Experiment -- Dektol as film developer

[MattKing]

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.

@George Collier
Did you perhaps mean John Sexton?

 

[Vaughn]

It's alive! How did I miss this thread a decade ago?

I contact in-camera negatives with both platinum and carbon processes, so grain is usually not an issue. Developed some 11x14 negatives (FP4+) this week in Ilford Universal PQ Developer. I vary the dilution depending on the scene's brightness range and printing process's needs (and keeping the develop times reasonable)...often at the 'paper dilution' of 1:9, but down to 1:19.

I have also used Dektol straight, as I did in the image below of the Golden Gate Bridge structure from the top of Fort Point (carbon print from a 4x10 negative taken on a very windy day).

PyrocatHD is my other developer I use.

 

[Ian Grant]

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.

Dektol in the US, and D163 here in the UK/Europe were marketed as Universal developers, D163 had Universal Developer on the packaging. When I was at school, the nearest stockist was a chemists (drug store) with a photo section, another student asked if he could borrow my SLR and 135mm lens for a weekend, lent me his Yashica 125G. The girl in the shop said this is the ideal developer for Tri-X - D163, the result grain like golf balls, she hadn't a clue but then neither did I, aged 14. That started the learning curve.

Ian

 

[Donald Qualls]

Tri-X - D163, the result grain like golf balls,

Yeah, pretty much what you'd have gotten with Rodinal and Tri-X back then. There's plenty of sulfite in the Dektol stock solution, but after diluting 1+9, there isn't that much in a tank full of working solution.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's alive! How did I miss this thread a decade ago?

I contact in-camera negatives with both platinum and carbon processes, so grain is usually not an issue. Developed some 11x14 negatives (FP4+) this week in Ilford Universal PQ Developer. I vary the dilution depending on the scene's brightness range and printing process's needs (and keeping the develop times reasonable)...often at the 'paper dilution' of 1:9, but down to 1:19.

I have also used Dektol straight, as I did in the image below of the Golden Gate Bridge structure from the top of Fort Point (carbon print from a 4x10 negative taken on a very windy day).

PyrocatHD is my other developer I use.

PQ Universal at 1+19 or 1+29 is a superb fine grain developer, I used it a lot for commercial work with Ilford Ortho sheet film, 1970s/80s, occasionally FP4 as well. I did some tests with 35mm FP4 around 1986/7 based on the May & Baker (Champion) Suprol datasheet, which was extremely detailed, it was about 30 pages. Suprol was used for fine grain commercial D&P B&W film processing, as well as Reversal processing, at the time UK TV was still mostly B&W.

Ian

 

[Vaughn]

Thanks, Ian. The combo of FP4+ and Ilford Universal PQ was recommended for platinum printers by Terry King (Royal Photo Society), as he claimed it expanded the contrast needed for platinum printing while expanding the midtones nicely along with the highlights. Can't complain about the combo.

 

[Ian Grant]

Vaughn, it's worth looking at the Ilford Ortho Plus data sheet for processing with PQ Universal. If I ran out of Ilford Ortho I would use FP4 instead, aside from the slight speed increase the two films behave virtually identically in terms of development and contrast.

Ian

 

[Vaughn]

Thanks again, Ian. I'll have to look back at my records and do some more testing with the Ortho Plus. I have a couple boxes of 4x5 (and a partial box somewhere) and have not used it enough to remember the results I had gotten. I know it did not give me the results I was expecting/hoping for (I was looking for something as extreme as the old Kodak Professional Copy Film...4125.)

Might be good a good choice if I can ever go backpacking again...my 4x5 set-up is pretty light.

 

[George Collier]

@George Collier
Did you perhaps mean John Sexton?

Sorry, Matt, just saw this - yes, of course I meant John Sexton - the other name was a friend from the past.