Different film developers

Matt5791 · Jan 3, 2006

I have been using Paterson Acutol and Aculux and I also used some Ilford Ilfosol for film developing since I started processing and printing myself about 3 months ago.

Am I just making my life easier, but compromising my negatives, by using these liquid concentrates rather than the more traditional powdered developers? What do the other developers offer, apart from being re-usable?

I want to start controlling my film processing more finely now and I am thinking - what sort of developer should I buy next when my existing bottles run out? Should I start using these famous developers I keep hearing about like D76?

I am normally shooting 100 - 400 ASA film, often people and portraits, sometimes landscapes or cityscapes.

Same developer questions apply to paper processing too of course. Currently I am using Ilford multigrade.

Thanks for any advice!

Matt

honerich · Jan 3, 2006

Hi Matt,
better do not take re-usable developers for film, it's difficult to get constant results. Especially for a beginner I recommend one-shot developers. D76 (or ID-11) diluted 1+1 is a good choice for common use, but don't expect too much: The results will be average in every aspect, i.e. resulting film speed, grain size or acutance. If you are familiar with your developping process you can start with fine-tuning.
For processing paper you can start with any developer.
Have fun and success in your darkroom, Erich

Neal · Jan 3, 2006

Dear Matt,

Acutol and Aculux are quality products that you can use effectively. The differences you will see by changing developers is not going to be dramatic. Spend your time learning how your exposure and development technique affects your images. (Let's not forget composition here either! ;>) )

Neal Wydra

srs5694 · Jan 3, 2006

There's nothing "wrong" with liquid developers. Many liquid developers are fine products, and some (such as Rodinal) have almost cult followings. So don't worry on that score. That said, I have no personal experience with Acutol or Aculux, so I can't comment on them specifically.

If you want to experiment with other developers, by all means do so; however, as Neal suggests, you should first become proficient in just one developer so that you know what to expect from your preferred film under a variety of conditions. If you start trying too many things at once you'll never know the cause when something goes wrong (bad developer, bad temperature, bad development time, under- or overexposure, etc.).

FWIW, my experience in using about half a dozen or so different developers is that the differences are fairly subtle. From reading some posts about the merits of different developers, you might think the differences will be really huge, but if the film is properly developed (using the right time and temperature), the differences will be fairly subtle. Those subtle differences can be important in a subtle image, of course, but it'll take careful side-by-side comparisons and/or a lot of experience before you'll be able to discern the differences. That said, I've only used fairly conventional developers (D-76, XTOL, Rodinal, PC-Glycol, etc.), not staining developers (PMK Pyro, etc.) or more exotic things.

ronlamarsh · Jan 3, 2006

Aculux

Where does one get this Marvel Mystery Oil?

fhovie · Jan 3, 2006

Developer is factored in my thinking when I shot a photograph. The speed I choose for the film and the expected enlargement of the negative need to be known. When I shot a lot of film on a cruise, I was shooting 6x6 and wanted to enlarge to 16x20. I knew that I would need speed and fine grain. I shot TRI-X at 1600 and developed with MYTOL (XTOL). The 16x20s were grainless. The contrast was perfect. When I shoot landscapes, I generally shoot at half the ASA and use Pyrocat HD. It is a little grainier but a lot sharper. If I am shooting roll film and don't expect to enlarge a lot, I use PC-TEA or 510 PYRO. I will get a little more grain but full film speed. If I push process Delta 3200, I will use Microphen. It pushes very well and deliveres subdued grain. If I am shooting an old TLR and no light meter. For my guesses on exposure, I use Split D-23 and rate full film speed. I will have less sharpness at the expense of accutance. Depending on the circumstances, I choose one of 4 film types and one of 5 developer types. Just like composing the photograph on the ground glass, Factors like - hand held? (speed) motion? (wind) enlargability (wall hangable) highlight control (compensation) muddy contrast (expansion) all need to be weighed and the results desired and the method to acheive them needs to be considered.

Oddly, if you are looking for a one-size-fits-all-solution, it is likely the one you are using now!

df cardwell · Jan 3, 2006

There is no better all purpose developer than Aculux 2. It is better in every way than D76.

