A Primer on Developers?

[Worker 11811]

Rodinal, Perceptol, Accufine, Diafine, Pyrocat, D-76, DD-11, HC-110, XTOL, etc., etc., etc...

There must be a million of them.
No pun intended but it's like alphabet soup.

This isn't simply a question of what is the best developer. I want to know the differences between them.

I read people talking about one developer or another being metol based or hydroquinone based, etc. Some say that one developer is more acidic than another. I want to sort this all out.

Can we say that there different classes of developers which the various brands fall into? Is the choice of a developer based more on the result you want?

From what I understand, developer is developer. As long as you use a developer compatible with the type of film you are shooting, there isn't much difference. In other words, black and white film vs. color film or negative vs. reversal. As long as you stay within those general bounds, almost any developer will work but for a few exceptions.

I just set up my own darkroom. For the first time, I finally have a place where I can go fart around with film and do what I want to do and I don't have to listen to anybody looking over my shoulder telling me how to do things.

Of course, I want to do things right. I'm not going to just putz around for no reason. If somebody says that "X" is a better choice than "Y" I'll certainly listen but I also want to experiment.

Currently, I'm shooting T-Max and Tri-X 35mm and developing them in D-76. That's just the way I was always taught. But the only way I'm really going to learn anything is to roll up my sleeves and get my hands dirty. Right?

I've got an order for other films on the way and they'll be here soon. Maybe, with a little luck, I'll be able to come up with that combination that makes magic for me. Who knows?

But, before I get that far, what do I need to know? Where do I start?

 

[Anscojohn]

D23 replenished with DK-25R.

 

[BradS]

Choose one film, one developer and use nothing else until you've mastered it (figure at least a year). Tri-X and D76 are an excellent choice.

if you want to make photos, trying all combinations of film and developer is just a massive waste of time and energy.

 

[David William White]

There is a decent overview of basic developing agents, with formulae, in "The Darkroom Cookbook", of which a revised edition is now available. Most modern developers are some combination of phenidone and hydroquinone, with differences in the buffers (pH), fog restrainers, and preservatives. The book will help in understanding the plethora of commercial formulations. The author (Steve Anchell) echoes BradS advice, however.

 

[Chazzy]

You're using D76, which is an excellent, all-purpose developer. Unless you need an acutance developer or a speed-enhancing developer, stick to what you already know.

 

[R gould]

When starting out it is important that you have consistinsy and the only way to achieve that is to use the same film/developer combination untill you know them backwards,That can take a long time,maybe a year,and D76/ID11,(they are the same formula) and tri x are a very good place to start, and when you know what they can do in any circumstances then try other combinations, Most photographers I know use 1 or 2 developers reguarly,I use either Promicrol or Rodinal depending on what I want, I have used these for some time and know before I pour them into the tank what to expect when I finish processing the film,Richard

 

[Ian Grant]

As David says get the 3rd Edition of The Darkroom Cookbook" it's quite comprehensive. Developers can vary quite significantly and even if you stick to just one having a better understanding of them can be useful.

Even a simple developer like D23 or D76/ID-11 can be used in different ways, Full Strength, Replenished, Dilute and give different results.

Ian

 

[steven_e007]

You can go nuts experimenting with developers. I think a lot of us go through a stage of testing them out... sometimes it can replace picture making completely

After many years of trying out many combinations, I found that my favourite film combination was a film that is now discontinued in a developer that is now discontinued... so that was about 10 years of pointless searching :rolleyes:

You can wonder off down a side street exploring a specific effect - the ultimate in fine grain or compensation or acutance, but IMHO best to wait until you really feel you need more compensation or whatever. Maybe discover you have a need or a problem before you search for the solution?
The truth is many of the differences between developers are subtle - the difference between good technique and bad technique, er... isn't.
The advice to stick to one developer is good advice, but I didn't take it. I couldn't persuade myself I was sticking to the right developer! So - IMHO - try out a few, just a few, THEN stick to one (or two).

