Dektol - Why so popular?

miha · Jul 11, 2014

- It's powder which is inconvenient - there are many liquid quality developers available;
- It's metol based which can be problematic to some - most other makes (powder & liquid) are phenidone based;
- It doesn't last particularly long when mixed - there are longer lasting developers available in powder and liquid form;

Still, it's seems to be incredibly popular. Can those who use is as their main developer explain its strengths. Thanks.

snapguy · Jul 11, 2014

works

Dektol works fine. I have used it since before 1960 and it has always done the job. I would not care if it was made from clarinet reeds and Scotch tape, it works. I do not like having liquids shipped and mixing it does not bother me one bit.

jp498 · Jul 11, 2014

It's what was sold retail in the US when that was how things were done. It's still an affordable developer, at least here. You mix a gallon then dilute it further. It lasts quite a whlle because you've so much of it.

ic-racer · Jul 11, 2014

miha said:
- It's powder which is inconvenient - there are many liquid quality developers available;
- It's metol based which can be problematic to some - most other makes (powder & liquid) are phenidone based;
- It doesn't last particularly long when mixed - there are longer lasting developers available in powder and liquid form;

Still, it's seems to be incredibly popular. Can those who use is as their main developer explain its strengths. Thanks.

I did not use Dektol from about 2000 until 2008. I used Ilford liquid. However, due to the expense of the pre-mixed Ilford developer, I went back to Dektol. I find it more economical. I also have been re-using it for up to 3 days in a row by pouring the diluted tray solution into a dedicated bottle in between sessions. If one uses some sort of 'time to emergence' factor (like described in "The Print") you can extend the development times accordingly.

miha · Jul 11, 2014

ic-racer said:
I did not use Dektol from about 2000 until 2008. I used Ilford liquid. However, due to the expense of the pre-mixed Ilford developer, I went back to Dektol.

Why not Bromophen (or LPD). Just curious.

miha · Jul 11, 2014

snapguy said:
Dektol works fine. I have used it since before 1960 and it has always done the job. I would not care if it was made from clarinet reeds and Scotch tape, it works. I do not like having liquids shipped and mixing it does not bother me one bit.

jp498 said:
It's what was sold retail in the US when that was how things were done. It's still an affordable developer, at least here. You mix a gallon then dilute it further. It lasts quite a whlle because you've so much of it.

So it's basically "if it ain't broke don't fix it"?

Tom Kershaw · Jul 11, 2014

miha said:
So it's basically "if it ain't broke don't fix it"?

Yes and D-72 works very well with a large range of papers. Shipping liquids within the UK isn't much of an issue, so PQ Universal is fine as well.

Tom

Rick A · Jul 11, 2014

It's been around for decades, was available in just about any store that handled photo gear(I used to buy it at a hardware store), cheap, and most of all, it was from Kodak.

Mike Crawford · Jul 11, 2014

In the UK, Dektol was always available as a 5 litre bottle which was mixed at 1+9 as a standard, though was good sometimes to make it stronger for more contrast. Sadly, was discontinued a few years ago. Used to use loads of it too.

Tom Kershaw · Jul 11, 2014

Mike Crawford said:
In the UK, Dektol was always available as a 5 litre bottle which was mixed at 1+9 as a standard, though was good sometimes to make it stronger for more contrast. Sadly, was discontinued a few years ago. Used to use loads of it too.

The liquid Dektol is a different product compared to scratch-mixed D-72 or packaged powdered Dektol.

Tom

removed account4 · Jul 11, 2014

cause it has been around since maybe hte 1930s or 40s
and in 80+ years has become a "standard" ...

miha · Jul 11, 2014

I can understand this but there must be a reason for a product to be around for such a long time. So I'm asking wise men to tell me what led them to choose this old standard.

Pat Erson · Jul 11, 2014

I stopped using it as soon as Kodak stopped selling RC papers (2005?).

Ilford IV Deluxe and Eukobrom then became my new standard for RC works.

Tom Kershaw · Jul 11, 2014

miha said:
I can understand this but there must be a reason for a product to be around for such a long time. So I'm asking wise men to tell me what led them to choose this old standard.

It works. Cold tone developer techniques don't seem to work with modern papers, so only really a need for neutral (D-72) or warm developers. MQ & carbonate rather than hydroxide based developers will probably give more neutral results whereas a concentrated liquid PQ developer with give slightly warmer results, but the differences are tiny.

Tom

miha · Jul 11, 2014

Sure it works, as does any other developer. I guess I should get a bag and search for the magic myself.

Tom Kershaw · Jul 11, 2014

miha said:
Sure it works, as does any other developer. I guess I should get a bag and search for the magic myself.

There is no magic. You can mix D-72 yourself if you want to try it:

http://www.jackspcs.com/pdd72.htm

I use the developer diluted 1+1

Tom

removed account4 · Jul 11, 2014

hi miha

maybe it is the standard because kodak was the standard for more than a decade
and they sold it ? just like d76 to a lot of people is the "standard" for film ... ( and it is only 4 D-numbers away )

miha · Jul 11, 2014

Tom Kershaw said:
There is no magic. You can mix D-72 yourself if you want to try it:

http://www.jackspcs.com/pdd72.htm

I use the developer diluted 1+1

Tom

There must be some magic to it, Tom, so I will go for the original.

BetterSense · Jul 11, 2014

I have a feeling that cost is a major factor. Not only cost off-the-shelf, but the whole supply chain cost including how much Kodak could make money off of it. D-76 and MQ developers in general became popular for the same reason. They worked pretty well and were the cheapest.

miha · Jul 11, 2014

jnanian said:
hi miha

maybe it is the standard because kodak was the standard for more than a decade
and they sold it ? just like d76 to a lot of people is the "standard" for film ... ( and it is only 4 D-numbers away )

Hi John, I think it is/was not that popular in Europe (but D76 is/was). I've been printing for more than 20 years without Dektol. It has always been Ilford and Agfa (and trix) here. In fact, I first learned of Dektol reading internet photo forums.

removed account4 · Jul 11, 2014

miha said:
Hi John, I think it is/was not that popular in Europe (but D76 is/was). I've been printing for more than 20 years without Dektol. It has always been Ilford and Agfa (and trix) here. In fact, I first learned of Dektol reading internet photo forums.

yeah .. i know what you mean.
i forget that there were other suppliers of photographic sundries worldwide

while you are using it, try diluting it 1:7 (7mins) and processing a roll of film in it
you might like it better than the other magic you are using

miha · Jul 11, 2014

John, I will for sure!

pentaxuser · Jul 11, 2014

Tom Kershaw said:
The liquid Dektol is a different product compared to scratch-mixed D-72 or packaged powdered Dektol.

Tom

Tom, can you elaborate on these differences? Maybe liquid dektol isn't available anyway in the U.K. so its Hobson's choice but I am just curious as to what they were. Thanks?

pentaxuser

Hatchetman · Jul 11, 2014

Why Dektol? It's cheap and it works as intended.

ic-racer · Jul 11, 2014

miha said:
Why not Bromophen (or LPD). Just curious.

Shipping costs. The Ilford Liquid was stocked in Gallon jugs at the local shop.

Dektol - Why so popular?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency