Developer Recommendation

[JADoss23]

I've been developing my own black & white film now for a little while and have only used D-76. Was curious if anyone had any other recommendations of chemicals to try out. How about developers that can work as both a film and paper developer? Recently got an enlarger so was looking for a good paper developer starter as well. Thanks!

 

[bvy]

The first thing you're going to hear is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Does D-76 do what you like? Do you have any trouble preparing it? What problem are you trying to fix? You'll do better to stick to one developer and learn all about it. And D-76 is a good one. It's been around forever and a lot of people are using it, so you have a great support network.

To answer your question, though, Ilford PQ is marketed as a paper and film developer (in that order), but it's really only suggested for sheet film. Even then, there are better first choices (like D-76).

 

[removed account4]

i've used a few "universal" developers over the years 2 of my favorites are ansco 130 and dektol
ansco 130 ( they sell it as forumary 130 developer ) from the photographer's formulary
for film you dilute it 1:6 for about 6 minutes 70-72ºF ... dektol, you also dilute it 1:6 for 6 minutes 68ºF
i also use caffenol c there are handfuls of different recipes using scales or table/teaspoons. appugger toffle mixes his a little different for his prints...
i mix it strong like the tablespoon method ( i actually roast my own beans for it and make 10 cups at a time )
and add a small amount of stock print developer ( about 20cc / 1L )

good luck !

john

ps been using ansco 130 for film and prints ( or its cousin gaf universal ) since the 1990s, dektol for a few years and caffneol for 10+ years

 

[locutus]

Generally paper developers are far to strong for use with film, and while you can make do in a pinch its best to keep them separate.

 

[Rick A]

Well, D-72 aka Dektol was used by news papers in the old days, but I think you would be much better off sticking with D-76 for film, and leave the Dektol for paper only.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

You can use D-72 for film but the dilution must be greater than what is used for paper. An average developing time for 1+9 would be 10 min at 68F. However it is better for MF and LF film.

 

[Pioneer]

Unless you need something different for some reason, I would recommend staying with D-76. I think that just about every film sold today works in that developer.

I myself have moved away from D-76 in favor of D-23. There was absolutely nothing wrong with D-76, it was just easier for me to mix up my own D-23 fresh whenever I wanted to use it. The results are close enough I can't tell the difference in my negatives and it is pretty inexpensive.

While working with JCH Street Pan 400 I began mixing and using Beutler at Tom A's recommendation. That has also been a good developer for me and is very easy to mix and use. This has become one of my favorites for any ISO 400 film. A nice plus is that it seems to do a very good job of clearing the red dye from TMX 400 film.

Right now the only store bought developer I am buying is Rodinal, which seems a bit trickier to prepare on your own. Besides, it almost literally lasts forever on the shelf so it doesn't seem to matter whether it is fresh or not.

 

[M Carter]

I'd give Rodinal a try and see what you think. You can buy a very small bottle and it keeps forever. Easier to deal with than mixing a gallon of stock, too.

Rodinal really is an outlier as far as how it renders images - it has a look of its own. I'd try it and see what you think - to me, it's got some kind of mojo. I tried HC-110 but it just felt a little "blah" after Rodinal.

Other than that, very impressed with DD-X for Delta 3200 - good results at many speeds, though I just don't like the mushy grain of 3200. DD-X really maximizes the shadow detail. I've tested at 1200 to 3200 and the results were impressive for when you really need speed; generally I prefer HP5+ at 800 (with DD-X), but again, it's about the mushy way 3200 builds the image.

For paper, Liquidol is a fantastic general-use (Dektol replacement) paper developer, ships as a liquid concentrate so no mixing powders. Lasts forever, even dilute in the tray. You can bottle up your tray batch and use it later. If it seems weak, a splash of the concentrate can bring it back. But most importantly, really lovely tonal rendering. I haven't done empirical tests but my gut says much prettier prints than Dektol. Thing is, one bottle of Liquidol and I never went back to Dektol.

 

[Paul Howell]

What size and type of film are you using, 35mm, MF, LF, fast, tgrain, medium speed?

 

[JADoss23]

Thanks so much for all of the replies. Have gained a wealth of knowledge from them. I am shooting 35mm and some 120mm. Mostly use 400 speed b&w but have been shooting some 250 iso from the eastman 5222 lately that I love.

 

[Paul Howell]

there are many past threads on the subject, D76 is good as it can be used stock , diluted 1:1 1:2 or even 1:3 to increase acutance or edge sharpness, if kept as stock can be replenished.

for finer grain Microdol X, although no longer being made under Kodak brand Freestyle carries a version and Ilford offers a version in quart size. Use 1:2 or 1:3 increases acutance.

I personally don't like fast films in Rodinal, some do and get nice results. Last just about forever.

HC 110, excellent shelf life, designed to provides similar results to D76.

Dinafine is now offered again in quart sizes, I think most ISO 400 are shot at 1200, very fine grain, but low contrast, no messing with temps or time, 3mint bath A, 3 mints bath b, excellent shelf life, but low contrast, need to really bump up contrast when printing.

Check out Freestyle or Photographer's Formulary's web site, lots of choices and information on different developers.

 

[Michael Jin]

The first thing you're going to hear is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Does D-76 do what you like? Do you have any trouble preparing it? What problem are you trying to fix? You'll do better to stick to one developer and learn all about it...

So I've read this opinion quite a bit from many different sources at I guess my question to this is:
Why should a person need a specific technical problem in order to go off and explore other options?
Is there any specific reasoning behind this approach?

