Film Developer Help

KidA · May 27, 2016

I'm in the market to look for a new developer to try out. I have most experience with HC-110 and just finishing up my first bottle (finally). I'm honestly quite happy with it, and it's convenience. The only others I've tried (with much less experience) are Rodinal and D-76. I also like these with my first few rolls of D-76 perhaps being the most satisfactory, but it's far too early to say.

I've been looking into the Photographer's Formulary developers...the amount of developers is bewildering! And the description of half of them basically say 'pick me, I'm the best developer you'll ever try...'. So I've come for some guidance!

I use pretty much all the Ilford films available with FP4 and HP5 being the main ones and Delta 400 and Pan F right behind them. Things I would like in a developer with these films in order (but they're all pretty important so if one is lacking huge in one area, I probably won't like it much).

-Good tonal gradation: from shadows to highlights
-High acutance with moderate to fine grain (I actually don't mind seeing grain, but I'm particular with grain structure. I really enjoy FP4 in HC-110 for example, even if the grain is a bit big)
-Shadow detail
-Expansion and contraction capabilities (this is a grey area for me. In reading the tech sheets, the stain developers seem to handle contrast well without the need for N+ or N- development)
-Good Speed

I think I've come to the conclusion I'd like to try one of these four (in no particular order):

-F-1027
-DiXACTOL Ultra
-Pyrocat HD
-TFX-2

I shoot across all formats and would like to boil my choices to one, maybe two developers. I would LOVE to be able to develop using rotary systems so I don't have to sit there to agitate for every roll I process. I have a diffusion enlarger and I use VC FB papers. I do high-key, low-key, and 'regular key(?)' photos often on the same roll. I know I'm asking for a lot, but some advice on how to get as close as I can to my goals is always better. Like, I said, I'm pretty happy with my results at the moment, but I can't settle on D-76 when I keep reading about all these 'wonder' developers I've never tried!

canvassy · May 27, 2016

What about DD-X? I think it hits all of your bullet points, and it's one of my favorite developers.

David Allen · May 27, 2016

There are no 'wonder' developers. There are only developers that are better suited to certain ways of working (for example I use a two-bath developer because I always make my photographs in situations with 'normal' to extreme subject brightness ranges).

Far more important is to stick with a certain developer, learn it inside out and when (or should I say only if) you find it is limiting your work then ask for advice about an alternative developer that would solve the particular 'problem' that you are experiencing with your current choice of developer.

Kodak HC110 is a superb and highly versatile developer with exceptional keeping qualities. If, as you state, "I'm honestly quite happy with it, and it's convenience". Then my strong advice is to stick with it. Many people loose years of photographic creativity chasing a developer that may (and very often may not) give them a 0.0001% improvement on their current developer.

If a developer is delivering the results that suit you then this is the correct developer for you. If you think a little deeper, any image by another photographer that you like will most likely have been developed in a huge range of developers. Do you appreciate the image because of what it captures in terms of content, mood, composition, etc or do you like it because the photographer (or their lab) developed it in developer x, y, z??

Have fun with your photography.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

KidA · May 27, 2016

canvassy said:
What about DD-X? I think it hits all of your bullet points, and it's one of my favorite developers.

So it's not one of those developers that gives 'fuzzy' edges?

MattKing · May 27, 2016

I agree with David Allen.

I'd suggest you buy another bottle of HC-110, and use it for most of your photography.

If you would like to experiment (essentially play) with some others, go for it!

Bulk loads and sheet film are good for experiments.

Of course, there may be a few rolls of Kodak 120 out there within the "problematic" batches that would be perfect for experiments.

Sirius Glass · May 27, 2016

Try Kodak XTOL, especially replenished XTOL.

KidA · May 27, 2016

David Allen said:
There are no 'wonder' developers. There are only developers that are better suited to certain ways of working (for example I use a two-bath developer because I always make my photographs in situations with 'normal' to extreme subject brightness ranges).

Far more important is to stick with a certain developer, learn it inside out and when (or should I say only if) you find it is limiting your work then ask for advice about an alternative developer that would solve the particular 'problem' that you are experiencing with your current choice of developer.

Kodak HC110 is a superb and highly versatile developer with exceptional keeping qualities. If, as you state, "I'm honestly quite happy with it, and it's convenience". Then my strong advice is to stick with it. Many people loose years of photographic creativity chasing a developer that may (and very often may not) give them a 0.0001% improvement on their current developer.

If a developer is delivering the results that suit you then this is the correct developer for you. If you think a little deeper, any image by another photographer that you like will most likely have been developed in a huge range of developers. Do you appreciate the image because of what it captures in terms of content, mood, composition, etc or do you like it because the photographer (or their lab) developed it in developer x, y, z??

Have fun with your photography.

I agree with you that it can be really easy to get caught up in the technicalities and forget about 'learning one inside out'. But before I settle on one, I would like to know a few more options. I would really like to explore (just a bit) and ask for advice on what I'm looking for. I've mentioned my criteria and now wondering if there are better options for me given my very little experience with various chemicals.

I am having fun with photography, and since I've fairly new to this, I find the search a whole lot of fun as well. I almost didn't try FP4 because I thought I didn't need it... well am I ever happy I used it! I'm not a pro photographer that will be running huge amounts of tests (yet).

If I find that I really like a new developer more than my HC-110, I will likely stick to it and learn that one inside out.

Ian Grant · May 27, 2016

My suggestions are Xtol or Pyrocat HD, I've used both and also swore by Rodinal for slower films for almost 20 years, but since switching to Pyrocat HD about 11 years ago I've no intent to go back it's such a good all round developer and the negatives are so easy to print, they also scan just as well.

Ian

palewin · May 27, 2016

If you want to play, I would suggest the Pyrocat-HD. While I still stick with D-76 1:1 for my infrequent 35mm use, I use either Pyrocat or PMK for both 120 and 4x5 formats. I'm not going to argue pros and cons, but as a staining developer, Pyrocat is more "different" from your other choices, so if you enjoy trying things, try the most different one. I personally still prefer PMK, but it is the more finicky of the two staining pyro developers, I think Pyrocat-HD is more "bomb proof" and is recommended with rotary processing.

markbarendt · May 27, 2016

Ian Grant said:
My suggestions are Xtol or Pyrocat HD, I've used both and also swore by Rodinal for slower films for almost 20 years, but since switching to Pyrocat HD about 11 years ago I've no intent to go back it's such a good all round developer and the negatives are so easy to print, they also scan just as well.

Ian

I agree Ian.

KidA the only place the Pyro developers may come up a bit short on your list is in speed. I use Rollo Pyro with HP5 I love it. It was worth giving up a just little bit of speed.

mrred · May 27, 2016

Stating the obvious..... It's just other peoples opinions here. Just go to the deep end and take a dive. Stick with what ever you pick for a while, as results are as much of a *you* thing as the developer. Ex: I did stand developing for more than a year before I could give an honest opinion on it........ There is lots of time.

Saganich · May 27, 2016

I'm on the tail end of the journey your considering having used all you mentioned and more including my own variants. Chemistry fun is time consuming and doesn't improve composition. I agree that you should make side by side comparisons with what your used to using so don't stop HC110. It helps keep things in perspective as you chase different developers with changes in dev times, film ISO's, agitation, exposure, etc. When I look over my archive (96% with TriX) I am hard pressed to identify what developer I was using when so keep track of which rolls were souped in what. In the end there were two factors important to me: highlight control and convenience. The latter includes parameters like sourcing, preparation, storage, consistency, shelf-life, replenishing. I've settled on D23 split with Sodium Carbonate (sometimes Borax): Easy to prepare, long shelf life, replenishment option, highlight control options, and nice tonal separation.

Kawaiithulhu · May 27, 2016

I've decided to stick with one developer for multiple films that I have sitting around. Which led me to Xtol because:

good film speed, at box or close
doesn't seem to force its own agenda on film curves
easy to mix and store in 1L bottles
replenishment is actually recommended and makes results very repeatable

Your mileage may vary!

bdial · May 27, 2016

You will likely find that the differences between most developers are pretty subtle, with the possible exception of grain rendition, especially with 35. It's not a bad thing to explore, but it's easy to waste a lot of time doing it. It's best to have one or two very specific goals in mind for what you want to accomplish with a new process.

These are on 4x5 film, one was processed in Xtol the other with Pyrocat HD;

Gerald C Koch · May 28, 2016

Kodak designed HC-110 for photofinishers to provide them the convenience of a liquid developer that produced results as close to D-76 as possible. Therefore investigating D-76 after HC-110 seems rather pointless. As you will find over and over again on APUG is the sentiment that there is no magical developer. They all produce the same end result a good printable negative.

MattKing · May 28, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
Kodak designed HC-110 for photofinishers to provide them the convenience of a liquid developer that produced results as close to D-76 as possible. Therefore investigating D-76 after HC-110 seems rather pointless. As you will find over and over again on APUG is the sentiment that there is no magical developer. They all produce the same end result a good printable negative.

My understanding is that Kodak designed HC-110 for photofinishers to provide them with the convenience of a liquid developer that, through varying dilution, could replace a variety of different developers that were commonly used in the industry, without requiring them to greatly modify time, technique or equipment.
D-76 was probably one of the most common.

Gerald C Koch · May 29, 2016

MattKing said:
My understanding is that Kodak designed HC-110 for photofinishers to provide them with the convenience of a liquid developer that, through varying dilution, could replace a variety of different developers that were commonly used in the industry, without requiring them to greatly modify time, technique or equipment.
D-76 was probably one of the most common.

If you look at Kodak's catalogue you will see that they compare HC-110 and D-76 and not the other developers like DK-50. The Covington Innovations HC-110 website also quotes the publication and may be a bit easier to find.

the 2001 Kodak Professional Photographic Catalog contains a comparison chart.

Compared to D-76, this chart indicates that HC-110 (dilution B) produces:

Slightly less shadow detail or true film speed;
Slightly finer grain;
Slightly lower acutance.

Apparently, HC-110 has somewhat more solvent action than D-76, but less than Xtol.

Which is why I always think of the two developers together.

Ian Grant · May 29, 2016

If you go by Kodak's reference chart posted earlier then Xtol is their best developer giving finest grain and sharpness and good film speed. That's been my experience as well over the years, I never liked HC110.

markbarendt said:
I agree Ian.

KidA the only place the Pyro developers may come up a bit short on your list is in speed. I use Rollo Pyro with HP5 I love it. It was worth giving up a just little bit of speed.

I find Pyrocat HD gives slightly better speed than Xtol and D76, HC110 is the worst.

Ian
.

RalphLambrecht · May 29, 2016

KidA said:
I'm in the market to look for a new developer to try out. I have most experience with HC-110 and just finishing up my first bottle (finally). I'm honestly quite happy with it, and it's convenience. The only others I've tried (with much less experience) are Rodinal and D-76. I also like these with my first few rolls of D-76 perhaps being the most satisfactory, but it's far too early to say.

I've been looking into the Photographer's Formulary developers...the amount of developers is bewildering! And the description of half of them basically say 'pick me, I'm the best developer you'll ever try...'. So I've come for some guidance!

I use pretty much all the Ilford films available with FP4 and HP5 being the main ones and Delta 400 and Pan F right behind them. Things I would like in a developer with these films in order (but they're all pretty important so if one is lacking huge in one area, I probably won't like it much).

-Good tonal gradation: from shadows to highlights
-High acutance with moderate to fine grain (I actually don't mind seeing grain, but I'm particular with grain structure. I really enjoy FP4 in HC-110 for example, even if the grain is a bit big)
-Shadow detail
-Expansion and contraction capabilities (this is a grey area for me. In reading the tech sheets, the stain developers seem to handle contrast well without the need for N+ or N- development)
-Good Speed

I think I've come to the conclusion I'd like to try one of these four (in no particular order):
as you probably already found out D76is a good compromise for all your bullet points.10 years old and still hard to beat in all areas. You'll always find a developer better in one area but not one that is better in all;developers make compromises and many characteristics are film and not developer characteristics
-F-1027
-DiXACTOL Ultra
-Pyrocat HD
-TFX-2

I shoot across all formats and would like to boil my choices to one, maybe two developers. I would LOVE to be able to develop using rotary systems so I don't have to sit there to agitate for every roll I process. I have a diffusion enlarger and I use VC FB papers. I do high-key, low-key, and 'regular key(?)' photos often on the same roll. I know I'm asking for a lot, but some advice on how to get as close as I can to my goals is always better. Like, I said, I'm pretty happy with my results at the moment, but I can't settle on D-76 when I keep reading about all these 'wonder' developers I've never tried!

removed account4 · May 29, 2016

hi kidA

what print developer do you use to make your prints ?
if you use dektol or ansco 130 as your print developer
(forumular130 or d72 if you mix with PF kits )
try dilute them down 1:"X" and develop your film in them
for "X" minutes. i've processed film in ansco 130 since the 90s
and dektol for the last couple of years using the same method.
don't believe the hype of golf ball sized grain &c its not true.
130 has to be at about 72ºF ( cause glycin likes warm )
72 at 68ºF ...

good luck !
john

Jim Noel · May 29, 2016

Since you are having success with your current developers, WHY CHANGE?

Bill Burk · May 29, 2016

bdial said:
You will likely find that the differences between most developers are pretty subtle, with the possible exception of grain rendition, especially with 35. It's not a bad thing to explore, but it's easy to waste a lot of time doing it. It's best to have one or two very specific goals in mind for what you want to accomplish with a new process.

These are on 4x5 film, one was processed in Xtol the other with Pyrocat HD;

View attachment 157887

Which is which?

This is one of those "comparisons" that brings the subtle differences into light and makes a point obvious... although the differences are subtle and on its own each print is fine... Setting the prints side by side, I prefer the one on the right.

bdial · May 29, 2016

Bill Burk said:
Which is which?

This is one of those "comparisons" that brings the subtle differences into light and makes a point obvious... although the differences are subtle and on its own each print is fine... Setting the prints side by side, I prefer the one on the right.

Left is Xtol, right is Pyrocat, the labeled version is in the gallery.

KidA · May 30, 2016

Thanks for all the pointers everyone! Been a good help.

KidA · May 30, 2016

jnanian said:
hi kidA

what print developer do you use to make your prints ?
if you use dektol or ansco 130 as your print developer
(forumular130 or d72 if you mix with PF kits )
try dilute them down 1:"X" and develop your film in them
for "X" minutes. i've processed film in ansco 130 since the 90s
and dektol for the last couple of years using the same method.
don't believe the hype of golf ball sized grain &c its not true.
130 has to be at about 72ºF ( cause glycin likes warm )
72 at 68ºF ...

good luck !
john

This is interesting! I will try this out...

As for believing hype, I don't. I'm a huge skeptic by nature... if I'm not happy with a new developer, film, camera, I just won't use it, even if most swear by it. I want to try things myself to see what results I can get.

bdial said:
You will likely find that the differences between most developers are pretty subtle, with the possible exception of grain rendition, especially with 35. It's not a bad thing to explore, but it's easy to waste a lot of time doing it. It's best to have one or two very specific goals in mind for what you want to accomplish with a new process.

These are on 4x5 film, one was processed in Xtol the other with Pyrocat HD;

The difference on my screen is subtle indeed, and I'm not expecting anything more than a +/-5% difference in 'quality' anyways. But I'm picky, and equally curious, so I have to explore a bit before 'settling'. Thanks for the examples! It seems the XTOL is off the bat more striking because of the more apparent contrast, but it just seems to me that the pyro HD has better curves, giving the effect of less contrast even if it may not be the case. I guess these two frames were exposed the exact same way?

Film Developer Help

KidA

canvassy

David Allen

KidA

MattKing

Moderator

Sirius Glass

KidA

Ian Grant

palewin

markbarendt

mrred

Saganich

Kawaiithulhu

bdial

Gerald C Koch

MattKing

Moderator

Gerald C Koch

Ian Grant

RalphLambrecht

removed account4

Jim Noel

Bill Burk

bdial

KidA

KidA

Film Developer Help

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency