Developer Recommendations: Rodinal > HC110 > ?

[RoboRepublic]

Hi folks, I've run about 65 rolls through Rodinal 1:50, and about 55 through HC110 Dilutions B and H. I'm looking to try out another developer. I'm thinking of spending a year with DDX, or Xtol or possibly TMax as a developer.

Things I liked about both:
- Long lasting, can be used one shot, easy to mix with out a drop in temperature since their volumes are tiny

Things I liked about Rodinal:
- I seem to have fantastic tonality with Rodinal and TriX, even when pushed to Iso800. I get nice flat contrast images that are easy to work with.

Thing I liked about HC110:
- I seem to get searing hot white levels, that sometimes adds a lot of pop to a photo. Especially nice results with FP4 and HP5.

Things I didn't much enjoy:
Rodinal: I don't seem to have too many bad experiences with Rodinal, though I don't believe I can use it in a Rotary processor.
HC110: seems to have an opinion on what sort of contrast curve it wants to build. In addition, I feel (but am not certain) that HC110 can easily blow out highlights while also leaving shadow details muddy. Pushing Delta 400 @ 1600 iso gave very poor results.

Things I am looking for (in descending order of precedence)
- Good tonality
- Good for push processing
- Economical (either one shot or replenishment)

Non-Goals:
- As a proud disciple of the Church of Rodinal, I don't mind grain

I scan all my film, and develop at 68F. I don't often push my film (TX/HP5 @800, Delta 400 @ 1600 being the most frequent). Just curious what folks would recommend for the journey ahead.
Cheers!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

It all depends on format and how sharp and present you want your grain.
You're more than covered with the developers you named...
You can disappear grain with Xtol, have upswept curves with HC-110, get wild grain and darkened midtones with Rodinal, and push modern film with TMaxDev.
For pushing traditional grain, my favourite is Microphen.

 

[RoboRepublic]

Thanks Juan, I should have mentioned, I don't mind grain in the least

 

[McDiesel]

@RoboRepublic well be prepared to see every B&W developer under the sun to be mentioned by someone here Honestly, Xtol checks all the boxes. Every other developer I tried may outperform Xtol in one dimension, trading off a bunch of others. But as a general purpose developer I don't think Xtol can be beat.

Personally, I have adopted a two-developer strategy:

• General purpose developer for most situations: used to be D76 and now it's Xtol for me.
  • Box speed with all films except Delta 3200
  • Protects highlights and doesn't lose shadows, "full range" developer
  • Not a straight-curve "flat" like DD-X
  • Cheap, especially in repelishment mode
  • Fine grain (solvent)
  • Not toxic
• "Special occasions" developer.

The special occasions are subjective. I really enjoy sharp & fine, tightly packed grain with some films. That's why my special occasions developer has been Rodinal. I've occasionally used it with Fomapan 100 and Delta 100. But recently I have discovered Ilfosol 3 and that's my new special occasions developer, for cases when I want nice & tight grain.

BTW, HC-110 used to be my "special occasions" developer as well, I liked using it for HP5+ when taking photos of strangers in public. It gave me the classic & gritty look, but I abandoned it because the same look can easily be digitally achieved with Xtol post-scanning. In a pure analog context the requirements change.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

@RoboRepublic well be prepared to see every B&W developer under the sun to be mentioned by someone here Honestly, Xtol checks all the boxes. Every other developer I tried may outperform Xtol in one dimension, trading off a bunch of others. But as a general purpose developer I don't think Xtol can be beat.

Personally, I have adopted a two-developer strategy:

• General purpose developer for most situations: used to be D76 and now it's Xtol for me.
  • Box speed with all films except Delta 3200
  • Protects highlights and doesn't lose shadows, "full range" developer
  • Not a straight-curve "flat" like DD-X
  • Cheap, especially in repelishment mode
  • Fine grain (solvent)
  • Not toxic
• "Special occasions" developer.

The special occasions are subjective. I really enjoy sharp & fine, tightly packed grain with some films. That's why my special occasions developer has been Rodinal. I've occasionally used it with Fomapan 100 and Delta 100. But recently I have discovered Ilfosol 3 and that's my new special occasions developer, for cases when I want nice & tight grain.

BTW, HC-110 used to be my "special occasions" developer as well, I liked using it for HP5+ when taking photos of strangers in public. It gave me the classic & gritty look, but I abandoned it because the same look can easily be digitally achieved with Xtol post-scanning. In a pure analog context the requirements change.

Xtol doesn't check all boxes:
Photographic grain is kind of absent...
A minority of us prefer sharp present grain.

 

[Paul Howell]

Acufine, expensive, Photogpghers Formulary version of DK 50 or buy old stock, Kodak the canned 1 gallon size, D96, or any of the FX type developers. For that matter D76 diluted 1:3 Microdol X diluted 1:3 are more of an acuity developer than when used stock as is Tmax and DDX.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

The higher dilution of TMaxDev is a beauty on TMax3200 @ 3200.

 

[McDiesel]

Xtol doesn't check all boxes:
Photographic grain is kind of absent...
A minority of us prefer sharp present grain.

Looks like you have not finished reading my comment and prematurely jumped straight to typing having been triggered by the "Xtol" keyword?

 

[flavio81]

I seem to have fantastic tonality with Rodinal (...) I seem to get searing hot white levels (...) HC110 can easily blow out highlights (...) Good tonality

I seriously doubt the developer itself would have a big impact on tonality.

If you see strong differences in "tonality" what you're looking at is increased (or decreased) contrast, and this will depend on time and temperature (plus agitation), not really on the developer itself. Of course some developers are more sensitive to contrast/tempx/agitation changes thus a slight change in those parameters will cause a greater impact in contrast than other developers. And "compensating" developers will compress highlights (reduce highlight contrast) but I don't think any of the ones you're listed is really a compensating developer.

But for the developers mention, i have a guess that if you nail the time/temp, you can get pretty identical results in terms of tonality. What will differ will be acutance, grain size and 'look', shadow detail.

 

[flavio81]

I don't think Xtol can be beat.

Xtol is, as far as i know, the most advanced developer so far. That is, it was a product of relatively recent R&D, while most developers we use have been around for more than 70 years...

 

[Paul Howell]

If Xtol was the end all and beat all developer why does Kodak continue to offer D76, HC 110, and Tmax Developer, second question why didn't ILford make it's own version as Foma has? Answer is one size does not fit all. Xtol is not a acutance type developer, it more like D76 a general developer that balances gain, speed, and acutance or a jack of trades, master of none.

 

[gone]

To me, it depends on what look you're after. Every film will have a certain "native" look, but most films developed in something like Rodinal (as an example) will look quite different than say D76.

 

[Craig]

If Xtol was the end all and beat all developer why does Kodak continue to offer D76, HC 110, and Tmax Developer, second question why didn't ILford make it's own version as Foma has? Answer is one size does not fit all. Xtol is not a acutance type developer, it more like D76 a general developer that balances gain, speed, and acutance or a jack of trades, master of none.

Why? Because all the other developers still sell. Why do they make Tri-X, when TMY is better in every regard? Because people still buy Tri-X and Kodak can still make money selling Tri-X. It has absolutely nothing to do with technical qualities.

Adox is the one making their own version of Xtol, not Foma.

 

[McDiesel]

TMY is not better in any regard. It's too life-like jumping into reality scanning category, that's what I already have digital for. Basically it's a silver-based simulation of a digital imaging sensor. Useless.

Also, Foma does make an Xtol clone indeed.

 

[MattKing]

TMY and X-Tol is the best combination I've used in decades of black and white darkroom photography.
Perhaps it can be made to look like digital if you scan it - I don't tend to have that trouble with it.
Optically it is wonderfully flexible and amazingly capable.
You do have to really abuse it though to make 120 grainy. Even 135 isn't particularly grainy, unless you force it.
6x4.5 TMY developed in X-Tol and scanned using an old, relatively inexpensive flatbed scanner that I paid $100 for.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Looks like you have not finished reading my comment and prematurely jumped straight to typing having been triggered by the "Xtol" keyword?

Oh, no, Mc: I read you like grain, from the first time...
I just meant Xtol doesn't check that box.
I've used Xtol several times, in different years: that word doesn't trigger anything in me, only mistakes in public do.
I've even tried to make Xtol produce the type of grain I Iike.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If Xtol was the end all and beat all developer why does Kodak continue to offer D76, HC 110, and Tmax Developer, second question why didn't ILford make it's own version as Foma has? Answer is one size does not fit all. Xtol is not a acutance type developer, it more like D76 a general developer that balances gain, speed, and acutance or a jack of trades, master of none.

That's it.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I seriously doubt the developer itself would have a big impact on tonality.

If you see strong differences in "tonality" what you're looking at is increased (or decreased) contrast, and this will depend on time and temperature (plus agitation), not really on the developer itself. Of course some developers are more sensitive to contrast/tempx/agitation changes thus a slight change in those parameters will cause a greater impact in contrast than other developers. And "compensating" developers will compress highlights (reduce highlight contrast) but I don't think any of the ones you're listed is really a compensating developer.

But for the developers mention, i have a guess that if you nail the time/temp, you can get pretty identical results in terms of tonality. What will differ will be acutance, grain size and 'look', shadow detail.

Hi flavio,
There are tonal differences between developers, and it also depends on each film.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Why? Because all the other developers still sell. Why do they make Tri-X, when TMY is better in every regard? Because people still buy Tri-X and Kodak can still make money selling Tri-X. It has absolutely nothing to do with technical qualities.

Adox is the one making their own version of Xtol, not Foma.

Hi craig,
TMY2 is not better than TX, it's just different.
Depending on scene, format, and visual goals, both of them can be a better film.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

TMY is not better in any regard. It's too life-like jumping into reality scanning category, that's what I already have digital for. Basically it's a silver-based simulation of a digital imaging sensor. Useless.

Also, Foma does make an Xtol clone indeed.

Well, you're right in the beginning of your post, but useless?
Marvelous and amazing would be closer to reality.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

TMY and X-Tol is the best combination I've used in decades of black and white darkroom photography.
Perhaps it can be made to look like digital if you scan it - I don't tend to have that trouble with it.
Optically it is wonderfully flexible and amazingly capable.
You do have to really abuse it though to make 120 grainy. Even 135 isn't particularly grainy, unless you force it.
6x4.5 TMY developed in X-Tol and scanned using an old, relatively inexpensive flatbed scanner that I paid $100 for.

I agree with Matt...
To me, 120 TMY in Xtol can resemble 4x5 photography, and that's close to a miracle.

 

[McDiesel]

Well, you're right in the beginning of your post, but useless?
Marvelous and amazing would be closer to reality.

You're right, I should have said "useless to me" as I love film-induced imperfections including grain. My Xtol comment was generic: regardless of individual preferences, if one is looking for a generic compromising developer which sits in the middle of speed/acutance/grain triangle, Xtol is hard to beat. For tight & sharp grain there are better developers (Ilfosol 3).

 

[Craig]

Hi craig,
TMY2 is not better than TX, it's just different.
Depending on scene, format, and visual goals, both of them can be a better film.

I tend to look at things from a technical point of view. TMY has finer grain, better pushability, true to box speed and higher resolution capability. To me, all that makes it superior compared to TX. I agree they are places where someone may prefer the artistic look of TX, but that doesn't make it a technically superior film.

TX is old technology, and while that has an appeal, it doesn't mean that it can outperform TMY in any measurable, quantifiable way.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I tend to look at things from a technical point of view. TMY has finer grain, better pushability, true to box speed and higher resolution capability. To me, all that makes it superior compared to TX. I agree they are places where someone may prefer the artistic look of TX, but that doesn't make it a technically superior film.

TX is old technology, and while that has an appeal, it doesn't mean that it can outperform TMY in any measurable, quantifiable way.

The thing, craig, is TMY2 is not superior, not even from a technical point of view... It has less grain, yes, and it has higher shadow contrast, yes, but for some other cases, TX has design characteristics and technical qualities that make it the best option.
I mean this in the same sense Delta400 isn't technically superior to Delta3200. Delta400 is finer grained, just that.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If you don't mind mixing your own, get some Metol, Sodium Sulfite and Sodium Carbonate. You can make some nice developers with those. One developer I think you will like is Beutler's. It produces grain but doesn't produce density very quickly. You get a very sharp neg and it is a little longer in scale than Rodinal and HC-110.

There are other developers too you can try with just Metol. D-23 is a popular one. You only need Metol and Sulfite for that. That will produce smaller grain and a softer image than Rodinal. Less grit and more tone. You could also try divided D-23. That is a compensating developer.

Can't really help you on the push. I just use Rodinal. Not supposed to but I never do anything you are supposed to do. Where is the fun in that? Lol. One of these days I'll write about Rodinal.

There are too many developers to count out there and I've used what seems like most of them. I've pretty much narrowed mine down to tweaked Rodinal for 35mm and smaller, and PMK for 120 and larger. I try new things all the time though. LIfe is boring otherwise, but those two are my go to developers.