Experiment -- Dektol as film developer

traveler_101 · Mar 19, 2014

Uncharacteristically, I decided I wanted to try something different. Can't remember where I read about getting really high contrast negatives using Dektol. Did a search and found this discussion back in '09 with some formulas and recollections about the golden days of newspaper photography in the 1960s. (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I bought the Dektol. Anyone have any suggestion as to what film I should use? Any advice about processing?

Thanks in advance.

Ian Grant · Mar 19, 2014

Look up D72 in an old Kodak databook, it is Dektol, plenty of information in US publications, it wasn't sold until more recently in the UK, we had D163 instead.

Best with sheet films try FP4 or Plus X.

Ian

jp498 · Mar 19, 2014

I've developed xray film in dektol; diluted it 1+3. Just got the film wet in a pre-wash tray then slipped it into the dektol and watched it develop (of course it's milky till fixed though). Shoot a photo of a step wedge or gradient to see how contrast is affected by your developer choice and you can adjust exposure and development by how the step wedge gradient comes out.

Ian Grant · Mar 19, 2014

I should have added D72/Dektol was formulated to be a plate/film developer, it was later sold as a film & paper developer,

Ian

traveler_101 · Mar 19, 2014

So Dektol is D-72 . . . didn't know that. Should be helpful. Haven't posted here much and it's been some time since I did, so perhaps I can be forgiven for forgetting the context. You fellows are serious, shooting large format and developing in dark rooms. I shoot 35mm film about half the time/digital the rest. No dark room either: I just process in the bathroom and scan the negatives. Wish I had sufficient space to put in a dark room and wet print . . . it's just a dream at this point

I was just wondering if there is a 35mm film that might take better to this kind of processing. Perhaps the answer is the cheapest 400 speed film I can get my hands on.

Tom1956 · Mar 19, 2014

Dektol is OK. Pretty grainy, but probably no worse than Rodinal, and you know what a fan following that stuff has. As far as I know Dektol is just a consumer formula of D-72, probably with/without certain ingredients related to stability in the qualities of water all over the world that it would end up getting mixed in. Kodak seemed to have made it a point to put products out there that could enjoy maximum stability and consistency.

Paul Howell · Mar 19, 2014

The massaive development chart has a number of times for Dektol. A number of years ago, late 90s I was shooting a bookcover the art director wanted a high contrast grainey look, I shot HP 5 4x5 and developed in Dektol stock for 3 mints and 1:1 for 4 mints the 1:1 was printable but really dense, the stock was just too dense. If I were to go again I would try 1:5 at 4 mints. The 4X5 was very grainey, for MF or 34mm I would think about 1:10 or even semi stand 1:100 for a couple of hours.

Massive Dev Chart Search Results
Film Developer Dilution ASA/ISO 35mm 120 Sheet Temp Notes
APX 100 Dektol 1+1 100 13 13 13 20C
APX 100 Dektol 1+1 400 26 26 26 20C
Arista Premium 400 Dektol 1+3 400 3.5 24C
Arista Premium 400 Dektol 1+10 400 5 22C
Eastman 5234 Dektol stock 6.5 [notes]
Eastman 5234 Dektol stock 12 7.5 24C [notes]
Eastman 5234 Dektol stock 25 12.5 24C [ notes]
SHD 100 Dektol 1+10 400 5 5 20C
Technical Pan Dektol stock 200 3 3 3 20C [notes]
TMax 100 Dektol 1+4 100 4.5 4.5 4.5 20C
TMax 100 Dektol 1+9 100 6.75 6.75 6.75 20C
Tri-X 400 Dektol 1+3 400 3.5 3.5 24C
Tri-X 400 Dektol 1+10 400 5 5 22C

destroya · Mar 19, 2014

i use it for a 1st developer when doing reversal for B&W.

removed account4 · Mar 19, 2014

some say to use the dilution factor for your time

1:7 for 7 mins
1:10 for 10 mins

have fun !
john

traveler_101 · Mar 19, 2014

PDH said:
The massaive development chart has a number of times for Dektol. A number of years ago, late 90s I was shooting a bookcover the art director wanted a high contrast grainey look, I shot HP 5 4x5 and developed in Dektol stock for 3 mints and 1:1 for 4 mints the 1:1 was printable but really dense, the stock was just too dense. If I were to go again I would try 1:5 at 4 mints. The 4X5 was very grainey, for MF or 34mm I would think about 1:10 or even semi stand 1:100 for a couple of hours.

Thanks! Read somewhere that the formula was 1:3 for 3 minutes to 1:7 for 7 minutes. So perhaps I'll try 1:10 for 10 minutes. Will check massive development chart also.

traveler_101 · Mar 19, 2014

jnanian said:
some say to use the dilution factor for your time

1:7 for 7 mins
1:10 for 10 mins

have fun !
john

Right! Our posts crossed paths. Yes, I think this is fun!

removed account4 · Mar 19, 2014

traveler_101 said:
Right! Our posts crossed paths. Yes, I think this is fun!

pretty soon you will be using 1 developer for everything ( like me ! )

ps from what i remember using 1:3 / mins you don't agitate
but i can't speak from experience, just what is written online

in days gone by you had to stick the wet film in your enlarger to print it
after you processed it in dektol .. but i have a feeling you won't be pulling
a jimmy olson

traveler_101 · Mar 19, 2014

jnanian said:
pretty soon you will be using 1 developer for everything ( like me ! )

ps from what i remember using 1:3 / mins you don't agitate
but i can't speak from experience, just what is written online

in days gone by you had to stick the wet film in your enlarger to print it
after you processed it in dektol .. but i have a feeling you won't be pulling
a jimmy olson

Yeah, it was all about speed: 3 minutes develop, get the print, publish.

tony lockerbie · Mar 19, 2014

Had a friend back in the seventies who used to process Tri-X rated at 3200 in Dektol, very grainy, very contrasty....but that was the seventies!

Bill Burk · Mar 19, 2014

In a recent thread, I experimented with Dektol and Tri-X with the aim towards making grain as visible as possible in the print.

So I aimed to put "the right" amount of exposure on the film, and to develop the film "the right" amount to get the most visible grain.

It worked.**

---

Dektol 1:9 because higher concentrations proved harder to control.

5 minutes (4 - 6 minutes) at 20C for a "N" Normal (7 stops) scene.

Should give about 0.45 Contrast Index (0.4 - 0.5 CI), a little less than what you might call normal.

Approximately good fit for Grade 4 paper on a Diffuse Enlarger (Grade 4 - Grade 3).

Measured film speed EI 125 (because underdevelopment reduces film speed).

But I recommend underexposing (relative to the measured film speed) by rating the film at EI 200.

This will help "Zone V" approach 0.30 density (which is where LP Clerc says you will see the most graininess).

---

See posts 52, 55 and 57 of this thread for the recommendation:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

See posts 25 and 27 of this thread for the pictures:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

**If you are not looking for the grainiest results, but instead are looking for the most contrast...

(I believe that's what you want, after all that's what you said you were looking for)...

Then to get higher contrast, develop longer than 5 minutes.

That might change things a bit from what I recommended.

For example, if you develop to normal Contrast Index (around 0.6), then you will get closer to film speed 400...

And to underexpose a similar amount, in that situation you would shoot at EI 650.

And so on, as you develop longer, you probably can keep upping the EI accordingly, until you get out of my comfort zone (I'm only comfortable with negatives that are easy to print on Grade 2 or 3).

Mark Crabtree · Mar 20, 2014

jnanian said:
some say to use the dilution factor for your time

1:7 for 7 mins
1:10 for 10 mins

have fun !
john

That's cool. Easy to remember, and jives with my experience; at least should give a ballpark starting time. I developed a lot of Cirkut film in motel bathrooms for proofing jobs. Usually 9.5 inch aerial film in Dektol 1:3 for 2.5 to 3' IIRC . Then just bump up the developer concentration in the same tray to make a proof print from the still wet negative. Oh how I don't miss that.

traveler_101 · Mar 20, 2014

Bill Burk said:
In a recent thread, I experimented with Dektol and Tri-X with the aim towards making grain as visible as possible in the print.

So I aimed to put "the right" amount of exposure on the film, and to develop the film "the right" amount to get the most visible grain.

It worked.**

---

Dektol 1:9 because higher concentrations proved harder to control.

5 minutes (4 - 6 minutes) at 20C for a "N" Normal (7 stops) scene.

Should give about 0.45 Contrast Index (0.4 - 0.5 CI), a little less than what you might call normal.

Approximately good fit for Grade 4 paper on a Diffuse Enlarger (Grade 4 - Grade 3).

Measured film speed EI 125 (because underdevelopment reduces film speed).

But I recommend underexposing (relative to the measured film speed) by rating the film at EI 200.

This will help "Zone V" approach 0.30 density (which is where LP Clerc says you will see the most graininess).

---

See posts 52, 55 and 57 of this thread for the recommendation:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

See posts 25 and 27 of this thread for the pictures:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

**If you are not looking for the grainiest results, but instead are looking for the most contrast...

(I believe that's what you want, after all that's what you said you were looking for)...

Then to get higher contrast, develop longer than 5 minutes.

That might change things a bit from what I recommended.

For example, if you develop to normal Contrast Index (around 0.6), then you will get closer to film speed 400...

And to underexpose a similar amount, in that situation you would shoot at EI 650.

And so on, as you develop longer, you probably can keep upping the EI accordingly, until you get out of my comfort zone (I'm only comfortable with negatives that are easy to print on Grade 2 or 3).

Bill, thanks much! Yes, I'm looking for high contrast images--not really grainy ones. You are talking over my head, but I think I understand. Based on your numbers it looks like Tri-X shot at box speed and developed in Dektol 1:9 for 9 minutes would be good.

traveler_101 · Mar 20, 2014

Mark Crabtree said:
That's cool. Easy to remember, and jives with my experience; at least should give a ballpark starting time. I developed a lot of Cirkut film in motel bathrooms for proofing jobs. Usually 9.5 inch aerial film in Dektol 1:3 for 2.5 to 3' IIRC . Then just bump up the developer concentration in the same tray to make a proof print from the still wet negative. Oh how I don't miss that.

" . . . how I don't miss that": even in our age characterised by an intense longing for the past, one is reminded from time to time that our view of the past world is very nostalgic.

RalphLambrecht · Mar 20, 2014

tony lockerbie said:
Had a friend back in the seventies who used to process Tri-X rated at 3200 in Dektol, very grainy, very contrasty....but that was the seventies!

I forgot all about the 70s;too many drugs in the late 60s

pentaxuser · Mar 20, 2014

RalphLambrecht said:
I forgot all about the 70s;too many drugs in the late 60s

Ralph you were lucky to recover enough to write "Way Beyond Monochrome". An APUGer whose name escapes me reckons that from drugs of that era his brother still thinks he's a banana

I'll never forget that line. It made me chuckle for days

pentaxuser

Jim Jones · Mar 20, 2014

Print developer was my choice for getting exaggerated contrast with modest grain from Tech Pan. I bracketed the exposure around ISO 250 or 400, and developed maybe three minutes after an initial water bath. It was great for enhancing the texture of clouds, and with a red and/or polarizer, knocking down the blue sky!

Bill Burk · Mar 22, 2014

traveler_101 said:
Bill, thanks much! Yes, I'm looking for high contrast images--not really grainy ones. You are talking over my head, but I think I understand. Based on your numbers it looks like Tri-X shot at box speed and developed in Dektol 1:9 for 9 minutes would be good.

Hey traveler_101,

I meant to answer right away but got distracted...

Yes, absolutely, yes... Shooting Tri-X at box speed and developing in Dektol 1:9 for 9 minutes would be good.

Reinhold · Nov 24, 2024

At 90, I've forgotten most of this stuff~
Now it's useful 'cause I want to shoot 5x7 with my Wollaston's again...
Reinhold

Re-Invented Photo Equipment

George Collier · Nov 25, 2024

A friend of mine took a George Sexton workshop, and told me that Sexton used dektol for sheet film as a norm. I've also heard this elsewhere.

Donald Qualls · Nov 25, 2024

I believe when I first took a photography course (1 week summer camp, 1969) the instructor used Dektol for our film as well as for our prints. I'd guess this was because he could get enough Dektol to cover both needs for the entire summer (multiple camps sequentially for IIRC four different age groups) for less than buying both D-76 and Dektol. The first time I developed film on my own (the next summer) I used some Kodak MQ Universal that I understood (then and more recently) was equivalent to Dektol. And more recently, I've used Dektol at 1+9 for film. It's good stuff; with a crisper grain than D-76 and similar; in fact, the look is a bit like Rodinal, but with two developing agents it gives a bit better speed (maybe 1/3 stop?) than Rodinal if your agitation and final contrast are the same.

Experiment -- Dektol as film developer

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency