Advice on conducting an experiment comparing an assortment of b&w developers

[Paul Howell]

Most of what you get in a negative is baked into the film, choosing a developer can enhance, contrast (tone, dynamic range), film speed, shadow detail, accuance (apparent sharpness and grain. Some developers have more or stronger sliver solvents that can made grain more produced. The downside is that the greater gaps between the remaining silver in the gain means that the edge become ragged or look less sharp. Middle or the road developers such as D76, ID11, HC110, Xtrol provide a balance of film speed, shadow details, film speed and grain. Other develops much as microdol X, Edwal 20 (no longer made) and ILford Perceptol are solvent developers, they were popular in the 50s to the early 80s when fast films such as TriX and HP5 had larger grain. Developers know for sharpness like the Crowley and Acufine have less solvents and provide shaper images with larger gain. Then are developers that a used to extend contrast range, such as Photographers Formulary DI 13 which is Phil Davis low contrast developer used for Tmax 100 in the BTZ system

I would set up classes such as general propose such as D76, HC 110, Extol, and their clones, ID 11, ILford Tech HC, then a class for developers used for acuancy, the Crowley formulas, Rodinal, DK 50, Acufine, then staining developers. Then you have divided developers, like Diafine, Divided D76, and D23. Then there are the odd balls like Edwal 12 and MCM 100. You also need to research to find a bench mark to judge you results. ILford, Kodak have specialized units with equipment to measure resolution, grain size, speed, and contrast.

 

[pentaxuser]

I won't skip the cinestill but I'll deff include the Xtol and XT-3
and yes I'll scan it on my end, but I have no problem sending them to you after I scan. What scanner will you be using?
yes I'll do 35mm - actually I also have an RZ67 and a few lenses. I can do 120 as well (I will do 120 now that you mention it actually)
Leica MP - summicron f2 35mm. what aperture would make the most sense?

also for the RZ I have the 110mm, the 37mm fish eye, the 180mm but I also have a basically brand new no molds etc 50mm ULD version



Ok I will!

btw i heard that XTOL dies imediatly when it's done with no warning. is this true?

Not my experience which I have written about on Photrio many months ago. I found it went to a pale straw colour as opposed to colourless. At that stage it isn't quick as efficacious as new but still produces very reasonable negatives on which if I recall correctly, Matt King suggested that an increase in dev time might well compensate for

How much more yellow you can afford to allow Xtol to become I have no idea as I had already had over 15 months usage and decided to dump it

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

X-Tol doesn't change colour when it loses capacity.
But other than as a consequence of some earlier, some packaging related problems, it does last well. I've had no problem with X-Tol lasting more than the recommended 6 months, but it is reasonable enough in cost to make it a policy to discard any unused portion after 6 months.

 

[ic-racer]

With any test, one first needs to determine the dependent and independent variables of each test.

Will you be testing for speed, granularity, sharpness, dynamic range or something else?

How will you measure the parameters for which you are testing?

Many properties of film are affected not only by developer composition, but also by gamma.

How will you ensure gamma stays the same throughout the test?

 

[MingMingPhoto]

This may help you in your research.

View attachment 365747​

thank you for this! just saw this

 

[David Lingham]

Go out and create some images instead.

+1

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm afraid you'll be spending a lot of time and effort to find nothing new. What are you trying to accomplish? Go out and create some images instead. I know what I'm talking about,having been an atestomaniac myself

One can attend a wedding and enjoy the wedding OR on can photograph a wedding. Similarly one can test films and developers OR one can enjoy photography. One or the other but one cannot do both.

 

[cliveh]

This is a completely futile task which will tell you nothing.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

This is a completely futile task which will tell you nothing.

Yes! Unless you have sensitometric equipment, you find it difficult to expose and develop all the negatives to the same contrast, and you will derive very little benefit from the endeavor.

 

[albada]

Yes! Unless you have sensitometric equipment, you find it difficult to expose and develop all the negatives to the same contrast, and you will derive very little benefit from the endeavor.

Agreed! That's why I gave you (in posting #15) a procedure to ensure equal contrast.
Without equal contrast, "This is a completely futile task which will tell you nothing," as @cliveh said.

 

[mmerig]

Agreed! That's why I gave you (in posting #15) a procedure to ensure equal contrast.
Without equal contrast, "This is a completely futile task which will tell you nothing," as @cliveh said.

Why is equal contrast so necessary? What if the differences in contrast were interesting?

The test could be to shoot all the film at box speed and use typical dilutions for each developer. That will tell us something, even though it would confound some other comparisons., like "image quality", as in post #15. Contrast could be adjusted in printing, and that would simplify the procedure in #15.

As mentioned several times, the amount of effort depends on what differences are important to the photographer.

 

[Milpool]

Given a film, and a variety of developers, all of the developers can give virtually any overall gradient (there are a few common ways of measuring this) from essentially zero to some maximum mostly determined by the emulsion. Therefore differences in contrast provide little useful comparative information beyond something like the relative activity of the developers (ie how fast they work).

Generally speaking in a comparison of developers for a film, one is interested in relative:

1. Speed (typically a narrow range)
2. Sharpness (objective and/or subjective)
3. Grain (objective granularity and/or subjective graininess)
4. Curve shape (tone reproduction)

If one wants to make meaningful comparisons some variables have to be fixed/standardized - particularly if those variables are both freely moving and influential over the objective/subjective properties of other variables. In the case of photographic materials/processing, and the type of exercise OP is contemplating, two such variables are exposure and gradient (which can also be considered degree of development), since they can be freely chosen and they have effects on some or all of the four items above. In other words, unless exposure and gradient are held constant, the variables one is typically interested in cannot be properly compared. Furthermore, it is important the exposure and gradient chosen are within a roughly "normal" range in order to avoid potential distortions that will not be relevant under most photographic circumstances.

In a vague, roundabout way what I'm describing here are essentially the ISO sensitometry criteria for black and white negative emulsions, which is no surprise.

Why is equal contrast so necessary? What if the differences in contrast were interesting?

The test could be to shoot all the film at box speed and use typical dilutions for each developer. That will tell us something, even though it would confound some other comparisons., like "image quality", as in post #15. Contrast could be adjusted in printing, and that would simplify the procedure in #15.

As mentioned several times, the amount of effort depends on what differences are important to the photographer.

 

[koraks]

Why is equal contrast so necessary? What if the differences in contrast were interesting?

Might as well just use a single developer in that case, as @Milpool also points out.

What might be quite interesting is a difference in curve shape for the same/similar gamma. A difference in gamma as such isn't really interesting, at least not when comparing different developers.

 

[retina_restoration]

This is a completely futile task which will tell you nothing.

Well, no. He will learn to what degree image traits are "baked in to" films, and how much (or how little) influence the choice of developer has on the outcome. Some would say "but we already know how the choice of developer affects image qualities! There's nothing new to be learned here", and strictly speaking, this is true.
But if the OP wants to see these things for themselves, why would you want to discourage the OP from pursuing this experiment??

Paul Howell has a good suggestion: "I would set up classes such as general propose such as D76, HC 110, Extol, and their clones, ID 11, ILford Tech HC, then a class for developers used for acutance, the Crowley formulas, Rodinal, DK 50, Acufine, then staining developers. Then you have divided developers, like Diafine, Divided D76, and D23."

I'd compare D-76 (the standard for which all films are calibrated - a solvent formula), Rodinal (or HC-110), PMK (or Pyrocat HD), one of the Divided (two bath) developers like Divided D-23 (Or Thornton), and maybe FX-15 (or FX-37). Choosing a representative from each of the distinct classes of developers will tell you more than comparisons between developers of the same class.

 

[markbau]

I think we have all fallen for the search for the holy grail of film/developer combinations. One thing I have noticed is that my best negs were not the result of some magical film/developer combination but came about because of exquisite lighting. I'm pretty boring these days. FP4+ with D 76 1:1. A boring scene won't be saved by some mythical film developer combo but if you manage to photograph the right scene in the right light it won't matter what film and developer you are using, you'll probably come home with some negs that will be worth printing. I brought a densitometer years ago and did the obligatory Saint Ansel film tests. At the end of the day the old school advice to rate your film 1 stop less than advertised (Tri X at EI 200) and develop about 10-15% less than the recommended will get you good negatives. Another thing I've learned in my 40+ years of B&W is to forget about the idea that a good neg prints on grade 2. I have negs that are killer on grade 4. Trying to tailer development to get a good print on grade 2 is a path to misery. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[retina_restoration]

I think we have all fallen for the search for the holy grail of film/developer combinations. One thing I have noticed is that my best negs were not the result of some magical film/developer combination but came about because of exquisite lighting. I'm pretty boring these days. FP4+ with D 76 1:1. A boring scene won't be saved by some mythical film developer combo but if you manage to photograph the right scene in the right light it won't matter what film and developer you are using, you'll probably come home with some negs that will be worth printing. I brought a densitometer years ago and did the obligatory Saint Ansel film tests. At the end of the day the old school advice to rate your film 1 stop less than advertised (Tri X at EI 200) and develop about 10-15% less than the recommended will get you good negatives. Another thing I've learned in my 40+ years of B&W is to forget about the idea that a good neg prints on grade 2. I have negs that are killer on grade 4. Trying to tailer development to get a good print on grade 2 is a path to misery. Just my 2 cents worth.

You're not wrong on any of these points.

