Dev methods. Sticking to one or..?

Hi Gals and Guys
After finishing my darkroom, well sort of, and getting to know my jobo I find myself wanting to use it for all my processing. I have some films in the frigde that I planned to run through Finol and eventually I will but for now there is no such thing as stand development or minimal agitation here.

How about you? Are you using one standard method only or do you have different method for different applications e.g stand deving Tri-X for XX subjects and constant agitating FP4+ for YY contrast and so forth?
Best regards

I have standardised on Prescysol for everything. It even needs the same time for any film so I can put different films in the same tank.


Steve.

I use a combination of D-76, XTOL, and Rodinal for different films/scenes/subject matter. I don't do black magic stunts with stand development or other snake oil - I just choose a time based on known times, offset by temperature, and 99% of the time go with a 60s+5s/30 agitation pattern. Semi-commonly I use Selenium 1+0 to intensify negatives I feel can benefit from it.

About the only other developer I have around for occasional use is PMK (and F-76+ but I don't really count that as different enough).

I definitely don't standardize on one film and one film only. That's boring and lacks variety (for me). I could do it if I had to, but I choose different emulsions for different things. The one thing I *do* do however is try to stay consistent within a given scene or set of subjects/day.

I've standardised on film, developer, developing technique and paper. Namely, Neopan 400 / HC-110 / MGIV.

Hmm Seems time to standardise myself Doing the count I come up with to many films to mention, Three developers (Rodinal, Diafine and Finol) and Five different developing techniques The Diafine method, The method descriped for Finol with various times and agitation every 30 seconds, Standard method agitating 60sec+10sec/min, minimal agitation 60sec+10/3min (Great for Neopan 400) and lately rotation. That said Finol isn't going to stay since its to much work for a lazy guy like me, Diafine is now used for Tri-X@1250 only, The 60sec+10/min is being replaced by the Jobo so I'm down to one standard method and 2 specials.
Best regards

Does a carpenter always use the same type of wood? Same saw? Same design? No.

But just be aware, there is a method to the madness. Doing things willy-nilly because one is never satisfied or can't produce something that would work, regardless of the materials used, is an unhealthy recipe.

If you are trying to find a recognizable "look" for your photos, or just trying for consistancy, then it definitly time to standardize your procedures. Pick one film, and fine tune your exposure, keep exacting notes of EVERYTHING you shoot, never go by memory(this will come later with practice). Find a set of chems(especially developer)you really like, and keep exacting notes, and always process the same way. When printing, again, KEEP NOTES, here is where I experiment- find a standard paper for almost all your printing, but then have a couple papers with different surface or tonal charistics that you think would look incredible with a special shot. After you are comfortable with standard processes, you might try an alternative process, such as lith, or one of the older processes, such as carbo, or whatever piques your interest. Above all, have fun with whatever you do.

Rick

For 120mm Tri-X (400) I use 510 Pyro semi stand, and for 4x5 I use HP5 (200) in 510 Pyro on a Unicolor rotating base.

For the few times I shoot 35mm, I use Tri-X (400) in HC110 standard agitation method.

Mike

I use one method for large format and 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 when I'm shooting landscapes (pyrocat and EMA). For 35mm and 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 street photography I use an entirely different non-staining two bath developer. Choose a process that works for what you want to do.
juan

clayne said:

Does a carpenter always use the same type of wood? Same saw? Same design? No.

But just be aware, there is a method to the madness. Doing things willy-nilly because one is never satisfied or can't produce something that would work, regardless of the materials used, is an unhealthy recipe.

Click to expand...

This is a very good analogy. A good carpenter will hone his basic skills, then apply them as the project requires. He will choose a particular wood for the end result desired, but the steps to the end are always the same. the tools used are the same, and he has his "tried and true" tools because the results are predictable. BTW-I'm a retired contractor, and still build furniture.

Rick

I do have standard combinations that work to give me known looks for certain types of film, and then pick the film for th sort of lighting or images that I will be using.

Things like plus x or fp4 at 80ei in 1:2:100 pmk when I expect foggy/misting landscapes.
More commonly, nice sharp negs with tmax 100 or 400 in fx37 1:3
LF and Medium Format I tensd to process in a home brewed and replenished Harveys 777. That I know is a wierd way, but I like the results, and who else is there to please in this game for most of us here?

If i am new to a film then I soup it in hc-110b or d-76 to see how it looks with the vendors recommendation before I start to try it on some of my more wayward from mainstream developers. I am not afraid of experimentation if the project allows for the possibility of failure.

As to wayward developers I mix things like a batch of Microdol X I made up as an A and B stick solutions. I had a premonition that this developer would be dropped and had bought a packet to make 1 gallon at a camer show for $2..
I would never use all of the one gallon if mixed fresh before it aged off, at the rate that I use it.

So I figured out to exend the life of my last Mocrodol X that if I mixed it with a small volume of warmed propelyne glycol I could suspend most of the developing agents in a non water and non oxygen containing liquid. The sulfite in the small volume (1L) would not dissulve (nor did I expect it to). I let it settle, decanted off the prop gly with most everything in it solution to become my A, and then mixed the sulfite slush with enough hot water to fully dissolve it to make the B. I got the idea for this from having used PMK, as well as dabbled with PC-TEA, and reading about how HC110 syrup won't develop film until diluted.

I worked out the ratio of volumes I had to the volume of water it was originally meant to make. I now draw off a syringe of A, a volume of B, and the required water to make up 1 litre of working solution when I have a bit of a backlog of films that I want toip precess in Microdol X. It is used with d23/d25 replenisher for a few weeks until it needs to be tossed. Doing this I have been able to make the developer last for over 2 years now without any perceptible change in developer activity.

As to agitation, I have a little timer that chirps at me every 30 seconds to remind me to agitate. It lets my brain wander while I process. If I am really in the mood to do something else while processing, I will even program up an old Vivitar process timer that has the ability to pre warn me to start to drian the tank. It is very handy when doing e-6; as it lets me get caught up on reading magazines since the process runs to over 37 minutes for me.

Enough rambling from my experimenters mind.

The short answer here is that I am not at all reaally a standard developer and film giuy, but I do use a suite of film developer combinations, and a few wierdo wanderings along the way.

Søren, if I were shooting 35mm then this would be much more of a concern for me... but for 6x7cm-11x14, which I am mostly shooting now, and since I am mostly contact printing, it just doesn't seem to matter one iota how the hell I develop or agitate. I use ID11 1+1, agitate normally, and life is simple, life is good. I did tour all the various developers and sometimes will go to xtol (for neopan 400) or wd2d+ (for efke) or POTA (very contrasty scenes), but generally I find good old ID11/D76 to give me what I need.

Standardization is a good idea, in principle. The question is what to standardize: the film? The developer? The paper? All of the above? For me, the flexibility that I most appreciate is in the film and the paper.... so my film and paper devs are usually the standards, ID11 and PQ.

Of course, different people have different ways of working, and thank goodness for diversity of workflow: it's what most distinguishes analogue from digital.... the intrinsic individuality of the workflow.

keithwms said:

Søren, if I were shooting 35mm then this would be much more of a concern for me... but for 6x7cm-11x14, which I am mostly shooting now, and since I am mostly contact printing, it just doesn't seem to matter one iota how the hell I develop or agitate. I use ID11 1+1, agitate normally, and life is simple, life is good. I did tour all the various developers and sometimes will go to xtol (for neopan 400) or wd2d+ (for efke) or POTA (very contrasty scenes), but generally I find good old ID11/D76 to give me what I need.

Standardization is a good idea, in principle. The question is what to standardize: the film? The developer? The paper? All of the above? For me, the flexibility that I most appreciate is in the film and the paper.... so my film and paper devs are usually the standards, ID11 and PQ.

Of course, different people have different ways of working, and thank goodness for diversity of workflow: it's what most distinguishes analogue from digital.... the intrinsic individuality of the workflow.

Click to expand...

Yes to many formats can be a problem too Maybe the solution will show itself with time when I find myself liking and using one combo more than the others.
Best regards

Some people like monogamy & some people like fooling around. I've considered the advantages of a one film/one dev combination, but then I'd be missing all the other possibilities that are out there.