Changing the Development Routine

Hello all,

I'm certain questions like mine have been posted before, but a quick search revealed so many posts and responses that I had a hard time making sense of it all. So I hope this isn't too redundant.

A relative newcomer to photography, I've been shooting and developing TX400 for a couple years. I started developing with D76, but as I'm in a small apartment, mixing up a gallon of chemical is a bit of a pain. So I gave Rodinal a try. I much prefer mixing up small batches of chemical as I need it, but wasn't always happy with the resulting graininess. I've since moved on to FG-7 but am having the same trouble.

What I'd like is to establish a routine developing process that allows for consistent, predictable results. More or less a beginner, I'm not pushing film, working with a flash or unusual lighting, etc. I shoot TX400 on the street with available light and my Nikon F100 (a wannabe Winogrand). I process film two rolls at a time with a darkroom bag and a canister shaken by hand. What chemicals should I be using?

Thanks!

HC110, dilution B would be worth a shot. I think it handles Tri-X grain pretty well and it's a liquid that's easy to work with.

You can reduce the graininess of both Rodinal and FG7 by using sodium sulfite. About 2/3 to one tablespoonful per 8 ounces of solution ought to be about right. Reduce your development time with Rodinal if you use sulfite.

You're on the right track. Developing a routine leads to consistent results and consistency is important in film development. But don't be afraid to experiment until you find the right combination that satisfies you. My suggestions work for me but not be right for you.

Patrick Gainer (gadget gainer here on APUG) found that 4 grams of sodium ascorbate per liter of 1+50 Rodinal working dilution gives reduced apparent grain and is superadditive, so boosts the film's EI a bit as well. I used Rodinal + sodium sulfite for decades, but prefer and now use sodium ascorbate (vitamin C) as Gainer recommends.

See this article for particulars http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html and read down the page for Gainer's methods, including a bit of borax (20 Mule team from the laundry section of the grocery store will work) to reduce the base fog.

Lee

Try looking into Sprint Chemicals if they are available in your area - Sprint Film Developer is a semi-concentrated liquid. You mix it 1:9 with water to get a working solution which works very much like D-76. The consistency is very liquid so it is easy to measure.

Hi dcelving

I am the first to admit that when it comes to chemicals and developing film, I am the laziest person in the world.

I want sharpness, minimum grain and a repeatable routine that gives me results, time after time after time.

Prescysol EF does this for me. Just follow the instructions and you will come up trumps...EVERYTIME.

This developer lets me...develop 'ALL' my films at the same temperature-24 degrees....'ALL' for the same time...10.5 mins and also alows me to develop two entirely different films of old and new grain technology together.i,e; Ilford Pan F 50 iso and Ilford Delta 400 iso in the same tank.

And its delivered through my letter box and keeps well for well over 6 months at room temp.You can't go wrong.

Stoo

P.s...I am told it is no good for iso 3200 films but have not yet tried it, I HATE testing!

Either you found the silver bullet that can give optimal results for every film, shot every way, with no variatons in development technique....or...you're not that picky.

You might try using Diafine.
It is a two bath developer that is temperature tolerent, reuseable and does provide consistant results. You can develop different films at the same time and I find that the degree of vigor in agitating the second bath has a lot of affect in the amount of grain produced.
Although others would argue that contrast cannot be controlled as with other developers, my experience is that using variable contrast paper can, for the most part, overcome that problem.
As for other chemicals to use, a stop bath is not needed for roll film as a simple water rinse will do. Any rapid fixer is fine, I use Ilford products but Fotospeed works well and really any fixer other than one with a hardening agent will do fine.
Perma wash/Hypo clear for reducing the wash time and Kodak Photo-Flo or equivilent reduces water spots.
The only other caveat I can think of right now (only on first cup of coffee ) is to pay attention to your water supply. If it is not fairly Ph neutrol or has large amounts of calcium or iron, you might consider a purifier for the faucet you use or use bottled water.

Hope this info helps,

Dan

jstraw said:

Either you found the silver bullet that can give optimal results for every film, shot every way, with no variatons in development technique....or...you're not that picky.

Click to expand...

I would prefer to think that I have found the silver bullet, and will take no offence in your last comment, meant or not!

Trust me, I am very, very picky.

I have done my research, read the books and tried the developers of many a fine photographer. As I have said, I am lazy and prefer others to do my testing for me, as I don't mind paying for their results. My own photographs tell me that they are very good at the testing that they do.

As for the silver bullet, there are many fine photographers on this very site, all highly regarded and published photographers, who are loading the same bullet as me.

I don't know about you, but I do many miles in my car for the photographs that I make, just returning from Wales yesterday, and I can't afford to make mistakes at the developing stage, and believe me, I have made many in the past.

Thats is what this forum is about, sharing your experiences. Whether anyone listens is entirely up to them...but....I listen. When I ask questions I take on board every word of every answer, and I am very greatful for the answers given.

One day, I may have helped someone out there myself, and for that, well that makes me happy.

But I must reiterate.....I am Picky, VERY!

Regards

Stoo

P.S...I don't spell check either!

Dear dcelfing,

It sounds as though it would be worth it to you to investigate Ilford DDX . It is a liquid so you can mix as you go. Lots of folks seem to love it and it is available off the shelf at Calumet, Central Camera and Helix. Personally, I just mix up 5L of Xtol and spread it out among 250ml and 500ml bottles. I use it "one shot" either full strength for 35mm or diluted for sheet film. The bottles will fit in a small box that can go in a closet.

Neal Wydra

Take Prescysol EF (or absolutely any developer).

Any method of using it with any given film that gives what any individual would qualify as an optimized result (by any criteria, ZS, BTZS, measured desitometry, you name it) to produce a tonal match for any given paper, generic "grade two," whatever you like...for this same methodology to produce the same result with any other film would be something beyond coincidence.

For one scheme to come up "trumps" for even two films, let alone all films begs the question of how tightly one defines "trumps."

There is a lot of latitude for defining "latitude" and it could mean anything up to and including the abillity to manage to make acceptible prints with VC paper and the whole box of filters.

I'm not prepared to believe that there is a developer in existance that can eliminate the emulsion of the film itself as a variable.

dcelfving said:

I started developing with D76, but as I'm in a small apartment, mixing up a gallon of chemical is a bit of a pain.

Click to expand...

First, D76 is available in 1 liter packages. Unfortunately, 1 liter costs about 80-90% of what a gallon costs, so mixing a gallon and throwing half of it out would be more economical. But, there is the convenience and storage factor.

And second, I'll "second" the recommendation to try HC-110. There is no storage issue if you use it "one-shot".

jstraw said:

Take Prescysol EF (or absolutely any developer).

Any method of using it with any given film that gives what any individual would qualify as an optimized result (by any criteria, ZS, BTZS, measured desitometry, you name it) to produce a tonal match for any given paper, generic "grade two," whatever you like...for this same methodology to produce the same result with any other film would be something beyond coincidence.

For one scheme to come up "trumps" for even two films, let alone all films begs the question of how tightly one defines "trumps."

There is a lot of latitude for defining "latitude" and it could mean anything up to and including the abillity to manage to make acceptible prints with VC paper and the whole box of filters.

I'm not prepared to believe that there is a developer in existance that can eliminate the emulsion of the film itself as a variable.

Click to expand...

Using your previous term...'Silver bullet'

It is a term that has to be used very lightly. In photography, there is no such thing. You are right to not accept that there is any one developer out there that can get results in every given situation.

BUT...The question asked by decelfing was that he wanted a developer for developing TX400 that would alow for consistant, predictable results. He also mentioned that he did not want grain. I believe that I have pointed him in the direction of a developer that would do just that.

I also thought I would highlight all of the other qualities of that developer, qualities that I have for some time now used to my advantage, so they would most definately benefit any beginner tremendously.

Lets not forget that it is me who knows my cameras like the back of my hand, it is me that points the meter in the direction of where I wish to take the reading. It is also me who dicides by doing this how much detail I want in the shadows or highlights before I make my exposure. If I, or any other photographer gets this very important part of photography wrong, there is no silver bullet, usng your term again, to put it right. I can only assume that decelfing has this part right, as he is a photographer of some years, so no fool.

BUT...there are developers out there that will fine tune the end result, Prescysol being one of them, along with many other staining developers.

That is the reason why I decided to share my experience with decelfing.


On a lighter note, a few years back while photographing in the Lake District in England, I went up to a view point known as Ashness Bridge. Right in the middle of the river, sat with his SL66 on a tripod was another photographer. His camera was pointing in the direction of a photograph that had been made many, many times. It was a beautiful day. The sun was shining, dappling little pools of light on the river, The trees were glistening and the sun was casting fantastic shadows of the trees, and they were dancing to the sound of the summer breeze. There was photographs to be had all around as it is such a lovely spot.

We struck up a conversation about the late Barry Thornton, as Barry was also a user of the SL66 made by Rollei. We also spoke about Barrys own staining developer, Di-Xactol, that I was then a user of.

Well, you should of heard his intake of breath when I told him that I only learnt the Zone System so that I didn't have to use it, and that I prefered to trust my meter, my judgment and then let Barry's developer sort the rest out for me. Something that I still do today, only with Prescysol EF.

The moral of this story is, he could talk the talk, He could walk the walk, but while he was doing so, he was missing all the beauty that was around him!

Sooooooo!...Just like decelfing, I want an easy approach to my time spent with the chemicals, so I don't miss the world around me too.

Stoo

Thanks

Thanks much for the suggestions. I picked up some HC 110, but have bookmarked this page so I can refer back to it later. My first roll is in fixer as I type!

jstraw said:

I'm not prepared to believe that there is a developer in existance that can eliminate the emulsion of the film itself as a variable.

Click to expand...

Michael - have you used precysol and/or do you understand the chemistry? If not, I think your scepticism might be a bit more guarded. I haven't, but when I looked into it a while ago there were plenty of data sheets and testimonials online to support the single development time for different films. I was a bit sceptical myself but like Stoo and the OP I like to leave the testing to others and follow the advice of reliable and proven practitioners. Seems to me Stoo's suggestion was more than suitable for the challenge issued by the OP.
RELAX! Your tone feels like a finger poking in the chest....

Hi, dcelfving.

I wish you all the best with your efforts and also reccomend HC-110 with Tri-X. I have used it as my mainstay developer for a long time, and it is utterly reliable. You may wish to try the unofficial dilution H (1:63) which is half the strength of dilution B, and a starting point of twice the developing time for dilution B. This will provide better control of highlights and the longer times give more likelyhood of consistency. I can highly reccomend it ! These links may also be useful.

http://www.dragonsgate.net/mbell/leica/hc110.html

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

Regards, John.

Accept that TX400 in a given format enlarged to a given size will produce a given grain size in print. Yes, certain developers will reduce grain at the expense of sharpness (ex Microdol X undiluted) or increase apparent grain (Rodinal) but grain size is largely a result of the film you choose. There are, however, steps you can take to reduce apparent grain: restrict enlargement size (I print a lot of TX400 to 5X7 and dry mount on 8X10 board), use the very minimum exposure that holds the shadow detail you require (exposure beyond this only serves to make grain more apparent in print), use developers at their stock dilutions, and avoid over development (highlights should have just enough density so your negatives print with appropriate contrast on a normal grade paper). In short, use the minimum exposure and development to produce the detail and contrast you require. If the aforementioned are under control and grain is still troublesome you may be looking at slower films, larger formats, tripods and smaller bank accounts.

Tony Egan said:

Michael - have you used precysol and/or do you understand the chemistry? If not, I think your scepticism might be a bit more guarded. I haven't, but when I looked into it a while ago there were plenty of data sheets and testimonials online to support the single development time for different films. I was a bit sceptical myself but like Stoo and the OP I like to leave the testing to others and follow the advice of reliable and proven practitioners. Seems to me Stoo's suggestion was more than suitable for the challenge issued by the OP.
RELAX! Your tone feels like a finger poking in the chest....

Click to expand...

Thank you for the feedback. No, I know nothing of this specific developer. I'll read up on it.

Stoo's got more experience than I do with Prescysol EF -- I've only run about five rolls through -- but I am impressed with the results using the semi-stand method. I have one concern, that also applied to WD2D+, and it's that as a staining developer, it seems to create a negative that doesn't scan as well as I hope/imagine it will print. Given that my darkroom is in boxes and I've got to scan my negs, I've found that some films, like APX 400, don't give a neg that scans very well.

Got any thoughts on that, Stoo? Otherwise, I'm satisfied.

I have similar experience in that PMK pyro and Pyrocat negs don't seem to scan as well as films I have developed in non-staining soup. TX400 and Neopan 1600 which I have been scanning mostly of late seem to give good results. Sorry I can't offer a technical expanation - just personal visual feedback from the raw TIF in PS.

I am kind of in the same boat, and have found HC110 to be perfect - only use as much syrup as you need for two rolls, and only use it once.

While HC110 is technically ideal for my situation, I far prefer the look from D76 1:1 so that's what I use, even if I have to throw out a bit now and then.