When I read the OP, it seemed to me like he/she was just looking to try out something else and wanted some suggestions as to what might be a good alternative to try out. I could be wrong, but it didn't seem like there was a specific problem that was driving the need for a change so much as it was a desire for experimentation. Mind you, I could be completely wrong about this.

Regardless, I don't see the absence of a specific technical deficiency as a reason to not go out and explore other things—even as a beginner. Whether it's trying out different film stocks, different developers, different dilutions, or development techniques, without experimenting, how would I ever be able to make an informed decision about what combination produces the best results to suit my tastes? It would be a bit like using a BIC ballpoint pen without ever trying out a fountain pen, plastic nib pen, gel roller, etc. just because the BIC ballpoint happens to do a competent job of putting your words to paper. Sure, you'd still write your stories, but by never trying out something else, you may be missing some of the joy in the process that you could be having, whether it's an issue of more aesthetically pleasing results or simply a more enjoyable feel. (I use the pen analogy just because I happen to be really picky about my pens so it's the first that comes to my mind. I understand that not everyone will "get it".)

Of course, we always have to set reasonable limits to our exploration if we are ever to get anything done and in the case of photography, I certainly wouldn't recommend that a person switch things up with every roll of film they develop because at that point, you will just completely lack any reference point from which to make a meaningful comparison. But once you get the general gist of what you can expect from a particular developer (or film, or paper, or any number of things), I would definitely say that it's probably good to occasionally try something else out if only for the experience. You may absolutely hate the new things, but at least you'll know that from firsthand experience. And if you happen to enjoy it, maybe you'll decide that you want to make a switch from an informed position.

--------------

As for the OP, I guess you should start by trying to look for the type of aesthetic you enjoy. Once you find a few images in the genre that you shoot that you enjoy the look of, you can try to find out what chemicals and processes were used to create those and use that as a starting point for some experimentation. Just throwing out a question like, "What ___________ would you recommend?" without any idea of what kind of look you're actually trying to achieve makes it a bit difficult for anyone else to suggest something. For instance, a developer like Rodinal is going to give you a really different look from something like Caffenol (Yes, that's a thing. And yes, it involves coffee.)...

D-76 was the first developer I ever used when I had to develop film at a photo lab I worked at years back and like many people have already said, it's pretty much a great standard go-to developer because it will work with just about everything out there. In terms of alternatives, I'm not sure how deep down the rabbit hole you actually want to go because developers range from liquids to powder packets to raw chemical ingredients that you buy separately and measure+mix according to recipes to create developers from scratch. There are so many variations that it's impossible to give a simple answer, but for the sake of providing a potential starting point using only the developers that I actually have some firsthand experience with—which admittedly hasn't been many—and know for a fact would give pretty different results to D-76, I would say check out Rodinal if you're into more pronounced grain and if grain is not really your thing, check out XTOL.

Another major difference between the two is that Rodinal is very forgiving in terms of storage and will pretty much last you forever whereas XTOL is a lot more sensitive to being properly stored and is liable to die on you without warning if you're not careful (and even if you are careful, it has a MUCH shorter shelf life than Rodinal). And when I say without warning, I really do mean without warning. There's no change in color, no gradual loss of effectiveness, no obvious clues... just lots of anger if and when it does happen. Well... I suppose in my case, it was mostly anger from the client and fear of God from me when it did happen to me that one time. Also, to be clear, Rodinal is capable of failing, too, but you pretty much have to be extremely irresponsible and almost purposely work to get it to fail. I've only used Rodinal a few times so far—primarily for stand development—but I've been pretty happy with the look when I've used it. I just personally see it more as a specialty thing so I'm not entirely sure how much you'll enjoy it.

If you give some more detail as to the aesthetic that you're aiming for as well as the amount of work you're willing to tolerate (not everyone wants to mix their own recipes), some of the more experienced members can probably give you some better guidance.

* Edit
I really do need to stop trying to write coherent things at 2AM... it always seems to devolve into mindless rambling. >.<

 

[removed account4]

So I've read this opinion quite a bit from many different sources at I guess my question to this is:
Why should a person need a specific technical problem in order to go off and explore other options?
Is there any specific reasoning behind this approach?
<.....>
I really do need to stop trying to write coherent things at 2AM... it always seems to devolve into mindless rambling. >.<

no mindless ramblings, and i couldn't agree more with what you said !
i can see why people might say, if it ain't broke don't fix it ...
often times people build their house on a crumbly foundation ..

 

[bvy]

So I've read this opinion quite a bit from many different sources at I guess my question to this is:
Why should a person need a specific technical problem in order to go off and explore other options?
Is there any specific reasoning behind this approach?

It's valid, but if the OP want to explore just for the sake of exploring, I would say just pick one. Posts like these tend to turn into "my favorite developer" threads, and there are plenty of those out there already. A little more information from the OP, though, could help us help him -- i.e. I want more/less grain, something sharper, something easier to mix, something that lasts forever. It could also be that he doesn't know D-76 well enough to know what he wants out of another developer.

That said, I'll try to get in the spirit of the goings-on here and offer up HC-110: small bottle, mix on demand, never fails, very consistent. I wish I had discovered it sooner.

 

[RPC]

The OP asked for a recommendation for a developer that could be used for both film and paper and I second the earlier mention of Ansco 130. I get great prints, and beautiful results with T-Max 100. I have also tried Ansel Adam's variant for both, with good results, which omits hydroquinone from the formula (the remaining metol and glycin are all you really need), but you have to mix it from scratch.