Going to finally start home developing - some developer advice

[Vaughn]

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.

I mixed hundreds of gallons of powder fixer and developers, a gallon at a time, stirring by hand in a small unventilated room.

My lungs are fine. Okay, a little asthma that, when combined with a heart that goes out of beat occasionally, sends me into a fetal position because I do not have enough energy for anything else. But, hey, it does not happen often, and there are many other issues and factors involved. Breathing all the photo chemical dust back in the late 70s/early 80s just did not help. (The university finally bought a magnetic stirrer). It did help a little that I only did this in the winters -- summers were out in the woods working where the most toxic gas around was emitted by the hay-burners...aka, mules.

If you use powdered chemicals, I suggest a mask and some of the other suggestions for handling powders (such as submerging the opening of the package in the water as you pour it in).

The HC-110 is a good place to start...get a good feel for it and then try other developers if so desired and you'll have something to compare by. Have fun!

 

[Bormental]

+1 on the recommendation of sticking to just one developer. I have wasted so much time hopping between developers, and my results have noticeably improved after I stopped and concentrated on using just one, but doing it well. The same probably applies to film, but I am an addict, just love the variety and different looks, sometimes even returning and re-shooting a scene on different film (Fomapan, HP5+ and Delta give me three very different looks).

 

[Paul Howell]

I'm not a one size developer and film fits all, to start pick one film and one developer, but different situations call for different films, different formats, and different developers.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

A couple of questions before I re-buy the chemistry I need:

Advice:
If you want to see things, there's a way: see the same scene developed with a standard developer, with Rodinal, and with a speed enhancing developer... When you wet print those three, you see everything.
You can buy D-76, Rodinal and Microphen... If you want to, you can replace D-76 with Xtol: they're very close.

 

[DF]

I think it would be almost futile to start darkroom activity on your own. It's much better to be around others for first hand guidance/feedback, so, If there is a community darkroom of some sorts, be it with a local park district, or adult continuing education, consider it.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

For starters I would not go anywhere outside of Rodinal. One shot and crap, so once development completed dump in a sink and forget it, mix a new one for next roll. It typically gives great results to boot, although surely it is not a one-for-all films (as hardly any other is). Starting in developing own film has learning curve at every step and I find Rodinal just plain simplest and takes away one key mistake - storage and reuse of developer already mixed and used with all the baggage this brings along.

 

[Agulliver]

I don't know what OP has read about powder developers but they are designed with the home user in mind and many of us have been mixing them for decades with no problems. Do so in a well ventilated room, you can consider wearing a face mask if you have known respiratory issues but I've supervised someone who has "rapid onset life threatening asthma" mixing up ID-11 without issue.

 

[russell_w_b]

I think it would be almost futile to start darkroom activity on your own...'.

Not so much these days with fora and the Internet, it isn't, although you can't beat talking to like-minded people face-to-face. I started developing on my own (just developing in a dark-bag; no darkroom as yet), although, to be fair, we used to have a darkroom at work and a works camera club. I only ever developed prints there and never film. Being among like-minded folks enhances the learning curve but it's by no means impossible to go it alone.

I tend to use ID-11 or D-76 on 35mm, and HC-110 (B, E or H) on 120, but have used Rodinal on both formats. Not so keen on it with 35mm though. I'm warming more to HC-110 but I like ID-11 best. I may try buying ID-11 in larger packs to make up 5 litres of juice in a bucket, as it's cheaper that way, but I reckon I'll need to start developing stuff in stock solution so I don't have too much left by it expires!

 

[phaedrus]

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.

One recommendation for your second question: try Diafine. It is a compensating, two-bath, fine grain developer and it gives you exposure indexes that for most films lie above the box speed. Plus, it is pretty insensitive to development temperature ("about" 20 °C) and times (for most films, it is 3 minutes in each bath). Compensating means it helps to get high contrast subjects on the negative with details in the shadows and the lights still printable. I use it for all B&W films. I look the E.I. up in the Massive Dev Chart app and like you, I give it one stop more exposure for a start. I also use the app while developing. It gives sequential timers and nice hints for the inversion rhythm.

 

[eli griggs]

I like Rodnal with T*Max 100 and I'm considering using it with T*Max 400, along with PMK.

Using raw chemicals for darkrooms is simple, in most cases easy, so long as you pay attention to safety, good ventilation and good washing up/disposal of ALL areas and kit used to make up your solutions.

Rodinal, D-76, Amadol, PMK, Ansco 130, hypo, hypoclear, toners, ect are among the many easy to home mix, just use good equipment, and a 500 to 1000 Grain (no Gram) gunpowder ballance scale.

I consider digital scales useless unless a formula calls for 1/4 pound and larger measures.

You can make (or buy) a stirrer but hand storing still gets the job well done but your critical tools are good measuring tools, including a GP scale and a precise lab thermometer, again, analog, no digital.

Raw chemicals, well stored, generally last a long time on a shelf and home mixed solutions generally do no include "preservation" chemicals added by Kodak, etc, to allow extended storage of dry mixes etc.

IF, you are sure you'll be responsible enough, able & willing to keep clean spaces, and safely cleaned containers, plus other kit, go ahead, try your own mixes and keep your chemistry locked up if any kids EVER visit your spaces.

It is a pleasant thought knowing you can have what you want to hand, without dependency on premixed formulas, any time you want it and you're doing it properly.

IMO.

 

[Steven Lee]

When it comes to developing film at home, I am bi-polar.

One half of me loves devouring developer discussions online, stare at grain patters at 20x magnification, measure tiny film speed or highlight compression differences between developers, dropping marbles into bottles, maintaining meticulous spreadsheets with notes for post-scanning sharpening for film+developer combinations, etc. This is strangely satisfying.

But my better half knows that the developer choice does not matter. At all. Looking at my photos from 3+ years ago I can barely tell which film was used, and I can never guess the film+developer combination. Even Rodinal, which - if you compare it side by side on a controlled subject - usually stands out, fades away with time and you realize that any image could have been created with any developer. Developer choice has little to do with the final result. What matters far more is your exposure and development technique.

And when I try to reconcile these two brains, it comes down to circumstances. Pick a developer which makes sense for your context: price, availability, shelf life, storage conditions, shooting volume, preference for liquid vs powder, etc. Even intangibles like using the same chemistry that Adams cooked his landscapes in, or using the latest and greatest, or using the oldest known formula in 2023, are valid criteria. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we're improving or ruining our images by our developer choices. You can squeeze a lot of mileage of any developer by picking just one (any will do) and going deep, optimizing for the final look of your choice.

And when I apply this to my own routine and I get honest with myself, I realize that I use Xtol simply because it was the last product out of Kodak chemical engineering before their collapse. This has value to me. And I replenish because I love the process of tinkering with control strips and a densitometer. It's therapy for me after a stressful day at work. These choices I've made contribute nothing to the final look.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

One recommendation for your second question: try Diafine. It is a compensating, two-bath, fine grain developer and it gives you exposure indexes that for most films lie above the box speed. Plus, it is pretty insensitive to development temperature ("about" 20 °C) and times (for most films, it is 3 minutes in each bath). Compensating means it helps to get high contrast subjects on the negative with details in the shadows and the lights still printable. I use it for all B&W films. I look the E.I. up in the Massive Dev Chart app and like you, I give it one stop more exposure for a start. I also use the app while developing. It gives sequential timers and nice hints for the inversion rhythm.

I'm a huge Diafine fan. But why are we still offering recommendations to a September 2020 question?

 

[npl]

On powder developer : as mentionned Xtol is better, and for extra peace of mind Adox's version (XT-3) is designed to prevent inhaling the stuff (https://www.adox.de/Photo/xt3-en/). Don't know how well that work, I have yet to put my hand on some.

 

[ags2mikon]

I'm a huge Diafine fan. But why are we still offering recommendations to a September 2020 question?

Maybe he hasn't made his mind up yet?

 

[eli griggs]

A sounding of "up to date" airing of experience and speculation is never out date, unless the Lo Main is already delivered.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I consider digital scales useless unless a formula calls for 1/4 pound and larger measures.

I used to agree with this. Then I bought a scale for making coffee (pour-over, weigh the grounds, weigh the water, time the process to get consistent, perfect brew). Under US$40, 0.1 gram resolution up to 1 kg, and weighs up to 3 kg total.

Almost nothing in photography needs less than 0.1 g; the few things that do are usually best handled with a 1% or 2% stock solution.

Now I've got an identical scale in my darkroom. MUCH easier to use than my old reloading scale, and costs about the same as a new reloading scale would.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I choose XTOL because of the trade off of sharpness, tonality and grain.

 

[logan2z]

I see this thread has been resurrected

I ended up going with HC-110 (using the unofficial Dilution H) for developing Tri-X.

I've started shooting quite a bit of FP4+ recently and have been developing it in Rodinal 1:50.

I've been pretty happy with both of these film/developer combos.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

But my better half knows that the developer choice does not matter. At all. Looking at my photos from 3+ years ago I can barely tell which film was used, and I can never guess the film+developer combination. Even Rodinal, which - if you compare it side by side on a controlled subject - usually stands out, fades away with time and you realize that any image could have been created with any developer. Developer choice has little to do with the final result. What matters far more is your exposure and development technique.

Bingo. You chose Xtol. I chose Rodinal: cheap, reliable, long shelf life. A handful of developers are in a world of their own — Diafine for example. But the rest are essentially fungible, so far as the negative is concerned.