Clayton F76+ and Arista Premium Liquid developer

I said "knock me out" because of all the hype associated with FA-1027, so if F-76 is the same, I was expecting…well, something special, or unique. Just as Edwal 12 has specific characteristics, or a glycin developer, I had expected F-76 to present a specific characteristic that made the developer something beyond D-76. I didn't find that F-76 provided the tonality I wanted -- which ran counter to my expectations re: FA-1027.

Trask said:

I said "knock me out" because of all the hype associated with FA-1027, so if F-76 is the same, I was expecting…well, something special, or unique. Just as Edwal 12 has specific characteristics, or a glycin developer, I had expected F-76 to present a specific characteristic that made the developer something beyond D-76. I didn't find that F-76 provided the tonality I wanted -- which ran counter to my expectations re: FA-1027.

Click to expand...

Hmmm! Where did it fall down on the tone quality? Just curious? If it's like D76, just even a little bit, it's not a 100% compensating developer, but you can make it act like one. I just want something that my grandkids can use that will give them good clean results, is bought over the counter/online, in liquid form and isn't life threatening. I could go with Xtol or HC-110, but I also like the cost factor with F76+ and it's simple to use.. If three of four of my G-kids and myself use it then I might not have a problem of shelf life/going bad. Plus, I'd like to see what it does for myself and then I'll know for sure whether it's all hype or not. JohnW

Trask said:

I said "knock me out" because of all the hype associated with FA-1027, so if F-76 is the same, I was expecting…well, something special, or unique. Just as Edwal 12 has specific characteristics, or a glycin developer, I had expected F-76 to present a specific characteristic that made the developer something beyond D-76. I didn't find that F-76 provided the tonality I wanted -- which ran counter to my expectations re: FA-1027.

Click to expand...

I still fail to understand. Tonality is still affected way more by how you expose and process the film than the developer itself. What exactly did not happen that made you go 'not my thing'?
I'm surprised and trying to understand what happened.

I attached a scan of a contact print I made from a 4x5 negative a little while back. I shot it using Tri-X and used FA-1027. Contact printed. I don't think another developer would have done anything to improve the print. It might have changed the negative slightly in tonality, but usually it's something that can be compensated for to a large extent come printing time. We have so much control over the work flow, both negative processing and printing, by just changing technique, that I usually don't understand why people make such a big deal out of developers. Sure, Edwal 12 has special properties, absolutely, but you can get 80-90% of it by just changing how you shoot and process the film.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

I still fail to understand. Tonality is still affected way more by how you expose and process the film than the developer itself. What exactly did not happen that made you go 'not my thing'?
I'm surprised and trying to understand what happened.

I attached a scan of a contact print I made from a 4x5 negative a little while back. I shot it using Tri-X and used FA-1027. Contact printed. I don't think another developer would have done anything to improve the print. It might have changed the negative slightly in tonality, but usually it's something that can be compensated for to a large extent come printing time. We have so much control over the work flow, both negative processing and printing, by just changing technique, that I usually don't understand why people make such a big deal out of developers. Sure, Edwal 12 has special properties, absolutely, but you can get 80-90% of it by just changing how you shoot and process the film.

Click to expand...

Yes, I was wondering the same thing Thomas. Expose for the shadows and shorten or extend the developing time a little and "bingo"! Tonal range should not be a problem as I see it, but maybe it just didn't have that "certain look" for him. That contact print sure looks to have a very, very nice tonal range to me and the highlights don't look excessive on my screen. It probably is no magic bullet developer, but it certainly doesn't look like a bad bullet at all. We'll see when I get it. JohnW

Is it permissible that I just say that I didn't like F76? If it works well for other people's workflow, I'm happy for them. MY POINT was that I was simply trying to determine on what basis people were saying F76 is the same as FA-1027. That issue has been addressed above.

Trask said:

Is it permissible that I just say that I didn't like F76? If it works well for other people's workflow, I'm happy for them. MY POINT was that I was simply trying to determine on what basis people were saying F76 is the same as FA-1027. That issue has been addressed above.

Click to expand...

OK, I guess I was a little puzzled by the "tonality" thing. I hadn't read anywhere in my searches where anybody had made any complaints about the tonality rendered by this developer with any film. So, you're saying it just wasn't your "cup of tea" as to say. JohnW

In another post I read that tonality is more affected by how the film is exposed and processed than what developer is used. I read that to mean that one could achieve similar tonality across a variety of developers depending on how the film was exposed and processed. So, logically, I could make D-76 and an amidol developer produce similar tonality if I were able to expose and process the films properly in each of these two developers. Perhaps that is true -- I have not taken the time to test a variety of developers with one film to determine if I can make the results of each developer resemble the other. I prefer to focus on what strength each developer brings to the table in terms of tonality and select the developer I prefer. So, for example, I really like APX100 in Rodinal -- I like what I see at the end of the process. I may not like, for example, APX100 in D23 as much. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself clearly, but it seems to me that APUG discussions are full of persons who say they prefer how their negatives look in Developer X instead of Developer Y. I cannot understand why it seems to have struck some readers that my suggestion that I didn't like the tonality I obtained from F76 is somehow aberrant or that fact that I don't like the tonality is because of faulty exposure or process. So -- can we leave it that I didn't like F76? And since I didn't like F76, I was interested to know that FA-1027 is the same developer so I can assume that I won't like it either.

Trask said:

In another post I read that tonality is more affected by how the film is exposed and processed than what developer is used. I read that to mean that one could achieve similar tonality across a variety of developers depending on how the film was exposed and processed. So, logically, I could make D-76 and an amidol developer produce similar tonality if I were able to expose and process the films properly in each of these two developers. Perhaps that is true -- I have not taken the time to test a variety of developers with one film to determine if I can make the results of each developer resemble the other. I prefer to focus on what strength each developer brings to the table in terms of tonality and select the developer I prefer. So, for example, I really like APX100 in Rodinal -- I like what I see at the end of the process. I may not like, for example, APX100 in D23 as much. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself clearly, but it seems to me that APUG discussions are full of persons who say they prefer how their negatives look in Developer X instead of Developer Y. I cannot understand why it seems to have struck some readers that my suggestion that I didn't like the tonality I obtained from F76 is somehow aberrant or that fact that I don't like the tonality is because of faulty exposure or process. So -- can we leave it that I didn't like F76? And since I didn't like F76, I was interested to know that FA-1027 is the same developer so I can assume that I won't like it either.

Click to expand...

Whatever floats your boat! I was doing some assuming also and just assumed your exposure matched your developing time/temps with F76+ as in testing. I keep forgetting that many folks, here and other places, will buy a developer or film and run it at the suggested manufactures times/EI's, without setting up their own trials. I'm not saying that it would have made any difference in forming your opinion about F76+, but it is possible. There I go again, assuming! Maybe you did do your own personal exposure/development test and still didn't like it? You like Rodinal and APX100 while Joe Blow doesn't care for it and that makes sense to me. Stick with what you like and know. For me? I'm going to give it a go and see what I think after I do a little testing. Maybe you and I will have the same opinion about F76+ when I'm done testing. Oh, I love Rodinal semi-stand 1:100 with Fuji Acros and Ilford PanF. It doesn't get much better then that. JohnW

Trask said:

In another post I read that tonality is more affected by how the film is exposed and processed than what developer is used. I read that to mean that one could achieve similar tonality across a variety of developers depending on how the film was exposed and processed. So, logically, I could make D-76 and an amidol developer produce similar tonality if I were able to expose and process the films properly in each of these two developers. Perhaps that is true -- I have not taken the time to test a variety of developers with one film to determine if I can make the results of each developer resemble the other. I prefer to focus on what strength each developer brings to the table in terms of tonality and select the developer I prefer. So, for example, I really like APX100 in Rodinal -- I like what I see at the end of the process. I may not like, for example, APX100 in D23 as much. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself clearly, but it seems to me that APUG discussions are full of persons who say they prefer how their negatives look in Developer X instead of Developer Y. I cannot understand why it seems to have struck some readers that my suggestion that I didn't like the tonality I obtained from F76 is somehow aberrant or that fact that I don't like the tonality is because of faulty exposure or process. So -- can we leave it that I didn't like F76? And since I didn't like F76, I was interested to know that FA-1027 is the same developer so I can assume that I won't like it either.

Click to expand...

You are certainly allowed your opinion, and I respect it.

I was merely curious about what exactly it was that you didn't like. I found that FA-1027 was pretty efficient in the shadows, like DD-X, and that it gave me wonderful highlight separation, like Xtol. But grain was a little bit more like D76, which for me is just fine, especially with 4x5.

So, I ended up using my film at box speed, and agitating every minute for 10 seconds, and after adjusting my developing time I got negatives that print really well, and looked a lot like my prints from DD-X negatives, but a little bit more muted in the highlights, but you can compensate for that in the printing by burning with a higher grade filter in the highlights for more 'zing'.
That's what I ended up doing with the film and the developer in order to get what I wanted from it.

I agree that a lot of the threads here on APUG are about film and developer combination, and I also think that a lot of that information is misleading. While films and developers have certain characteristics, like how they see color, or the 'built-in' contrast, but most of those things can be countered by using correction filters and change your technique. Resolution and grain are about the only things you can't change much. The rest is just part of a system that is much bigger than the individual components.

To those who don't believe me, I recommend shooting a roll of film with a normal contrast scene. Develop your film in something like D76 that you can dilute, and develop half of it using standard agitation, say 10s every minute. Then take clip tests and develop those but you agitate every 5 minutes for 10 seconds, and you keep adjusting total developing time until you have highly similar overall contrast. Now print both of these otherwise identical negatives at the same contrast level, and watch what happened to the outcome. You'll find that the 5m agitation will help shadow values come up significantly, while highlights are shouldered off, while mid tones stay largely the same. Just by changing how you develop the film will drastically change your results.

To make it even simpler, you can also do a comparison of developing time only, where you can go from thin under developed negatives to very high contrast over developed negatives that will give you completely different prints, by changing one single variable in your development. Those differences are way more than what changing materials will accomplish.

But, I understand the fun and allure of experimenting. It IS fun to try different films, to shoot in all sorts of lighting conditions with them, to push them to their limits and beyond by intentionally screwing up with exposure and developing, just to see what happens.

Use what you love, have fun, and don't let my curiosity be something that's negative, please. It wasn't intended. I was just trying to figure out what was behind your comment of not liking it.

Yes, Thomas, that was my point too! I really didn't care one way or the other whether Trask liked F76+ or not, but I just wonder where the "tonality" let him done. Compressed mid-tones, no sparkle in the highlights...............etc.? I guess I'll find out shortly. JohnW

JW PHOTO said:

timor,
Chemically! I don't want my grandkids messing with stuff that's too potent. Right now they use my darkroom with me, but I'd like to get them setup to at least do their own negative processing at home. Then they could come here and we could print. The kiddies range from 11yrs to 18yrs old and there are eight of the little buggers. Of course they are not all interested, but four of them I can see have a smidgen of interest. I thought they might just get "turned on" just a little more if they could at least do some of this on their own instead of under grandpa's wing. Plus, that's how you learn. JohnW

Click to expand...

Iapplaud your efforts of teaching your grand children. your reward will be theirmemories of a great grandfather!As far as safety goesjust teach them safe darkroom tech niques and they'll be fine. no food or drink in the darkroom, and, you can never wash your hands too often.:munch:

RalphLambrecht said:

Iapplaud your efforts of teaching your grand children. your reward will be theirmemories of a great grandfather!As far as safety goesjust teach them safe darkroom tech niques and they'll be fine. no food or drink in the darkroom, and, you can never wash your hands too often.:munch:

Click to expand...

Thanks Ralph, but I don't know how much will sink in to their little heads. Maybe nothing will spark their interest at the moment, but maybe a few years down the line the light bulb might just turn on. I will teach them the right way to do things and grandma has already taught them the "not often enough" hand washing scheme from day one. I can't tell you how many times I've heard, "go back and wash them again". I just wanted to start them with chemicals that were less hazardous than what I use. That way they could do a little bit at home without any big problems. If one or two of them really get hooked I have three extra enlargers in the loft of my garage and extra lenses in my darkroom. Who knows?? All I know is that you have to at least try to lead the horse to water, but he'll decide whether he wants a drink or not and you can't make him. My Clayton F76+ is suppose to arrive today along with a few other items from Freestyle. I have a roll of Acros 35mm waiting for it. JohnW

JW PHOTO said:

Thanks Ralph, but I don't know how much will sink in to their little heads. Maybe nothing will spark their interest at the moment, but maybe a few years down the line the light bulb might just turn on. ...If one or two of them really get hooked I have three extra enlargers in the loft of my garage and extra lenses in my darkroom. Who knows?? All I know is that you have to at least try to lead the horse to water, but he'll decide whether he wants a drink or not and you can't make him.. JohnW

Click to expand...

I think it's great. Just make sure they have prints to take with them and show off. And though sometimes there's years between leading that horse to water and it's deciding to drink, it can still pay off.

mgb74 said:

I think it's great. Just make sure they have prints to take with them and show off. And though sometimes there's years between leading that horse to water and it's deciding to drink, it can still pay off.

Click to expand...

That's my belief too! I'm a horse that was led to water many times before I finally decided to take that first drink. I don't mean just in the realm of photography either. JohnW

JW PHOTO said:

?..My Clayton F76+ is suppose to arrive today along with a few other items from Freestyle. I have a roll of Acros 35mm waiting for it. JohnW

Click to expand...

You should be very pleased with Acros in F76+

wblynch said:

You should be very pleased with Acros in F76+

Click to expand...

We'll see shortly Bill! I just checked FedEx tracking and it's due here this afternoon. I haven't found a real bad developer for Fuji Acros yet! JohnW

Well, after the big Christmas recovery I finally made it into the dark. I processed three different films in the new Arista Premium Liquid developer aka Clayton F76+. I did some Ilford Delta, Fuji Acros in 35mm and one roll of Arista Ultra 200 aka Foma 200. The Delta looks perfect, the Acros looks nice, but my friend seems to have underexposed it a little. The 120 Arista is alright, but there seems to be a little bug or I should say many little bugs. The Arista Ultra 120 came out looking just fine, but when I look at it under a 10x loupe I can see tons of little black speck all over the surface. They are all different shapes and seem to look like small metal shavings. Might not show in a smaller print, but I'm sure I'd see them in a large one. I used the developer as recommend with distilled water, used a tap water stop, and fixed with TF3 fixer followed by a running water wash and then a short soak in distilled water with two drops of LFN. I'm going to do another roll tomorrow and would like a few suggestions as to what I might do to kill these little black buggers. JohnW

The Arista EDU Ultra is rebranded Foma and some have reported such emulsion problems. I've never seen them in the Arista.EDU.Ultra I've shot but that certainly doesn't mean anything. I've also only used the 400.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that Foma 200 is a couple of years old, then you have films from the period when they had emulsion defects. They looked like little 'needles' all over the emulsion. What you see could have happened with any developer. For me it was with Xtol.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

If that Foma 200 is a couple of years old, then you have films from the period when they had emulsion defects. They looked like little 'needles' all over the emulsion. What you see could have happened with any developer. For me it was with Xtol.

Click to expand...

This is new stuff Tom so I think the problem might just be on my end, but those little black metallic type spots didn't show on the 35mm films and that has me a little puzzled. I'm going to use new/fresh fixer and all distilled water on this roll and see what happens. Not real happy with the film so far, but I have nine more rolls to see if I can be happy. If not I'll stick with Acros, Ilford and Kodak. I know folks say "you get what you pay for", but I'm not rolling in dough as they say also. one down, nine to go! JohnW

Well, I just check the Delta 100 35mm negatives a little closer and see some of the same black gunk/junk on those too. I'm starting to suspect my fixer now, but it might be my tap water. I'll do some investigating, but at least I'm pretty sure it's not the film.

Problem found! Contaminated fixer was the culprit. Somehow I grabbed the wrong brown glass jug of fixer. It was my discard jug that somehow made it from under the sink to up on the shelf. Most have had a brain fart when I put it away last time. I now have the exposure and developing time pretty well zeroed in and I think I could actually get by very nicely rating Arista EDU Ultra at a full ISO 200 box speed with the F76+ developer since the shadow detail is really abundant at ISO 120. After I'm done testing I'm going to take some shots worth scanning and will post. I have no complaints about this developer so far, but I did have to cut my developing time by 1 minute to hold some texture in a couple of snow scenes. JohnW

Several years back when I could afford to shoot Delta 3200 I used lots of Clayton F76+ as my developer. Worked like a charm. It's easy for someone to think it's a D-76 clone given the name, but I too recall hearing it behaved more like
DD-X. I never used DD-X so I cannot comment on this claim, but I was very pleased with F-76+.