Developers for starting out

I'll dial in with HC-110. Hawkwind's description of his efforts with staining developers sound a lot like my adventures in all sorts of new adventures. Thanks for the grounding.

Lots of great devs out there, no bad ones. It's all what you like.

Rodinal does deliver the grain of the film; some like it, some don't.

Microdol-X can give a speed loss, but is a fine dev.

D-76 is the original classic. Not great at anything, but good at everything. Available (almost) anywhere, cheap and there is a time listed for D-76 and all films. X-Tol is probably the new standard.

Edwal's FG-7 gets little mention, but is a good general purpose dev that's a liquid and easy to mix.

HC-110, IMHO, is just fine with 35mm; never had a problem. Easy, long-lasting and can give you several dilutions. Smells naughty, too.

jim appleyard said:

X-Tol is probably the new standard.

Click to expand...

IIRC X-Tol is a PC, phenidone ascorbic acid,
film developer. Has any one tested it against
the home brew E-76 PC developer? Dan

Until Jim's post I thought I was the only one that had ever used FG 7. I have been using it for just over a year and until I need to do something it can not do I think I will stick with it.

I dont have much to compare it to but I have had 100% success using it other than film reel loading problems early on, and much as I would like, you can't blame the developer for that!

I've used D-76 and XTOL almost exclusively for years and I have no complaints with either of them. If I were in your shoes, I'd pick D-76 simply because there is lots data available for this developer and any B&W film on the market today. Every manufacturer gives recommended development times for D-76, and, especially if from a first tier film maker, are very reliable starting data points. With a lot of these boutique developers, you might find yourself without any data, or only anecdotal data. Even "The Massive Dev Chart" cannot be completely relied upon. In many cases, the data there are compiled from the manufacturer's recommendations. In many other cases, it is just compiled from users' experiences and not verified by rigorous testing. It may be good information, and often it is, but not always. Without some experience under your belt, it will be difficult to shoot the bugs that invariably come up if you can't trust the data.

XTOL is, of course, a very good developer. In some ways, it is a little bit better than D-76 as a general purpose developer. Film speed can get a little boost, but not much; and grain is a little finer. I find it works really well with the newer T-grain and similar emulsions. Works great with all the older stuff too.

Nothing wrong with HC-110 either. Just realize that it was designed for newspaper work which was often quick and dirty with fine image quality a secondary consideration. I actually like the stuff for processing large format negatives in trays for the economy. The large size of the negative more than makes up for the slight loss if image quality.

All of these are film developers and not particularly suitable for print making. Pat Gainer's suggestion to supercharge HC-110 for use as a print developer sounds interesting, and coming from him I'm sure it would work. But as print developers go, I'll stick with good old fashioned Dektol. Works great, lasts a long time, and doesn't cost very much.

fhovie said:

If you are going to do D76 - Buy some Sodium Sulfite, some borax and some Metol and make your own D76(h)
100g Soduim Sulfite
2.5g Metol
2g Borax
Per liter in that order - heat 750ml of water to 125 F deg water - add the rest of the water after mixing.
You can cut the mix to 500ml or even 250ml to mix 1:1 with water
This basic version of D76 works well and is cheap and you can mix it as you need it. That way it does not go bad on the shelf. I weigh out my chems and seal them in little bags - looks like a drug operation when I do. Then I just pull a "kit" when I need it.
Chems can be bought at artcraft chemical http://www.artcraftchemicals.com/
or photoformulary: http://photoformulary.com/

Click to expand...

Is it my math or does this come out to be more expensive than D-76?

monkeykoder said:

Is it my math or does this come out to be more expensive than D-76?

Click to expand...

It depends to a great extent upon how much you pay for sodium sufite...but, yes, it is close if you can get sulfite for less than about $2 per pound. It used to be that that wasn't so hard to do. Shipping these days will kill it though. I'm pretty sure that it would be cheaper to buy the gallon sized bag of pre-packaged D-76 from a local source now days.

That makes me sad I would love to try making my own developer for regular use looks like I'll have to stick to an isolated experiment.

monkeykoder said:

That makes me sad I would love to try making my own developer for regular use looks like I'll have to stick to an isolated experiment.

Click to expand...

Not everything we do has to be the most economical. There are other benefits to mixing your own that make it worth the (potential) extra cost and effort.

BradS said:

Not everything we do has to be the most economical. There are other benefits to mixing your own that make it worth the (potential) extra cost and effort.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but with caveats. A beginner is not likely to know what each ingredient brings to the party. That takes a bit of study, and quite a bit of patience. Don't forget to add in the costs of film for testing, scales for measuring, and a few other odds and ends you might need. After figuring the true cost, and balancing it against what I believe to be mostly percieved "improvements" it just doesn't make sense at any level. Now if you have experience in formulating developers and/or have money to burn, then I say go have at it and have fun. If you're looking to maximize the return from your disposable income, you're better off sticking with the known good stuff.

fschifano said:

A beginner is not likely to know what each
ingredient brings to the party.

Click to expand...

What of each ingredient? A hell of lot of sulfite if mixing
D-76H. D-76H may have the highest ratio of sulfite to active
developing agents of ANY known film developer. Although the
more usual D-76 has a little less metol that metol is backed
up by 5 grams of hydroquinone.

The following few chemicals will put one hip deep into home
brew photo chemistry; film and paper. The bare essentials:
Metol, sodium sulfite, sodium carbonate, and potassium
bromide. A few popular film and print developers use
just those four. Add hydroquinone to the list for
a lot more. Borax too for D-76. Dan

fschifano said:

Agreed, but with caveats. A beginner is not likely to know what each ingredient brings to the party. That takes a bit of study, and quite a bit of patience. Don't forget to add in the costs of film for testing, scales for measuring, and a few other odds and ends you might need. After figuring the true cost, and balancing it against what I believe to be mostly percieved "improvements" it just doesn't make sense at any level. Now if you have experience in formulating developers and/or have money to burn, then I say go have at it and have fun. If you're looking to maximize the return from your disposable income, you're better off sticking with the known good stuff.

Click to expand...

Very well said! I love APUG forums, but I cannot understand why sometimes very knowledgeable posters give really complex and advanced advice for absolute beginners.

As for the scale I would think it would be cheaper to just make a much larger batch and store as a powder or am I mistaken?

D-76

monkeykoder said:

Is it my math or does this come out to be more expensive than D-76?

Click to expand...

First, I agree with some of the intervening posters that mixing your own developers from scratch isn't for everybody, and it's almost certainly not for a darkroom beginner (unless maybe that person is a chemist or has some other reason to have most of the raw chemicals on hand). If you're just starting out, you'll simplify your life greatly by sticking with commercial photochemistry.

Second, I also agree with some of the other intervening posters that there are benefits beyond cost to mixing your own developers. You've got the flexibility to try new formulas very easily; a dozen or so ingredients will enable you to make hundreds of different formulas. You'll also be able to mix small batches -- say, less than the 5-liter minimum of XTOL (or something very like XTOL). Some developers, like PC-TEA, just aren't available commercially. Thus, once you've got a handle on the basics of film developing, mixing your own may be worthwhile if that sort of thing appeals to you. If it doesn't, then nobody's forcing you to do it.

As to the specifics, the formula that was posted was for D-76H, not D-76. D-76H is supposed to act a lot like D-76, but it's not identical. That said, home-brewed D-76H is actually a little cheaper than home-brewed D-76, by my calculations. (I created a spreadsheet to make these calculations -- here's a link, if you're interested.) I've just updated most of the ingredients for D-76 in my cost spreadsheet, and played with some of the costs. I get values of between $0.83 and $1.80 per liter for home-brewed D-76 or D-76H, vs. $2.00 per liter for Kodak D-76 from B&H. Both costs include shipping estimates. My own cost estimates involve buying chemicals from Digital Truth and The Chemistry Store. Neither has as wide a selection as Photographer's Formulary, but they're cheaper. TCS, in particular, is the cheapest source I've found for sodium sulfite, sodium thiosulfate, ascorbic acid, and a few others. The lowest costs for D-76(H) involve buying a massive 13-pound pail of sodium sulfite from TCS. I did this a couple of months ago, so my shipping estimate for their product ($15.20) is fairly recent. I expect that 13-pound pail to last for years. My shipping estimates for other products (both raw chemicals and commercial D-76) are old, though.

FWIW, another good source for raw chemicals in the US is Art Craft. They don't have quite as wide a selection as PF, and they aren't usually quite as inexpensive as TCS, but they may be a reasonable compromise if you need the right mix of things.

Some items can be bought locally. My spreadsheet assumes locally-bought Borax, for instance. (I didn't update this particular cost.) If you can find a local supplier of sodium sulfite, that might help bring the costs of mixing your own down quite a bit, assuming the local price is anywhere near the mail-order price.

[QUOTES=srs5694;672520]
"First, I agree with some of the intervening posters that
mixing your own developers from scratch isn't for everybody,
and it's almost certainly not for a darkroom beginner ..."

Some are up to the challenge. There are several film and
paper formulas with no more than two, three, or four
ingreedients.

"Second, I also agree with some of the other intervening
posters that there are benefits beyond cost to mixing your
own developers. You've got the flexibility to try new
formulas very easily;..."

Very easily. And safely I'll add. Refrain from inhaling or
ingestesting photo chemicals while measuring and mixing.

"... a dozen or so ingredients will enable you to make hundreds
of different formulas. You'll also be able to mix small batches --
say, less than the 5-liter minimum of XTOL (or something
very like XTOL). Some developers, like PC-TEA, just
aren't available commercially."

As per my previous post this thread four chemicals are
a must and six will allow for a considerable number of film
and paper formulas.

Small batches; a Very good point especially for those who's
volume is low and/or process sporadically. My processing is
with very fresh or at time of use mixed chemistry. Not
much hangs around just to end up down the drain.

"That said, home-brewed D-76H is actually a little cheaper
than home-brewed D-76, by my calculations."

By volume it should be a little less; no hydroquinone and
only 0.5 gram more metol. By capacity it is not any cheaper
because the regenerative effect provided by hydroquinone
is absent. D-75H is no more than 1/3 strength D-23.
D-76H is though a huge user of sulfite. Dan

Goodness...

Go with something off the shelf and do not entertain making your own if you ask me. Someone starting out has enough to get sorted IMO.

I would say XTOL over D76. The reason? more film speed and easier to mix. Also less toxic. Great all round developer and at $10 for 5l, used at 1+1, you get $1 per litre.

Contrary to the rubbish pumped about on the net, it lasts ages as stock - the probs were eons ago withe the 1l packs. Mine has never failed to last 6 months in full plastic bottles and at 4-5 months in half full bottles I have found it working good as new. Bear in mind that mine sits for half the year at about 26-7 degs C in my room and is still good.... I have not heard of anyone talking about Xtol sudden death as a recent phenomenon and suspect that when it does happen, caps are not on tight etc.

D76/ID11 are also great for starting out, but much more difficult to dissolve fully - not a problem, but frustrating perhaps for some. You will get half a stop less speed, coarser grain, but IMO more not less bite (1+1). Xtol is a real smoothie and although produces great resolution, the images lacks the perception of sharpness I get from D76.

Overall.... XTOL! There is nothing that will not develop predictably and well in this developer, from slow to fast films, regardless of brand.

If you start on XTOL and you want to later experiement, I would suggest something very different and with lots of acutance to see the difference.

This guy is right!

aparat said:

I cannot understand why sometimes very knowledgeable posters give really complex and advanced advice for absolute beginners.

Click to expand...

To the original poster. Get a developer off the shelf, any will do. Begin to use it. Print your negatives, try to do the best you can with them. Print them often. I have said this many times:
You will only understand what happens during film development if you print your negs. If you develop film only, you will never learn to interpret those negs.
This is very important! Any film and any developer will do! They are all good, and between developers differences are so small it's hard to tell a difference what they do to the negs. You will get as many recommendations on what developer to use as you get replies. Really - any film developer is as good as the next one to start with. No kidding.

