Experimenting with developers and film

I need some help regaining my sanity, because I feel I'm going insane. I've introduced too many variables into my exploration.

Over the past year I've shot mostly DD-X and HP5 @ 800. This year, I decided to experiment more and start shooting also at 1600, at the same time considering Tri-X and TMax 400, as well as experimenting with developers (I currently have Ilfotec HC, Microphen and Rodinal).

My goal is to find a look and feel which works for me and go for that consistently. However, this is a painful process which will take me a loooooot of time to explore because I shoot around one film per week. That means one test per week. By the time I get to try all dilutions, stand vs. non-stand, all developers, all films, both at 800 and 1600, including the failures which will need correction, I will go insane and have lost a lot of potentially valuable memories (not to speak of the inconsistent look over time).

My goal with photography is to photograph my family, friends and everyday life in a documentary like fashion. That's why I chose to push to 800 or 1600 so I can shoot in both low light (indoors) and day light (outside). I need to stop this madness and just stick to one.

I was very inspired by the work of Ralph Gibson (I know, not documentary photography) who I know uses Rodinal, and some other people I admire. In my limited trials (including stand), I really liked it. I loved the sharpness, and I love the grain (when not too excessive - I found HP5@1600 in stand to be perfectly acceptable to me both in terms of grain and shadow detail). Microphen was also fantastic @1600. With Ilfotec HC I'm still experimenting and the last roll of HP5@800 I shot with 1+31 at 9.5 minutes as per Ilford's instructions came out over developed. I'll need to correct for this next time.

My question is: is it possible to obtain (more or less) the same result with all of these developers by varying agitation technique, dilution and time? I realise Microphen is what it is, with little room for variety, and it's a great one, but I'm talking about HC and Rodinal.

Can Rodinal be successfully used for pushing with enough time and low agitation? Can it bring back shadow details like Microphen does through compensation in for example stand development? Can HC be better with enough practice? I'm going insane here with too many variable which I need to reduce. I really like the sharpness of Rodinal (ADOX), but I'm getting mixed messages about it's usability. Official documents say (https://www.adox.de/Photo/keeping-properties-of-developers/, as well as http://www.mironchuk.com/hc-110.html) that Rodinal goes bad quickly. And yes I know about the myths of Rodinal lasting decades. HC on the other hand keeps very well but I've not been getting very good results in my limited trials.

I'm hoping someone can knock me back to my senses because browsing around forums reveals so many different opinions that one has no idea what the actual truth is without trying it out on their own. To re-iterate my goal:

• I need to decide between Tri-X, HP5 and TMax-400 to see which one is best pushed at 800 and 1600 in terms of shadow detail, contrast, sharpness, tonality. This is a 100% subjective matter so I don't expect someone else to tell me the answer.
• I need to find a developer which works with the film above and find a technique with that developer which I can stick to reliably, consistently, and on the long term. Without the fear of missing out on something that would be better.
• Given that I do documentary-style photography, the developer will likely have to apply more or less generally for what I do, and not some specific use case (e.g. landscape)
• I have to chose between Ilfotec HC, Rodinal or Microphen (XTOL also could be an option).

It also confuses me reading about all these speed-enhancing, speed-losing, compensating developers. While I somewhat get the concept - I wonder how big the difference actually is... Maybe I should just take XTOL (never tried it), chose one film, and get along...

Thanks for reading. I hope all this rambling is at least a little bit coherent.

I've used Parodinal (homebrewed work-alike) for two stop push of both Fomapan 100 and Fomapan 400 -- which I use a lot more than Kodak or Ilford B&W -- with good results (better with the 100). I used to process at 1:50 for double the dev chart time, but agitate only every third minute. Worked great. My normal process then was +50% time with three minute agitation cycles, so this was a pretty straight forward push.

I've pushed in HC-110, too (the old syrup), but I mostly quit using that when I started mixing my own Parodinal (nickel a roll!), and never tried it with the combination of high dilution, extended process, and reduced agitation.

I would give XTOL a try. Start with a 1+1 dilution. Since this only comes as a powder making 5 liters (10 liters when eventually diluted 1+1 just prior to use), this will commit you to 35-40 rolls of 35mm film. Stick to a single temperature for development and a single agitation routine, but vary the development time to get the look you want. Develop longer for more contrast or shorter for less contrast.

To be honest, you could apply this approach with just about any developer. Any of the films and developers you listed could produce the look you want. I personally don't use Rodinal for 400 ISO films (although many do). I have used HC-110 with fast films, but it is not recommended for some Foma films I shoot. XTOL will give decent results with just about any films with published times. You can then vary development as you like. I would stick with one film until you optimize results for that film. If you have doubts you can then try another film. I think any of the three films you list would work well with XTOL. Just pick one and stick with it (I personally like TX400, but that is just personal preference).

Wow... here a lot of film and developers.
If it was me I’d just settle on one film, and one developer. I’ve never used rodinol and I can’t stand xTol I’d use something really plain and ez to find, easy to use, tried and true like d76 or buy some ingredients and make your own d23. its 2 ingredients ( metol and sodium sulfite )
https://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/D-23.php
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/kodak-d-23-developer.28994/

.. most developers are just developers.. might as well use one that has been around forever
Why make life difficult, too much film and too many developers is a distraction
spend your time making exposures, bracket your film, maybe get a flash and a pc cord so its off camera and
learn about light..

flavor of the month doesn't help anyone.. good luck !

Rodinal is a fantastic, reliable developer that gives consistent results and it's very very cheap.
The only issue I've run into with rodinal so far is that overexposure by too much can give you huge grain.
I vote Rodinal.

Thank you all for the replies.

Perhaps I should just stick with HP5 and Ilfotec HC until I finish my stash of HP5. I have about 20 left. That should be enough to get a fairly decent impression of one combo. Then I might Tri-X with Rodinal next. My unopened bottle of ADOX Rodinal should keep well in the fridge... Although I wonder - since Microphen is made specifically for pushing, am I not just wasting time using Ilfotec HC? Shouldn't I just go straight for the dev which is meant for pushing? Would I be missing out with Ilfotec HC or would I be able to obtain the same or similar results given the right technique (i.e. longer dev times, higher dilutions, less agitation, perhaps even semi-stand or stand techniques) ?

I'd be more concerned with HP5 than the Ilfotec HC if my goal was to use the film at a higher than ISO speed.
Rodinal would not be my choice for that - it is the opposite of a speed enhancing developer.
Personally, I would use T-Max 400 and X-Tol, but that is my preference, not yours.
Although you must admit that having the same recommended development time for film that is exposed at EIs of 400 and 800 is very convenient.

Your unopened bottle of ADOX Rodinal will probably last longer than your refrigerator.

I suspect you can get what you want from any film/developer combo you listed. I would not recommend changing film and developer at the same time. With 20 rolls of HP5+ to work with, you will likely find the sweet spot with Ilfotec HC and have no reason to change.

You can spend your entire life searching for the "perfect" film developer combination and never find it. With a little effort, you will find a way to make HP5+ and Ilfotec HC accomplish what you want.

Wallendo said:

Your unopened bottle of ADOX Rodinal will probably last longer than your refrigerator.

I suspect you can get what you want from any film/developer combo you listed. I would not recommend changing film and developer at the same time. With 20 rolls of HP5+ to work with, you will likely find the sweet spot with Ilfotec HC and have no reason to change.

You can spend your entire life searching for the "perfect" film developer combination and never find it. With a little effort, you will find a way to make HP5+ and Ilfotec HC accomplish what you want.

Click to expand...

True, maybe, but my head is already going on about all the wonderful things I've read and seen with Rodinal stand development, the beautiful acutance, etc. I don't know if Ilfotec HC can accomplish that... But you're right. I should probably use those 20+ rolls and discipline myself, otherwise I'll just go insane

MattKing said:

I'd be more concerned with HP5 than the Ilfotec HC if my goal was to use the film at a higher than ISO speed.
Rodinal would not be my choice for that - it is the opposite of a speed enhancing developer.
Personally, I would use T-Max 400 and X-Tol, but that is my preference, not yours.
Although you must admit that having the same recommended development time for film that is exposed at EIs of 400 and 800 is very convenient.

Click to expand...

It's exactly reading posts like this that confuse me. I do agree with you, and I'm sure that's a great combo, but there's many many people who do very well pushing HP5 with both HC and Rodinal. It's a known fact that HP5 has a great latitude. The thing is that I have to find out for myself what I like, since all these things are subjective and what's good for one person may be bad for another. What I need help with is finding a sane process to explore these variations...

Possibly I miss it, but whats your end goal? Darkroom prints or?

cjbecker said:

Possibly I miss it, but whats your end goal? Darkroom prints or?

Click to expand...

Scans, possibly followed by prints (of those scans). In the future, I might decide to try darkroom printing, but it's not currently a goal.

No matter what your goal is find a film and developer combination that meets your needs. HP5 is a very good film, more of an old fashion type film while Delta and Tmax have smaller grain and better resolution some feel that that tubular grain films lack personality. Ilford tech is Ilford's version Kodak HC 110, good shelf life, can be at different dilutions for different looks. With 35mm I use Rodinal with slow speed films like Foma 100 or Tmax 100, with higher speed films I use developers that have a balance of speed, shadow detail, and sharpness, Xtol, Ilford Tech, HC 110, D76 or ID 11 all fit the bill. DDX as you know is also a very good developer but it was designed for T grain films and has less solvent because grain films have smaller grain to begin with so when with a traditional grained film like HP5 the gain can be course but has increased inherent sharpness. With a scanned print that you are looking at on a monitor issues with gain may not show up as they would with a wet print.

Is there anything you don't like about HP 5 and DDX?

Paul Howell said:

Is there anything you don't like about HP 5 and DDX?

Click to expand...

Thanks Paul. I watched this video on Youtube by Matt Day where he shows how flat DD-X is compared to HC. Looking back at my photos I can see that too. It looks a bit gray throughout but perhaps that can be changed too with technique. Hard to say if I dislike anything given that it was the only developer I knew, I wanted to explore with some others too. HC and Rodinal being classics, they were both very attractive. And Microphen I tried because Ilford recommends it for pushing. It does look great with 1600. Have not tried with 800 yet.

My suggestion: waste film.

Essentially, if I got you right, you have three films: Tri-X, HP5 and TMax-400 that you want to try pushed. Take only max 3 to 5 shots of each roll in two different lighting situation (one outdoor daylight, full or shade, and one low indoor light) using two rolls of each (i.e., 1 roll of HP5 3 to 5 shots in daylight + 1 roll of HP5 3 to 5 shots low indoor light, 1 roll of Tri-X 3 to 5 shots daylight, etc.), all pushed either at 800 or 1600 (or ISO 400 for the outdoor and ISO 1600 for indoor shots, depending on your practice).

With only 3-5 shots of each roll, quickly going from one film type to the other, all the shooting can be done in one day. And you'll have the same images and lighting conditions for each film type, which will make it easier to compare and find the combo you like.

Development will take a bit longer (that's a total of 6 individual rolls to develop if my math is right). But all in all, you're talking about three to four days for the whole basic testing process.

Once you find a combo you like, then you can experiment a little more with agitation and the rest.

Gabriel Aszalos said:

It's exactly reading posts like this that confuse me. I do agree with you, and I'm sure that's a great combo, but there's many many people who do very well pushing HP5 with both HC and Rodinal. It's a known fact that HP5 has a great latitude. The thing is that I have to find out for myself what I like, since all these things are subjective and what's good for one person may be bad for another. What I need help with is finding a sane process to explore these variations...

Click to expand...

You should probably understand first that I am not a fan of the results one gets by under-exposing film and then trying to compensate partially by pushing the development.
All that a pushed development does (mostly) is increase contrast of the mid-tones and highlights, with the under-exposed shadows mainly left to fend on their own (with resulting loss of detail).
HP5+ doesn't respond the same way to increased development as Tri-X which doesn't respond the same way as T-Max 400 which doesn't respond the same way as .... (you probably can see where I am going on this).
At all cost, you should avoid references to latitude in anything you see on the internet, because very few people think of it in the same way. Most importantly though, it almost always is related to over-exposure latitude, and push development will totally distort that.
HP5+ doesn't build contrast in the same way as some of the alternatives. So if you are pushing development in order to build contrast (which is what pushing is) than you need to decide whether HP5+ is the appropriate film for what you are trying to do.
You may prefer a film that doesn't increase contrast as much with increased development. That would be fine, as long as you like those results.
In my experience, I get the best results with film rated at or near its ISO speed, developed normally. I mostly darkroom print, but I like to share scans as well.
So far (15 years of scanning vs. 50+ years of darkroom) my experience leads me to the conclusion that lower contrast negatives are slightly easier to scan than to print in the darkroom, while higher contrast negatives are slightly easier to print in the darkroom than to scan.
I hope this helps. But I'm sure that choosing a developer and using it with the same film for a number of rolls will help you more.

Ilford HP5+ is a fine film. (I prefer a traditional grain rather than tabular T grain). Ilfotec HC is a great developer and is in many ways the Swiss army knife of developers. It is very flexible and a direct equivalent of the old version of HC-110. 1:31 can be a bit on the hot side with traditional agitation regime and I think it works best at 1:63 (dilution H as per Covington and Mironchuk). My best advice is to eliminate as many variables as possible. You will indeed loose the cheese off your cracker if you keep this madness up. Pick a film to use, either HP5+ or Tri-X would do, and stick with it. Pick a good developer that will achieve what you are after. HC is as good as any, and a fine place to start. Don't get fixated on pushing the bejeesus out of film as there is always a loss somewhere for any perceived gain in speed, usually dead shadow areas. If possible use fast glass rather than pushing. Prime lenses are great in low light and even a cheapo 50mm is around f1.8, that's 2 stops faster than most zooms. Finally do some actual speed testing, once you pick a ball park developing time. Bracket every shot for 2 or 3 films and you will soon get a feel for what is going on and be closer to establishing your personal exposure index or sweet spot. Good luck.

I've used DDX and Tmax developer with Tmax 100 and 400, and liked the results, but not so much with older non t grain films, had to increase the development time and drop the ISO rating. So, what I would do is shoot a ring around. Which is: in open shade make a set up, something large enough to see like a dark swath of cloth, zone II, shadow detail, another light colored in Zone VII high lights, is possible a model with a fair skin complexion, Zone VI. Start with by setting your camera or meter to ISO 25 or lowest setting, shoot a frame, then shoot an empty frame, shoot next frame at ISO 50, and repeat with an empty frame between each ISO until you've maxed out your cameras or meters ISO then develop at the recommended time and temperature for the film. Once fixed, washed and dried you can scan, keep good notes and find the ISO with open shadow details, unblocked highlights and correct looking skin tones that, your personal ISO or E.I for that film and developer. Sacrifice a few rolls so you can compare one developer against another until you fine the combo you like, then stop. There are folks who really enjoy testing different combinations, that's not me.

Gabriel Aszalos said:

I need some help regaining my sanity, because I feel I'm going insane. I've introduced too many variables into my exploration..

Click to expand...

In photography there is almost infinite variables in terms of camera adjustments, film, film development, printing and variations of all of these ad infinitum. Experimentation is a good idea, but then try and simplify your MO to use one type of camera, one type of film, same developer and print process. You can then concentrate on what you see through the viewfinder.

Unfortunately ,, you live far from me in Romania.
If you lived in Egypt.
I will give you every week a new developer. You can even then try most types and classes of developers.
The types and classes of developers are like fruits. Each fruit has a different flavor.

Funny that you mention HP5+ in DD-X. That's what I've been experimenting on these days. Found that with contrasty scenes, shot at box speed with normal development, contrast becomes really strong. I really don't see it as "grey", as others have mentioned.

First image is the original. Highlights are really blown. Part of it might be the scan (not under my control, done by lab).

Exposure toned down and contrast toned way down in Lightroom (image two) show that the information is well recorded.

Some might like it, but it's not to my taste, even though the negatives would be quite workable in the darkroom.

Shot on 4x5 (Linhof Technika), 135mm lens @ f/22.

Regarding the long life of Rodinal, a friend was cleaning out their darkroom and said "Do you want this stuff?" and gave me two partially-filled bottles of Rodinal. It was still branded "Agfa." I tried it on a test roll and it worked exactly like the newer stuff I had.

I would suggest focusing on your vision, not on chemistry. And I say that as a biomedical research chemist! Although I feel that I am still inexperienced in the wide world of developers, films, and papers, I do not feel that I have wasted my time pushing forward with the ideas and the vision. there is time later to fine tune the process...

Gabriel Aszalos said:

My goal with photography is to photograph my family, friends and everyday life in a documentary like fashion. That's why I chose to push to 800 or 1600 so I can shoot in both low light (indoors) and day light (outside).

Click to expand...

Using film camera for outdoor work and a good digital camera for indoor low light scenes is perhaps the best solution if you are worried about losing "a lot of potentially valuable memories".

Brendan Quirk said:

I would suggest focusing on your vision, not on chemistry. And I say that as a biomedical research chemist! Although I feel that I am still inexperienced in the wide world of developers, films, and papers, I do not feel that I have wasted my time pushing forward with the ideas and the vision. there is time later to fine tune the process...

Click to expand...

This is very good advice, and it's what I want to do. I feel like this is currently getting in the way. I just want to find one combo and stick to it. I would like to try XTOL too for some reasons I'm reading about: it's speed enhancing, it has some higher degree of acutance (at 1:1), it's more environment friendly, and I really like the idea of just having it mixed. Seems to tick all the boxes. I would probably like the look. I suspect Microphen should be similar since it's also phenodine based. Currently XTOL is out of stock everywhere. Apparently Kodak has some distribution issues...

To me, Rodinal was more of a curiosity due to all the photographers I admire. Also all I read about stand development, and the little I have experienced myself, also makes me curious. As for HC/HC-110, I'm not sure if it's for me. I will give it one last shot. The last roll of HP5@800 I developed using dilution B for 9.5 minutes came out way too grainy and thick. I'm going to try 1+50 next (to have 6ml + 300ml in the tank), I'm going to "guesstimate" that to 15 minutes and add another 5 minutes on top for the reduced agitation I'm going to use: once every 3 minutes. If that still sucks, I'll probably give up on it. I hope I find someone to sell it too. Or, I can just keep it since it lasts forever anyway...