Maybe try a semi fine grain (ID11/D76, HC110), a fine grain (Perceptol, used as stock, or maybe Ultrafin plus?), a high Acutance (Rodinal) and maybe for fun a universal developer (or a dilute print developer, like Dektol). This is the nearest you can get to what would have been called a 'standard' developer 60 years ago, without mixing your own. These aren't recommended for small format films these days - but the point is they're different from ID11/D76. You should get very low base fog, good film speed, high contrast and coarse grain. Then by comparison, you can see what the fine grain and semi-fine developers do for you.

Not a bad idea, either, to look at price and availability. Most manufacturers supply something to do each of these jobs. You don't want to standardise on an obscure developer than has to be ordered from overseas, costs the earth and gets discontinued in six months.

With all the different dilutions and techniques you can use, these four developers could keep you busy for hundreds of hours before you explored all they could do. Try and include lots of different ones from all the various manufacturers and you will go nuts.
BTDT!

 

[dancqu]

One-Shot or Not

Can we say that there different classes of developers which
the various brands fall into? Is the choice of a developer
based more on the result you want?

One might start a classification of developers based upon their
suitability for use one-shot. Another basis might be tolerance
of temperature variation. Keeping quality is always a good
basis for classification. And on and on.

For myself, a Home Brewer, ease of preparation is
important. D-23 is my choice; a two ingredient
developer. Dan

 

[bdial]

There is much to learn, just with what you have. For example, how does full strength compare to diluting 1:1, or even 1:3? Then there is using it replenished instead of one-shot.
How do changes in agitation affect your results? Or timing changes.
Broadly all the effects of doing these things is predictable, documented and discussed at length here and in other sources. But none of that provides the judgement of your eyes, with film exposed in your equipment.
Once you understand how all this affects your results with what you've been using, you have a good basis for exploring all the other brews.

 

[yeknom02]

All I know for sure is that D-76 is supposedly mid to low contrast and Rodinal is high acutance. I'm reading The Darkroom Cookbook (3rd ed.) And it's got SO MUCH information in it!

Definitely master that D-76/Kodak combo you already know first. Know how to tweak things to get what you want.

-dan

 

[Worker 11811]

I have always been a curious kid. I asked so many questions when I was young that my parents got tired of it and bought me a World Book Encyclopedia. (The real thing, not the computer version!) By the time I was in 8th grade I read, pretty much, the whole encyclopedia, A to Z. Even today, at 45 years old, I still just want to "know stuff."

I don't intend to try every product under the sun but, still, I have this need to read, to experiment, to learn and just to "know stuff." But, one of the problems you have with things like this is that many products have arbitrary names. D-76 and DD-11 are the same things only one is made by Kodak and the other is made by Ilford. Then there are variations where one developer might be the same as another but with the addition of an ingredient to enhance a certain property, etc.

A lot of things are complicated like that. In the cinema projection world, there are a million different combinations of equipment. You can have a Simplex projector with an SH-1000 sound reproducer or a 5-Star sound reproducer. You can have a projector with a straight film gate or a curved gate. The older sound heads produce steadier sound but are harder to retrofit with digital sound. Straight gate projectors might produce a picture with less jitter but they can be prone to focus drift. Curved gate projectors are the standard, now, but you can still find many straight gate Simplexes still in operation.

It seems the same with film photography. There is a lot of jargon floating around. That's fine. That's the name of the game. These are things you need to know if you want to learn photography.

I very likely will settle on one developer. I've used D-76 since I started and I don't see any reason to abandon it just because I want to tinker. On the other hand, I have to satisfy my curiosity and fulfill the need to "know stuff." The first thing I need to do is to sort out the arbitrary names and learn the terms for things.

"The Darkroom Cookbook" sounds like something I'd like to read. I often read everything I can get my hands on. I'll probably have to order it because the bookstores in this town do not have any good books in the photography section to speak of. I don't mean that they have all gone digital, either. Photography books just aren't on the shelves... Period. Anyhow, I'll have to look up that book.

I am happy with what I have, so far. I'm just trying to fulfill that need to "know stuff."

 

[markbarendt]

But, before I get that far, what do I need to know? Where do I start?

You need to know what you want to change and you need to consider your whole process, confining this question to just film and developer leaves out a bunch of variables.

My advice is to start at the end and work backwards.

What print size (in general) do YOU want?
Do YOU want the final print in Glossy or Matte?
What paper are YOU using?
What paper developer are YOU using?
What enlarger head are YOU using?
What kind of grain structure do YOU want?
How do YOU like your shadows/highlights in your prints?
What degree of contrast do YOU like?
...

I could go on but I'm sure you get the idea.

Your questions are essentially asking us what YOU like without providing any significant context.

 

[David William White]

I have always been a curious kid...I still just want to "know stuff."

Good for you, then. Definitely get Anchell's book, it will get you behind the fog of commercial packaging. There is probably more long term utility in doing that anyway, the way things are going. (And as mentioned by others, a lot of the commercial preparations have more to do with convenience and handling rather than development efficacy.) You can order "The Darkroom Cookbook" from Focal Press direct, from Amazon, or, I believe, right from Steve's site (steveanchell.com).

Also, Kodak's "Elementary Photographic Chemistry" pops up on Ebay regularly, and it also has tons of cookbook formulae as well as great discussions on more of the fundamental chemical actions of the various agents.

Both of these are aimed at the keen practitioner/experimenter/doer rather than one with PhD in chemistry...so no worries about being overwhelmed.

 

[Worker 11811]

Excellent! Thanks!
That's a good way to start.

Right now, I am printing 5x7 and 8x10 for economy. When I get a good one I will print it larger 11x14. If I get that "Really Good One" I would like to print even larger but that's a bridge I will have to cross when I come to it. At this point, I'm in a kind of practice mode.

I like semi-gloss or glossy prints. I have mostly used Ilford RC variable contrast papers but have used fiber based. I'll probably stick with RC for economy and ease of use and experiment with fiber. For that "Really Good One" I'd like to try something like Oriental paper. When the time comes I'll work on that. Dektol is what I have developed paper in, all along, but I'm open for experimentation on that, too. Again, that's down the road.

Using a Beseler 23C enlarger. It's got the 35mm plate/lens and a larger plate/lens for 120 film. I'd certainly like to move on to larger format films but, today, I am happy shooting 35mm and developing 8x10 or 11x14.

What look do I like?
I can deal with some grain, depending on the image and the mood I am going after. I would certainly like small grain but I wouldn't be upset if I couldn't make it microscopic. I know the frame size of 35mm film puts limitations on print size and minimum grain size.

I like contrast to be a little bit high. If you assume that a #2 filter is "normal" I like to print with a #3 or #3-1/2. I usually keep a #3 in the enlarger just out of habit. I was taught that you should do most of your contrast adjustments with your film and only use contrast filters in the enlarger to tweak the final product.

For the overall look, I think that a "silvery" appearance is the best. That probably means I'll be toning prints. I like a wide dynamic range with smooth gradient in between. Ideally, an almost "hyper realistic" look is what makes my boat float.

I'm also honest with myself. I'm nowhere near those ideals, today. These are things I'm going to have to work up to and I know I've got a long way to go. I imagine myself standing on the top of a hillside, looking down at the lands.cape deciding what towns I want to visit but, first, I have to figure out where the towns are and which roads to take to get to them.

For examples of things I have done, so far, here is my MobileMe Gallery page:
http://gallery.me.com/randystankey

The photos I like the best are:
"Spotlights" - http://gallery.me.com/randystankey#100106/Spotlights&bgcolor=black
"Abandoned Gas Station" - http://gallery.me.com/randystankey#100106/Abandoned-Gas-Station&bgcolor=black
"Bus Yard" - http://gallery.me.com/randystankey#100106/Bus Yard&bgcolor=black

About "Bus Yard," I'd like to go back and retake that one because the contrast is too "muddy" for my taste. It was taken on a cloudy day. I want to see that one taken on a sunny day day with a clear sky so the foreground and the background don't all mush together. I'd like to see some more "stand-out" detail in the grilles of the busses.

The ones I like the least are the "Misery Bay" series:
http://gallery.me.com/randystankey#100007&bgcolor=black&view=grid

I don't like the contrast. I shot them on a bright, overcast winter day using T-Max 400 and I didn't take into account for the hard light. But these are not ones I can go reshoot because the ice has melted. Maybe next year.

And, finally, these are the photos I grew up with when I was young:
http://gallery.me.com/randystankey#100114&bgcolor=black&view=grid

My father took them with his 4x5 in 1957-8 before I was born. These are the pictures that hung on the walls when I was a kid. These are the one I want to beat.

I don't know what film they were shot on because the notch codes on the negatives don't match up to any published datasheets that I can find. (Kodak 4x5: 1 single V-notch in the top corner.) I don't know what they were developed in. My father died over 20 years ago so I can only guess. What was the most popular Kodak product in use for artistic photography at the time? That's my best guess.

Yes, I know that 35mm isn't even in the same league with 4x5. I don't expect to get results like that with my camera. I would certainly like to make photos in 4x5 but I'll have to get my brain around the 35mm format first.

So, there you have it. That's what I like and that's where I plan to go with it. I'm perfectly happy to pick a path and stick to it.

But don't forget, I'm still a kid at heart who just wants to "know stuff."

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Randy

You've got a lot of good advise already (Darkroom Cookbook, stick to one developer and understand it before moving on). One thing, I like to suggest to anybody trying to undersand the differences, is try to understand the function of the individual ingredients first. They can be divided into four groups:

Developing Agents are relatively complex organic compounds, which provide the electrons required to reduce silver ions to metallic silver. The most commonly used developing agents are metol, hydroquinone and phenidone.
Accelerators increase the alkalinity of the developer and provide additional ions to create metallic silver. In general, the higher the pH value of the developer, the more active it is. Typical accelerators are sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate and borax.
Preservatives are added to developer solutions to protect developing agents against oxidation. A frequently used preservative is sodium sulfite.
Restrainers suppress the formation of chemical fog, which is an unwanted silver production on unexposed silver halides. A minute amount of potassium bromide effectively reduces fog, but larger amounts affect the rate of normal development.

With this in mind, and looking at different developer formulas, you will better understand what their design intent is. This will avoid testing the ones, which are clearly not for you.

 

[markbarendt]

When I get a good one I will print it larger 11x14. If I get that "Really Good One" I would like to print even larger ...

So your target for your keepers is 11x14 to maybe 16x20. The smaller sizes can be dismissed as "just" practice and play. (That doesn't mean you won't use them or that they won't look fine.)

Even if you use smaller paper to test with, to judge any film or developer, you should setup and focus your enlarger as if you were going to print it at 11x14 or 16x20.

I like semi-gloss or glossy prints. ... For that "Really Good One" I'd like to try something like Oriental paper.

Changing your paper or it's developer will simply give a different look.

This doesn't mean it will be better! What it will mean is that you have to learn how that new combo works.

You may even have to change your personal EI when shooting to get the best out of the new paper.

What look do I like?
I can deal with some grain, depending on the image and the mood I am going after. I would certainly like small grain but I wouldn't be upset if I couldn't make it microscopic. I know the frame size of 35mm film puts limitations on print size and minimum grain size.

You answer here as if you have little or no choice or control. Every step of your process, including the compositions and camera exposure settings you choose, affects the grain's look/acceptability in the final print.

Yes, I know that 35mm isn't even in the same league with 4x5.

The opposite can be said too.

 

[Anscojohn]

Hello, again, Worker,
While there is no substitute for darkroom work and for kitchen cookery, once you get the hang of basic combinations, you can do a very quick evaluation of various formulae just by reading the formula, arranged in standard format.
I remember once, years ago, doing a set of copy negs from 19th century paper prints which were very faded. What I needed was some D-19 film developer. It was Sunday night. I checked the formulas, saw that, essentially D-19 was D72 with a whole lot more potassium bromide restrainer. I added the necessary bromide to some Dektol. End of problem. Satisfied client next day.

