Experimenting with developers and film

[Danner]

I agree with the XTOL recommendations. Its a well rounded developer in many (nearly all) situations. You can certainly that get classic film-look with 1:1 dilution and a 2-stop push.

But, try some HP5 at box speed with stock XTOL, it controls the grain nicely.

 

[Gabriel Aszalos]

I agree with the XTOL recommendations. Its a well rounded developer in many (nearly all) situations. You can certainly that get classic film-look with 1:1 dilution and a 2-stop push.

But, try some HP5 at box speed with stock XTOL, it controls the grain nicely.

I am only interested in pushing (800 or 1600). I read some posts about XTOL being flat (similar to DD-X) which are putting me off a bit. I will give HC a few more tries before giving up on it. I suspect that ultimately it might be Microphen who is the best candidate for me, given that I tend to push and this seems to be the recommended developer.

 

[Danner]

If you are set on 800/1600 ISO, then maybe try Ilford Delta 3200 developed in Microphen. You'll be using it in it's sweet spot.

 

[pentaxuser]

Gabriel, I feel you clearly have several longings/desires to try several combos and these desires are what I have deduced as visceral. Visceral feelings run deep and therefore can only be ignored at your peril as the problem with ignoring them is that the feeling of "what if?" keeps coming back to haunt you. It nags at you forever

So on the assumption that you are still a relatively young man who has many years ahead of him I suggest you indulge these visceral feelings and try all the combinations you have visceral feelings about even if this takes several years.

The upside is that you will then know which feelings were 1.great; 2. about right; 3. OK but not worth trying again; 4. to be confined to the scrap heap of life in that sort or order

Then let us have your findings if you will . Some of these findings may be rejected by others for a variety of good or bad reasons but others may help fellow photographers with similar visceral feelings.

I attach the words of "Our Gracie" who was that famous Lancashire( county in the U.K.) lass who sang to us. Please note that in the context of your quest to find these combinations Gracie's "Goodbye" should not be read as goodbye to the forum but as the period in which you try the "Great Trek" into the world of film and chemicals

Here are her words: "Wish me luck as you wave me goodbye
Cheerio, here I go, on my way
Wish me luck as you wave me goodbye
Not a tear, but a cheer, make it gay"

PS in those days the word "gay" has no relationship to sexual orientation

Best of luck

pentaxuser

 

[Gabriel Aszalos]

Gabriel, I feel you clearly have several longings/desires to try several combos and these desires are what I have deduced as visceral. Visceral feelings run deep and therefore can only be ignored at your peril as the problem with ignoring them is that the feeling of "what if?" keeps coming back to haunt you. It nags at you forever

So on the assumption that you are still a relatively young man who has many years ahead of him I suggest you indulge these visceral feelings and try all the combinations you have visceral feelings about even if this takes several years.

The upside is that you will then know which feelings were 1.great; 2. about right; 3. OK but not worth trying again; 4. to be confined to the scrap heap of life in that sort or order

Then let us have your findings if you will . Some of these findings may be rejected by others for a variety of good or bad reasons but others may help fellow photographers with similar visceral feelings.

I attach the words of "Our Gracie" who was that famous Lancashire( county in the U.K.) lass who sang to us. Please note that in the context of your quest to find these combinations Gracie's "Goodbye" should not be read as goodbye to the forum but as the period in which you try the "Great Trek" into the world of film and chemicals

Here are her words: "Wish me luck as you wave me goodbye
Cheerio, here I go, on my way
Wish me luck as you wave me goodbye
Not a tear, but a cheer, make it gay"

PS in those days the word "gay" has no relationship to sexual orientation

Best of luck

pentaxuser

Hah, pentaxuser, I enjoyed reading your response very much. I agree with you somewhat, but I also think that it can be beneficial to exercise discipline and stick to one film, one developer, one style, and take that to perfection over time (makes me think of Japanese sushi masters). I think there is definitely a lot to gain in that. Reading about developers might also show me that the differences are not big enough to warrant all this pain. Trusting manufacturer recommendations (such as using Microphen for push processing), might be the wisest thing to do. I might after all take out my Microphen stock and start putting more HP5, Tri-X and even TMax-400 through it to see how that goes. I suspect I will be pleasantly surprised. I think there might be no point in going further with HC, which is even a speed losing developer, given that my interest is already stated to be push development. Rodinal however I might explore with Tri-X, using stand, especially because it's a famous combo worth trying...

Talking to all of you has helped me shape my thoughts. Thank you.

 

[Saganich]

I did that for a few years and found that how and what you shoot goes a long way towards narrowing down the choices. I shoot wherever I am, inside and outside, day or night, winter through summer, so I found that with a 400 film I can do all of that with available light. The second point of departure was I don't have a lot of time to develop film or fuss around with complex formulas. I like doing it and did it a lot for a few years but decided too much attention was being paid for small returns although a lot of them had wonderful results...but I decided the one-shot convenience of HC110 or Rodinal or a replenishing formula suited best how I liked to work. Now it's narrowed to a couple of film and developer combinations. Not too bad.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I tried a number of developers and I found that XTOL was very forgiving and has a number of advantages. When I started using replenished XTOL the developer got even better tonality.

 

[Donald Qualls]

With any luck at all, we'll learn that Adox XT-III supports indefinite self-replenishment the way Xtol does. In all other ways, it appears to be an even more eco-friendly and user-friendly Xtol work-alike.

 

[Danner]

With any luck at all, we'll learn that Adox XT-III supports indefinite self-replenishment the way Xtol does. In all other ways, it appears to be an even more eco-friendly and user-friendly Xtol work-alike.

I need to look into XTOL replenishment. Lately, I am liking XTOL at stock strength. Do you have any links to more information, and I wonder how you determine strength/replenishment needs. After all, it needs to be pretty consistent for good results, I would think, for the dilutions to work.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I need to look into XTOL replenishment. Lately, I am liking XTOL at stock strength. Do you have any links to more information, and I wonder how you determine strength/replenishment needs. After all, it needs to be pretty consistent for good results, I would think, for the dilutions to work.

Just follow the instructions: 70 ml per roll of 135-36, 120 or four 4"x5" sheets. After pouring the replenished XTOL [or fresh XTOL that will become replenished XTOL] into the tank, pour 70 ml stock XTOL into the replenish XTOL container. Then empty the tank back into the bottle until it is topped off, discard the rest and tightly close the tank.

 

[pbromaghin]

I tried a number of developers and I found that XTOL was very forgiving and has a number of advantages. When I started using replenished XTOL the developer got even better tonality.
View attachment 270756

How would PMK Pyro sit on that chart? I've lately been considering Kentmere 100 and 400. All the examples I like on Flickr seem to be processed in it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

How would PMK Pyro sit on that chart? I've lately been considering Kentmere 100 and 400. All the examples I like on Flickr seem to be processed in it.

I am using a pyro for 120 and 4"x5". I am not near my darkroom so I cannot check the name. I am still figuring out where it works best for me. I have not been taking photographs much during COVID but I am going to be taking some photo vacations starting in April.

 

[Down Under]

I have been shooting architectural images and some landscapes since the 1970s.

Monochrome landscapes are basically an amateur's pastime, but architectural photography is one of very few areas where B&W is of interest to clients and for publication.

Many decades ago I decided that only a few films, developers and papers really suited my personal view (I hesitate to use the overused and to me hackneyed term 'technique') and my client's requirements and give me the consistency I want in my images.

Eighty percent of my film processing is done with Kodak D76 or Ilford ID11. These two developers are available almost everywhere in the world and I can easily mix them up at home from my stores of basic chemistry. They are flexible and adequate for almost all my images, if no other developer were available in the world today I would be content with D76.

The remaining twenty percent is handled by home brewed Thornton's two bath developer (I prefer the Ansel Adams version for better mid tones and 'punchier' contrast, but two other variations are also available to suit just about anyone) which is kinder to the harsh Asian and Australian light. Often my architectural images have to be shot on two separate films to adequately deal with highlights and shadows without compromising the mid tones.

Last year after reading many threads (mostly those by Ian Grant) I mixed up a batch of Adox MQ borax developer. I have found there is a learning curve associated with using this brew but so far the negatives I am getting from expired Kodak and Ilford films shot in Australia are... promising. Certainly interesting. I will be experimenting more with this.

 

[Eric Verheul]

I am only interested in pushing (800 or 1600). I read some posts about XTOL being flat (similar to DD-X) which are putting me off a bit. I will give HC a few more tries before giving up on it. I suspect that ultimately it might be Microphen who is the best candidate for me, given that I tend to push and this seems to be the recommended developer.

Xtol isn't going to give flat push processing. The whole point of extending development is to increase contrast. Tmax 400 and Xtol are a pretty nice combo for this purpose. Of course the dark areas will not have any detail, but that is the nature of push processing.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/187380343@N05/50935146707/in/dateposted-public/

 

[removed account4]

I'd use caffenol c with a shot of print developer mixed in
it will work extremely well in any situation push pull box speed
and you don't have to worry about manufacturing issues
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/kodak-xtol-trade-concern-announcment.180508/
good luck with your project Gabriel !

