Developers

[toejam]

Do developers make much of a difference in the final negative? I currently use Ilfosol 3. Sometimes I’ll use Rodinal for my stand or semi-stand developing.

 

[Ian Grant]

Yes, but a long learning curve. Some of my best negatives were made using Rodinal and APX100 (original Agfa) or Tmax 100, superb fine grain and tonality on 35mm film and I'm an LF shooter. It's more important to hone your EI and development time.

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

Here is a summary of Kodak Developers and why I use XTOL and replenished XTOL:

It has been a while since I posted it. Good to get back in the groove.

 

[bdial]

There are differences, but they are generally quite subtle, assuming you are comparing negatives that have correct exposure and processing for whatever developer and technique.
I did these to to compare Kodak Xtol and pyrocat HD some time ago, the prints are hard to tell apart. Same film, shot a a few seconds apart on 4x5.

 

[toejam]

Yes, but a long learning curve. Some of my best negatives were made using Rodinal and APX100 (original Agfa) or Tmax 100, superb fine grain and tonality on 35mm film and I'm an LF shooter. It's more important to hone your EI and development time.

Ian

What do you mean by LF and El?

 

[toejam]

There are differences, but they are generally quite subtle, assuming you are comparing negatives that have correct exposure and processing for whatever developer and technique.
I did these to to compare Kodak Xtol and pyrocat HD some time ago, the prints are hard to tell apart. Same film, shot a a few seconds apart on 4x5.

Maybe it comes with time but it’s really hard for me to see the difference. Thanks for sharing this!

 

[MattKing]

LF is large format.
EI is Exposure Index, which refers to the film sensitivity setting you use when metering, when you don't use the ISO or "box" film speed.
Any time someone says they "shoot Tri-X at 250" they are saying that they are using an EI of 250 - they set 250 on their meter, rather than the standardized ISO of 400.
EIs are personal to the photographer.

 

[mshchem]

Here is a summary of Kodak Developers and why I use XTOL and replenished XTOL:
View attachment 293787

It has been a while since I posted it. Good to get back in the groove.

I'm with S. Glass on the XTOL. I love the stuff. I use a bit of Rodinal too. I use a Jobo, before that a Paterson tank, XTOL either full strength replenished or XTOL 1+1 standard Kodak agitation scheme.
Adox makes every developer and they are all great. Adox's version of XTOL comes without all the multiple screw ups of Kodak branded chemistry of the last couple of years. That said hopefully SinoPromise has got the XTOL and brown Dektol figured out.
There's not a thing wrong with Ilfosol-3. Kinda funny name though.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I know I'm at risk of making an overly broad statement, however you will likely find more variation in results with black & white film developers compared to paper developers. I've posted this before, but a few years ago I made some extensive paper developer comparisons and found that many of the developer techniques used to alter image tone don't seem to work very well with more modern emulsions.

 

[foc]

I have used Ilfosol 3 for many years and have always been happy with it. Of course developers can be very personal and sometimes it can be " each to his own ".
Find one you like using and stick with it. Sometimes people change developers just for the sake of change.

 

[Ian Grant]

I know I'm at risk of making an overly broad statement, however you will likely find more variation in results with black & white film developers compared to paper developers. I've posted this before, but a few years ago I made some extensive paper developer comparisons and found that many of the developer techniques used to alter image tone don't seem to work very well with more modern emulsions.

It's also worth mentioning that some film/developer combinations work better than others so HP5 and Rodinal is grainier than HP5 in Xtol where as Tmax100 gives very similar results and excellent very fine grain in Rodinal or Xtol even with 35mm. It's a bit of a learning curve.

Ian

 

[Jonno85uk]

With the developers I use, when comparing between Rodinal and Xtol-r, i can easily see the differences. Smoother grain + better developed shadows and perhaps less contrast with xtol-r; i do find it hard to get contrasty negs with it.

But, between Rodinal + Ilfotec HC it's difficult to spot. Maybe slightly different development of the highlights (i do sometimes find highlights block up a bit too readily with HC). A different grain maybe, but you have to look close for that.

 

[Ian Grant]

With the developers I use, when comparing between Rodinal and Xtol-r, i can easily see the differences. Smoother grain + better developed shadows and perhaps less contrast with xtol-r; i do find it hard to get contrasty negs with it.

But, between Rodinal + Ilfotec HC it's difficult to spot. Maybe slightly different development of the highlights (i do sometimes find highlights block up a bit too readily with HC). A different grain maybe, but you have to look close for that.

That should really be "With the films I use" as film choice makes a huge difference when comparing Rodinal to Xtol. overall Xtol is the better choice for a variety of films.

Ian

 

[Jonno85uk]

I guess. Rodinal + xtol differences are very noticeable in high-speed films. Lower speed, not so much.

I was implying my range of developer comparison experiences are limited. I used to use FD10, ID11 + Ilfosol S a bit a long time ago but can't remember the differences that well. I do use DDX for delta films but that's really all i've ever used with those.

 

[gone]

Absolutely. The developer can change the look of your image a LOT. Everything and anything w/ analog photography makes a difference, from the film choice, lighting, developer, metering......it's all one thing.

 

[Paul Howell]

The reason is that there are so many developers is that a developer, dilution, time, temp, will alter a given film's look. With millions of users each with her/his preferences had led to hundreds of developers. Saying that, the majority of a film's qualities are baked into a film. Tmax 200 resolves around 200 LMM, Tmax 3200 between 90 and 120 (?) don't recall off the top of my head. There is not a developer on the market that will force or allow Tmax 3200 to resolve 200 LMM as does Tmax 100. On the other hand choice of a developer can modify grain, contrast (tone) film speed, and acuity or apparent sharpness. Developers seems to have a different effect based on the film, I get box speed with good tones and grain with Clayton F76+ with Foma, but much prefer D76 with Ultrafine Finness, which I think is move film stock. I started with D76, it was our go to developer in high school and later in college, (we used GAF 17 a close clone of D76) and later used many different developers until I settled in my current trio. What I like is likely to different from what you like. In addition to the look a developer may have on the final image, connivance and cost may or may not play a role in you decisions.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kodak Xtol is my first choice and Pyrocat HD is my second choice, when I need to use it.

 

[Paul Howell]

My fav is MCM 100, at $80 a gallon got to be just too expensive. Currently I use D76, FP version, Clayton F76+ and Rodinal. I used Xtol, had a gallon go bad, then Kodak stopped making it in quart kits, Foma makes a 1 liter package, at almost $10 a liter, too expensive. Thinking about mixing up ANSCO GAF 17, to replace D76.