150ish two hours stand.

This was a test, ignoring the dirt, grit and scratches I managed to get decent tones out of a toneless film.

That being said, Rodinal and most films don't play very well unless you love grain. At least in 35mm.

That looks quite good. How do you get the film into the cartridges?
And i agree, stand development has its place. In my case, semi-stand development, 1h 1:100 Rodinal, 20°C, 1minute initial agitation, then 4 inversions at 20m and 40m gave me results i like with Adox CMSII 20 (120) exposed at EI12.

 

[Cholentpot]

That looks quite good. How do you get the film into the cartridges?
And i agree, stand development has its place. In my case, semi-stand development, 1h 1:100 Rodinal, 20°C, 1minute initial agitation, then 4 inversions at 20m and 40m gave me results i like with Adox CMSII 20 (120) exposed at EI12.

Carefully cracked open cartridge, re-spooled in the dark and notched the cassette so I can reuse. Also reused the backing paper. Battery was a bigger challenge honestly.

 

[Pixophrenic]

getting back to your main question, its kind of a weird one because everyone seems to be a fanboy or fangirl of their favorite developers and films and it ends up being a pie throwing contest if someone says something bad about someone's favorite combination ( as you have seen )

I really don't think there are any film and developer combinations to avoid, most developers are pretty much the same to tell you the truth just avoid being part of the "flavor of the month club", that is using a different roll of film every time you make photographs, and a different developer every time you develop your film. One of the best ways to learn photography, is to use 1 general purpose film, like tri x or hp5+ or whatever, and 1 developer like d76 or ID11, or sprint, or HC110 or whatever, and maybe 1 camera and use it and use it and use it and use it until you know what is going to happen before you develop the film, so it is all second nature. bracket your exposures so you know what over and under exposed negatives look like, scan like, print like, bracket your developing and change your agitation technique so you see what over+under processed and over+under agitated negatives are like. Then when you feel comfortable do whatever it is you want to do with other films and developers. Too many people change everything, including cameras &c so much they don't really know what is going on and they get discouraged. Do you have Henry Hornstein's book yet ? It is pretty much the GO TO manual... https://www.amazon.com/Black-White-...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0316373052

John, my point was that if one takes a film like Rollei Retro 80 thinking "let us try the Germans" and then develops it in D-76, as the most recommeded developer, or one gets cold feet and sends it out to a minilab, in both cases one ends up with a disappointment, for which "the Germans" were totally not responsible. I thought, maybe incorrectly, that the OP was looking for a safe passage, not for a gateway to endless experimenting.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You have to decide what you like and want and then go from there. Everything is just opinion masked as fact, as you see in this thread.

I like more grain vs. less grain. Grain is what makes film film which is my opinion. I prefer sharpness too even at the expense of tonality. I pretty much use acutance developers these days like Rodinal and Beutler's even with high speed films. No one has ever complained about my pictures being grainy, but I wouldn't care if they did.

These opinion things crack me up. I think it is insecurity for the most part. In a recent thread I stated that I went back to PMK instead of Pyrocat. You'da thunk I killed some people's dogs even though it was clear it was an opinion. Lol.

As an aside, I never liked XTol much either, and I never liked Tri-X. (ducking!)

 

[NB23]

Geez, do you use a UV filter on your lenses? This might play, too.

 

[tedr1]

to the OP

life can be really simple if you want it to be, here is a suggestion

use Kodak film
use Kodak chemistry
follow Kodak instructions

you will be delighted with the results and be able to produce magnificent prints

after having mastered the skills of exposure and conventional processing and printmaking you may feel like experimenting with exotic combinations of film chemistry and processing when you have explored to the limits all the capabilities of conventional mainstream film processed normally, some people follow this path others don't, it is optional. My suggestion when starting out is to eliminate as many uncontrolled variables as possible and using conventional chemistry the normal way is a good way to eliminate some uncontrolled variables so that you are better able to concentrate on picture making, which is the purpose, isn't it?

[/QUOTE]


Thank you Sirius

it seems we agree, stick with mainstream, one reason being those manufacturers often have the best support in the form of detailed instructions, something beginners find helpful.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thank you Sirius

it seems we agree, stick with mainstream, one reason being those manufacturers often have the best support in the form of detailed instructions, something beginners find helpful.[/QUOTE]

Yep