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hello Gabriel,
I think the most important question is "am I trying to get at least the best from any of those films or not?" That's one of the things you should do: seek the best possible image structure at least for one film.
Maybe you want to, or maybe you don't... If you want to, you'll need to decide which film you will use for that. In my opinion films produce their best image when in metol only developers with a stop more light than box speed.
Then you can decide if, for that case, you prefer a fast (ISO400) film for handholding, or, a medium/low speed film for tripod work. For such technical case, I've done it for both types of film, so I use PanF+ and TMX for tripod, and HP5+, Tri-X and TMY-2 for street.
Then ask yourself which film you'll use for pushing, knowing there you won't seek best possible image structure, but best tone after a two-stop push.
Developers like ID-11/D-76 and Xtol are common standard developers, good for, say, EI400 and EI800 for common fast film, but they are not the best option for EI200 nor EI1600. I've found Perceptol is the best option for image quality for both classic and modern grain, and Microphen and FX-39 II are the best options for pushing classic and modern grain.
So, you could try doing both things with HP5+ (Perceptol and Microphen), or with TMY-2 (Perceptol and FX-39 II), for EI200 and EI1600.
Standard developers, for box speed or close to that, will give you -in both cases- results below what you can get with developers designed for slow/high EIs.
Try one film you like, for both cases, with two very different and specialized developers, and see if what I'm saying is true.
Have fun!

 

[Mesabound]

If you are set on 800/1600 ISO, then maybe try Ilford Delta 3200 developed in Microphen. You'll be using it in it's sweet spot.

+1

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Delta3200 in Microphen at 800-1600 has very low image quality compared to TMY-2 in FX-39 II or TMaxDev at 800-1600.
Do both and decide for yourself comparing wet prints from both.

 

[albada]

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".

In low-light, you could shoot film at box-speed and bounce a flash off the ceiling.
Or use direct flash, if its harshness doesn't bother you. At least you'll get gray-eye instead of red-eye.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

In low-light, you could shoot film at box-speed and bounce a flash off the ceiling.
Or use direct flash, if its harshness doesn't bother you. At least you'll get gray-eye instead of red-eye.

You're right - flash is definitely an option. However, I thought OP implicitly ruled out the use of flash when he wrote "that's why I chose to push to 800 or 1600 so I can shoot in both low light (indoors) and day light (outside)."

 

[albada]

You're right - flash is definitely an option. However, I thought OP implicitly ruled out the use of flash when he wrote "that's why I chose to push to 800 or 1600 so I can shoot in both low light (indoors) and day light (outside)."

Like many others, I prefer to avoid flash. I've tried to shoot indoors with no flash at 800. But underexposed film looks poor, and shutterspeeds were low enough that camera-shake, motion-blur of my subjects, and poor DOF were often problems. I found that direct flash usually gave me better shots indoors, so I think it's worth reconsidering even if he dislikes flash. I dislike flash, but use it anyway. A powerful flash bounced off the ceiling plus a little frontal fill might be best, if the ceiling isn't too high, as it avoids those problems without adding harshness.

 

[halfaman]

A friend of mine uses almost exclusively HP5 at ISO 1600 developed with HC-110 dilution B. His results on paper are great.

The best way to increase effective film speed with Rodinal is decreasing dilution. If stand-development is short on shadow detail try for example 1+60 or 1+75 instead of 1+100.

 

[removed account4]

OP
do you have examples of your own photos that you've taken that you want to keep shooting? sometimes its better not to
try to fit a square peg in a round hole ( use someone else's style ) and just go with your own strengths and style.

 

[Gabriel Aszalos]

Thank you all for the replies. Even though I might not answer all, I do appreciate the input. I'll just say that I've narrowed down my choices of film to what's in the start of the thread and aren't considering others. I'm also not considering complex formulas or non-popular developers which may or may not be available at times.

I'd use caffenol c with a shot of print developer mixed in
it will work extremely well in any situation push pull box speed
and you don't have to worry about manufacturing issues
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/kodak-xtol-trade-concern-announcment.180508/
good luck with your project Gabriel !

Caffenol C is something that does attract me. I haven't looked much into it, but the thought of making your own developer at home (eco-friendly one for that matter AFAIK), is definitely appealing. I always assumed that the resulting quality would be very bad in development (for no specific reason), but I might've misjudged. Do you have a link to an article/post or video which shows how to do this? I have actually looked into this and found a lot of info. While interesting, I think that starting to mix my own developer on top of all these variables is a bit too much at the moment, given that I have stacked in my fridge: Ilfotec HC, Rodinal and Microphen. I don't think there's any reason to go even deeper. However, thanks for sharing this. It's quite interesting to find that this is possible!

Hello Gabriel,
I think the most important question is "am I trying to get at least the best from any of those films or not?" That's one of the things you should do: seek the best possible image structure at least for one film.
Maybe you want to, or maybe you don't... If you want to, you'll need to decide which film you will use for that. In my opinion films produce their best image when in metol only developers with a stop more light than box speed.
Then you can decide if, for that case, you prefer a fast (ISO400) film for handholding, or, a medium/low speed film for tripod work. For such technical case, I've done it for both types of film, so I use PanF+ and TMX for tripod, and HP5+, Tri-X and TMY-2 for street.
Then ask yourself which film you'll use for pushing, knowing there you won't seek best possible image structure, but best tone after a two-stop push.
Developers like ID-11/D-76 and Xtol are common standard developers, good for, say, EI400 and EI800 for common fast film, but they are not the best option for EI200 nor EI1600. I've found Perceptol is the best option for image quality for both classic and modern grain, and Microphen and FX-39 II are the best options for pushing classic and modern grain.
So, you could try doing both things with HP5+ (Perceptol and Microphen), or with TMY-2 (Perceptol and FX-39 II), for EI200 and EI1600.
Standard developers, for box speed or close to that, will give you -in both cases- results below what you can get with developers designed for slow/high EIs.
Try one film you like, for both cases, with two very different and specialized developers, and see if what I'm saying is true.
Have fun!

Thank you Juan. I think I'll experiment for a while with pushing the films I want to test (TMax-400, Tri-X and HP5) to 1600 in Microphen and Rodinal stand, possibly even HC at times. I'm pretty sure none of them will be bad per-se so I won't be losing my precious photos, nor will the difference in outcome be that big as to create an inconsistency in style (shall I even want to compile an album or family photo book). I have certainly discovered that HP5 at 1600 looks very very much to my liking in Microphen, and I am keen to experiment with Tri-X at 1600 in Rodinal stand.

A friend of mine uses almost exclusively HP5 at ISO 1600 developed with HC-110 dilution B. His results on paper are great.

The best way to increase effective film speed with Rodinal is decreasing dilution. If stand-development is short on shadow detail try for example 1+60 or 1+75 instead of 1+100.

I have Ilfotec HC, and what put me off of it for a bit was reading about speed loss. I'm not even sure what that means *in practice*. Do you really lose that much shadow detail? Probably not. And even if you do, the shadow detail lost was probably so little to begin with that it wasn't adding much to the image subject. Who knows... I guess I'll figure it out in time.

About the dilutions, that's my plan too. I have had good success with 1+100 developing ISO 1600. I was always developing just one film with 5ml Rodinal + 500ml water. I want to try 5ml Rodinal + 300ml water next. That'll allow me to do two films at the same time in my 2-reel Paterson tank, which technically would be 1+60, also stand. I'm keen on seeing the results of this. For 1+100 I used to use 90 min, for 1+60 I'll try 60 min.

OP
do you have examples of your own photos that you've taken that you want to keep shooting? sometimes its better not to
try to fit a square peg in a round hole ( use someone else's style ) and just go with your own strengths and style.

That's a very good observation. I actually regularly look back at my older photos to see how I like them now, after a year of continuously shooting film (I know, not that long). I did notice that most photos I liked, and ended up printing (digitally) came from either Tri-X or T-Max and what I liked was the tonality of both of these. For some reason I haven't managed to pull out the same out of HP5, exception being 1600 with Microphen - that did gave me a look close to Tri-X and with good tonality.

 

[removed account4]

That's a very good observation. I actually regularly look back at my older photos to see how I like them now, after a year of continuously shooting film (I know, not that long). I did notice that most photos I liked, and ended up printing (digitally) came from either Tri-X or T-Max and what I liked was the tonality of both of these. For some reason I haven't managed to pull out the same out of HP5, exception being 1600 with Microphen - that did gave me a look close to Tri-X and with good tonality

I would stick to the film you like, pick 1 of them, the tri x if you want the old look or the tmy if you like the smooth mid tone look
and pick a developer you can get your hands on easily and have experience with and practice with it learning how to get the look you want.
bracketing development and exposure helps a lot. good luck! John