Can I get a B&W developer recommendation?

[GregY]

Since you're asking.....I always get great results w Pyrocat HD.... it's been my standard for more than a decade now!

 

[koraks]

But I find Pyrocat not so very well suited for push processing. It is convenient, though.

 

[mshchem]

XTOL 1+1

 

[GregY]

But I find Pyrocat not so very well suited for push processing. It is convenient, though.

While that may be, on the odd occasion i need more speed... i use Kodak or Delta 3200 at 1600 in pyrocat or pull out my old Canon 50mm 1.4 ltm.....

 

[jamesaz]

I’ve been using HC-110 for many years. It is consistent and lasts for a really long time which I like. For small amounts (300-500ml.) I keep a small, wide mouth jar (300 ml. or so) of full strength developer available and use a syringe to draw out the small amounts needed. A small 50ml beaker of water from the total volume amount for rinsing the syringe keeps the waste and cleanup to a minimum. I do this for roll film in tanks, sheet film in SP-445 and tray sheet processing. Single use. Good luck.

 

[otto.f]

I'm going to throw something out there... anybody ever tried Ilford HC?
I don't know if it's more liquid then HC-110 nor do I know if it's comparable in any way, but from looking at the MSDS, it looks like it relies only on Hydroquinone, just like the Kodak stuff.

Yes I used that, a long time ago, the only thing I remember is that I found it very nice to work with and I couldn't infer any significant differences with HC110, because there are mostly more variables playing a role than one and I did not do a real test. Because I preferred TriX at that time, I stuck to HC110 at last, but for FP4+ I liked the HC very much, quite punchy

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I'm going to throw something out there... anybody ever tried Ilford HC?
I don't know if it's more liquid then HC-110 nor do I know if it's comparable in any way, but from looking at the MSDS, it looks like it relies only on Hydroquinone, just like the Kodak stuff.

No pictorial developer uses only Hydroquinone; any that did would produce extremely high contrast images. HC-110 and Ilfotec-HC both used Phenidone as the primary developing agent, with Hydroquinone as the secondary agent. The MSDS should never be relied upon to determin what a developer is made from; they often omit mentioning things like Phenidone that are regarded as low-toxicity chemicals.

 

[Xylo]

The MSDS should never be relied upon to determin what a developer is made from; they often omit mentioning things like Phenidone that are regarded as low-toxicity chemicals.

But still, it's pretty much the only thing we have to chemically compare two commercial developers who have a formula that is a closely guarded secret.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

But still, it's pretty much the only thing we have to chemically compare two commercial developers who have a formula that is a closely guarded secret.

Patents are useful sometimes, too. A good chemist can reverse engineer a developer to determine what is in it, so to protect the formula manufacturers often patent the developer. This means having to publish the actual formula, but the patent legally prevents anyone else from making it for a period of years. Without that, another manufacturer could reverse engineer it and start selling it immediately.

Patent filings aren't perfect either, though; some formulas change over time. HC-110, for example, has had its formula changed several times in the 50 yrs or so that it has been made.

 

[john_s]

No pictorial developer uses only Hydroquinone; any that did would produce extremely high contrast images. HC-110 and Ilfotec-HC both used Phenidone as the primary developing agent, with Hydroquinone as the secondary agent. The MSDS should never be relied upon to determin what a developer is made from; they often omit mentioning things like Phenidone that are regarded as low-toxicity chemicals.

And HC-110, the viscous much celebrated version that was current up till a few years ago, also contained pyrocatechol. I don't know about any current version though.

 

[TomR55]

Clayton F76 Plus. It's also sold under the brand name Arista(Liquid Film Developer) in smaller 12oz bottles from Freestyle. I think the recommended dilutions is a bit off from my experience. I prefer the 1to14 dilution for box speed with dev times for the 1to9, particularly HP5. But I usually develop only a smaller segment of a roll at a time.

I've been using the 1 + 9 dilution for this developer for some time and the results have been adequate. That said, for Ilford FP4, I might prefer the 1 + 14 dilution as it may provide slightly lower contrast--if I understand the manufacturer's literature. I assume that changing the dilution will also change the development time? If this is the case, should I adjust times by a factor of 1.5, for example, or have you found that the relationship is not that obvious? Thanks for any suggestions you might provide here.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

And HC-110, the viscous much celebrated version that was current up till a few years ago, also contained pyrocatechol. I don't know about any current version though.

Did the last of the thick versions have it? In the Film Developing Cookbook, Anchell and Troop say that early versions of HC-110 had Pyrocatechol but that it was removed early on.

 

[john_s]

Did the last of the thick versions have it? In the Film Developing Cookbook, Anchell and Troop say that early versions of HC-110 had Pyrocatechol but that it was removed early on.

The 2014 MSDS for HC-110, the classic viscous one with lots of SO2 and apparently no water at all lists it (1,2-benzenediol).

MSDS documents differ between jurisdictions as a result of differing regulations. It's worth hunting for a few and comparing.

 

[Xylo]

the classic viscous one with lots of SO2 and apparently no water at all

You're right, no water at all. If I remember, the water was replaced by propylene glycol as it contains no oxygen to speak of. This would help explain the longevity of the stuff.

 

[Maris]

I'll recommend what I use: well seasoned replenished Xtol. The current mix has been going for two years with consistent activity. It may be a lucky characteristic of my Xtol but I can now process all conventional "pictorial" films (no, not lith, not Xray) in mixed batches for the same developing time. For the record it's 11 minutes 15 seconds at 20C.

 

[Todd Niccole]

I've been using the 1 + 9 dilution for this developer for some time and the results have been adequate. That said, for Ilford FP4, I might prefer the 1 + 14 dilution as it may provide slightly lower contrast--if I understand the manufacturer's literature. I assume that changing the dilution will also change the development time? If this is the case, should I adjust times by a factor of 1.5, for example, or have you found that the relationship is not that obvious? Thanks for any suggestions you might provide here.

I'm not sure bout deriving a ratio simply by dilutions. I make a comparison with another film that has listed the developer and/or dilutions in question and derive the ratio from that. It's a starting point but it's not consistent with all films. You want to stick with films in similar classes. I tried this using the listed data for Ilford SFX as the basis in estimating the development for some other film and developer combo that I can't recall at the moment. I realized the development was oddly too long and found another film to redo this estimate.

 

[TomR55]

Yes, in general, the development time will have to increase with lower dilutions. But in this case, my negs were overcooked by about two stops using the prescribed diultion and time; I was using the rebranded Arista 12oz. version. Come to think of it, I wonder if there was a manufacturing error and the bottled concentration is too high?

Unfortunately, there is not many listings for the 1:14 dil. So, based on the development times for both 1:9(6.5min) and 1:14(9.5min) with Delta 100 your ratio came out pretty much right. I use this approach likewise as a starting point in such cases.

Thank you for your helpful and timely response! When you say "overcooked" do you mean overexposed by nearly two stops or exposed per box speed and the resulting negatives appeared over-developed?

A few years ago, I wrote to Claytons as I had a question about strategies for enhancing storage capacity. Within a day or so, a chemist from Claytons did respond with some helpful suggestions about eliminating excess air in partially filled bottles and, to my question at that time, storing opened bottles in a refrigerator (not alongside food products)! Perhaps I could construct a concise question about altering dilutions and subsequent times. If I do this, I'll share any response I might receive.

Thanks, again.

 

[Todd Niccole]

Thank you for your helpful and timely response! When you say "overcooked" do you mean overexposed by nearly two stops or exposed per box speed and the resulting negatives appeared over-developed?

A few years ago, I wrote to Claytons as I had a question about strategies for enhancing storage capacity. Within a day or so, a chemist from Claytons did respond with some helpful suggestions about eliminating excess air in partially filled bottles and, to my question at that time, storing opened bottles in a refrigerator (not alongside food products)! Perhaps I could construct a concise question about altering dilutions and subsequent times. If I do this, I'll share any response I might receive.

Thanks, again.

Sorry, I was in the middle of redoing my post to better answer the question so, it's quite different from what you quoted. I've been up all night. "Overcooked" as in shot at box speed and then over developed by about 2 stops.

 

[TomR55]

No worries. I find myself all too often in that same situation--and this is post-retirement! I doubt that it's linear, but I'm thinking about 1.3. I'll get around to developing a test roll sometime in the next few days--have to deal with Thanksgiving-related tasks.