Film Developer Help

[bdial]

Yes, same exposure, exposed within a few seconds of each other. I generally expose at box speed.

 

[KidA]

The two negatives cannot really be compared unless they were developed to the same contrast index. The negative on the right appears more contrasty. Scans are also difficult to interpret, especially on screen. Just some variables to look out for.

All things taken into consideration, but it's still better than words...

 

[markbarendt]

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.

That's good KidA.

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?

Um, just my opinion, but I think subtle may be significantly overstating the difference that can be seen, and what you are seeing here is a positive of each. We cannot get from a negative to a positive without applying print controls, manipulations and these shoots are no exception.

For example the Xtol neg was printed at grade 2, the Pyro neg at grade 1-1/2 so your thought about "more apparent contrast" with Xtol is rooted in the printing process not the developer, if it exists at all. (I don't see it) Doing the math on the printing means that the Xtol print needed a harder paper grade than the Pyro neg, the Pyro neg was snappier, the Xtol neg was muddier.

What I'm getting at here Kid is that you aren't getting the whole story and we haven't even considered enlargement, the examples shown are smaller than the original film.

 

[markbarendt]

All things taken into consideration, but it's still better than words...

The only thing really proved in the examples is that there are different paths to essentially the same print.

 

[KidA]

The ultimate test for me will have to be using the developer myself: with my subject matters, cameras, technique, etc...

 

[markbarendt]

The ultimate test for me will have to be using the developer myself: with my subject matters, cameras, technique, etc...

Absolutely.

Even there you'll need to try variations of each to really understand, for example the paper and it's developer will impart certain characteristics too.

 

[removed account4]

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

looking forward to how you like it.
i like it becasue i don't have to have handfuls of developers and it streamlines everything.

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.

yep, hype is over rated .. hope my suggestions don't become part of the chorus of hype

The ultimate test for me will have to be using the developer myself: with my subject matters, cameras, technique, etc...

make sure you bracket a little bit !
when figuring out what what to expose/develop with a developer i typically bracket
and do 3 ez tests - 1 right on, 1 30% less time wise in the soup, and 1 30% more
and pick the best exposure/time &c ...

have fun !
john

 

[KidA]

looking forward to how you like it.
i like it becasue i don't have to have handfuls of developers and it streamlines everything.

Have you done this with Multigrade? Or know if the starting point for time/dilution would be a similar formula to the Ansco 130 and Dektol example you gave?

yep, hype is over rated .. hope my suggestions don't become part of the chorus of hype

I feel like the most hype these days is the 'stick to one developer!' kind! haha! I'm kidding. It is a logical decision.

 

[removed account4]

i have done this for negatives printed on multi grade paper as well as azo grade 2,
as well as coated emulsion ( glass and paper ) and retina prints ...
but my agitation schemes and my favored film density might
not be what you like. the starting points for both dektol and 130 would be at least 1:6 for 6 mins
you can stretch it out ( make it more dilute, and less time ) if it isn't to your liking .. its like anything.
i must have processed thousands of sheets and rolls of film with 130
--- roll film i typically stuck to 6-7 mins, pre wash 1min, 1 full min agitation ( lazy 8's and twist the tank )
rap it to dislodge the bubbles, and 10 seconds / min after that ... test roll first than load up the tank.
continuous ( rotary ) times were different.
--- sheets i like to have a bit more meat on the bone so i extend my development to 8 1/2 mins, continuous
shuffling in a tray. i usually do 8sheets at first and make sure everything is kosher
then i do a bunch more ( sometimes 40 sheets in a tray ).
again my methods/agitation schemes might be different than yours so use my times / dilutions at your own risk ..

regarding sticking to 1 developer - to be honest that is the best advice there is. use a developer enough
that you know it backwards and forwards.
there is no magic developer like people wish or suggest. using 1 developer allows you to understand everything about it .
you might learn how to dilute developer or agitate differently for different lighting conditions, for
situations, effects &c.
using tons of different developers and films and papers to be honest, yeah, flavor of the month might be fun,
but ... you won't really learn much from it other than you processed tons of film in tons of different developers.

you might think that is kind of weird coming from someone who uses coffee and dektol and ansco 130 to
process film, but believe it or not, ive been using 130 since the 90s ( or something similar )
... and i have been using coffee for 10 years now. i've processed film in these things every which way.
stand, semi stand, trays, tanks, rotary, deep tank, dip/dunk .. with every film i could find ... (sheet/roll/expired/fresh)
... i am a firm believer of the 1 developer-thing.

the hype i was talking about is the sharpness, acutance, pyro,
super grain, rodinal, grainless, speed enhancer,
space age, diactazone, peero, magic paste, 7D, glycine variant, xtol, replenished,
perfect film chuck-wagon/bs/love feast that often times happens when
people ask about what developer to use developers ... people have their favorites, and invent mythic qualities for them, make them almost demi-gods
in the end developer is developer, nothing is mythic ...
find one you like and use it, tons and make legendary prints.

-- good luck !!
john

 

[KidA]

i have done this for negatives printed on multi grade paper

Sorry, I guess I didnt mention this. Multigrade developer is what I was asking about!

I do plan on standardizing on 2-3 films and 1-2 developers for everything. My film choices are almost set in stone, and I might try 1 or 2 more developers. My plan is to use them in a standard way (times, temps, dilutions, agitation, etc), choose the one that gives me results, that I'm looking for, on those standard techniques and then explore the one (or two) that made my most happy from the simple test and go from there.

 

[removed account4]

never done this with that developer. ( or heard of it ! ) might be worth trying if
you have film time and developer to burn.

 

[nworth]

Among your picks, I would try Pyrocat-HD. I've used it a quite a bit, and it is truly a remarkable developer. It also keeps very well. I would also definitely recommend looking into Xtol or DD-X.

 

[KidA]

After much consideration, I will be trying Pyro HD and XTOL. Only then will I be okay to choose one or two of the several I have experience with.

 

[KidA]

So, before I start testing with the Pyro and Xtol, I did some tests with Delta 400, HP5, and FP4 in Rodinal 1 + 25 and D-76 Stock.

I've found:

-D-76 smoother grain, better tonality, better speed
-Rodinal, sharp as hell, grainy as hell, 'snappy' as hell, and about 1/3 stop slower in general (perhaps just under box speed if not right on) [I don't have a densitometer, but my zone one exposure did retain detail really well]

-FP4 is a 200 speed film in D-76 (Great news!) and about 150 in Rodinal.
-FP4 Has a very clear base, Delta is quite a foggy film in both, HP5 is much foggier in Rod than in D-76 (about as foggy as the Deltas for the Rodinal and about as clear as the FP4 in either)
-Delta doesn't seem to 'shine' in Rodinal as much as the others do, but I must say, the effect is interesting and it's something I can see myself coming back to

-FP4 is a dream to print for me. Love this film.


In regards to the fog issue, I'm not sure If I have done something wrong in processing, but I did it all in one night, one shot development, exact same agitation, water temps, tanks, reels, etc. The fixer was fresh and the order of processing was Delta, HP5, FP4. So if anything, FP4 got the 'shit end of the tail' in regards to fresh stop and fix. All negs printed well.

Let me know if you think I might have done something wrong? Obviously, nobody will ever truly know, but did any of you find different results than mine? I'm sure many of you will dispute the speed I've reached...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

FP4 or HP5 in Xtol 1+1, or Pyrocat-HD... mmm mmm good!

 

[markbarendt]

-D-76 smoother grain, better tonality, better speed
-Rodinal, sharp as hell, grainy as hell, 'snappy' as hell, and about 1/3 stop slower in general (perhaps just under box speed if not right on) [I don't have a densitometer, but my zone one exposure did retain detail really well]

With regard to "snappy" I'll take a guess that that means "the negs looks more like slides in Rodinal than D76".
In a practical sense it simply sounds like you may have either overdeveloped the Rodinal negs or underdeveloped the D76 negs. Negatives developed to the same CI tend to have similar snappiness regardless of which developer is used.

-FP4 is a 200 speed film in D-76 (Great news!) and about 150 in Rodinal.

Very unlikely, your result is an outlier. It probably means the way you metered for the test it worked fine at 200, that's actually important to know. I find I can use FP4 nicely at EI250 in some situations but that doesn't make it a 250 speed film, just means it has some latitude.

-FP4 Has a very clear base, Delta is quite a foggy film in both, HP5 is much foggier in Rod than in D-76 (about as foggy as the Deltas for the Rodinal and about as clear as the FP4 in either)

The fog may have come from a variety of sources, age, flare...
Was there a difference in fog between D76 and Rodinal? HP5 and Delta 400?

-Delta doesn't seem to 'shine' in Rodinal as much as the others do, but I must say, the effect is interesting and it's something I can see myself coming back to

If you are looking at a positive to make that judgement I think that you'll find that the process of making a positive allows that with most any film.

-FP4 is a dream to print for me. Love this film.

To a certain extent you need to remember that at the beginning of your journey here there is a luck of the draw thing probably going on, over time you will be able to make printing easy with most any film. That said, FP4 has been one of the easiest films for me to work with.

 

[KidA]

With regard to "snappy" I'll take a guess that that means "the negs looks more like slides in Rodinal than D76".
In a practical sense it simply sounds like you may have either overdeveloped the Rodinal negs or underdeveloped the D76 negs. Negatives developed to the same CI tend to have similar snappiness regardless of which developer is used.

'Snappy' simply means more impact. Mostly due to Sharpness/edge contrast/grain. Whitest white and blackest blacks were printed the same. Snappy refers to everything in between. My snappy-meter is the excitement level reached in my brain when it sees something that stands out - and that doesn't necessarily mean it's better or even preferred overall.

Very unlikely, your result is an outlier. It probably means the way you metered for the test it worked fine at 200, that's actually important to know. I find I can use FP4 nicely at EI250 in some situations but that doesn't make it a 250 speed film, just means it has some latitude.

I metered with the same meter, and used accurate cameras. What's the difference between usable latitude and true speed? I placed a section on zone I and got loads of detail at 100, and near black at 200 in the D-76. Wouldn't that mean speed? Correct me if I'm wrong. If I am, what's the point of rating it at such a slow speed if it's only perhaps 1 stop away from 400 rather than 1 2/3 difference?

The fog may have come from a variety of sources, age, flare...
Was there a difference in fog between D76 and Rodinal? HP5 and Delta 400?

I thought my message was fairly clear, but it can be improved:
Both Deltas showed significantly more fog in both developers (slightly more fog in the Rod)
Both FP4s showed significantly less fog in both developers (slightly more fog in the Rod)
HP5 in Rodinal showed about as much fog as the Deltas and significantly less in the D-76, about as much as FP4
I used the very same roll in each developer (only shot 7 frames of each). In total I used film from three different canisters, not six.

If you are looking at a positive to make that judgement I think that you'll find that the process of making a positive allows that with most any film.

Allows what? To shine? I say 'shine' also in a very unclear way. Deltas are known to be less grainy than traditional films, yet in the Rodinal, there was very little difference in amount of grain but a big difference in grain structure, and a very weird grain structure indeed. Don't know if clumpy is a good word to use. It felt kind of rough. I had included in my tests a large portion of empty wall space, with varying degrees of light upon it to see how the grain reacts at different exposures when it's 'lost in space'. The Delta was definitely not the winner in this situation, although interesting to say the least. The HP5 in Rodinal looked nothing like it. I actually really enjoy HP5 in Rodinal. The D-76/Delta Combo works great.

To a certain extent you need to remember that at the beginning of your journey here there is a luck of the draw thing probably going on, over time you will be able to make printing easy with most any film. That said, FP4 has been one of the easiest films for me to work with.

Although I'm fairly new to photography, I have worked with these films before, and I've kept processing, and exposures fairly consistent, (yes, many, mistakes have happened), but with FP4 it just seems to work out better, easier and more often. My initial test prints with a less-than-perfect neg in FP4 usually still come out surprisingly good.

I do want to remind you that I'm not Ansel Adam's writing photography books after years and years of experience. I'm just a dude in his basement who loves to make beautiful prints using analog gear, trying to figure out how to further his art and share experiences/results/opinions with the all the people who might just be curious. In the end, I love to give info out on my findings, as I like to read others' opinions. May I remind you, this is APUG, not a photographic encyclopedia. Art is my passion, not film/chemicals/cameras/enlargers etc. Although, I do need to connect more with these things in order to make my artistic vision a reality. Am I picky about the technical side? Of course! I need to know (or at least have an idea of) what my photo is going to look like before I load my film, or choose a camera. Hence why I started this somewhat monotonous thread on film developers...as if we didn't have enough of them.

 

[markbarendt]

I metered with the same meter, and used accurate cameras. What's the difference between usable latitude and true speed? I placed a section on zone I and got loads of detail at 100, and near black at 200 in the D-76. Wouldn't that mean speed? Correct me if I'm wrong. If I am, what's the point of rating it at such a slow speed if it's only perhaps 1 stop away from 400 rather than 1 2/3 difference?

Film speeds typically have a safety factor built in on the underside, simply put if you underexpose a little there will typically still be shadow detail to print. Shooting FP4 at 200 is typically within the underexposure latitude range, you are simply using up the safety factor. There's overexposure latitude too.

Ok, so the math you show shouldn't give you that big a change, adjusting the meter from 100 to 200 shouldn't be enough to go from good detail (zone III) to near black (zone I), that should take a bigger adjustment, maybe from 100 to 400.

The only thing that means is that there are probably other variables that haven't been factored for.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

Kodak D76 or Ilford ID11 are hard to beat