Xtol gives a bit faster film speed, but Aculux is sharper and better tonality.

PyroCat, PMK, Edwal 12, and yes, even Rodinal offer special qualities for special purposes, but for overall performance are inferior to Aculux.

Old fashioned developers like Microphen and Acufine WERE great alternatives to D76 long long ago, but no longer are the best alternatives. The state-of-the-art has moved on, and today, the flag bearers of great phenidone developers is Xtol, Aculux 2... and DD-x.

Stock up on Aculux, have fun, and stop worrying. You've got the best.

( acutol is fine, but Aculux 2 REALLY REALLY REALLY is IT )

.

clay · Jan 3, 2006

Is Aculux as sharp as FX-39? That is another Paterson developer that I really like with smaller film formats.

df cardwell said:
There is no better all purpose developer than Aculux 2. It is better in every way than D76.

Xtol gives a bit faster film speed, but Aculux is sharper and better tonality.

PyroCat, PMK, Edwal 12, and yes, even Rodinal offer special qualities for special purposes, but for overall performance are inferior to Aculux.

Old fashioned developers like Microphen and Acufine WERE great alternatives to D76 long long ago, but no longer are the best alternatives. The state-of-the-art has moved on, and today, the flag bearers of great phenidone developers is Xtol, Aculux 2... and DD-x.

Stock up on Aculux, have fun, and stop worrying. You've got the best.

( acutol is fine, but Aculux 2 REALLY REALLY REALLY is IT )

.

juanito · Jan 3, 2006

I like Kodak Tmax for 35 and 120 film. It's easy to mix, has long shelf life and it takes out the hole speed of TRI X and HP5.
For large format film I like the results I get with HC110.

juanito

df cardwell · Jan 4, 2006

clay said:
Is Aculux as sharp as FX-39? That is another Paterson developer that I really like with smaller film formats.

No, in my world, it isn't. And Aculux doesn't want to generate 'effects' like Rodinal, FX2, or FX 39. But it is 'sharper' than Xtol, D76 1:1, HC110, Microphen.... etc.

It has a neat signature, though. It has a longer useful straight line than Xtol or FX 39 with many films, especially TMX.

[ With Tri X, it's moot... they are all long ! ] Some films, I've found, have a low shoulder with Xtol and FX39... and Rodinal is not as fast or fine with some films. So, I like Aculux on points ... to my taste, a better 'standard' developer than D76.

Here is a comparison of my developers with Neopan 400, which illustrates a moderate example of the shoulders. I've adjusted the speed, and the agitation, and the color of my socks needed to align the curves for the chart.

I'll pick one of these developers when I shoot a portrait based on lighting, complexion... intuition... whatever is needed. It's a great time to be a photographer.

All in all, no losers here ! Subtle differences to a picky 35 mm photographer with 38 years in the trenches.

For a tasteful beginner, stick with Aculux 2 !!!

noseoil · Jan 4, 2006

One extra thing to think about, slower development and dilute concentrations can yield very good results. The first time I saw minimal agitation on a side by side test, I was stunned at the apparent sharpness. Hc110, rodinal and pyrocat are all liquid developers, but each have quite a following. If you can play around with longer development times, you may find that sharpness comes more into play than with regular processing. There are always compromises, but increased film speed and sharpness are two good factors in slowing down development times. tim

wilt · Jan 4, 2006

I like Rodinal 1 + 50. Great with Tri-X and Efke KB 50 and KB 100.