Keep it simple, get something that's readily available. Follow the manufacturer's recommendations to begin with for your developer and film combination. Print your negs often. Study your negs, study your prints.

Remember to take it one step at a time.

Good luck!

- Thomas

I would like to add that a lot of this film developing guru stuff can really get in the way of seeing photographically when you start out. Please don't do the mistake I made and focus too much on the technical aspects of photo chemistry.
Here is a brilliant example:
Bill Schwab - He uses Tri-X and HC-110 for his film developing and uses Ilford paper and Ilford paper developer. All of it is 'off the shelf' stuff. Check his web site out and see what a person with brilliant vision and a knowledge of how to use his materials can deliver with off the shelf stuff. http://www.billschwab.com
I will say that I lost 3-4 years of good printmaking by being obsessed with finding the ultimate film developer and film combination. I didn't even print my negs often and I found my prints dull - so I blamed the chemistry. Not cool. Not good. It has to be about getting a great print in the end, and for that you need consistency. Focus more on vision, composition, understanding composition and light is just eons more important than what film developer you use. And print often. That is the key to good print making.
When you have all the basics down is when you can (but noone says you have to) start experimenting. How you use your materials often times play a bigger role than what materials you use.
- Thomas

Yes. What Thomas Bertilsson just said. I wish somebody had beat this into my head. I still do not print often enough.

Print often. Make notes. Pick one film and one dev. Any one will do. They're all good.

Thanks Thomas. It is advice I needed to hear again.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

I would like to add that a lot of this film developing guru stuff can really get in the way of seeing photographically when you start out. Please don't do the mistake I made and focus too much on the technical aspects of photo chemistry.
Here is a brilliant example:
Bill Schwab - He uses Tri-X and HC-110 for his film developing and uses Ilford paper and Ilford paper developer. All of it is 'off the shelf' stuff. Check his web site out and see what a person with brilliant vision and a knowledge of how to use his materials can deliver with off the shelf stuff. http://www.billschwab.com
I will say that I lost 3-4 years of good printmaking by being obsessed with finding the ultimate film developer and film combination. I didn't even print my negs often and I found my prints dull - so I blamed the chemistry. Not cool. Not good. It has to be about getting a great print in the end, and for that you need consistency. Focus more on vision, composition, understanding composition and light is just eons more important than what film developer you use. And print often. That is the key to good print making.
When you have all the basics down is when you can (but noone says you have to) start experimenting. How you use your materials often times play a bigger role than what materials you use.
- Thomas

Click to expand...

I could not agree more.

Just a question about the possibility of brew your own developers would it be a bad idea starting out (if you have the necessary experience) to make up a bag of the dry ingredients of some of the D-76like developer and just using that until you're used to it?

monkeykoder said:

Just a question about the possibility of brew your own developers would it be a bad idea starting out (if you have the necessary experience) to make up a bag of the dry ingredients of some of the D-76like developer and just using that until you're used to it?

Click to expand...

That would be a bad idea, not because it's a bad idea to brew your own developer, but because there is no way to insure that the ingredients are mixed evenly in the bag. If you buy a packet of commercial developer, you should always mix the whole packet, and if you make your own developer, you should always measure the chemicals for the size batch you want to make.

Sounds reasonable. How does one get around the low weights you're dealing with? I have this odd feeling even if I was in the chemistry department at my college they might look at me funny for using their scales to weigh chemicals out...

Tom Stanworth said:

Goodness...

Go with something off the shelf and do not entertain making your own if you ask me. Someone starting out has enough to get sorted IMO....

Click to expand...

I agree completely. The main point is to get something that is simple and reliable. Reliable means both that it works the same every time and that it is always available. That is why the well known commercial brands (D-76, XTOL, HC-110, etc.) are to be preferred. Whatever your choice, stick with it until you are very well acquainted with the developing and printing process. The popular developers work very well with all films (except some very specialized types), so you should correct any problems by changing your technique, not the chemicals, at least when starting out.