A combination to avoid? Illogical film/developer pairings.

[waffles]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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!”.

 

[removed account4]

Worst advice ever. Xtol is Kodak’s latest and most advanced formulation yet.

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?”.

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]

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]

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.

My grandma too, dislikes

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.

Pure nincompoopery.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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]

My grandma too, dislikes


Pure nincompoopery.

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]

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]

Assuming you are speaking about main stream developers for continuous tone films and main stream continuous films, there aren't any.

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]

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.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

A staining developer as first developer in B&W reversal.

 

[John51]

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

 

[MNM]

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]

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.

 

[foc]

Never try and develop a traditional B&W film in C41.

 

[Vaughn]

Never try and develop a traditional B&W film in C41.

Occasionally a student would develop a roll of C-41 B&W film in D-76. Works...sort of...

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

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]

Well, Waffles, it will soon be time to tells us what you have learned and give us your conclusions

pentaxuser

 

[Pixophrenic]

Well, Waffles, it will soon be time to tells us what you have learned and give us your conclusions

pentaxuser

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]

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.

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.