Good old D76 and HP5+

Richard Jepsen · Mar 21, 2014

For the practical photographer D-76/XTOL develop to a similar contrast curve and give similar results. Sudden death is a past issue.

Yes, you can use one developer for different films like FP-4 and Tri-X. D-76 is the standard yardstick developer for most films.

I recommend reading The Film Developing Cookbook with its great information and provided film/developer process times.

Older lenses (designed in the 50s) have lower contrast than the next generation optics. Don't switch developer from D-76 to Rodinal to raise contrast in this situation. Instead increase development by 10-20% and/or switch to higher contrast film....for example FP-4 vs Tri-X.

I think of Rodinal or Pyro as special purpose developers helpful in compressing/recording highlights in very bright light. Rodinal also produces sharp negs but higher visible grain. I seldom use Rodinal and only in MF as I get more consistent results with a general purpose developer.

Keep things simple.

Roger Cole · Mar 21, 2014

Richard Jepsen said:
Better is defined by Kodak as XTOL having 10% more enlargibility v D-76. XTOL is more environmentally friendly with the elimination of Metol. I read in Photo Techniques and experience confirms XTOL's shelf life is longer. The elimination of the XTOL 1L packs over a decade ago eliminated occasional sudden failure issues. D-76/ID-11 is a great developer I use when out of XTOL. Can't go wrong with either. Keep things simple.

The 1L packs eliminated sudden premature failure. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it still true that when current Xtol goes bad it does so with no color change or other indication?

This isn't unique to Xtol and isn't really that bad, considering the price. My experience has been that whatever Kodak says, D76 actually keeps fine with the air squeezed out for up to a year. If Xtol will as well, or even six months, it's not unreasonable given the price to just dump whatever is left and mix more.

Not a huge deal, and I'm certainly not down on Xtol. But I did think my midtones looked better in D76, personally.

markbarendt · Mar 21, 2014

traveler_101 said:
Main point: I thought conventional wisdom was that you match the film with the developer. But now what I am hearing in this thread is an all-in-one philosophy: one developer for all films. I am somewhat puzzled by this.

Any normal black and white film can be developed with just about any black and white developer.

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 21, 2014

traveler_101 said:
I am new here and new to film developing--so please excuse over-simplifications. It's taken me almost two years to push through 75 rolls.

About developers: you do have to make decisions from the get go. I decided for D-76 over XTOL--even though I bought XTOL first. I didn't like the lab results for Tri-X in XTOL and was horrified to read stories of sudden death syndrome . . . so I never used it when I started developing on my own. I went right to D-76.

What I got out of that first experience through exchanges at another forum, was that the choice of developer does hinge a lot on the film you use: thus Tri-X and D-76; Fomapan 100/APX 100 and Rodinal, etc. You get different "looks"--to which different lenses also contribute. For example, a lower contrast lens with T-MAX 100: now what would be the best developer for that combo? I used D-76 1:1 and am pretty satisfied, but I think I would have been better off with Rodinal, which unfortunately has been difficult to get here in Norway the last year. (By the way, another reason for D-76, and XTOL for that matter, is that you can travel with powders in checked baggage, which means that they can be purchased in the states very inexpensively and brought back over here).

Main point: I thought conventional wisdom was that you match the film with the developer. But now what I am hearing in this thread is an all-in-one philosophy: one developer for all films. I am somewhat puzzled by this.

It really is up to you. If you find value in using different developers and different films, in different combinations, then do it. I don't find value in doing so, but we are all different.

What I find beneficial about using one or two films and one developer is, in no particular order:
1. I always know exactly what to expect. This is good, because it eliminates a LOT of darkroom waste by the time I get around to printing.
2. Too many different films and developers is confusing to me, and I end up thinking too much about things that, in the end, are not important to the final photograph.
3. You never have to think about what to get next, or wonder what's on the other side of the fence. You just basically hunker down and DO.
4. I can get WAY more variation by changing how I use one single film with one single developer, than I can get by switching materials. Contrast wise and tonality wise, anyway.

I find it tremendously liberating to be using just one emulsion and one developer. It helps me focus on nothing but the photograph at hand. If I at any point in time have to stop and think about what film to use, then it's one more variable thrown into the mix of things, and a variable that I don't need.

That's my motivation anyway. You are free to do whatever you want.

Any developer can be used with any developer, except for special purpose materials, but simply put that holds true. Rodinal is not better for TMax 100 than D76 is, for example. It is different. You have to decide for yourself whether you like the results or not.

This is art. There are no rules. Find what you like and just roll with it. Keep it simple. There are so many variables in photography that we can't control well, and a lot of process hysteresis. You want to keep as many things as you can constant, so that you can properly learn how to manipulate the variables that are desirable to manipulate to your liking. There are too many successful photographers who use simple and readily available products for me to think there is some magic to be found in a developer or film that will actually help me in a meaningful way.

Xmas · Mar 21, 2014

markbarendt said:
Any normal black and white film can be developed with just about any black and white developer.

Famous female photog when asked how had she got that grain effect said

I drop the film off at local pharmacy

The film is the critical choice, speed and type...

Bill Burk · Mar 22, 2014

traveler_101 said:
Main point: I thought conventional wisdom was that you match the film with the developer. But now what I am hearing in this thread is an all-in-one philosophy: one developer for all films. I am somewhat puzzled by this.

I like the answers so far, they all are valid.

I get some vicarious enjoyment hearing about what people do with caffeinol, Rodinal, stand developing and split bath developing that I wouldn't want to steer you away from that. It sounds like a lot of fun.

Once in a while I develop some film in Dektol, either by mistake or as an experiment in maximum grain.

But D-76 1:1 has served me well over the years. I develop everything in it. I like spending 8 to 15 minutes developing.

traveler_101 · Mar 22, 2014

Thomas Bertilsson said:
It really is up to you. If you find value in using different developers and different films, in different combinations, then do it. I don't find value in doing so, but we are all different.

This doesn't make any sense to me. I am not trying to express my "difference," but to learn how to be a good photographer. I am here trying to learn from people who know a lot more than i do. When I make assertions I am trying to summarise what I have learned, or think I have learned. Then I am corrected and eventually i improve my assertions. This is known as the Socratic method.

Thomas Bertilsson said:
What I find beneficial about using one or two films and one developer is, in no particular order:
1. I always know exactly what to expect. This is good, because it eliminates a LOT of darkroom waste by the time I get around to printing.
2. Too many different films and developers is confusing to me, and I end up thinking too much about things that, in the end, are not important to the final photograph.
3. You never have to think about what to get next, or wonder what's on the other side of the fence. You just basically hunker down and DO.
4. I can get WAY more variation by changing how I use one single film with one single developer, than I can get by switching materials. Contrast wise and tonality wise, anyway.

Points 1-3 represent very good values. I appreciate that. I perhaps have given something of a misimpression. Most of my shooting has been with Tri-X developed in D-76. I am looking for two other films to use at most. From the number of posts under your name you may have been doing this for a while. I am a tenderfoot and am trying things out. Point 4 is news to me and it is a point i wish to investigate.

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Any developer can be used with any developer, except for special purpose materials, but simply put that holds true. Rodinal is not better for TMax 100 than D76 is, for example. It is different. You have to decide for yourself whether you like the results or not.

This is art. There are no rules.

It is not a matter for me of "liking," but rather expressing what I see in the world. I am sure as in any other art, there must be rules for attaining what I see and want to express. I am trying to learn them.

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Keep it simple. There are so many variables in photography that we can't control well, and a lot of process hysteresis. You want to keep as many things as you can constant, so that you can properly learn how to manipulate the variables that are desirable to manipulate to your liking. There are too many successful photographers who use simple and readily available products for me to think there is some magic to be found in a developer or film that will actually help me in a meaningful way.

Good advice, i am sure.

StoneNYC said:
It also very much depends on what kind of exposure indexes you used to shoot your film, the way you Meter your film, etc. the way you handle film in general whether you're using the zone system or some other kind of system etc. Weather you're scanning or printing and what kind of paper grade etc you are using, it's all very subjective.

Yes, it is all very daunting. I don't use systems. Sometimes I fail to meter at all; shooting mostly with a Leica IIIf and an analogue hand held meter. My camera uses an older range of shutter speeds; the meter features the new one. I guesstimate and I use my intuition when metering. So I am perhaps hopeless Sadly I have put off learning dark room development in favour of scanning. No time/space for a dark room--especially space.

Xmas said:
Famous female photog when asked how had she got that grain effect said

I drop the film off at local pharmacy

The film is the critical choice, speed and type...

Ok

Roger Cole said:
The 1L packs eliminated sudden premature failure. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it still true that when current Xtol goes bad it does so with no color change or other indication?

This isn't unique to Xtol and isn't really that bad, considering the price. My experience has been that whatever Kodak says, D76 actually keeps fine with the air squeezed out for up to a year. If Xtol will as well, or even six months, it's not unreasonable given the price to just dump whatever is left and mix more.

Not a huge deal, and I'm certainly not down on Xtol. But I did think my midtones looked better in D76, personally.

The 1 litter packs were eliminated because of packaging problems; the 5 litter packs are better, apparently, but the internet is still littered with stories of sudden failure. Just read one recently. The guy said that the failure occurred just TWO DAYS after he successfully developed a roll. There are no warnings : the developer appears/smells the same as before. So XTOL keeps for six months but it could pack a little surprise. Also mixing 5 litters at once is too much for me. D-76 at one gallon or 3.75 litters is much more manageable.

Bill Burk · Mar 22, 2014

Thomas Bertilsson said:
It really is up to you. If you find value in using different developers and different films, in different combinations, then do it. I don't find value in doing so, but we are all different.

traveler_101 said:
This doesn't make any sense to me. I am not trying to express my "difference," but to learn how to be a good photographer. I am here trying to learn from people who know a lot more than i do. When I make assertions I am trying to summarise what I have learned, or think I have learned. Then I am corrected and eventually i improve my assertions. This is known as the Socratic method.

Thomas is famous for stating a simple and clear opinion. I'm sure he'll clarify for you.

If you want the experience of trying different developers, I encourage you to take that journey - for the adventure.

But please be prepared to find at the end of the journey, that you can't easily tell the difference between prints that you made from film developed in different developers.

Finding out for yourself is extremely valuable. We love talking about this stuff so feel free to ask more questions and hopefully we won't steer you wrong.

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 22, 2014

Bill did a very good job explaining what I meant.

In addition, being a good photographer has nothing to do with what film and developer you use. It has a lot more to do with what your projects, your vision, subject matter, and execution.
This film&dev stuff is very insignificant in the grand scheme of things. TX and D76 is as good a combination as any. You don't NEED anything else.
But, it can be fun to experiment with other stuff, and some people even think we can find magic there. I disagree with that, and opine you get a lot further working on your printing, and developing your portfolio.

StoneNYC · Mar 22, 2014

I think that the point that was missed was that, Thomas values a system that he can control. By limiting the variables and using only one developer and one film, he can more easily keep track of all the details, the changes to standard working methods so that he can more easily predict exactly how the film and developer will appear at the end.

If you have too many films and multiple developers you are overwhelmed with options and with information and you may find it hard to focus.

So when he said that he finds more value in one dev and one film, I think he means he values the simplicity of not being overwhelmed with choices and options and getting to the root of what he wants to do, which is take a picture and have it come out right...

markbarendt · Mar 22, 2014

traveler_101 said:
It is not a matter for me of "liking," but rather expressing what I see in the world. I am sure as in any other art, there must be rules for attaining what I see and want to express. I am trying to learn them.

Sorry, no simple rules.

Art, to me, is "an expression". It answers the question "what do I want to express to my audience?" Art doesn't much care about the medium it is expressed in, which might be photography or poetry or marble sculpture, the rules it really cares about answer questions like, "does it express what I want to say?" and "will my audience understand what I want to share with them?"

Photography is a "craft" in the same way welding and poetry are. Photography can be used to make art or historical records or used as a copy machine or as a post it note.

A welder making a sculpture can choose different sizes of rods to weld with, much like a painter chooses brush sizes; these choices change a detail within the whole. A larger rod/brush means a more prominent effect; a smaller rod/brush, a less prominent effect. Choosing larger or smaller is purely a preference of the artist, "which effect do they like better?" That choice though does not change the basic characteristics of the medium. The welder is still working within the physical constraints of the metals at hand, the painter working on canvass or similar surface.

In photography the choice of developer is a truly minor decision in the process, you can think of each developer simply as a refinement, rather than "one works and one doesn't". You don't even need to switch developers to do this, D-76 (or Xtol or ...) can be adjusted to fine tune your results; in effect to change the size of your brush.

Adjusting dilution for example; D-76 straight, 1 part developer:0 parts water, will slightly reduce graininess versus a 1:1 dilution. A 1:4 dilution will get you a bit more sharpness and a bit more graininess. Which characteristic is more important to you? Do you want a balance?

Those choices are yours. It's not like D-76 is intrinsically "better" or "worse" than RolloPyro or Rodinal or Diafine or ..., each developer just changes the brush size a little. The basic look doesn't remarkably or magically become beautiful or ugly.

There are a variety of controls too. Here is some info on how agitation can change the character of your results. (there was a url link here which no longer exists) And this doesn't even start touching on the controls we have when printing.

markbarendt · Mar 22, 2014

StoneNYC said:
I think that the point that was missed was that, Thomas values a system that he can control. By limiting the variables and using only one developer and one film, he can more easily keep track of all the details, the changes to standard working methods so that he can more easily predict exactly how the film and developer will appear at the end.

If you have too many films and multiple developers you are overwhelmed with options and with information and you may find it hard to focus.

So when he said that he finds more value in one dev and one film, I think he means he values the simplicity of not being overwhelmed with choices and options and getting to the root of what he wants to do, which is take a picture and have it come out right...

I "heard" Thomas a little differently.

I hear Thomas saying; "the specific film & developer I choose doesn't really matter, they are generic" and "It's much more important to worry about composition than film and developer."

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 22, 2014

Originally Posted by StoneNYC (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
I think that the point that was missed was that, Thomas values a system that he can control. By limiting the variables and using only one developer and one film, he can more easily keep track of all the details, the changes to standard working methods so that he can more easily predict exactly how the film and developer will appear at the end.

If you have too many films and multiple developers you are overwhelmed with options and with information and you may find it hard to focus.

So when he said that he finds more value in one dev and one film, I think he means he values the simplicity of not being overwhelmed with choices and options and getting to the root of what he wants to do, which is take a picture and have it come out right...

markbarendt said:
I "heard" Thomas a little differently.

I hear Thomas saying; "the specific film & developer I choose doesn't really matter, they are generic" and "It's much more important to worry about composition than film and developer."

Actually, it's a bit of both. I just don't find much value chasing minute changes between one developer to another, when I could be focusing on things that are a lot more important. To me, photography is mostly about seeing, about framing interesting photographs, and presenting those as well as I can. A very small portion of it has to do with what materials I use. Let's face it, good results can be had with almost any film commercially available today. The same can be said for papers, and respective paper and film developers. What makes a photograph unique, appealing, interesting, and worthwhile isn't going to depend on what film or paper was used, but rather what the photographer put into it and how well they used their materials.

That's just my view of it, and how I am able to stay concentrated on what I'm trying to achieve.

Shawn Dougherty · Mar 22, 2014

One of my favorite books on photography is "Ernest Hemingway on Writing," edited by Larry W Phillips. I just moved and was putting books back into my bookcase last night and decided to read it again. When I saw the following quote I immediately thought of you and this thread, Thomas.

My attitude toward punctuation is that it ought to be as conventional as possible. The game of golf would lose a good deal if croquet mallets and billiard cues were allowed on the putting green. You ought to be able to show that you can do it a good deal better than anyone else with the regular tools before you have a license to bring in your own improvements. ~ Ernest Hemingway

Bill Burk · Mar 22, 2014

StoneNYC said:
I think that the point that was missed was that, Thomas values a system that he can control...

If you have too many films and multiple developers you are overwhelmed with options and with information and you may find it hard to focus.

So ... getting to the root of what he wants to do, which is take a picture and have it come out right...

The third point is spot-on.

The first points might be fair interpretations of what he said, but I don't know if that's exactly Thomas' take, so I'll answer with mine...

I can control any system. When I want to try something new, I dig a little (paperwork shuffling) to see if I've done it before, but I can generally get the results I want every time.

If I have too many films and developers, the backed up work gets annoying. This describes my current situation: I have 4 rolls of TMAX 400 to develop that I can do in one tank. But even though I like to say I shoot "one film", I don't always abide by my own rules. There's one roll of APX-100 and one roll of Tri-X in my backlog... to get them done I have to run a tank with one roll of film in it. (This doesn't count the sheet film that's backed up so far I don't want to shoot any more until I process what I've got - the Grafmatics are all loaded and on "X" the indication that they're exposed).

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 22, 2014

Shawn Dougherty said:
One of my favorite books on photography is "Ernest Hemingway on Writing," edited by Larry W Phillips. I just moved and was putting books back into my bookcase last night and decided to read it again. When I saw the following quote I immediately thought of you and this thread, Thomas.

My attitude toward punctuation is that it ought to be as conventional as possible. The game of golf would lose a good deal if croquet mallets and billiard cues were allowed on the putting green. You ought to be able to show that you can do it a good deal better than anyone else with the regular tools before you have a license to bring in your own improvements. ~ Ernest Hemingway

That Ernest Hemingway must be a real hack, because he thinks just like I do. Thanks, Shawn. That's summarizes my view really really well.

StoneNYC · Mar 22, 2014

Bill Burk said:
The third point is spot-on.

The first points might be fair interpretations of what he said, but I don't know if that's exactly Thomas' take, so I'll answer with mine...

I can control any system. When I want to try something new, I dig a little (paperwork shuffling) to see if I've done it before, but I can generally get the results I want every time.

If I have too many films and developers, the backed up work gets annoying. This describes my current situation: I have 4 rolls of TMAX 400 to develop that I can do in one tank. But even though I like to say I shoot "one film", I don't always abide by my own rules. There's one roll of APX-100 and one roll of Tri-X in my backlog... to get them done I have to run a tank with one roll of film in it. (This doesn't count the sheet film that's backed up so far I don't want to shoot any more until I process what I've got - the Grafmatics are all loaded and on "X" the indication that they're exposed).

This has been my EXACT problem and what caused me to fix it, and also to switch to a system where I can use the same film in all formats so when I want to develop 4x5 and 120 and 35mm at the same time in the same tank, I can... (Assuming I haven't exposed something differently on purpose for effect) still makes it more efficient...

Soon when I can get through all these random rolls, I'll have 2 films to deal with, yay!

Shawn Dougherty · Mar 22, 2014

Thomas Bertilsson said:
That Ernest Hemingway must be a real hack, because he thinks just like I do. Thanks, Shawn. That's summarizes my view really really well.

markbarendt · Mar 22, 2014

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Actually, it's a bit of both. I just don't find much value chasing minute changes between one developer to another, when I could be focusing on things that are a lot more important. To me, photography is mostly about seeing, about framing interesting photographs, and presenting those as well as I can. A very small portion of it has to do with what materials I use. Let's face it, good results can be had with almost any film commercially available today. The same can be said for papers, and respective paper and film developers. What makes a photograph unique, appealing, interesting, and worthwhile isn't going to depend on what film or paper was used, but rather what the photographer put into it and how well they used their materials.

That's just my view of it, and how I am able to stay concentrated on what I'm trying to achieve.

I appreciate that.

I've been doing some C-41 & RA-4 stuff over the last few weeks, it was a few months before that. I don't miss the mixing of the C-41 developer but the standardization of the process, the latitude and consistency of these materials never fail to amaze me when I come back. More than once I've thought about going strictly C-41 to be able to just concentrate on camera work and printing rather than worrying about all the variables in traditional B&W.

More than once I've played with applying that ideal of standardization to traditional B&W too, especially with your inspiration.

Richard Jepsen · Mar 22, 2014

For someone new to developing use D-76 and FP-4 and Tri-X/HP-5. Master the classics. Then, if looking to solve a problem such as less grain, sharper image, lower contrast, controlled highlights experiment after you read the Film Developing Cookbook and other sources. What's the use of experimenting unless you have a foundation.

My experience using XTOL 1:1 and 1:2. I use distilled water to prepare the developer, store in 1L hard plastic bottles and seldom use any film except Tri-X and FP-4. Stored in full bottles in recommended conditions XTOL will last 10 months. May last 12 months but I dump the developer around 9 months. The FDC recommends using 500ml of stock developer to process 8x10 inches of film ... the equivalent of (1) 135, (1) 120 or (4) 4x5 sheets of film.

Getting back to the thread's subject processing traditional film with D-76 1:1 is the best place to start since D-76 is general purpose developer, comes in a 1L packaging, formulated to work with different water quality.

Black Dog · Mar 22, 2014

Interesting point....I've always shot a lot of XP2 and love the combination of 1930s toneality with present day grain.

Bill Burk · Mar 22, 2014

Black Dog said:
Interesting point....I've always shot a lot of XP2 and love the combination of 1930s toneality with present day grain.

Don't develop THAT in D-76

markbarendt · Mar 22, 2014

Bill Burk said:
Don't develop THAT in D-76

:rolleyes:

StoneNYC · Mar 22, 2014

Bill Burk said:
Don't develop THAT in D-76

Well, you can... And it will come out just fine if done properly, but will come out better scanned than optically printed...

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 22, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Well, you can... And it will come out just fine if done properly, but will come out better scanned than optically printed...

Printing negs with orange base sucks. I've tried it once. Never again. If you're scanning, it's best to use C41. You can always just desaturated afterward anyway.

Good old D76 and HP5+

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency