Diffs/ Opinions on D76vsD23vsRodinal,etc...

[DanielStone]

hey all,

lately at school I've only been able to shoot color film because that is what I can develop myself at school. B/W is for b/w classes only . And I can't do it at home, b/c my parents are afraid of the chemicals for some reason I still can't figure out.

so my question is this: I have settled on 3 films I like to shoot: Efke 25 in all formats(35mm-4x5), acros in 120 only, and TMY-2 in all formats(35mm-4x5). I've been using D-76 1:1 for all of these, sometimes 1:3, and have been liking the results I've been getting. Now, however, with my student budget tightening even further, I'd like to do some research into the differences between the common developers, in this case, the culprits are:

D-76 (started using 2 years ago when started photography. my 1st go to when available)
D-23(never used before---N.U.B.)
Rodinal(N.U.B.)
HC-110(started using this summer, like it)
___________________________
I've scoured the internet, looked at Flickr, have talked to people, but most people, including instructors(past and present) have no idea about the differences between the devs mentioned above. They just use what the school buys(generally d-76 or hc110, and don't experiment. They're not really artists, just teachers, kinda boring if you ask me.

so my end goal would be to be able to mix my own dev's, maybe all my chems, but this might be a long way off. I like the idea of tweaking a dev to meet MY needs, to give me what I like. Call it taming the 'control freak' in me .

any ideas?

also, what are these dev's like in a jobo system? I have found that most people us Rodinal in hand tanks, at 1:50 or 1:100(?) dilutions, and hc-110 has not been recommended for rotary processing. I can do hand tanks, thats no problem.

if this seems a little un-organized, it is . I've had a good long day of printing and developing rolls shot over the thanksgiving holiday.

blessings,

Dan

 

[thisismyname09]

If you like sharpness, I suggest trying rodinal. That said, I believe it will also give you quite a bit of grain. If you like both, its an excellent developer for you. The preservative (NaSO3) in most other developers displaces some of the silver, resulting in finer grain but less sharpness. Rodinal avoids this because its an extremely strong developer. At usable dilutions like 1:50 or 1:100, there isn't enough preservative to make this effect noticable. (source: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html )
I've come across a mixture of Xtol and rodinal that I like. The grain isn't huge but its a bit sharper than straight or dilute xtol. To be honest, I forgot where I got this from, so I can't give credit where credit is due, but here it is:

Xtol = 100 mL
water = 400 mL
Rodinal = 4 to 5 mL

Times @ 24 degrees C. are:
Tri-X (200) = 9 minutes.
Delta 100 = 10.5 minutes.
Verichrome = 8.5 minutes.

iirc, D76 and Xtol are rather similar in terms of results, so you may be able to make a mixture of D76 and rodinal.
I've never used HC110 or D23, so I can't comment on either.

 

[smaloron]

D23 is a very versatile developer and maybe the cheapest and easiest homemade formula.
Since it's a soft working developer, it's well suited to push processing.
You can adjust the contrast by adding an alkaline second bath of borax or sodium carbonate.

The formula is the following :

D23
Water : 750 ml
Metol : 7.5 g
Sodium sulfite : 100 g
Water to make : 1000 ml

use it undiluted or dilute it from 1:1 to 1:3 to get compensating effect.

The second bath can be a 5 to 10% solution of either borax or sodium carbonate. The later producing more contrast than the former.

 

[nworth]

These are four quite different developers. You might say even more than four, since D-76 and D-23 change character a quite a bit with dilution. D-76 is the standard for fine grain developers. It also gives the greatest film speed. When diluted 1+1, D-76 gives up a bit of its fine grain character for a bit more sharpness and somewhat less contrast. D-23 is a close kin to D-76. It gives comparable grain with more compensating action and a bit less speed. For some scenes the compensating action becomes quite evident, and the pictures may look quite different from D-76. When diluted 1+3 it becomes a true compensating developer, quite useful for high contrast situations. It also gains sharpness at the expense of graininess. Rodinal is about the oldest developer around. It has a unique look; the film's characteristic curve is often markedly different from D-76. That said, the gradation is quite pleasant with most films, and it is a favorite of many photographers. At the usual dilutions it can be classed as an acutance developer. Sharpness appears enhanced in many cases because of the acutance effects. Film speed and grain are normal for the film used, but the grain can be quite visible and sharp. HC-110 is Kodak's very successful attempt to make a universal film developer. At various dilutions, it can be used with almost any film for almost any purpose. Used as recommended, it gives snappy results with somewhat grainier appearance than D-76 and somewhat less sharpness than Rodinal. Film speed is about the same as D-76. Many professional photographers have standardized on HC-110. Rodinal and HC-110 have the advantage of being long-lived liquid concentrates.

 

[df cardwell]

Start with what you know. There is no way in the world to understand what different developers can do unless you have some context. There is NO way to approach another developer outside the context of your system, whose only criteria for goodness is "Does THIS approach let me make the picture I WANT to make."

Photography is more about HOW you do something, than WHAT you are using. (Of course, this simple craft approach doesn't allow Marketing folks to sell you their latest product, but it keeps you on the straight and narrow path of making pictures that are wonderful without spending all your time and money fooling around with new developers that take you away from what you are trying to do).

Now, D-76 has been the all-around best developer for 80 years, and one of the reasons is that it supports all kinds of technical subtleties. It is extremely different used straight than used 1+3. VERY different. There is a UNIVERSE of difference between what you can accomplish with those two variations. The key is your technique. (And the key to unlocking the potential of ANY developer is your technique. As you learn how to practice your craft, you are actually changing the potential of your D-76 to make images.) How do you learn that stuff ? That's a very good question. Usually by sticking with the same materials you're using now. My first advice would be stick with D-76. My second, stick to one film. If you narrowed your approach, say, to D-76 and TMY, you can not only duplicate the look of any one of the other film's you are using, but any developer you've asked about. Photography ain't about stuff, it's about YOU.

Now, to answer your questions, briefly, about the other developers.
D-23 IS D-76. Well, it was made by Kodak labs in the late 1930's to meet the needs of commercial photo labs, as an improvement over D-76 as a developer in a large industrial setting. Even if you were developing 100 rolls a week, D-76 and D-23 are effectively the very same thing, and the more you learn about using them, the more alike they become.

HC-110 is a fine developer whose 'signature' can be duplicated by D-76. It, too, was designed for large, commercial labs.
It is very useful developer for photographers, but it offers no real benefits over D-76, and is really more limited in the types of image it can produce. The work you would have to put in to master HC-110 could also be put toward further mastery of D-76, and you'd be farther along the road.

Rodinal is a very fine developer, that I have used for over forty years, and learned how to use it from a photographer who used it for 60 years before he met me ! It was what I used exclusively for the first few years I was a photographer, and it is second nature to me. Even so, there is nothing that you can do with Rodinal that you can't do with D-76; the key is your technique.

My next bit of advice, please forgive me, is to stick with hand tanks. Keep it simple as possible until you absolutely need fancy gear like Jobo.

It is just like learning to play guitar. You can buy all kinds of cr*p for the guitar, but none of it is any use to you until to can really play the guitar. And when you can, you don't need anything but the guitar. Master it, totally. At some point, you'll find that different strings or tunings help you, but until you can charm the birds from the trees with a simple guitar, there is no point messing with more cr*p.

 

[Anscojohn]

D76 is the benchmark against which all other film developers are compared.

Adams called D-23 "semi-compensating"

Rodinal is a "sharpness-look-enhancing" developer.

For years, my standard film developer has been D23, replenished with DK-25R replenisher. One personal note: D23 is absolutely outstanding in rendering smooth skin tones.

 

[Lee L]

You've mentioned in another thread how very reluctant your parents are about allowing the use of photographic chemicals. With that in mind, you might want to try Chris Patton's E-76, which is was designed as a very low toxicity version of D-76. I haven't used or tested it, so I can't say if it mimics all the characteristics of D-76 with dilution, etc. However, if using E-76 can get your parents on board, a developer you can use is de facto better than one that you can't.

E-76 substitutes phenidone for metol, phenidone being considered less toxic, and not causing the allergic reactions that metol can in some people. E-76 replaces hydroquinone with ascorbic acid, aka vitamin C, which many people eat straight for breakfast. The borax in both D-76 and E-76 use is used in your laundry. Sodium sulfite is the other ingredient, and not a risk if you don't swallow a load of it or breath the powder. If you use typical fixer, then you've swum in diluted fixer in a pool.

You'd have to make your own E-76. Instructions are to use as you would D-76. Photographer's Formulary and others have the necessary chemicals. Trader Joe's sells powdered ascorbic acid, as do vitamin stores.

http://www.jackspcs.com/e76.htm

I'm with df on the Jobo. Perhaps most importantly, a Jobo eliminates one of your processing controls; agitation, which can be varied to change the shape and slope (contrast) of the film curve. A Jobo also takes up a lot of room, and unless you have dedicated countertop or sink space to leave it set up, it adds a lot of set up and clean up time to your processing run, and uses a lot of water for the tempering bath.

Lee

 

[Sirius Glass]

I wanted the finest grain I could get with any film so I use XTOL undiluted. I am getting ready to use Rollo Pyro.

Steve

 

[BetterSense]

I use replenished D23 for most everything. It's very convenient, cheap and works. I think I would use Xtol before going back to D76.

 

[MikeSeb]

Good advice here. I'd disagree about the Jobo though, at least for the ATL-1500 I use. It's very economical in its chemistry cosumption, requiring less than 200mL solution to cover a roll of film. The tempering bath, once filled, doesn't require further water. And although the rotation rate of this model is not variable, any disadvantage this might entail is outweighed by the consistency of temp and time control. Not to mention, set-and-forget is darn convenient.

Having been-there-done-that for decades with tedious hand processing of film, I'm more interested now in ease and consistency of results.

 

[DanielStone]

hey guys,

sorry for not getting back to this thread, been a few busy days printing at school for final projects, not to mention shooting for those projects as well :rolleyes:

My next bit of advice, please forgive me, is to stick with hand tanks. Keep it simple as possible until you absolutely need fancy gear like Jobo.

My main question for the Jobo was this: I have access to one. I'm NOT looking to buy one, yet . It's at my local photo center, and looks quite lonely not being used, since 99% of the people there are digi-only, except me . That's why I was looking to use it. I love using hand tanks, and have been getting great results with them since I started in photography a few years ago. Unless I have A LOT of film to develop at once in a short time(then I generally use a lab if necessary), then I like/prefer to use stainless tanks in a water bath. This is for c-41 as well. My primary reason for using it was for speed, and convenience. However, I'm watching for some(well 1 to start off with) NIKOR 4X5 tank, which is inversion, 12 sheets at a time.

My second, stick to one film. If you narrowed your approach, say, to D-76 and TMY, you can not only duplicate the look of any one of the other film's you are using, but any developer you've asked about. Photography ain't about stuff, it's about YOU.

I love TMY-2, its my standard go-to for b/w. But to my eyes, there's something about the Efke 25 that I like, not for all things, but for some things, it just does the trick . If I felt that TMY-2 could give me the look that the Efke does, then it would be my only b/w film, and I would be totally fine with that !

I have been mulling over the Acros thing, and my main reason for trying it originally was for the price factor, its just NUTS CHEAP!!!(price-wise). It might be a hard thing to let go, since some of my best negs have come off of it lately. Just wish it was available in 220 :rolleyes:

__________________________________________

Thanks all for your help, I really appreciate it! If anyone has anything to add, please do!!

-Dan

 

[df cardwell]

JOBO: It is your choice. If you believe it is about the gadgets and the stuff, have fun.

If you can accept the notion that YOU are thing that has to be transformed,
do it by hand until you know how to produce a variety of excellent results with the minimum of gear and
materials.

The fastest way to master this photo thing is to stick with one developer and one film, and learn the craft inside and out. Switching films, trying developers, without a solid foundation is just a crap shoot. You'll get bad results, and blame the material. You'll get good results, and think its great stuff. Getting past random chance is usually the journey photographers don't take.

Have you tried the old assignment of taking a good negative, and producing a hundred different excellent prints from it ? All this talk of film and developer, but what of the thing you put into a frame and hang on the wall ?

Without becoming as good a printer as you can be, or at least pushing yourself, you can't have any idea of what the negative needs to do !

Forgive me, I'm feeling old and dinosaur-like. Its just my feeling nostalgic, and looking back, knowing what I might have done differently and how I could have become better.

Why not 'apprentice' yourself to a photographer you really admire ?

 

[MikeSeb]

Don, you old stegosaur, you're sounding a bit Pappy-deprived....

 

[2F/2F]

I agree with Mr. Cardwell about the Jobo.

They are a great benefit for more sensitive and standardized processes like C-41 and E-6, but unless you need to blow through an ungodly amount of film in a very short time, not that big of a deal for b/w, IMO.

As for Rodinal vs. D-76 vs. D-23...I believe that all three have their applications, and are different enough to warrant using all of them (though I probably would not use both HC-110 and D-76, as they are more similar to each other than either of them is to D-23 IME).

I would shoot three rolls of the same film. Same compositions on each roll. Shoot a bracketed grey card if you want to, though it may be boring. A studio tabletop composition or something of the sort lends itself best to having constant lighting roll to roll. I'd use flash instead of hot lamps, so you get something closer to a daylight color of light. Try one in each developer using the recommended times and keeping all variables except for developer constant. Make proofsheets and see what the differences are. Make blowups and see what the differences are. This should tell you enough to develop an initial impression of each developer.

 

[Anscojohn]

Forgive me, I'm feeling old and dinosaur-like. Its just my feeling nostalgic, and looking back, knowing what I might have done differently and how I could have become better.

**********
What he said. The key is what Edward Weston called learning to "see photographically." To visualize the scene in front of you in terms of what it shall look like in your final print. This requires, in the experience of most of us, such a complete knowledge of materials that the process becomes intuitive, and the camera merely an extension of the eye, brain, and "soul."
Otherwise, to quote an early mentor: "You think you're bein' creative, when all your doin' is making a mess."

 

[Lee L]

Forgive me, I'm feeling old and dinosaur-like. Its just my feeling nostalgic, and looking back, knowing what I might have done differently and how I could have become better.

Nothing a good rowdy night of hadrosaur tipping won't cure. Meet me up by the lake tonight. I'll bring a bottle of 100 million year old single malt.

Lee

 

[BradS]

The fastest way to master this photo thing is to stick with one developer and one film, and learn the craft inside and out. Switching films, trying developers, without a solid foundation is just a crap shoot. You'll get bad results, and blame the material. You'll get good results, and think its great stuff. Getting past random chance is usually the journey photographers don't take.

I wish that somebody had clearly and emphatically made this point to me about thirty years ago (whether or not my ego and vanity would have allowed me to value it is another thing!). It wasn't until very recently (and relatively late in life) that I actually followed this sage advice and constrained my self to one film, one developer and virtually, one camera and lens for a whole year. I cannot begin to explain the magnitude of the benefit I received from this discipline. I also realize now that I never really knew what the hell I was doing....just playing random chance. ....eh, hindsight!

Why not 'apprentice' yourself to a photographer you really admire ?

Can one really do this in this day and age?

Otherwise, to quote an early mentor: "You think you're bein' creative, when all your doin' is making a mess."

Oh, that's good!

 

[Ronald Moravec]

D76 can be used stock, 1:1, or 1:3 which is a dilution rarely talked about. It yields a sharp image and less fine grain. Developing times get long at at that dilution, 15/20 minutes.

With most developers, as you increase dilution, grain gets prominent and sharpness increases. In fact that is the trade off in most all developers, they are god at ONLY ONE of three things, fine grain, sharpness, or higher film speed. No developer gets more than one. D76 is average for all three at stock. It is a middle of the road developer suitable most most all applications. Microdol or Perceptal are fine grain at expense of sharpness and film speed. If you dilute them, you get the speed and sharpness back, but lose the fine grain. Fine grain means mushy grain, not that it disappears. For invisable grain go to large format, small prints, or digital.

Don`t screw around trying all this stuff. It is already well establish fact. Pick one and use it and concentrate on developing photo skills. Your time will be better spent.

New films are less effected by these variables than the old emulsions so you really can`t try them all anyway.

 

[juan]

I agree with df cardwell - especially that photography is about you. I disagree on one point, however. There is an advantage in HC-110 and Rodinal when used as a one shot. If you don't develop a lot, D-76 can go bad over time. HC-110 and Rodinal, in concentrate, will last much longer, thus having less waste.
juan

 

[Saganich]

I've had very nice results with Rodinol with the EFKE 25. At dilution 1:50 I drop the ASA to 12, 4 min at 20C. I liked to push the toe a bit on this film. Given your purposes and situation I would start with HC-110 or rodinol because they store easily, aren't messy, and are concentrated pre mix. After using-up a bottle of each you will know what you like.