• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Film developer

tomalophicon

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
1,568
Location
Canberra, AC
Format
Sub 35mm
Hello everyone,

Is it accepted that certain film developers are better than others?

I've been using Kodak T-Max 400, with no real intention to change that (I have no reason to at this stage).
I have been developing it with Ilfosol-3. This is the developer I use because it is easy for me to get without having to mail order it.

I'm very interested in getting the most from my negatives and darkroom prints and would like to know if there isn't something better out there that I can use.

I'm developing film around 3 times a week and printing in the darkroom probably once every 8 days or so.
 
+1 for Rodinal, grain remains under control with the right agitation.
 
tomalophicon said:
T-Max 400 ... I have been developing it with Ilfosol-3 ... [is there] something better out there that I can use.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you want and the size of the film you are shooting.

If you want fine grain then Microdol-X works very well with TMax films and is my developer of choice for 35mm. Except Kodak stopped making it. Stocks are still available.

If you are using sheet film and want maximum shadow detail then TMax RS is the best choice. If you are tray developing sheet film then HC-110 works exceptionally well and is fast.

Xtol is the highest performance developer you can get, but it has an issue in that it doesn't change color when it goes off, so you have to do a snip test before using it to make sure it is still good.

D-76 is the standard developer by which all others are judged. It is a very good developer that is often overlooked in favor of things that are more exotic. Usually when the exotic experiments are over, the photographer returns to D-76 and is very pleasantly surprised at the results.

Ilford makes versions of many of the above Kodak formulas.

There are two 'non-standard' developers that are commonly used:

If you are using MF then Rodinal produces a look that some like - I have to say I am not a Rodinal fan as it has very low shadow contrast and I like deep velvety shadows with all sorts of detail in them.

Then there is the Pyro faction - you have to mix this up yourself from chemicals. There are numerous formulas and people who have tried to compile them all have thrown up their hands and given up. The most recomended formulas are Pyrocat HD and PMK. Claims are made for highlight detail and a reduction in grain but I have never seen much of either.
 
Nicholas, I'm using 120 film but I can sense in the future I'll probably be using larger format films, albeit probably not a 400 iso film.

Grain doesn't really bother me too much. At this stage I'm only printing 8x10 and with 6x45 it's reasonable.

Like you I'm after good dark shadows with as much detail as I can get.

I'm actually very happy with the look of the negatives I've been getting lately using Ilfosol but haven't really heard of many people using it. That's not to say that it's bad but there might be something out there that suits me better.
 
I've spent a bunch of time doing research into this recently as I didn't experiment much with developers in the past. I've been trying to stay with a somewhat short list for now, paired with the film and condition. I'm pretty clueless, but this is what I've been going with:

HC110: default choice, medium speed films, very expired film to control fog
DD-X: 1600/3200 film where I want good shadow detail and reasonable grain. I'll probably try XTOL to reduce cost once I finish this bottle.
Rodinal: slow, fine grain film (I need to use it more - used it for the first time last night)

Like I said, this is from the perspective of someone who is just trying to sort this out himself. D76 and HC110 are interchangeable from my perspective (though I'd love to know when there are advantages of D76 over HC110)
 
I'm starting to like HC-110, but only just. I don't see it replacing my usual D-76 and XTOL any time soon, but it does give me an attractive option for tray processing a few sheets of film quickly and economically in trays.

I prefer D-76 over HC-110 for two reasons. First, HC-110 is fast acting. I like development times that run at least 7 minutes because it keeps things easier to control. I usually run my process at 75F because it's a temperature that I can easily maintain year round, and at that temperature HC-110 is too fast. Development times can be as short as 3 1/2 minutes. I also get slightly better shadow detail and more well behaved highlights from D-76. It's subtle, but it's there.
 
So I might just have to try something if I'm that keen.
D-76 sounds like the place to start.
Is ID-11 the same as D-76?
 
Yes, ID11 is practically D76.

EDIT: Get the 5l version, the 1l is expensive for the volume you'll get.
 
T-Max 400 and XTol 1:1 is a dream combo. Very fine grain, very good shadow detail, sharp, very good to push for 1-3 f-stops.
 
Choice of developer has less impact on final negative quality with modern emulsions where grain & sharpness is inherent in the film emulsion.

While ID-11/D76 is the standard other developers are compared to as others say Rodinal has it's own advantages as do Pyrocatchin developers like Pyrocat HD.

Rodinal is capable of excellent tonality and superb shadow detail with Tmax films both 100 & 400, although it really comes into it's own with the 100 giving superb definition/sharpness and very fine grain, but the 400 isn't far behind at all.

The Xtol / Tmax 400 combination is particularly good when Xtol is being used replenished, and this is probably the most economic way of working.

My current choice though is Pyrocat HD which is like Rodinal on steroids, exceptional shadow detail, superb highlights and all-round tonality alongside outstanding definition/sharpness and fine grain.

Ian
 
tomalophicon said:
So I might just have to try something if I'm that keen.
D-76 sounds like the place to start.
Is ID-11 the same as D-76?
Click to expand...
************
In my opinion, based on five decades doing film, D76/Id11 is ALWAYS the developer to use first. It is the commonly-used benchmark developer against which all others are compared.
 
Actually I also had been wondering about that...

I've been using Ilford chemicals for the entire process (paper and film developer, fixer, wetting agent) because it's what I have easier access to.

But here on APUG everyone talks about Rodinal, Xtol, D76, etc, but never suggest the Ilford chemicals... Is there something wrong with them? Are they of lower quality?
 
Definitely nothing wrong with Ilford chemicals. To a large extent, it's a matter of availability and personal preference. Additionally, most members here are from the US, so Kodak (and other companies) seem to have an edge. I use anything that is available and suits my needs. That includes chemicals from Kodak, Ilford and Agfa.
 

ID-11 is in practice identical to D76 and you'll also see people recommending DDX, Midrophen and Ilfosol as well as Perceptol, all Ilford vproducts.

So no there's nothing wrong with Ilford's developers

Both Ilford and Kodak made their own versions of Rodinal, Certinal and Kodurol at one time and one of the Ilford developers is ascorbic based like Xtol

Ian
 
Most people have their favorite developers, both film and paper, For me I have two for film,Rodinal is my all time favorite,that will never change, but lately I have been trying out promicrol from Champion, and like it a lot, so I tend to use both at different times, Rodinol is my general purpose developer and promicrol is great if I need an extra stop,Richard
 
For over 45 years I always reached for the D-76 first. Next in line is Pyrocat-HD. I've only been experimenting with that for a few months. I have tried other developers, but always liked D-76 the best. I am starting to love Pyrocat-HD, but again, its not for everything.
 
Love that Rodinal.
As for your question, it is established that there may be developers out there that actually really do suck. But there is no best developer, as most are made for different situations. Like acutance, tonality, speed and so on. Between for example, Perceptol and Microdol, XTol and Microphen, it's really a question of which look you like better.
 
Silence said:
Is there something wrong with [Ilford developers]
Click to expand...

As already said - nothing wrong with them at all.

I use the Kodak names as being in the US I am familiar with the Kodak products (and I feel I have to cheer for the home-town team, if I don't then who will?). Ilford has work-alikes to many of the Kodak products, ID-11 is equivalent to D-76 and all that. There is an Ilford variation on Microdol, but can't remember the name, and if I did I'd probably get it wrong, so I don't try.

Products from either Ilford or Kodak are top grade.
 
My standard is D23 replenished with DK-25R. That does it all for me. Check out the recent uploads from one Saganich in the gallery to see what Tri-X and D23 can do: both straight, and 1+3. He has a great eye and his images done in D23 just "sing."

In addition, D23 is simple, cheap, and forgiving of exposure errors. And, what great shadow detail. Plus, somehow, D23 negs, when printed, have an almost-three d quality depth to the image, the way I see it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The original post asks "if some developers are better than others"?

To answer that I suppose we would need to know 'better for what"?

Early on I used 35mm and wanted to make biggish enlargements.
Consequently I went through a bit of a 'fine grain' phase, as you do ;-)

For this reason I found ID-11 to be a much 'better' developer than Rodinal.

Now, many years later, I rarely shoot 35mm and when I do I often appreciate a bit of grain (if I wanted grain free I'd shoot a bigger format) - so... Rodinal is now one of my favourite developers, even for 35mm.

Personally, I've not yet found a bad developer, they all have some good points, even if it is only cheapness or convenience. Some combinations of films and developers definitely work better than others, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register