 

[Paul Howell]

I agree with markbau, there is no holy grail. When in the Air Force in the early to mid 70s the Air Force Technical Orders called for different films and developers depending of the assignment. Made sense in the 70s, Polydol for MF and LF, for accident investigation Plus X and Dk 50 for detail. 35mm, microdol x or D76. Most bases took the tech orders with a gain of sand when the inspector general general showed up they did seems interested in results rather than process. Once OP has tested each comb and compared between groups or types, he then to test in the "real world" shooting in the environment and lighting that was typical for him to see how his initial results hold up. I used Edwal 12 for several years when shooting in the low desert mid day. Although the sun is bright, with reflected light other than very dark shadows low contrast, Edwal 12 is listed by PF as brilliant, used in line copy work. Still not a developer to be used for every situation.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think we have all fallen for the search for the holy grail of film/developer combinations. One thing I have noticed is that my best negs were not the result of some magical film/developer combination but came about because of exquisite lighting. I'm pretty boring these days. FP4+ with D 76 1:1. A boring scene won't be saved by some mythical film developer combo but if you manage to photograph the right scene in the right light it won't matter what film and developer you are using, you'll probably come home with some negs that will be worth printing. I brought a densitometer years ago and did the obligatory Saint Ansel film tests. At the end of the day the old school advice to rate your film 1 stop less than advertised (Tri X at EI 200) and develop about 10-15% less than the recommended will get you good negatives. Another thing I've learned in my 40+ years of B&W is to forget about the idea that a good neg prints on grade 2. I have negs that are killer on grade 4. Trying to tailer development to get a good print on grade 2 is a path to misery. Just my 2 cents worth.

The problem is in the quest for the holy grail itself. We should not be looking for the perfect developer film combination, but for the developer that not only improves the composition but also corrects all exposure errors and depth of field. A developer that improves focus errors would be welcome too.

 

[Milpool]

It's to some extent natural for many of us (incidentally including many of us who have gone down these rabbit holes) to discourage this sort of endeavor for various reasons. However I don't think "holy grail"/"go make some pictures" is the right discouragement angle. Unless I missed it I don't think OP's goal is to find the best silver bullet whatever, but rather to learn something. If the experiments are done carefully, things can be learned, and the process itself can be interesting. The fact most careful workers will come out the other end of the tunnel more or less back where they began, isn't necessarily a reason not to do this work.

 

[retina_restoration]

Unless I missed it I don't think OP's goal is to find the best silver bullet whatever, but rather to learn something. If the experiments are done carefully, things can be learned, and the process itself can be interesting. The fact most careful workers will come out the other end of the tunnel more or less back where they began, isn't necessarily a reason not to do this work.

Exactly. The OP will learn something that is going to be meaningful to him - it won't mean nearly as much by just reading literature on the subject. Let him be!

 

[albada]

Generally speaking in a comparison of developers for a film, one is interested in relative:

1. Speed (typically a narrow range)
2. Sharpness (objective and/or subjective)
3. Grain (objective granularity and/or subjective graininess)
4. Curve shape (tone reproduction)

With the possible exception of sharpness, contrast affects all the above.
That's why contrast must be equal before you can compare film-developer combinations.

Mark

 

[john_s]

It's to some extent natural for many of us (incidentally including many of us who have gone down these rabbit holes) to discourage this sort of endeavor for various reasons. However I don't think "holy grail"/"go make some pictures" is the right discouragement angle. Unless I missed it I don't think OP's goal is to find the best silver bullet whatever, but rather to learn something. If the experiments are done carefully, things can be learned, and the process itself can be interesting. The fact most careful workers will come out the other end of the tunnel more or less back where they began, isn't necessarily a reason not to do this work.

The OP also mentioned a community darkroom, so the testing is not just for his/her own images but to advise other photographers. If the printing is done in a darkroom and not via scanning, I agree that scanning is not the way to go although it may well be tempting.

 

[MattKing]

With the possible exception of sharpness, contrast affects all the above.
That's why contrast must be equal before you can compare film-developer combinations.

Mark

Actually, contrast is a major component of what we subjectively appreciate as "sharpness".
And of course, contrast is critical to the ISO speed calculation.

 

[Romanko]

what would be the rigorous approach?

Define your goals. You can easily spend the rest of your life testing film, developers and the development process. If this is something you want to do, great. There are very good books on sensitometry and I would recommend starting there.

You can take a more pragmatic route of, say, finding a combination of film and developer that works best for you and your style of photography. You might find that measuring a few characteristic curves and then taking a few test shots to assess grain, sharpness, acutance etc. is all you need. While a sensitometer and densitometer simplify this task, you can totally do without these expensive instruments and get away with a calibrated step wedge and a camera. Alternatively, find a good lab that can expose your film in a sensitometer and measure the densities for you. This will eliminate a lot of uncertainty in your results leaving just those that come from your film processing.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Actually, contrast is a major component of what we subjectively appreciate as "sharpness".
And of course, contrast is critical to the ISO speed calculation.

"Contrast" must be distinguished from "degree of development", The same type of film processed in two different developers to the same degree may yield slightly different printing contrast because of differences in curve shape.