Going to finally start home developing - some developer advice

[logan2z]

I think it's finally time to stop sending my film out to a lab for developing and to start developing at home. I was going to do this a couple of years ago and accumulated reels/tanks/chemistry, but chickened out. Subsequently, all of the chemistry I bought for film developing (Kodak HC-110/stop bath/fixer) has expired. A couple of questions before I re-buy the chemistry I need:

1. I primarily shoot Kodak Tri-X 400 in 135 and 120 formats. Is there any benefit to using Kodak's own chemistry for developing Kodak film? I see that Kodak'x data sheet for Tri-X gives development times for HC-110, D-76 and XTOL so I assume any of these would work well. I also recently bought a few rolls of Ilford FP4+ so suggestions for a developer that works well for both of these films (whether it's the same developers or not) are welcome.
   
   
2. I usually shoot Tri-X 400 at EI200 and have the lab develop the film straight up, so the negatives are overexposed by a stop. I have had no real issues with that - the negatives print relatively easily - but developing myself will hopefully give me more control over negative density. Any recommendations for adjustments to development time in order to give me negatives with good shadow detail and highlights that aren't too dense in order to make things even easier to print?
   

Thanks in advance.

 

[PhotoJim]

Your HC-110 will still be good. So will your stop bath. And your fixer is likely fine too. (If it's powder, it's fine. If it's liquid, as long as it doesn't smell sulfurous and there aren't white flakes floating around in it, it's fine.)

Personally I recommend D-76 1+1 for starting but you might as well use your HC-110 instead. No, you don't have to stick to like-company chemicals to develop film. Use whatever is convenient and suits your purposes.

 

[Anon Ymous]

It is very unlikely that the HC110 and stop bath you bought two years ago has expired. Even the fixer is probably fine, but has to be checked.

 

[BradS]

Your HC-110 will still be good. So will your stop bath. And your fixer is likely fine too. (If it's powder, it's fine. If it's liquid, as long as it doesn't smell sulfurous and there aren't white flakes floating around in it, it's fine.)

Personally I recommend D-76 1+1 for starting but you might as well use your HC-110 instead. No, you don't have to stick to like-company chemicals to develop film. Use whatever is convenient and suits your purposes.

Exactly what what he said!

 

[Agulliver]

Your HC110 is probably still fine, as others say. I would +1 the recommendation of D76 or the practically identical Ilford ID-11 but since you already have the HC110 go with that. There's no real world advantage to using Kodak chemicals with Kodak films, over chemicals from Ilford or any other brand.. Use whatever is readily available at the price you want to pay. ID-11 and D76 may well be the most "standard" developers out there so it's often a starting point.

You can certainly try consulting the "massive development chart" or downloading "film developer pro" if you have an Android phone. They contain development times for practically every film in every developer, at various different "ISO" speeds and temperatures. That way you can experiment a bit regarding your over exposed films. Though if you're happy exposing at 200 and developing for 400 you may end up settling on that....but above all its fun to experiment.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Worth noting that while HC-110 from two years or so ago will last a very long time, the new HC-110 gives every warning about lacking that longevity (though it's too new to be certain).

That said, I agree that there's nothing special about Kodak developers vs. any other. I've recently become a hard and fast Xtol fan, but in the past I've used HC-110, home mixed D-23, and Parodinal (a homebrew version of Rodinal). All of them produce good negatives.

HC-110 is very versatile -- different dilutions can simulate various other Kodak developers. Dilution B has similar qualities to D-76 or Xtol stock solution; Dilutions D, F, and G are similar to diluted versions (especially of D-76), and unofficial Dilution H (half of G, as I recall, 1+119 from syrup) can simulate the compensating effect of a highly dilute developer like Rodinal 1:50.

If you really need to, you can even develop photo paper in HC-110 Dilution A, though it will change the image tone compared to Dektol or other standard paper developer (when i did it in high school, I got very blue images).

 

[logan2z]

Thanks for the replies so far.

My HC-110 expired in 2017, so either it was already nearing the expiry date when I bought it or it's been a bit longer than two years since I bought it - it could be closer to three. I figured it was best to start with something on the right side of the expiry date for my first foray into home developing to eliminate as many potential issues as possible.

I think I'd prefer a liquid developer to a powder that I need to mix myself. That's probably why I went with HC-110 in the first place as opposed to something like D-76 or XTOL.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If your HC-110 concentrate is the color of commercial clover honey, it's fine. If it's the color of robust wildflower honey, it's still fine. If it looks like maple syrup, I'd do a leader test, but it's probably still good. As long as the container was sealed (even if air wasn't squeezed out), three or four years is nothing for old-style "syrup" HC-110. I'd got old syrup in little juice bottles (divided down from the large bottle when I opened it), that's been there for almost fifteen years, and it's the same color as when I bottled it -- therefore it's fine.

Nothing wrong with wanting to try a different developer -- not at all -- but don't feel like you must because your HC-110 syrup is three years past date. At the least don't throw it out if you buy something else. If you really want to get rid of it, PM me, and I'll make you an offer...

 

[Paul Howell]

Although expensive at around $65 a liter Ilford HC has very similar working characterics to HC110 and lasts a long time. DDX and Tmax developer also have long shelf lifes Then from Photographers Formulary B-W44, I used it a number of years ago and liked it.

Formulary's BW-44 Liquid Film Developer was formulated because of the many calls the Formulary had been receiving for liquid pre-mixed formulas for film, paper, and fixing. We feel that the BW-44 is a very good developer with all films. The life of the stock solutions is 1 year in tightly capped bottles. This formula uses A and B stock solutions. You can expect to get 10-15 rolls of film per liter of developer at a 1:1:5 dilution. The working solution has a life of 2 weeks. BW-44 is a high capacity developer and very suitable for large or small format. This formula should give the very best in shadow detail and sharp highlights. You can vary the dilutions from 1:1:1 up to 1:1:20.f. Somewhat

 

[PhotoJim]

Just one comment about powdered developers versus liquid ones. I see this a lot on the Internet and I think people overestimate the issues with powdered chemicals.

- Yes, it is a slight extra nuisance.
- Yes, you save money because you're not paying to ship all the water in a liquid concentrate.
- Yes, you need to measure water and check its temperature to mix it up. But you need to do this to make working solution with your concentrate, too.
- Yes, you need to stir but it doesn't take that long. If you're really lazy, you can buy a magnetic stirrer to do the work for you. I finally did a few years ago, but I went close to 30 years stirring manually.
- Yes, powdered developers have very long storage lives. I just mixed up some 2010-expired D-76 on Thursday, and it worked perfectly on Friday.
- Yes, you need to let it cool after mixing before you use it (unless you bought Kodak XTOL, which you can mix at room temperature), but it doesn't take all that much planning.
- Yes, if you really want to save money if you're a heavy chemistry user, you can mix up some common formulas (like D-76) from scratch using bulk chemicals, and you can try formulas long out of production, too.

I do have Rodinal and HC-110 in my darkroom - and truthfully, I used some HC-110 on Thursday because my D-76 was still too warm and I wanted to get some film processed that same day - but I've never found powdered chemistry to be all that much of a bother. I find it particularly true now that shipping costs have increased so much. Buying liquid chemistry locally isn't too bad (although it is still more expensive; it had to be shipped there). But paying for shipping again from a remote dealer to me makes the whole process pretty costly. Every litre of water you ship is a kiliogram, remember.

That having been said, HC-110 is a pretty decent developer, but the convenience to me is moreso the longevity than its being liquid. Mixing D-76 or ID-11 from powder is not much different bother-wise than dealing with syringes and that heavy viscous syrup. (I haven't tried the new HC-110, but I hope Kodak hasn't harmed its longevity too much, or I'll have a decision to make.)

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Powders last a lot... I have a few gallon boxes of Ilford Microphen that's so old Delta3200 is not listed, because those boxes are from the 1990s... Perfect when mixed, and great developer if you like speed and a bit of grain, two lovely birth marks if we talk about Tri-X... Have fun developing! If you want to dissolve grain, forget about Microphen...

 

[removed account4]

If I was to start it all over again, I would just buy Ansco 130 and not use anything else. And If I couldn't order it from the Formulary or whomever you get your "kits" from, I'd get stock chemicals and make D72 (I wouldn't use bags of dektol only because they are brown) . Both are great and versatile developer you can develop any film any speed any format in. 130 lasts forever in a stock solution. You can use it replenished or one shot, you can use it in small tanks deep tanks shuffle in trays or anything in-between. If I didn't have so many coffee beans in my garage to roast I'd still be using that as my one developer for film and prints developer, and nothing else, as I did for years.

YMMV

 

[Donald Qualls]

Can't say about Ansco 130, but some folks object to the level of grain Dektol/D-72 produces in small negatives. No question, it does work, and it might well win if I had to choose only one developer for film and paper for the rest of my life (its cause would be aided by the fact I prefer larger film these days) -- but it wouldn't be my first choice for 35mm (or heaven forbid, 16mm), especially with fast films, if there were other options.

 

[Bormental]

Just one comment about powdered developers versus liquid ones. I see this a lot on the Internet and I think people overestimate the issues with powdered chemicals.

Indeed! And people overstate the convenience of liquids. It is easier mix a batch of 1 gallon or 5L of developer and stash it away once in a while (good or 3-4 months). Stashing is fine, since we're already storing fixers & stop baths, a developer is just an extra bottle.

This way, when you want to develop film:

• Pull your 3 bottles out
• Pour & go!

Much faster & easier, no need to measure anything or fret over keeping properties of a developer concentrate.

 

[eli griggs]

D-76, , 23, etc powdered developers are easy to compound on your own, as long as you can follow directions and do good clean-up of your work area and darkroom.

Pre-packaged D-76 and ID-11 have perseveres in them for long shelf life, and I'll suppose most other mainstream pre-mixed developers, do as well, excepting perhaps, Photographer's Formulary kits, but best check to be sure.

Photographer's Formulary and Art Craft are but two sources for raw chemistry, with which to compound your own D-76, and other developers from, but do no assume that HC-110 is included in that self-mixed category, AFIK, HC110 is NO something you can do on your own.


A good scale is needed that can measure in GRAINS as well as OZs and Grams, and I suggest a gunpowder reloaders scale, for your kit. Even the plastic and 'cheaper' Lee Precision scale can measure to 1/10 of a GRAIN, and there are 7,000 Grains to one standard American Pound.

This will be a bit tedious for measuring Sodium Sulfite for developers, etc, but just the thing for more potent chemicals which need more careful attention to mixing, especially if you take a formula and dived it so you can use lesser volumes of developers, etc.

Personally, I like the RCBS Scale, manual no electric, but I already had it on hand, for reloading ammo, when I decided Kodak, etc could no be depended on to supply affordable products and a expanded menu of choices.

A magnetic mixer is VERY EASY to make, YouTube has many videos on how to make such tools, for Beer Makers Home Use.

A heavy wooden cigar box, salvaged or bought, that, with the use of a computer fan, a pack of 3/4" - 1" or 18mm to 25 mm neodymium magnets some hot glue and a working, old cell phone charger to supply power, is all you need, but be sure it can easily carry a 4-5 quart glass Pyrex or Anchor measuring cup, filled to the top volume marking, with water, so even with plastic mixing cups that volume of water and that size of a box top, fit on your mixer, safely, and no balancing act is required.

I recommend a dial to control power feed, so you can tailor your spinning mix-bar; lab stirrers in different sizes are on amazon, eBay, so buy a few of different sizes to better assist your mixing.

After your box has been tested and found to work as needed, add real rubber feet, below, you can buy rubber pads of 4" x 4" at plumbing and Home Depot stores, and if you don't mind the expense, spray or paint the outer box with a rubberized spray, so it does no adsorb water.

The rest of what is needed is mostly just Chemicals and a lockable space to keep others from 'peeking inside the bottles and jars, especially the very young.

Measuring spoons, cups, PH strips, etc, as easy Wal-Mart buys, just mark them well so they do no go walk about into your kitchen.

These lots to learn but unless you want to take a chemistry course or two, basic mixing is easy, so do no be intimidated into no trying.

Cheers.

 

[removed account4]

Can't say about Ansco 130, but some folks object to the level of grain Dektol/D-72 produces in small negatives. No question, it does work, and it might well win if I had to choose only one developer for film and paper for the rest of my life (its cause would be aided by the fact I prefer larger film these days) -- but it wouldn't be my first choice for 35mm (or heaven forbid, 16mm), especially with fast films, if there were other options.

Hi Donald
I've used both with 1/2 frame upto 8x10 film slow as well as tmz, never had issue with grain with either developer, but had beautiful smooth tonality, I always smile about this because there are myths on the inter web about "golf ball sized grain" with d72, my experiences have. been the opposite. I processed hundreds maybe .. no a thousand+ rolls/sheets --- boxes and boxes of 4x5 and rolls and rolls of 35mm tmy/tmx , hundreds of sheets of 5x7 tri x, and hundreds of 120 rolls of plus x in ansco130. The trick (if you can call it that) is not to go cave-man on agitation. ... when people go nuts on agitation that it builds up too much contrast. No clue about grain because, never had issues with it, unless I wanted it, then I like to over expose and over develop to get nice grain.. and bulletproof film.

 

[MattKing]

A good scale is needed that can measure in GRAINS as well as OZs and Grams, and I suggest a gunpowder reloaders scale, for your kit. Even the plastic and 'cheaper' Lee Precision scale can measure to 1/10 of a GRAIN, and there are 7,000 Grains to one standard American Pound.

There is at least one member here that doesn't like Kodak photo-chemicals because some of them use non-metric quantities - ounces, quarts and gallons.
This post might just make their head explode!

 

[PhotoJim]

There is at least one member here that doesn't like Kodak photo-chemicals because some of them use non-metric quantities - ounces, quarts and gallons.
This post might just make their head explode!

My scale does tenths of grams. It's good enough for my purposes.

I do prefer larger packs of Ilford chemistry to larger packs of Kodak chemistry, in general, because of metric measurements, to be sure. We never used US gallons here even before we went to metric.

 

[MattKing]

When my Dad started me on this long road - in the 1960s! - he supplied me with half gallon glass containers for storing chemicals - and they were Imperial half gallons!
So even then, then US measurements for Kodak chemicals didn't match.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Hi Donald
I've used both with 1/2 frame upto 8x10 film slow as well as tmz, never had issue with grain with either developer, but had beautiful smooth tonality, I always smile about this because there are myths on the inter web about "golf ball sized grain" with d72, my experiences have. been the opposite. I processed hundreds maybe .. no a thousand+ rolls/sheets --- boxes and boxes of 4x5 and rolls and rolls of 35mm tmy/tmx , hundreds of sheets of 5x7 tri x, and hundreds of 120 rolls of plus x in ansco130. The trick (if you can call it that) is not to go cave-man on agitation. ... when people go nuts on agitation that it builds up too much contrast. No clue about grain because, never had issues with it, unless I wanted it, then I like to over expose and over develop to get nice grain.. and bulletproof film.

Can't match John's experience but I have found that suitably diluted Ansco 130 gives very nice tonal gradation and crisp grain. John's advice on agitation while using Ansco 130 is sage - keep it minimal. Frankly, those who doubt the suitability of Ansco 130 as a film developer should try it at least once and form opinion based on their results.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've used a reloading scale for home brewed developers for years. The only inconvenience I find is that mine is quite limited in how much I can weigh -- 510 grains (=33.1g) in a single pan, and that much of most powders tends to overfill the pan. Plus the need to convert units, of course -- 15.4 grains per gram is close enough. Precision is more than I need -- 0.1 grains (settable finer than that, but not marked any finer) is about 6.5 mg.

These days, you can get a "drug scale" (small portable electronic scale with strain gage sensor) for about the same money as a beam balance reloading scale like mine, but when I got my scale (1981) an electronic scale would have cost more than a car.

 

[logan2z]

Just to clarify, I was avoiding powdered developers because I had read about some potential health risks of working with them. It was more about that than the convenience of liquid developers.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If it's the dust that concerns you, there are some options. First, use Xtol. Phenidone and ascorbate rather than metol and hydroquinone as in D-76, pretty much the same otherwise. Borax alkali, sodium sulfite -- and none of that stuff is particularly toxic (ascrobate is actually a vitamin), though it surely can be a respiratory irritant. Borax is probably the worst of the lot (makes a decent ant repellent, though the ants are getting the dust caught in their exoskeleton joints rather than inhaling or ingesting it) -- but it's been sold as a laundry aid for more than a century; I'm reasonably sure it would have been pulled from the market if there were big health risks.

You can either mix outdoors, in a breeze, or under an exhaust fan to draw any dust you raise away from your face. Wear safety glasses. Add a dust mask if it makes you feel better (won't do any harm, might keep more of the dust out of your airways). You can also submerge the bag into the water, if your mixing vessel is wide enough, and raise virtually no dust at all. Otherwise, dump the contents all at once, rather than stretching the stream; less of it will wind up in the air.

And once it's mixed, rinse the bags with the new solution to be sure you've got everything, and to remove the dust from them, and you're done.

 

[Pentode]

If your HC-110 concentrate is the color of commercial clover honey, it's fine. If it's the color of robust wildflower honey, it's still fine. If it looks like maple syrup, I'd do a leader test, but it's probably still good. As long as the container was sealed (even if air wasn't squeezed out), three or four years is nothing for old-style "syrup" HC-110. I'd got old syrup in little juice bottles (divided down from the large bottle when I opened it), that's been there for almost fifteen years, and it's the same color as when I bottled it -- therefore it's fine.

At 3+ years old your HC-110 is almost certainly the old, thick syrup type that Donald describes above. That stuff has a ridiculously long shelf life. Years and years. I would be very surprised if it were bad. As Donald said, if it's still yellow or even yellowish, it's fine. HC-110 dilution H (1+63) is a great middle ground for this developer, behaving a lot like D-76 1:1 and delivering similar (not identical) tonality. One bottle of HC-110 at this dilution will develop a lot of rolls of film. That will give you a chance to concentrate your efforts on one film at one speed in one developer for a good while - which is the best way to get the hang of this.

As others have stated here your fixer is the only chemical that might have gone South on you and even that might be fine if it's still in its original bottle and concentrated. If it doesn't smell rotten it should be okay.

The most important advice I can offer has nothing to do with chemistry: Keep Good Notes!*

*and don't forget to have fun

 

[MattKing]

I agree with everything posted above about chemical longevity - particularly HC-110.
One further thing to check though - the bottles themselves.
In particular check the physical integrity of the bottle of stop bath concentrate.
If you see signs of leakage or the bottles are in any way brittle, it may be prudent to discard their contents in an environmentally prudent way.
Given the time frame mentioned by the OP there isn't much likelihood that there will be problems, but I would suggest that the "expiry" dates on many darkroom chemicals are, often as not, related to the container's lifespan as much as the contents.