Developer giving highest true speed?

[albada]

What developer gives the highest true speed with TMY-2 or TX, regardless of grain? (True speed is defined as density of 0.1 above B+F).

I'm just getting back into developing my own film, so I've been researching developers by reading The Film Developing Cookbook, The Darkroom Cookbook, and Mason.
Well, XTOL adds about 1/3 stop to the speed. Diafine speeds up TX by a bit over 1 stop. Anyone tried FX-37 or FX-55?

Also, I don't mind some fog because my scanner easily scans through it, and I can mix my own developer, so I'm thinking of trying Crawley's speed-boosting FX-37 but with less restrainer in it.

Comments and experiences will be gratefully read...

Mark Overton

 

[dpgoldenberg]

Mark,
I have used FX-37 with TMY-2, and did my own tests. Since they are personal tests, I can't really say anything about absolute speed. But, my impression was that FX-37 didn't do any speed magic on TMY-2. I wound up using an EI of 320. On the other hand, FX-37 did seem to boost the speed of Delta 100, with a noticeable bump in the toe region of the curve, and my EI for that film/developer combination was 125, a third stop greater than the box speed. I generally liked FX-37. With respect to grain structure and sharpness, it seemed to fall somewhere between Rodinal and a more fine-grained developer (I was using Ilford DD-X at the time).

For the last year or so, I have been using Pyrocat HD, and I like it, too. We're not really supposed to talk about this here, but, like you, I use an enlarger with a computer between the lens and the paper. As others have reported, the stain from the Pyrocat seems to minimize the appearance of grain in the scans. Or, I would say that it minimizes the enhancement of grain that often occurs with scanning. The speed with TMY-2 is about the same as with FX-37. But, my EI with Delta 100 and Pyrocat is only 80. Speed is not really my major concern, usually, so I am quite happy with both Delta 100 and TMY-2 in Pyrocat.

I hope that helps a bit.
David

 

[jp498]

Pyrocat HD is indeed a fast developer for TMY2. I mostly use TMY2 and have tried d76, xtol, xtol 1+1, xtol 1+2, PMK, and pyrocat HD. I don't have the means to measure "true speed", but Pyrocat HD seems to be as fast as Xtol, and is faster than other pyro developers. I can shoot TMY2 with a yellow filter with my reflective meter set for ISO 400 and I get good negatives. I shoot at 320 to develop with PMK. I like Pyrocat HD as a developer with more detailed shadows and stronger contrast than PMK. PMK is what I usually use and consider a slightly lower contrast negative to be more useful in bright sun with what that developer does for the highlights. TMY2 is very versatile and can have different magic with different developers or techniques.

Get a $15 or so kit to try it out.

 

[AgX]

What is True Speed?

 

[Ronald Moravec]

True speed is shadow density gained over film base + fog.

You really can`t establish a true speed unless you can measure using ISO standards. For thing thing, the shutter must be known accuracy.

You can establish an EI, or exposure index for your conditions. Look for an increase in negative density in the darkest shadow areas of the scene. Ignore density in the highlights which you can get by developing longer.

Try Microphen or Diafine or Acufine. None will increase shadow density substantially, perhaps up to 2/3 stop. All can gain highlight density by longer development.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

This question has been discussed before ad nauseam. Therefore I must say, "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more." Mason on pp 144-45 makes the point that the fastest speed for films in general is obtained with a low pH, high sulfite, phenidone based developer. The pH should be 8.9 to 9.6 and the sufite content in the range of 70 to 100 g/l. Examples are Ilford ID-68, Microphen and Kodak Xtol. But the speed increase is rather modest and less than one stop.

 

[ic-racer]

You won't do much better than T-max developer for T-max film. Kodak used to promote this quite a bit, but now they don't promote much at all with respect to film.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/chemistry/bwFilmProcessing/selecting.jhtml

 

[albada]

Gerald, What edition of Mason do you have? Mine is "Third Impression 1979" and pp 144-145 in mine lack that text. Which chapter/section mentions this? Maybe it's on another page in my edition.
Anyway, sorry if this question is a FAQ, as I'm new to apug.org.

From what I've been reading, pyro family is sounding more and more appealing. Maybe I'll give PMK or Pyrocat-HD a try...

Mark Overton

 

[Gerald C Koch]

My copy is 1966 and the chapter is "The Photographic Developer: Practical Considerations and Formulae.: The information is under Fine Grain Developers.

 

[piu58]

Gerald Koch wrote: > fastest speed for films in general is obtained with a low pH, high sulfite, phenidone based developer

Interestingly the opposite - ie: low sulfite, relatively high pH formulas - can also give higher effective speed..

Dear Michael, that is not true if you count speed as
a) real density above fog
b) you need the highlights (no blocking).

If you use such a strong developer you lose the higlights.

 

[albada]

I'm curious, what is OPs motivation? It could help tune the responses. It seems odd for speed to be the sole criterion in developer selection - particularly since in the grand scheme of things, with the exception of speed decreasing solvent developers, the speed differences between most general purpose developers and so-called "speed enhancers" are small at best.

I have two reasons for the question.

1. If negatives are scanned, a program such as Noise Ninja can reduce grain, making graininess less important, and thus making true speed more important.

2. I have a crazy idea: Develop using two developers. Bath A would be a speed-enhancing developer, and bath B would be a super fine grain developer such as DK-20. The time in each bath would be such that final density would be correct, which means that bath A would be underdeveloped (shorter time). Bath A would build up (amplify) each photon-hit, but not enough to cause grain-clumping. Bath B would do the final amplification in a manner less prone to clumping. The goal would be box-speed plus super fine grain. Or have folks already tried this?

 

[Brian Legge]

I'm not concerned about grain when it comes to speed - I care primarily about retaining detail in shadows. I can always step up a format if grain is a major consideration.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I dont know about TMY or Tri-X but the highest shadow speed I obtained with Delta 100, sun/shade, average metering was EI=160. D-76 gave EI=80 .
This was from Tetenal Emofin 2-Bath developer used according to the instructions (no push processing).However this was at the expense of the flattening of highlights,ie clouds not so well separated from sky.

 

[MaximusM3]

TMY2, recently tested for me by Fred Newman at The View Camera Store with 21 steps wedge and calibrated light. Developed by me with Ilford DDX 1:4, agitation of 5 initial inversions and 5 every minute at 70 degrees (not 68 as indicated on chart). Without silly gimmicks you would get more than box speed and imperceptible grain at an average gradient of 5 to 5.5. Take this for whatever it's worth, since it is my test designed to work with my technique and fit my paper in the darkroom.

 

[MaximusM3]

..and as a comparison, TX 120 with XTOL 1:1, 70 degrees, 5 inversions initial, and 5 ever 30 seconds. Not quite DDX but close.

 

[albada]

I guess you could try. My guess is considerable experimentation would be involved. Although in the end, I still doubt this will make a meaninfgul difference in speed if you want super fine grain. A good developer for Bath A might be something like Ilford DD-X at a more concentrated working dilution than normal. However for Bath B I think the finest grain developers you could reasonably use would be Perceptol, or perhaps an Atomal-type formula, or some sort of modernized PPD/Glycin thing, or Crawley's FX-5. I don't think DK-20 is a good idea. It is almost certain to produce dichroic fog with modern films. It's a long outdated formula.

Mike, thanks for the ideas. After noticing this modification of D76 (there was a url link here which no longer exists), it occurred to me that I can develop for half the normal time in a speed-boosting developer like XTOL (or D76 as in the link), then add 40g/litre of ammonium chloride to the developer already in the tank (pour out, add it, pour back into tank), and continue developing for much longer than usual. The goal is to give a super fine grain effect in the latter part of development, while not clobbering the fragile image-specks at the start of development which is what I speculate causes much of the speed-loss.

So this would be a two-phase development: High sensitivity for the first phase, and high solvent (with physical development) in the second phase.

Well, it'll be easy to waste a strip of film trying this. I still suspect it's been tried many times...

Mark Overton