Good old D76 and HP5+

[brian steinberger]

Thomas, thanks for this thread. I've been thinking about the same thing myself lately. I've been using ID-11 (same as D-76) since I started in B&W. I've always had fresh ID-11 in my darkroom. But as you know I used to have a huge crush on Xtol as well, especially when (RIP) Fuji neopan 400 was available in 120 (remember the good ole days?!). But I have also tried Rodinal, FA-1027, pyrocat HD, HC-110, DD-x perceptol, and microphen. I've just recently come to the same conclusion as you, ID-11 is the only developer I need. Use it stock with highly grainy films (D3200), 1:1 works great with all films. For some highlight compression and more sharpness use 1:2 or 1:3. It can do more than most realize. I was just looking at some FP4 negatives I developed years ago when trying out the 1:3 dilution. Amazing!! They are just as sharp as my FP4/rodinal negatives! I also just started using the 1:2 dilution. Great compromise between 1:1 and 1:3. With tri-x it's sharper than 1:1 without the super long development times. So for me the journey with experimentation is coming to an end. With me finally finding a solution to my water marks on 120 tri-x I've settled on FP4, HP5, tri-x, and D3200 as my films. And go ole ID-11 as my developer.

 

[markbarendt]

... nobody but 'we' are going to care about if we ever manage to get our prints into venues where other people see them.

You are right Thomas, our choice of tools aren't necessarily rational nor do the people around us necessarily care.

So what?

Our prints are compilations of lots and lots of little things that add up to a whole, they are stories we are trying to tell. For me photography is much more like flirting than like math. It's expresses emotions and asks questions rather than providing answers.

With photography nuance is important, we are trying to express what we feel in a syntax that neither we nor our viewers fully understand.

This doesn't mean I'm not trying to be accurate within the craft; or that there aren't more efficient & less expensive ways to get what I want; or ways to get a very similar results where the world can't tell one from the other.

What it does mean though, is that I can tell the difference and my excitement shows in my work.

 

[Anon Ymous]

... I've used D-76 full strength and 1:1. I'm intrigued by the statements that you'll get sharper development at 1:3. Where are there development times for 1:3? I only have seen times for full strength and 1:1. Or is this a matter of trial and error? ...

Normally, it is a matter of testing (trial and error), but there is also a rule of thumb that will get you quite close.

Let's assume that you know the time for stock solution, undiluted D76. now let's assume that you mix 1 part D76 with n parts water. The resulting solution will have 1+n volume. The square root of 1+n is the factor you need. Multiply the time for stock solution by sqrt(1+n) and you get the time new time for the new dilution. So, if n = 3, then the factor is sqrt(1+3) = sqrt(4) = 2. In other words, just double the time for stock D76.

The generalisation of the above rule is:

If you know the time for dilution 1+x, then you can find the time for 1+y. Divide (1+y) with (1+x). The square root of the result is the multiplication factor you need.

For example, if x = 0, y = 3, then sqrt((1+3)/(1+0)) = sqrt(4) = 2.

This rule also applies for Xtol dilutions and, by the way, times for D76 and Xtol are quite close.

tl;dr

Time for D76 1+1 = time for stock D76 + 40%
Time for D76 1+2 = time for stock D76 + 75%
Time for D76 1+3 = time for stock D76 + 100%

 

[JW PHOTO]

Normally, it is a matter of testing (trial and error), but there is also a rule of thumb that will get you quite close.

Let's assume that you know the time for stock solution, undiluted D76. now let's assume that you mix 1 part D76 with n parts water. The resulting solution will have 1+n volume. The square root of 1+n is the factor you need. Multiply the time for stock solution by sqrt(1+n) and you get the time new time for the new dilution. So, if n = 3, then the factor is sqrt(1+3) = sqrt(4) = 2. In other words, just double the time for stock D76.

The generalisation of the above rule is:

If you know the time for dilution 1+x, then you can find the time for 1+y. Divide (1+y) with (1+x). The square root of the result is the multiplication factor you need.

For example, if x = 0, y = 3, then sqrt((1+3)/(1+0)) = sqrt(4) = 2.

This rule also applies for Xtol dilutions and, by the way, times for D76 and Xtol are quite close.

tl;dr

Time for D76 1+1 = time for stock D76 + 40%
Time for D76 1+2 = time for stock D76 + 75%
Time for D76 1+3 = time for stock D76 + 100%

Anon,
I was really enjoying reading the KISS approach Thomas has taken with D76 and HP5+ and then you have spoil it and post this. I started reading your post and all those x's and y's and square root stuff started making my head hurt. I'm sure glad you posted the times scale down at the bottom so I could just look at that and know I have to double my time over stock for 1+3. My head feels better now. Just funning ya! JW

 

[Anon Ymous]

@JW PHOTO

Heh, yes, I knew people would freak out with the math stuff, that's why I put the tables at the end. I know, it sounds convoluted, but it's not really.

 

[erikg]

D-76 can't be king. President maybe. ID-11 could be king. It's all pretty silly, everyone has preferences for all sorts of reasons.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

D-76 can't be king. President maybe. ID-11 could be king. It's all pretty silly, everyone has preferences for all sorts of reasons.

But the post is all about getting away from so much focus on the material preferences, pick something and just run with it. Be it D76 or whatever. That makes me king of my work. I rule!

 

[David Brown]

There is a good reason D76 is considered the "standard" developer.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You are right Thomas, our choice of tools aren't necessarily rational nor do the people around us necessarily care.

So what?

Our prints are compilations of lots and lots of little things that add up to a whole, they are stories we are trying to tell. For me photography is much more like flirting than like math. It's expresses emotions and asks questions rather than providing answers.

With photography nuance is important, we are trying to express what we feel in a syntax that neither we nor our viewers fully understand.

This doesn't mean I'm not trying to be accurate within the craft; or that there aren't more efficient & less expensive ways to get what I want; or ways to get a very similar results where the world can't tell one from the other.

What it does mean though, is that I can tell the difference and my excitement shows in my work.

Exactly, Mark! I am excited to have found something that works perfectly for me with little fuss, and so have you! That's all that matters.
And fun.

I love your analogy to flirting. That's really thought provoking and very interesting. I guess we all add a bit of that spice in our work, and that's why I love my pinhole camera so much.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I've settled a great deal onto DD-X and Rodinal...DD-X for Tri-X and faster, and Rodinal for below ISO-400 films.

But you've not only got me latched onto the idea of simplicity but also in really giving D-76 a try...you silver-tongued Swede, you!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I've settled a great deal onto DD-X and Rodinal...DD-X for Tri-X and faster, and Rodinal for below ISO-400 films.

But you've not only got me latched onto the idea of simplicity but also in really giving D-76 a try...you silver-tongued Swede, you!

No, please don't! Continue with what you have. Your developers are awesome things, and I claim it's better if you just continue with those and work them hard.

 

[fotch]

There is a good reason D76 is considered the "standard" developer.

Exactly. It is so good that is copied by almost every company out there, like Ilford, and......

 

[cjbecker]

Coming into this thread a little later because i've been up in your neck of the woods thomas. Drove drove from indiana but was in the snow storm from basically eau claire to hastings.

I'm liking the results your getting, and also your new way of working. Keep it up. Im trying to keep it simple by using the same developer for both paper and film. It's working out well, but every time I settle down and figure out a film/developer combo, I get a hindering to try something new. Not necessarily better developer just like testing them.

I'm thinking my new combo will last as I only have to worry about one developer. I will also go through it faster, not having to worry about it going bad. Given I am using 3 year old developer right now.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I'm with you, Thomas. I spent a number of years working with different materials and have learned the lessons you are discussing here.

For me it's HP5+ and D23, usually 1+3. Doesn't get simpler than 2 chemicals and water. I'm even printing with Dektol / D72 now and loving the results.

Time to get back to focusing on the light.

----------------------------------------
P.S. There is one last thing I have not yet fully worked out with this combo and that would be the more extreme N- situations. As such I may flirt with something for those scenes specifically, however, I place complete and total blame for this on Michael R 1974.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Coming into this thread a little later because i've been up in your neck of the woods thomas. Drove drove from indiana but was in the snow storm from basically eau claire to hastings.

I'm liking the results your getting, and also your new way of working. Keep it up. Im trying to keep it simple by using the same developer for both paper and film. It's working out well, but every time I settle down and figure out a film/developer combo, I get a hindering to try something new. Not necessarily better developer just like testing them.

I'm thinking my new combo will last as I only have to worry about one developer. I will also go through it faster, not having to worry about it going bad. Given I am using 3 year old developer right now.

Very cool. Hope you had a good time here up North, and that you got back home safely. The snow storm is still having an effect on traffic and everybody's minds. Lots of cabin fever.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm with you, Thomas. I spent a number of years working with different materials and have learned the lessons you are discussing here.

For me it's HP5+ and D23, usually 1+3. Doesn't get simpler than 2 chemicals and water. I'm even printing with Dektol / D72 now and loving the results.

Time to get back to focusing on the light.

----------------------------------------
P.S. There is one last thing I have not yet fully worked out with this combo and that would be the more extreme N- situations. As such I may flirt with something for those scenes specifically, however, I place complete and total blame for this on Michael R 1974.

Focusing on the light - exactly, my friend. That's what I intend to do too. I was in the darkroom Sunday making some prints, and there are still some adjustments to make, but it's looking pretty good. I'm loving the D76 for sure.

And, I think we have Michael to blame for a lot of things...

 

[cliveh]

I seldom use HP5, mostly FP4 35mm and Pan F 6 X 6, but yes, D76 at 1:1 is the best thing since sliced bread and now would use nothing else (not that I am a great fan of sliced bread). I have also met with many dedicated photographers who use nothing else. D76 is the gold standard of developers.

 

[ROL]

I find that it is more rewarding to 'bounce around' with subject matter, different projects, working with lighting, and so on. A film developer is a film developer is a film developer, which nobody but 'we' are going to care about if we ever manage to get our prints into venues where other people see them.

Precisely – and nice work capturing detail in the snow with "pedestrian" materials.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I seldom use HP5, mostly FP4 35mm and Pan F 6 X 6, but yes, D76 at 1:1 is the best thing since sliced bread and now would use nothing else (not that I am a great fan of sliced bread). I have also met with many dedicated photographers who use nothing else. D76 is the gold standard of developers.

I think whether one uses HP5+, FP4+, or Pan-F+ is almost irrelevant. It's the consistency that is liberating, in my opinion, not the materials in themselves.

I do confess to using slower films for my pinhole camera, though, which I enjoy using in broad daylight. With ISO 400 film in it, the shutter speeds are too short for me to control with the simple manually actuated shutter. So, Pan-F+ will be my go-to film for that.

 

[RattyMouse]

I love this thread and am wondering how D-76 compares to HC-110. I would guess, but not know, that HC-110 would have all the benefits of D-76 PLUS the amazing simplicity of preparation from concentrate. Yet HC-110 is nowhere near as popular as D-76.

So where does HC-110 fall down?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I love this thread and am wondering how D-76 compares to HC-110. I would guess, but not know, that HC-110 would have all the benefits of D-76 PLUS the amazing simplicity of preparation from concentrate. Yet HC-110 is nowhere near as popular as D-76.

So where does HC-110 fall down?

People here that are more knowledgeable than I have set forth that HC-110 was designed to basically be a liquid concentrate substitute for D76.

I don't think that you will see much difference between the two developers in prints, if the film was exposed to the same scene, and developed to the same contrast before printing.

Generally liquid developers is something I avoid, because I don't like to have what is basically water shipped long distances. I like powders because they are a more responsible choice in that respect.
However, with developers like Rodinal and HC-110 that argument falls short, simply because they are SO concentrated that it takes many bags of D76 to make the same volume of working solution. Even at dilution B, mixed 1+31 from the syrup, you only use a few milliliters per film, while you'd be using 125-250ml or more of D76, depending on what is being processed.

I don't think you will find a meaningful difference between D76 and HC110.

 

[RattyMouse]

I don't think you will find a meaningful difference between D76 and HC110.

Thank you. This weekend I'll buy a bottle of HC-110.

 

[Klainmeister]

Thomas, I've loved watching your threads and thoughtful contributions on here for the last couple of years. I'm a young fellow who recently has finally gotten rid of the 'magic bullet' bug and these types of posts are very inspirational. I settled three years ago on Pyrocat-HD to really see what it could do and frankly, it performs just like it should and so do my films. That leaves the image making up to me. That is the most important concept to take away.

Thanks for being a good role model for young guns like myself,

Kyle

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas, I've loved watching your threads and thoughtful contributions on here for the last couple of years. I'm a young fellow who recently has finally gotten rid of the 'magic bullet' bug and these types of posts are very inspirational. I settled three years ago on Pyrocat-HD to really see what it could do and frankly, it performs just like it should and so do my films. That leaves the image making up to me. That is the most important concept to take away.

Thanks for being a good role model for young guns like myself,

Kyle

Kyle,

Thanks very much for those kind words *blush*, and I'm so happy to hear it when young folks pick up photography with film! It wasn't long ago that I myself decided that film and darkroom based photography was going to be my thing, as I am only sort of middle-aged at age 42. In the first five years I made many mistakes, including switching around with different films and developers, simply because I didn't know any better. I have often witnessed the act of handing a camera to someone completely inexperienced with photography, and been blown away by the results. My step son, at age 13, took my Minox 35GT on a road trip and came back with something like 20 pictures from the Black Hills, and they were all exquisite photographs, full of life and imagination. I have one of them hanging on my wall today.
So I kick myself for being so ill advised and focusing so much on the technical aspect of photography, when I really had the urge to create. I thought I was being creative, but I should have been learning about lighting, I should have been learning more about composition, and practicing working with people... But I think that perhaps it takes a while to find our bearings, what we want to do with our photography, and maybe mucking around with films and developers is something that needs to happen in order to fully understand that there is no gold nugget there. I don't know.

That lesson was hard to learn and took a long time for me, but luckily I feel like I'm over it, and I just want to make photographs. But I also want other people to learn from my mistakes, at least those who are into photography for the sake of producing work that we are really really proud of, and where we realize that nobody but us care about what film developer we used. It matters to find something that works for us, and it has to be a consistently good and versatile combination of materials, but once that's accomplished, there are much bigger things to worry about - the art of expression, to carry forward to potential viewers an idea or a concept that we are passionate about. No film stock or film developer is going to make that happen, only what's inside our heads and how we use it.

Thanks again, and I hope you continue working with a medium that you love, and continue making photographs that you are proud of.

- Thomas

 

[fretlessdavis]

After a brief foray into T-Grain type films, I have fallen back in love with the look of more traditional emulsions. Back to FP4+ and HP5+ in D76 1:1 for me. I still haven't gotten filter factors and their effects all situated with Acros 100, or Delta 400, and, looking through my notes, all my best prints have come from FP4+ or HP5+ in D76 1:1. Never should've switched away from a process I had nicely dialed in.