Good starting combination (film, developer)

[trendland]

Rodinal is an excellent choice for beginners and seasoned practitioners alike, because it delivers excellent results with almost any film, is easy to mix, and an opened bottle should remain usable for a year or more under normal storage conditions. Does it exaggerate grain characteristics? Only moderately. A "fast" film like Tri-X or HP5 (or Bergger Pancro 400, which I highly recommend as well) has its grain characteristics "baked in" to the emulsion and your choice of developer minimally modifies grain size and sharpness. Its not as if one developer can render grain that looks like it was shot on Ilford Pan-F (25ASA) where an alternate developer makes the grain look like coarse sand on the beach. The degree to which the developer modifies grain characteristics is very limited. It would be a great experiment for you to shoot one roll of either HP5 or Tri-X (assuming you want to start out with a fairly fast emulsion), photographing the same subject (use a tripod) for all twelve frames, then cut the film into two or three equal pieces and process each in a different developer. Then you can see for yourself exactly how much or how little each different developer affects grain (and contrast/tonal rendering, etc), and how subtle the differences can be. (You may want to get comfortable with the whole developing process by processing a few rolls before doing this experiment) As someone else pointed out, since you are planning on working with medium format, the negatives will be quite large and contain a lot of detailed information, and because of their size, the appearance of grain is nowhere near as pronounced as the same film shot in 35mm format. The larger the negative you shoot, the less grain you are going to see, and so developer choice is going to be less important* in terms of how it affects grain characteristics.
*not unimportant, just less important.

For practical purposes, I would suggest you not get too hung up on your choice of developer. For the beginner, the liquid/dilutable developers are an excellent choice because of their obvious convenience factors. The big three are Rodinal, HC-110, and Ilford DD-X. They are all fine choices. They all have good shelf life (with some variation) and so you can have developer at the ready, without worrying whether or not it has oxidized (expired), even if you pause for a couple of months between shoots. You could easily choose a trusted standard developer like D-76 to start with, but it - along with most of the powder formulas - has a fairly short shelf life once mixed. You could easily open that half-full gallon jug of D-76 you made three months ago, only to find its turned amber/brown from oxidization, at which point its useless. The dilutable concentrates significantly minimize the risk of finding out that you have nothing but expired developer on hand. Oh, and by the way - Rodinal and Adonal and RO-9 are all the same product, so buy whichever you have access to.

You mentioned something about the "tabular grain" films (Delta & T-Max) requiring special developers, and that's not quite correct. In fact, Rodinal is an excellent choice for almost any film you can lay your hands on. It will give good results with the Delta films, and the T-Max films as well as it will with traditional grain style films. These films aren't so very different that they "require" their own special developers.

And as for your choice of fixer: it isn't really important as long as you use it according to directions. Ilford Rapid Fix is an excellent choice because its cheap, stores well and washes out as easily as you could want. Do you know the basic principle of fixing films? Cut a small piece off the end of your roll of film (In the darkroom, after you've unspooled the film to load it in the tank, snip a quarter inch off the end and set it aside) and take the 1/4" piece to your "developing station" (darkroom, kitchen sink, or wherever you will be processing the film) and drop it into your fixer. Be ready with a stopwatch/timer and count how many seconds it takes to "clear" the film (make it transparent without any cloudiness. Some of the film base dye will likely remain, but that's not what you're watching for - you are watching for the film to go transparent). Take note of how many seconds it took for the film to go completely clear, then double that number: that is your optimal fixing time, for that brand/dilution of fixer. The "clearing time" increases as you use the fix for each roll of film: the fixer becomes saturated with silver and so the amount of time it takes to remove silver from a film gets longer and longer. Why do I suggest you learn how long the ideal fixing time is, using this method? Because if you simply drop your HP5 into fresh Rapid Fix (of any brand) and leave it there for 2-3 minutes, you are allowing the fix to penetrate the emulsion far more than you need to. If you fix for only the minimum ideal time, then the washing stage can be completed in a shorter time and fix is more easily washed out of the film. In fact, freshly made Ilford Rapid Fix clears HP5 in as little as 10-15 seconds in my experience, and so the film is fully fixed after 30 seconds under normal conditions. There's quite a difference between 30 seconds in the fixer, and three minutes. (or more!) Bottom line: there's no need to fix longer than the ideal minimum. Find out what the ideal is for your fixer and film combination.
Some would say this is "a fine detail" that isn't required learning for someone first starting out with their own processing, and perhaps that's true. But it doesn't hurt to learn good habits from the very start

Well Paul - what I like with Rodinal is the expired date : 2065 what I also like is the patent from 1891. It is one of a couple of "no expensive developers" - that´s also good ! But to Ilford HP5 it gives sharp negatives, a relative good resolution - but also a grainy characteristic.
May be the OP like it a little grainy. But to me its no way.

with regards

Never mind - it is the old unanswered question with Rodinal, to 50% it is too grainy, to the other 50% it is not grainy enough - so they push with Rodinal .

 

[trendland]

For years (decades?) the standard first film and developer was Kodak Tri-X and D-76 (1+1). This is still a great choice and one of my favorites. It's really hard to go wrong with this combo.

Today, I might also add either Ilford HP5+ or FP4+ in D-76 (1+1).

I also think there is a lot of value in sticking with one camera (really one light meter), one film and one developer and keeping detailed notes (on both exposure and development). Trying a bunch of different films and developers is fun but doing so introduces a lot of variables and makes it very difficult to learn what works, how it works and why it works.

Try to nail down how to consistently make printable negatives before indulging in the luxury of trying all kids of different film-developer combinations.

Right - FP4 as a most standart film in D76 as a most standard developer is also a most easy and standart procedure to beginners.

with regards

 

[saman13]

When I started developing my own film, it was as generic as it gets: Tri-X in D-76. This is what my stepdad had been taught on so this is what he taught me. When I was developing in school, it was pretty similar, HP-5 in ID-11. Both of those are pretty good combos and hard to mess up. They’ll give you results you’ll be happy with without too much difficulty (although 35mm HP-5 in ID-11 was always pretty grainy to me but I was never that precise with anything when developing back then so it could have been any other variable).

I finally started developing and printing again after graduating and this time around I’m using replenished XTOL with mostly HP-5 and FP4. These are my favorite results so far! For me it is the most consistent because I can always work at room temperature. I don’t shoot that much, maybe 1 roll a week when I’m not traveling so only time will tell if the replenished system will work well for my shooting style. But so far I’ve been able to make some great prints from these negs!

 

[Wallendo]

I started with D-76 and now use primarily HC-110, with Rodinal for few films where HC-110 isn't recommended (Foma/Arista EDU).

Probably the easiest for a low volume user is ID-11 (Ilford's version of D-76). It is readily available in a 1 liter kit. This volume makes it easy for a low volume user to use up the kit before it goes bad. I find that it lasts several months. At least in the US, the package is inexpensive ($5.95 from B&H) and is easier to mix than D-76. I usually use D-76/ID-11 at a 1+1 concentration: It uses less chemistry, and also makes temperature adjustment quite easy.

 

[PerTulip]

Thank you all for the great and extensive advice!

Some additional information:
- I have access to all the mentioned chemicals.
- I stated HP5 because it seemed an obvious choice. It's cheaper than Delta, Tri-X and T-Max. Once I get used to developing film by myself, I certainly will try other films.
- Rodinal is "grainy": I really can't say if it's too grainy for me or if I like it. Since I shoot 120, grain is less of an issue than with 135.

If I use Rodinal (Adox Adonal), if I look at http://www.adox.de/RODINAL.pdf I need to develop a HP5 for 8 minutes in 1+25.
If I search that combination at the Massive Dev Chart, I get 6 minutes.
If I look at Ilford's film developing chart at https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/1894/product_id/693/, I get 6 minutes again.

OK, the Massive Dev Chart is a "third party" source. But the maker of the developer says 8, the maker of the film says 6. Sure, I can try both and see what I like most. What would you do? 6 because an additional source (Massive Dev Chart) confirms it. 8 because Adonal is a Rodinal alternative and Adox knows more about it? Or just trial and error? That's one of the reasons I want to start with the cheaper HP5+, some film will be mis-processed trying.

Massive Dev Chart: is it useful? There's even an app and if it's a reliable source, it would be great having all the data on the smartphone.

 

[wahiba]

Rodinal with any black and white film works fine. The keeping properties make it really useful for the amateur. Any stop bath and fixer.

Unless you intend to use an enlarger 120 film size scanners can be expensive. I have a Epson V300 which only caters for 35mm film. I just scan 120 strips twice and stitch together with Adobe Elements Panorama feature. Never found the joint line!.

 

[Anon Ymous]

... OK, the Massive Dev Chart is a "third party" source. But the maker of the developer says 8, the maker of the film says 6. Sure, I can try both and see what I like most. What would you do?...

I'd follow the film manufacturer's recommendation, so 6'. To some extent, development time mismatches can be attributed to target contrast mismatches between manufacturers.

... Massive Dev Chart: is it useful? There's even an app and if it's a reliable source, it would be great having all the data on the smartphone.

Useful? Maybe, if you want to try an obscure film + developer combination. I'd first look at the film's datasheet, or the developer's datasheet. If you still don't have what you're looking for, then the massive dev chart is more or less your last resort. It can be a hit or miss kind of thing and don't forget to have a look at the notes for this film + developer combination.

 

[miha]

Skip Kodak 120 films for now. Go with Delta 400 or HP5 and D76.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I would avoid kodak 120 bw films. Issues were reported here. HP5+ is great to start and be where. At ISO 400 it is great to have it in camera hand held, fast shutter speed and f8 for optimum performance of the lens. It is 3200 pushable and still not so huge grain. If HC-110 is in use. Skip Rodinal, it is old developer for 100 and slower films.

 

[Svenedin]

HP5 is an excellent film and it is forgiving of minor errors. The speed is useful especially as we are approaching Winter and the light is poor. I would suggest ID-11 as the developer to start out with but it’s really up to you.

 

[John Wiegerink]

HP5+ Xtol 1+1.

Andy is right on this one. If I had to suggest a starter developer for HP5+ in 120 this is exactly, well almost exactly, where I would start. The grain of HP5+ and the lesser solvent effect of Xtol 1+1 or 1+2 are a match made in Heaven. When I said almost exactly I was referring to my favorite developer combo, which is Xtol replenished. Xtol replenished is the same as Xtol 1+1 or maybe Xtol 1+ 1 1/2. Knowing what I know now? I'd be ordering my HP5+ and Xtol if I were you.
John

 

[John Wiegerink]

Oh, I should have added to the above that for an average contrast scene I rate it at ISO 400 to 800 and it's perfect. Also, if you don't like the Xtol/HP5+ combination I'll buy your leftover stock so you won't be out much just to try it. That's how confident I am that you will like it.

 

[voceumana]

If you can handle mixing your developer from bulk chemicals, then divided-D-76 or Barry Thornton's 2-bath developer are options worthy of consideration. Each will develop any normal film nicely and the 1st bath will last for quite a few rolls without degrading in quality. The 2nd bath is easy to mix, and can be used for several rolls, too, though not as many as the 1st bath.

If long life is a main concern, the concentrated formulas for one-shot use (Rodinal and HC-110) both have extremely long life as concentrates, and one-shot use provides consistent results. Make sure, though, that you can accurately measure the small amount of concentrate needed for use.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

There's even an app and if it's a reliable source, it would be great having all the data on the smartphone.

The data is usually reliable, but of course there are exeptions.
I think the app is very useful. Apart of access to the database, there is a handy timer which offers a lot of tweaking options.

I would not consider the difference in dev time from 6 to 8 minutes very important. There are other cases where one manufacturer seems to contradict itself in one datasheet. Just look at the dev times of HP5+ in Perceptol. Ilford recommends the same dev time for different EI - which seems unlogic. I assume they have tested it, and that is what gave them the best results. So Agfa souped HP5+ in Rodinal for 6 minutes and was happy (probably less grain and less contrast), and Adox needed 8 minutes to be happy (probably more grain and more contrast) . Both dev. times should produce very printable negatives, the rest is personal preference.

 

[Svenedin]

The data is usually reliable, but of course there are exeptions.
I think the app is very useful. Apart of access to the database, there is a handy timer which offers a lot of tweaking options.

I would not consider the difference in dev time from 6 to 8 minutes very important. There are other cases where one manufacturer seems to contradict itself in one datasheet. Just look at the dev times of HP5+ in Perceptol. Ilford recommends the same dev time for different EI - which seems unlogic. I assume they have tested it, and that is what gave them the best results. So Agfa souped HP5+ in Rodinal for 6 minutes and was happy (probably less grain and less contrast), and Adox needed 8 minutes to be happy (probably more grain and more contrast) . Both dev. times should produce very printable negatives, the rest is personal preference.

The Massive Dev smartphone app is very good for use as a process timer. Whilst I may not agree with the all of the pre-configured times, it can easily be customised to whatever times are desired.

I would say to the OP, don't overthink it. Buy some HP5, get cracking and enjoy yourself. I really look forward to seeing some photographs of Vienna in the gallery. Beautiful city with endless photo opportunities. I've been there quite a few times. I've always wanted to try to re-create some of the shots from the film, "The Third Man", especially the end scene at the cemetery.

 

[Ces1um]

Hi!

I want to start developing my own B&W film (120 format). I understand the whole process and I am confident enough in my manual abilities. I will use a Jobo 1520.

Thanks!

There's an easy alternative to traditional developer/fixer/stop chemistry which requires very little stock on hand, has a very long shelf life and produces acceptable results. New55 makes a monobath that is only a single long lasting liquid which both develops and fixes your film. I've found I can develop about 5 rolls of 120 film before it starts to have clearing issues and usually 7 rolls is it's upward max before it's depleted. Maybe be worth a look.

 

[bvy]

XTOL is a great developer but NOT one I would recommend someone start with.

 

[Svenedin]

XTOL is a great developer but NOT one I would recommend someone start with.

I agree. It only comes in 5 litre packets now and someone just starting out hardly wants that much developer. It is nearly double the US cost in the UK (I don't know about Austria where the OP lives).

 

[baachitraka]

D-76 1+1 and any film.

 

[artcarbuncle]

From one beginner to another, some anecdotal tidbits:

I strongly recommend following Paul's advice about not getting too hung up on your choice of developer. There are many, many factors that play into the tonality, grain structure, sharpness--in other words the whole look and feel--of any particular photograph you see that you'd like to emulate, and I'd hazard to say that the developer is the least important of all those factors. For example, a purely informal, debatable, and incomplete list of the factors contributing to the tonality of a picture, in decreasing order of importance, might include:

-The light you're photographing
-Exposure
-The film
-Printing technique (whole slew of factors in there)
-Film format
-Development technique
-Developer used

Moreover there's a logarithmic decline in importance of those factors as you go down the list, i.e. the exposure (provided it's within an acceptable range) is half as important as the light, the film choice is half as important as the exposure, etc.

In my view using one developer vs. another is a matter of relatively extreme fine tuning, and for most of us the main point is just to choose something that's easy to use, won't kill you, and is not prone to gross errors. Pretty much all of the options you've heard mentioned consistently (D-76, HC-110, Rodinal) qualify. There's something bewitching about the idea of finding the "magic bullet" developer that will, all by itself, make your photos "glow". I guess that's because while everyone knows about the different film choices, developers seem a bit more arcane, and so we beginners think great photographers must have discovered a secret there. But that's hogwash. The secret to great photographers' work is technique.

So, focus on technique. Be consistent with your exposure and development procedure (film speed rating, temperature, agitation method & tank type, development time), adjust only one aspect of that procedure at a time, and run tests after each adjustment so you can properly evaluate the effect.

(It makes a massive difference how you're going to be viewing your negatives. If you're scanning you can afford to be pretty lazy about your development regime since you'll be able to pull just about anything you want out of a given negative as long as you exposed it enough. However if you're going to be printing optically it pays dividends to stick to one enlarger, one paper, one paper developer and development time, and then tune your negatives to that combination by adjusting your development procedure as above.)

All that said, it's also fun sometimes to flail around wildly and see what happens (e.g. not liking your results and so changing film, developer, metering method, and development technique all at once). So if you're in that kind of mood go for it. Maybe you'll happen on something you love. If you're after consistency, however, I'd recommend following the above advice.

I've been using HP5+ exclusively in 35mm for the past year or so, purely as a matter of discipline. The above opinions are the result of my own experience over that time working with the film. I've become impatient, tried too many developers (D76, PMK, R09, XTOL), and failed to focus properly on technique until the last few months, during which it's become clear just how much time and materials I wasted by not doing so.

Finally, since it sounds like you're leaning towards R09: My own experience is that 1+25 gives a bit less grain and better tonality than 1+50. Undoubtedly you'll find plenty of other people who say the exact opposite. I do notice that the R09 label omits a development time for HP5+ at the 1+50 dilution, which would seem to indicate they don't recommend that dilution for the film. Ilford, however, does provide a recommended time for that dilution. For me, rated at 200, 5 minutes at 1+25 with 15 seconds initial agitation and one inversion each minute in a Paterson style tank with some head space (s steel tank without any head space may take a greater number of/more vigorous inversions to produce the same circulation of the developer around the film) produces negatives that print with "proper" contrast at grade 2 with a condenser light source on Ilford MGFB Warmtone developed in Liquidol.

The lesson of the above paragraph? Don't believe anything you read. Just pick a reasonable starting point and then start your testing to find what works for you in your environment.

Good luck!

-Aaron

 

[Craig]

My "magic" combination seems to be Delta 100 and Xtol. I always get nice negatives from that. However, so starting out you may not want to mix 5L of developer, so see if things like Ilford ID-11 are available in 1L packs where you live. For similar reasons as Xtol, I would avoid HC-110. I found it difficult to measure the small qualities of syrup needed, and Xtol does everything better than HC-110.

I would also avoid the T Max films as they take forever to fix and deplete the fixer faster than Ilford films. For me, a typical Tmax fixing time is twice that of HP5.

 

[PerTulip]

Thank you for pointing me the right way. Just developed my first film.
- I used a FP4 and just took photos of random stuff, carefully metering (incident) to have properly exposed negatives.
- I got all the stuff I ordered (chemicals, measuring cups, thermometer, Paterson tank, changing bag,....) a few days ago, but didn't have time, so it was just laying around.
- I decided to go with Rodinal (Adox Adonal) and Adox Adofix. Stop bath not necessary.
- Getting the film (120) into the spool was easier than I thought. I practiced 3-4 times in dayight ("luckily" I had a spoiled film) and I got it into the spool in the changing bag almost immediately. This was the step I was worried about.
- Rodinal 1+50 for 15min at 20°C (1 min agitation, then every minute). I used the time on the Ilford data sheet. I took a lot of care to really have 20°C. What if I miss the temperature by +/-1 C, does that even matter?
- Watering: this is where I was unsure. How much/long should I water the film? Any damage If I water it too much? I guess not, since I am just getting the developer out. Or can "hurt" the emulsion. I went for 3min
- Fixing: Adofix 1+9 for 6 minutes. If I understood correctly, better to fix a little bit too much than not enogh.
- Water again and at the end added some Adoflo wetting agent to improve drying. Can't hurt, I guess.

Looking at the negative (still drying), I am very happy. Sharpness is excellent. I like the tones but...I think there could be more shadow detail (damn, first try and already going down that rabbit hole...). But all i all, I am very happy with my first roll of film.

Thank you for helping me choose this combination. Even If I ended using FP4 instead of HP5.

 

[Craig]

Your wash time seems a bit short. There is the Ilford way suggested on this sheet: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Reducing-Wash-Water.pdf
or wash in running water for 5-10 min, with the water temp within 5C of the process temps. Reading again, by "watering" you mean the rinse between develop and fix? That's a stop bath and is designed to stop development. Usually an acid stop is used here, or plain water. 30 sec is sufficient. The developer is a base and fix is acid, so it is also used to prevent developer carry forward to the fix and increasing the pH of the fix.

It is best if you can maintain your set temperature, but +/-1C won't have much effect. Unlike with colour, where it does matter.

Usual time for fixing is twice the time it take the film to clear. I find that for conventional (FP4, HP5) film in Ilford rapid fixer time is about 4 min. T Max films take longer. If you take the film out of the fix and there is a pronounced purple stain to the film then it needs more fixing. I'm not familiar with Adofix fixer to know what the recommended time is.

Have you read this sheet: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/beginners-guide-processing-film/

 

[PerTulip]

Yes, I meant the rinse between develop and fix.

Next time I will increase final washing. Better to err on the "safe" side (longer) and get all the chemicals out?

 

[MattKing]

Yes, I meant the rinse between develop and fix.

Next time I will increase final washing. Better to err on the "safe" side (longer) and get all the chemicals out?

The chemicals diffuse out - they need some time to do so, along with water that is being continuously refreshed.
The actual flow rate for the water is quite low - Kodak recommends a flow sufficient to entirely change the water once each 5 minutes.