 

[nworth]

Back to the original question. Different developers affect different films in different ways. When looking at the various film-developer pairings, these differences are a bit hard to predict. But the various developers do fall into categories. The broadest division is between film developers and paper developers. Paper developers are generally fast acting, give high contrast, and are not concerned about grain size. They are designed for making prints. Film developers are specialized for developing film. Among film developers you will find special fine-grain developers, which tend to hide the grain pattern in miniature films. (Examples suitable for modern films include D-76, D-23, ID-11.) There are developers that emphasize acutance. And there are special developers designed to give especially high or low contrast. These are generally used for special purposes and often with special films. Some film developers claim to be designed to give high film speed or to be specially formulated for "push" processing of available light pictures. They are effective within limits. Finally there are a host of general purpose developers for general picture taking. In summary, many developers are designed to give some special characteristic to the processing. These differences generally affect either the characteristic curve of the developed film or the appearance of the grain or both. In the case of acutance developers, they affect the micro-contrast around the edges of objects.

For a beginner, start with one standard developer. For 35mm, a fine-grain developer like D-76, ID-11, Xtol, or DD-X is a good choice. For large format, any of the above will work well, but the better know general purpose developers, like Rodinal, also work well. Stick with your chosen developer until you have perfected your technique, then change only if you have a good, specific reason.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I came back to black & white photography I had the same question. I looked over the Kodak and Ilford publications and discovered that Kodak XTOL

• produces the finest grain off all the developers without making the edges soft [killing contrast - MICRODOL-X's specialty]
• produces great shadow detail. TMAX is better but produces larger grain
• and is the sharpest

Furthermore, XTOL provides good contrast and a slight film speed boost.

I am not shooting from the hip, check out this reference: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...wFilmProcessing/selecting.jhtml?pq-path=14053

I use XTOL for Tri-X and TMAX. One of these days I will try Rollo Pyro for even better gain, but first I want to keep the XTOL around until I shoot and develop my last two rolls of HIE [Kodak Infrared Black & White film].

Steve

 

[Tim Gray]

I'd recommend getting "The Film Developer's Cookbook" (which is different from the one mentioned above). Read it and they'll talk through a bunch of stuff mentioned above.

As far starting out, XTOL is a nice one. It's speed enhancing and mixes up at room temp, which makes it a nice all-around developer in my book. Even if you move onto other developers, having some XTOL around can't hurt.

 

[BradS]

The film developer cookbook is riddled with errors, misinformation and opinion presented as fact. The darkroom cookbook is much better.

 

[Tim Gray]

I can't verify the accuracy of either book, but I felt both books were pretty opinionated.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Tim,

The 'film developing cookbook' has some very strange statements about T-Max or Delta grain films being 'inferior' but the author doesn't sufficiently explain his reasons. In the 'darkroom cookbook 3rd edition', the author comments about colour dyes in Tri-X making the film worse, without apparently realizing that dyes are used for spectral sensitization.

Tom

 

[Worker 11811]

I can deal with opinion in a book. A lot of authors who write books on guns express a lot of opinions. Probably a lot more opinion than photography writers, even. But I agree with others. It is bad when those opinions are represented as fact with nothing to back them up.

I'm still looking for a source for the book(s). None of the bookstores in this town have it. The two main bookstores, Borders and Barnes & Noble, don't have much of a photography section. Not even digital photography. The biggest bookstore in town (Borders) only has about half a gondola dedicated to photography of any kind. Two thirds of them are portfolio books. The rest are either historical books or books on "cutting edge" artists who take photos of street art. There isn't even a book on basic photography like "This is the lens and this is the shutter."

The ditzy blonde behind the help desk didn't even know who Ansel Adams was.

I'm probably going to have to order the book. I just hate doing that because I really like to thumb through a book before I buy it.