Peter Schrager · Jan 4, 2006

developers

Mr. Cardwell has hit a very good point and one that more people should pick up on. I used alot of Acculux about 2 years ago and it is definately capable of stunning results. Alot of what goes into making a print is already inherent in the film.
Right now I enjoy Xtol 1:1 for rollfilm on a motor base. Otherwise it's Pyrocat in trays and doing DBI. Just the quickest; most secure and best results I have ever gotten. I absolutely like the fact that as long as the developer turns a color I have juice. And it hasn't been sitting around on a shelf for however long. HC-110 and Rodinal are the only two that I know of that will do that (OK DIAFINE ALSO)
Lately I've returned to using some HC-110. It will be a sad day when Kodak stops making that elixer...use whatever makes you happy but RESULTS can be gotten from a thousand developer recipes. You make the final result not the developer.
Best, Peter

waynecrider · Jan 4, 2006

To me, trying different developers seems like buying another camera system that might give better, sharper more contrasty results. It's just a never ending, grass is greener on the other side, waste of time. And since everyone will give a different answer, and make it all the more confusing, what with semi stand, stand, constant agitation and a plethora of other ways to dilute, develop and get different results, you can literally experiment forever chasing the golden fleece. I say pick two and stick with them for a year. If you can't produce a good picture, it probably ain't going to be the developer.

Matt5791 · Jan 5, 2006

Thanks for the help everyone.

At least I now know the develper I have been using (aculux 2) is a decent developer.

The best method for me I think is to continue to use this for a period of time with a consistant method of agitation etc. so that I get experienced in examining the negs - then I can start tryiung other developers etc and should be a lot more sensitive to the differences.

Thanks!

Matt

pauldc · Jan 5, 2006

Hi Matt,

like you are am fairly new to developing my own film (started Feb 05) and began with Aculux. Having now experimented with a number of other developers, I keep coming back to Aculux as the best and most reliable developer of all. It is sharp despite being a fine grain developer and for me works well with modern and traditional films. The only issue for me with Aculux is that it has not proved good for pushing films or getting box speed from most 400 films.

One of the reasons I tried other developers was that Aculux is not that well known on these forums and I was curious to find out about the other developers other people were talking about. Having been on this journey, now for me I am pleased to return to Aculux.

best wishes

df cardwell · Jan 5, 2006

pauldc said:
....The only issue for me with Aculux is that it has not proved good for pushing films or getting box speed from most 400 films. ...

best wishes

"Box speed"is a laboratory number, derived from non-photographic criteria, and relevant only to ISO testing. It has NOTHING to do with making pictures.

It is a reference number, and if it has any bearing on your own work it is coincidental.

Donald Miller · Jan 5, 2006

The matter of published speed is misunderstood by most practioners of the Zone System. The published ISO speed is far more accurate then many believe, for the most part, when one uses the same measurement techniques that the testing uses. By that I mean the metering of light conditions.

Certainly developer choice can make a difference.

I today marvel at those who persist in doing all of the film testing without taking the time or the efforts to determine what the heck they are printing those finely calibrated negatives on. By that I mean the paper's characteristics.

Schlapp · Jan 5, 2006

While not an expert in any sense, I use Rodinal for most MF films but switch to FX50 if I need to push or I want finer grain. For 35mm i either use FX50 or else Aculux2 - both are nice especially on the faster films

Stoo Batchelor · Jan 5, 2006

Hi Matt

You make a very important point about paper developer. You have started with A fine developer in using Ilfords Multigrade. Once you have the perfect negative, paper development can play a big part in the final print. If I were you I would stick with what you Know for now and have a play with your development times, adding a little bit extra development or even pulling the paper a little bit ealier(some thing I tend not to do) By doing this you may suprise yourself and find something that gives your print that little bit extra. I'm told that if you decrease your exposure and increase your development you can give your print a little bit more contrast, some thing thats nice to know but am yet to try myself.

Just for Info, I'm at present using Tetenal Variospeed W with Ilford warmtone paper and give an extra 15 secs development. This gives me beautiful deep warm blacks.

I hope this helps

Stoo

Tom Stanworth · Jan 5, 2006

I would also say that Aculx is a wonderful std developer....and have done before. If you are already using it, look no further.

Tom

discotex · Jan 6, 2006

I'd suggest sticking with Aculux 2... I use it with HP5+ and Tri-X at EI 250 and love the results. I have a couple of rolls of HP5+ I've shot at 1600 to see how well Aculux 2 handles a little pushing. Fingers crossed!

..Matt

Different film developers

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency