Flic Film has made a B&W developer that advertises the same dev time for any B&W film. What's the catch?

[Donald Qualls]

How would I use the posted times for Ilford developers and D-76 to infer a good developing time for Rodinal or PC-TEA? (the developers I have on hand).

Look at developing times for other films in both D-76/ID-11 and your Rodinal or PC-TEA. If Rodinal 1:50 is pretty consistently, say, 50% longer than D-76 stock, then take whatever time Ilford gives for K200 in ID-11 or D-76 stock and add 50%. That may not be perfect, but you'll get printable/scannable negatives and you can adjust your time for the next roll if you want a little more or less contrast (10% more or less makes a visible difference, 20% is about a one stop push or pull).

 

[koraks]

For those of us who are new.... How would I do that? Let's take Kentmere 200 as a concrete example that I care about. How would I use the posted times for Ilford developers and D-76 to infer a good developing time for Rodinal or PC-TEA? (the developers I have on hand).

OK, let's say you have a mystery film you need a development time for your arcane developer of choice and you have the time for D76. You go to the massive dev chart and pick a film that has times for both D76 and your developer of choice. It helps if the film can be expected to somewhat/grossly technically similar to the film you're using. For something like Kentmere 200, I would pick any old classic grain (non T/Delta grain) film and call it good. Let's say Kentmere 100 or 400. Then using the times for that film, work out how much longer or shorter the time would be for development in your developer compared to D76 would be. Apply that same factor for the known D76 time and your new film. Hey presto, you've got a decent starting point. Will it always be perfect? Nope, but it'll get you pretty close to the center of the ballpark alright.

Edit: same as what @Donald Qualls says above, basically. Sorry Donald, I only saw your response as I posted. You beat me to it!

 

[dcy]

What @koraks said. Users are not going to get identical results for all films from this...but may well get *acceptable* results. We've previously discussed how a lot of the younger people coming to film photography do not process their own films, even B&W. This might be seen as less intimidating than charts with different times, concentrations and so on. "One size fits all" is perhaps a good starting place. Additionally these newbies will mostly be scanning negatives and not printing in a darkroom which might mean that variations in properties different films are less worrisome.
...
Not something I am interested in but I can see it has a place.

Earlier I said I wasn't planning to buy it, but I've been going back and forth on that. Even though I already have other B&W developers, I am quite tempted to grab Flic Film's Diafine and give it a try.

I am not young, but I am new at the hobby, and I do find this developer less intimidating. In addition to what you said, Diafine also looks like a developer that is difficult to screw up. If I leave the film in the bath for 4 minutes instead of 3 minutes, my understanding is that nothing's going to change. THAT really grabbed my attention.

I have an enlarger that intend to use for my favorite shots, but most photos will indeed just be scanned, and a handful will go to my photo printer.

 

[koraks]

Honestly, if you're just starting out and you're looking for something dependable for which loads of data is available and will always remain pretty much the gold standard, just buy some D76.

If I leave the film in the bath for 4 minutes instead of 3 minutes, my understanding is that nothing's going to change.

Sadly, that's not the case. It looks simple because people want to make it look that way, not because it necessarily is any simpler than any regular developer out there.

 

[dcy]

Since it purports to be full speed, NOT pushed speed I suspect it is much like any divided developer, for example the Thornton Divided MQ developer, or any number of other divided D-76 or D-23 concoctions. I suspect that the "one time for all films" statement might be a bit inaccurate, when I use the Thornton brew, I give slow films 3 minutes in each bath, medium speed (100-125) films 4 minutes, and 400 speed films 5 minutes, per bath and am perfectly happy with the results. Try it and see, then report back. Something new is always good and supporting newer companies also good.

Thanks!

Question: So your development time only depends on the film ISO and not the particulars of the film? That still looks easy. For most other developers I know (for example) that Kentmere 400 needs more time than HP5 because Kentmere has less silver.

I see from other comments that the Diafine comments don't actually apply to this developer and this is a "Divided MQ developer". Alright. Good to know.

 

[koraks]

So your development time only depends on the film ISO and not the particulars of the film?

No. As always, it depends on physical emulsion structure, degree of hardening of the gelatin, aspect ratio and overall geometry of the grain etc - all parameters that as a user you generally don't know. There are no hard & fast rules.

Look, there's no need to complicate things. Buy any often-used developer, like D76. Follow the manufacturer's recommendations when processing your film. This will get good negatives provided you expose the film right (i.e. you know how to meter). There's really nothing more to it than this.

 

[dcy]

Look, there's no need to complicate things. Buy any often-used developer, like D76. Follow the manufacturer's recommendations when processing your film. This will get good negatives provided you expose the film right (i.e. you know how to meter). There's really nothing more to it than this.

Thanks.

For the "you know how to meter" part: I'm just going to rely on the camera's light meter. I figure that's enough to get acceptable results for a hobbyist.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks.

For the "you know how to meter" part: I'm just going to rely on the camera's light meter. I figure that's enough to get acceptable results for a hobbyist.

It is - as long as you are careful where you are pointing the camera when you take the reading. In most cases, you can basically point and shoot. When there are big areas of extra shadows or highlights in view, a bit of adjustment is in order.

 

[mshchem]

Buy a Harman developer.

Keep good records.

You're way more likely to screw up the initial exposure, especially when using an in camera averaging meter. (Everything will be 18% gray)

I have been using XTOL for decades, EK published times. XTOL is a powder, 5L mix can be a pain. Adox XT-3 mixes super easy, is a XTOL knockoff.

Being new at this I would buy a small quantity of the least expensive Ilford film developer.

 

[koraks]

I'm just going to rely on the camera's light meter.

Sure, many of us do, and it works great in most cases. But it's still a tool that needs to be used with awareness of its capabilities and limitations. Honestly, of the technical problems with people's film, 99.5% is made at this stage. Usually it's some variant of not realizing that all a light meter will do is tell how far up or down the metered area is from middle grey, or failure to realize that the meter has a pattern to begin with (spot, partial, integral, AI-gizmo enhanced matrix etc.) Learning how to meter is really worth it. To an extent, you can even practice this with a digital camera, although there are some caveats in translating that experience back to film.

 

[dcy]

It is - as long as you are careful where you are pointing the camera when you take the reading. In most cases, you can basically point and shoot. When there are big areas of extra shadows or highlights in view, a bit of adjustment is in order.

I can do that. Thanks! So "expose for the shadows" translates to "when you see big areas of extra shadows, overexpose a little".

 

[koraks]

So "expose for the shadows" translates to "when you see big areas of extra shadows, overexpose a little".

No, I wouldn't say that. "Expose for the shadows" really means nothing more than "expose in such a way that differentiation in the shadow areas is recorded on the film." How you do that and whether it involves overexposure really depends on your metering technique.

 

[bernard_L]

Earlier I said I wasn't planning to buy it, but I've been going back and forth on that. Even though I already have other B&W developers, I am quite tempted to grab Flic Film's Diafine and give it a try.

Often given advice: don't waste your time; there is no silver bullet.
Quotation from the description of a developer (for paper, but all the same)

After 20 years of experience in "developer construction", it is time to break new ground.
Modesty and noble restraint are not appropriate, when others bang on the drum and blow the horn, the flute is not heard: *******, my best positive developer and thus probably the best warm tone developer in the world.

Pick one or two films from same supplier --Ilford, Foma, Kodak-- choose and use one developer from that same supplier, and the times provided by the supplier for his film and his developer. Do not put much faith in the Massive Development Chart.
Does not sound as exciting as hopping between "exotic" films and devs, but you will reach a decent mastery of these two combos faster, and you will have more time to learn about light, tonality, composition, etc.

 

[Donald Qualls]

None the less, you'll almost always get better results by adding a stop of exposure than by subtracting one...

 

[Yezishu]

For those of us who are new.... How would I do that? Let's take Kentmere 200 as a concrete example that I care about. How would I use the posted times for Ilford developers and D-76 to infer a good developing time for Rodinal or PC-TEA? (the developers I have on hand).

I don't want to lose a roll. Photography is a hobby for me, but that doesn't mean that I'm ok losing a week's worth of pictures because a roll was over or under developed.

You don't need to develop an entire roll at once. You can shot any standard color chart or a familiar scene with light and shadow, and physically cut the film with scissors to develop just one or two frames . It's well-known that PC-TEA 1:50 is equivalent to D-76 1:1, similar relationships are mentioned in new formula tutorials or by salers. You can also consult the Massive Dev Chart. From this start point, normal films from major brands like Kentmere, I don't see any reason why I wouldn't be able to find the optimal development parameters within four or five tries.

However, for a responsible brand, eliable results shouldn't require testing. Harman/Ilford provides parameters for all their major developers in documentation. Purchasing a well-known developer from a major brand, such as Kodak D-76 powder or HC110 or their Ilford equivalent, follow the documentation, you won't have to worry about these issues anymore......

 

[pentaxuser]

dcy, given the difficulties with this developer, based on the replies I am surprised that it sells at all

Seriously if it appeals to you, try it and see what you think with several films then let us know if it does what you need it to

pentaxuser

 

[Craig]

Thanks.

For the "you know how to meter" part: I'm just going to rely on the camera's light meter. I figure that's enough to get acceptable results for a hobbyist.

Keep in mind that the meter is also aiming to average the light to a middle grey of 18% reflectance. That's an "average" scene. If your subject is snow for example, you don't want that rendered grey and the meter will typically underexpose by about 2 stops. The opposite happens if you scene is mainly dark to black.

If you know what the meter is trying to do, then you can compensate if your subject doesn't fit into an average scene.

 

[darkroommike]

No. As always, it depends on physical emulsion structure, degree of hardening of the gelatin, aspect ratio and overall geometry of the grain etc - all parameters that as a user you generally don't know. There are no hard & fast rules.

Look, there's no need to complicate things. Buy any often-used developer, like D76. Follow the manufacturer's recommendations when processing your film. This will get good negatives provided you expose the film right (i.e. you know how to meter). There's really nothing more to it than this.

Yup. in THEORY all emulsions will take up all the developer A that they can in 3 minutes and will use the activator in developer B as it is required. In THEORY. In PRACTICE, and with the type of scenes I shoot on a roll, it probably averages out, but might be a total mess sensitometrically. I don't shoot Sensitometry or Control Strips all the time, in fact only rarely, but that is a lot higher number than never. And in reality, all (almost all) divided developers do a lot of their developing in the first, Part A bath, and continue to process the higher exposure values in the Part B bath, but only until the Part A in the highlight areas is "used up" at which point the lower values are still processing. Farber and Vestal both experimented with divided processing using straight D-76 for their Part A and a simple Part B bath that could be a borax, metaborate, or a carbonate solution of 8-10%. As I said earlier, kudos to any relatively new company that takes another swing at a divided developer (or anything else darkroom chemistry related). The Thorton MQ divided developer, which I like, does something similar but his Part A is much closer to D-23 than D-76.

 

[mshchem]

Thanks.

For the "you know how to meter" part: I'm just going to rely on the camera's light meter. I figure that's enough to get acceptable results for a hobbyist.

If you want to waste a couple frames use the camera's built in meter take a few photos of an "all white" subject, and an all dark subject shoot these sequentially. Painted building will work well. When you look at the negatives the dark and the light building will look alike.

Sunny 16 never fails, better than a reflective light meter. Reflective light meters require a standard known standard.

First rule of film photography is relax and go shoot.

Sunny 16, D76 8 minutes at 68°F

 

[dcy]

Look at developing times for other films in both D-76/ID-11 and your Rodinal or PC-TEA. If Rodinal 1:50 is pretty consistently, say, 50% longer than D-76 stock, then take whatever time Ilford gives for K200 in ID-11 or D-76 stock and add 50%. That may not be perfect, but you'll get printable/scannable negatives and you can adjust your time for the next roll if you want a little more or less contrast (10% more or less makes a visible difference, 20% is about a one stop push or pull).

Thanks! That's a useful guide: ± 10% for visible difference, ± 20% for 1 stop.

 

[dcy]

If you want to waste a couple frames use the camera's built in meter take a few photos of an "all white" subject, and an all dark subject shoot these sequentially. Painted building will work well. When you look at the negatives the dark and the light building will look alike.

I'm happy to waste a few frames to experiment. But I'm confused. How can an all-white subject look the same as an all-black subject? Oh, and this test might not work on my camera. I'm using a Pentax 17 which is sort-of an automatic camera. I say "sort of" because I have an exposure compensation dial, but no direct control over shutter or aperture. My plan for a new film is to take some of my shots in pairs at two different ISOs and when I develop I'd visually judge if I'm consistently happier with one ISO or another.

First rule of film photography is relax and go shoot.

 

[MattKing]

I'm happy to waste a few frames to experiment. But I'm confused. How can an all-white subject look the same as an all-black subject?

The meter doesn't know what it is being pointed at. So it measures the amount of light bouncing back to it, and tells the photographer what settings to use to make the subject that the light is bouncing back from appear to be a particular medium tone - roughly the appearance of an 18% gray card.
If you want the black subject to look dark black, rather than gray, you have to give it less exposure than the meter suggests.
If you want the white subject to look white, rather than gray, you have to give it more exposure than the meter suggests.
Why 18% gray you ask?
It is because, on average, scenes with a wide variety of tones and reflectances tend to average out to being about 18% reflective, so a reading from most mixed scenes averages out pretty well, giving good results with both the darkest and lightest parts.

 

[mshchem]

And to complicate matters further. Let's say you use the exposure compensation dial on the camera to adjust for light and dark subjects. Then you send your film off for prints, and the robotic printer prints every print the same.

Pentax 17, cool!!! Enjoy and you'll be fine. It's a life-long learning experience, well at least for me, I'm a little slow on the uptake

 

[dcy]

It's well-known that PC-TEA 1:50 is equivalent to D-76 1:1

Woot!

I did not know that. I can find D-76 1+1 times for almost anything. I've bookmarked your comment and I've made a table of D-76 1+1 times for a few film stocks.

However, for a responsible brand, reliable results shouldn't require testing. Harman/Ilford provides parameters for all their major developers in documentation. Purchasing a well-known developer from a major brand, such as Kodak D-76 powder or HC110 or their Ilford equivalent, follow the documentation, you won't have to worry about these issues anymore......

Yeah. You know, I'm just gonna buy D-76. I wanted to stay away from powder developers cause you have to mix them all at once and they eventually die. But a D76 pack to make 1L is just $10. I'm going to use the D-76 1+1 solution one-shot and also try PC-TEA 1+50 and I can compare the results.

Thanks!

 

[Kino]

For long-term thrifty D76 : https://www.distinctionphoto.com/how-to-make-your-own-kodak-d76-from-scratch/