How do you choose a film developer to use ?

John Bragg · Apr 19, 2024

Hi all. How did you choose the best film developer for YOU and YOUR NEEDS ? Did it happen by chance and experimentation, or did you have a set of requirements and choose to satisfy those needs ? For me, economy is part of the equation, but I am not willing to sacrifice quality. I have never tried home brewed formulae, although I fancy a go at D23. My journey over the past 40 odd years has been mostly through the standard liquid developers like Rodinal and HC-110 and also ID:11 and Perceptol powder formulae. The very first bottle I ever bought was Ilfosol S and Ironically, its modern equivalent is one of my favourite brews for sharpness and overall image quality. Currently, I am trying Ilfotec HC and liking the results very much. At 18pence per roll it is also one of the cheapest which is nice, as I am [like everyone else in the UK] feeling the economic pinch. I like controlled grain, but not too smooth. A nice balance that emphasises micro contrast without being too gritty. Tonal qualities are also top of my list of priorities, especially the ability to accurately render skin tones and whites. Lastly consistency is vital and reliability over a long time, so the highly concentrated liquid formula appeals a lot.

Tickets Please ! by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr

RudyMerz · Apr 19, 2024

I used many developers over the last 40 years, like DDX, HC-110, Perceptol, Rodinal and many others. After watching John Finch from Pictorial Planet on YouTube I started to use D23 Replenished. I am using it with Kodak, Ilford and Fomapan film. And I have to say that I really like it. Mixing it is simple and I am not relying on ready made developers, where I have to worry whether it is in stock or not. Give it a try.

John Bragg · Apr 19, 2024

RudyMerz said:
I used many developers over the last 40 years, like DDX, HC-110, Perceptol, Rodinal and many others. After watching John Finch from Pictorial Planet on YouTube I started to use D23 Replenished. I am using it with Kodak, Ilford and Fomapan film. And I have to say that I really like it. Mixing it is simple and I am not relying on ready made developers, where I have to worry whether it is in stock or not. Give it a try.

Thanks Rudy. Sounds like a good idea. Is it consistent and does it need some seasoned developer to get the process started ? I have always favoured one shot processing.

juan · Apr 19, 2024

I started mixing dry developers such as D76 and GAF Universal, but as I would develop film only occasionally, I had a lot go bad. Reading Fred Picker in the 80s led me to HC-110, so I realized that liquid concentrates fit me much better. The 2000s brought APUG and The Azo Forum which taught me to mix my own and again avoid waste. Right now I'm happy with the results I get from Pyrocat in glycol and Gainers PC-TEA. Sometimes D23.

Keith Tapscott. · Apr 19, 2024

It depends on whether you want the convenience of a liquid one shot developer or you are happy to mix stock solutions from dry powders.
The industry standards are Kodak D76 and Ilford ID11 as these tend to be the developers by which others are compared with.
Xtol is considered to be an improvement over these, but the differences may be negligible.
I believe it is at least as important to find a personal exposure rating and development time for the films you use as it is to find the magic developer.

Fatih Ayoglu · Apr 19, 2024

I have started with DDX and Ilfosol but they were very expensive and I was not that bothered with the end result as long as I don’t do a mistake and have scannable negative. Then I have moved to Rodinal as I fall in love with grain and started to wet print in darkroom. As you are, I also live in UK and the issue I have is pretty much I need to push all the rolls as I use always a filter and give +1 EV for correct skin tones. So with pushing Rodinal gives obviously huge grains, which can be an issue when you enlarge 35mm film to 16x20 print so I have started to use XTol for pushing which controls the grain better. I use predominantly HP5, the TriX and last Foma 400 (which I’ve stopped now)

John Bragg · Apr 19, 2024

Keith Tapscott. said:
It depends on whether you want the convenience of a liquid one shot developer or you are happy to mix stock solutions from dry powders.
The industry standards are Kodak D76 and Ilford ID11 as these tend to be the developers by which others are compared with.
Xtol is considered to be an improvement over these, but the differences may be negligible.
I believe it is at least as important to find a personal exposure rating and development time for the films you use as it is to find the magic developer.

I fully agree Keith. I tend to rate my HP5+ @ ei200 and get good results with most developers that way. After an initial familiarisation and dialing in your technique, it is sometimes hard to see a real and meaningful difference with a lot of developers. With a modicum of experience, we can adapt. Biggest lesson for me was to find my personal dev time, not slavishly copy Ilford or Kodak's time.

FriedLouisStudio · Apr 19, 2024

I've used many developers over the years (DK-50, Ilfosol-3, Xtol, HC-110, Microdol-X, etc.), but I always return to D-76 1:1. It's been my go-to since the 1960s.

These days I'm using Film Photography Project's version of D-76 because I only require small amounts - I typically only shoot six or eight rolls a year. FPP's D-76 still comes in a liter/quart package, whereas Kodak only makes D-76 in gallon packages now... which I'd never use up before it expired. It seems to work identically to Great Yellow Father's.

MsLing · Apr 19, 2024

Landscape and architecture I shoot mostly.And all kinds of film are my food.I started with Xtol,and it's still my favorite.No matter push or pull,Xtol offers nice curve,that displays details in shadow.I run replenishment,in order to achieve velvety look.Point of view,Xtol is a modern advanced developer.To be honest,TMX with Xtol can look like digital.

Some months ago,Xtol was not available because of the transition between SinoPromise and PSI,then Berspeed I used to replace it.It worked well,processed tons of nice rolls and sheets with smooth tone,however,Xtol has occupied the capital region in the bottom of my heart.As soon as Xtol became available,I bought bags.

Rodinal is another developer I always process film with.Thought its grains are not as fine as Xtol's,the retro style it provides and the convenience of mixing and storing fascinated me a lot.And usually I use 1 +300 to do standing development.Though making large format printing is impossible,I will put one bottle on my shelf forever.

To develop aerial films,I use POTA.But it cause 1 stop speed loss and grains it produces are not very fine.I don't like these so trying to ameliorate the formula.

markbau · Apr 19, 2024

After messing around with pretty much every developer since the late 70s including stuff like Rodinal and Pyro developers I've come full circle ands gone back to the old reliables, D76/ID11 and D23. D 23 1:1 one shot will never let you down. For a long time I got caught up in the pyro hype but as Phil Davis is alleged to have said. Pyro magic is a myth, his testing did not support the claims that its adherents claimed. My advice is simple, use an industry standard film like FP4 and develop it in an industry standard like D76/ID11 !:1, one shot. The quality of the light your subject is bathed in and good exposure are the most crucial things in determining a good neg and print.

A lot of Ansel Adams wannabes sing the praises of HC 110. Understand that he only used it late in his career and as a AA workshop participant told me, AA used HC110 at his workshops because of the short development times. Most of the famous AA photos were developed with developers other than HC 110, D23 was used for many of his most famous photos. Worry about lighting much more than film/developer combos.

JWMster · Apr 19, 2024

Well.... I'm using D23 most of the time. It's slow, but I like the way it works. Simple to mix and pretty well documented on line: Google "Kenneth Lee". He pushed it in his analog period and still has a lot of useful info, and has been the source of my chemistry (Citric Acid stop, TF3 Fixer and another home made Hypowash). I'm also beginning the trek to include some Pyrocat-HD. I have some of SB-512 mix you can find here - and I like it, too; but have recently been focused more on D23 and Pyrocat-HD. XTOL would be worth another look perhaps, but D23 is so easy to mix up 1-shot that this is my preference in terms of controlled use.

I like using D23 1:3 with 150% more time (than Stock) and agitation every 3 minutes - if I have the time and want the effect - which is pretty sweet. My default starting point is to add 10% time to a D76 developing time for D23. Shooting EI to me is set by inspection, but I stick with the standard box speed times for development. That said, I'm beginning to engage in testing EI speed and Developing Times with the whole zone approach - even an analog densitometer I picked up from the dinosaur days.

Mostly, I'm shooting at an EI that normalizes to 250/400 X Box Speed and working that through on a spread sheet to give options for temps and dilution changes as well as N+1 and N-1. Films I'm stocking are HP5, FP4, Adox CHS II and I'm using up Delta 400. That said, HP5 at 250 is my sweet spot, but then I haven't progressed sufficiently to follow Bruce Birnbaum's differentiation in film selection by contrast levels. I have some winger rolls of other stuff, but that's to lower the price of practice shooting - like Kentmere 400 and Shanghai stuff. I would like to use some Pan F in MF-120, but the price is a bit rich, and at the same ratio, I'd be shooting at almost nothing. Other than the beautiful Adox grain (and amazing backing paper and packaging!!!), most films to me seem .....to produce a good look. I don't want to get lost in the weeds trying too many things, and would rather just get the shooting and development done to create a negative that can be crafted.... and eventually printed.

One thing about analog for a hybrid guy: You have shooting, developing, scanning and printing to work out. That's a lot of stuff to manage. I'm not sure it's any better than wet darkroom work.... but for now, it's stuff I can handle as the nearest darkroom is 40 miles away ...and I don't have the space or inclination (at the moment) to work an enlarger and paper developing in the laundry room.

geirtbr · Apr 19, 2024

XTOL has been my standard negative developer for long, it was available in our common lab and it is good basis for most films. It gives good speed, low fog, and fine grain. However it doesnt match all films and all looks, Fomapan 100 for example will look significantly better with d76 or rodinal. HC110 is also very reliable especially for old expired films - its a great nonfogging developer. However the looks are a bit too neutral and smooth, I think.

Unfortunately the last couple of years ago the XTOL packages either went bad shortly after being mixed or were already bad when mixed. Maybe we also only had expired bags available. But C-vitamin developers have enormous advantage of being able to be poured directly in the drain, while in my country MQ and PQ developers should be collected as chemical waste and delivered as such to a recycle centre. That require transport and (possibly) also a significant fee. I think I will have a go at caffenol and c-vitamin based self-mixed recipes now, and see if I can make something with reasonable consistency come out of it.

D23 seems interesting but I want to avoid using metol developers for default because of the toxicity-issue. For some uses (reversal, lith) it is needed though.

grahamp · Apr 19, 2024

I've used six developers over 50 years. Paterson Aculux, Fx-39 in the UK, then FG-7/TG-7 initially in California, and most recently Thornton's Two bath and PC-512 Borax. I will probably stick to mixing my own now.

Andrew O'Neill · Apr 19, 2024

There are a few developers that I like to use, depending on the film, and whether or not I want to emphasise grain, sharpness, tonality. You say you want to give D23 a go? I say go for it. It's one that i use (XRAY, Pan F), and I find it very versatile... and economical. You can use it straight, replenished, diluted, and even with a pinch of lye for a bit more grain and oomph.

RudyMerz · Apr 19, 2024

John Bragg said:
Thanks Rudy. Sounds like a good idea. Is it consistent and does it need some seasoned developer to get the process started ? I have always favoured one shot processing.

John,

check out this article.

D23

Photo

www.pictorialplanet.com

That is how I do it.

Paul Howell · Apr 19, 2024

There are so many good developers it is hard to pick just one. I've used many developers, D76, HC 110, (old and new version) Rodinal (new and old), Xtrol, FG 7, MCM 100, Diafine, Dk 50, Acufine, DDX, Clayton F76+ just to name a few. Of these I find that a middle of the road developer that balances film speed, acutance, gain and contrast works best for me. As I am only shooting a roll a week I use HC 110. Although the upfront cost is high due to high dilutions cost per roll is reasonable. I just tossed out a bottle of Rodinal as it had gone bad. I do have a gallon of Acufine mixed up to use with Foma 400 4X5. In terms of cost, Coffeenal and D 23 are inexpensive compared branded premixed developers. One thing to keep in mind when mixing is that you need an accurate scale. I know there are books on using tea and tablespoon measures, but in my of thinking too many variables, best to weight.

Andrew O'Neill · Apr 19, 2024

John Bragg said:
Thanks Rudy. Sounds like a good idea. Is it consistent and does it need some seasoned developer to get the process started ? I have always favoured one shot processing.

Using a replenishing system is very economical, and quite consistent. After you mix up a litre of D23, you "season" it by running about six rolls of 35mm film through it. Then you can begin replenishing it. Rudy's link will explain it better, and give a recipe for D23-Replenished.

Pioneer · Apr 19, 2024

In the beginning I did exactly what Kodak told me to do. I do not remember what publication it was (they must have published hundreds) they went through the process in detail for each one of their films. In their boxes of film they had information bulletins that told you everything your could ever want about that film, including what developers would work.

When I was first learning photography in the 70s Kodak had everything, including books. My very first book on photography was published by Eastman Kodak in the 1930s and was titled "How to Make Good Pictures." It was old when I got my hands on it but it did teach me that Kodak had books on anything I might want to know about photography. I still have a bunch of those old Kodak publications on the shelves.

Later on I bought a lot of stuff written by Roger Hicks. Great stuff.

GregY · Apr 19, 2024

I've been using staining developers for almost 25 years. How did i choose to go that route? One of my friends, whose printing skills I admired, told me that's what he used and processed a roll of film for me. Is it a magic bullet? No, but i had an easier time with highlight separation, & no blown out highlights. So I kept using it....first PMK then Pyrocat HD. I use Adotech IV for CMS20, and i've used Xtol, but i don't keep a bunch of developers around. Pyrocat works for me.

MattKing · Apr 19, 2024

I think that my current developer - replenished X-Tol - essentially chose me.
Availability and ease of use/practicality and economy tend to be the most important factors for me, because all of the different developers I have used - starting with the Tri-Chem packs in 1967 - have given me results that I can make good use of.
I have preferences respecting the qualities of various developers, but in my mind the differences are relatively subtle.

JWMster · Apr 19, 2024

MattKing said:
I have preferences respecting the qualities of various developers, but in my mind the differences are relatively subtle.

I subscribe to this perspective generally.

Truth is that in admiring someone else's work, I find it difficult to really differentiate the parts and detail one-by-one which drives the final image: Lighting, composition, subject and action have such an impact that it's hard to really separate the role that the developer as a viewer in making the image.

I think I might be able to tell when BAD development and post processing for printing or viewing played a role.... but otherwise.... development is sort of the least interesting part. It's a get-'er done thing. It's fun, don't get me wrong. But maybe it should be a non-event? That aside, I think staining developers - like wet scanning - are sort of sub-techniques of developing and scanning. BUT everyone says the difference these contribute is real and significant. So we're going there.

John Bragg · Apr 19, 2024

Pioneer said:
In the beginning I did exactly what Kodak told me to do. I do not remember what publication it was (they must have published hundreds) they went through the process in detail for each one of their films. In their boxes of film they had information bulletins that told you everything your could ever want about that film, including what developers would work.

When I was first learning photography in the 70s Kodak had everything, including books. My very first book on photography was published by Eastman Kodak in the 1930s and was titled "How to Make Good Pictures." It was old when I got my hands on it but it did teach me that Kodak had books on anything I might want to know about photography. I still have a bunch of those old Kodak publications on the shelves.

Later on I bought a lot of stuff written by Roger Hicks. Great stuff.

Roger Hicks came from Roche in Cornwall, very close to where I Live. In conversation with Roger, we came to the conclusion that whatever materials we used, our photos would still look like OUR photos and that explains a lot. Once dialed in most developers can be made to work.

grain elevator · Apr 19, 2024

I mostly take photos hand-held, so full speed is a major criterion for me. I also want high sharpness and good resolution, mostly so that I can use grainier films - I don't want to avoid all grain but maximise the resolution I can get out of ISO 400 films. I also value environmental friendly characteristics, low cost and convenience/long life. Everything except the last criterion points to Xtol and clones or other ascorbate developers. I'm following the thread on homebrew concentrated ascorbate developers with some interest.

john_s · Apr 19, 2024

I've tried quite a number over the years, both off the shelf and home mixed. To be honest, it doesn't make as much difference as you might think. I liken it to training: if you're on a short list for the Olympics, your training has to be absolutely optimum in every way, but if you just want to compete at club level, it's not so critical. I'm not an amazing photographer but I've made some very pleasing prints. Printing is now easier since I've done a bit of testing. I've settled on a speed enhancing standard developer (ID-68=Microphen) for fast moving/ low light work, and Pyrocat-HD for everything else. My choice has been about convenience, cost, shelf life, storage space as well as results. But really if I used some of the 20 developers I've used over many decades my results wouldn't be very different.

Tumbles · Apr 19, 2024

When I'm considering using a film I'm unfamiliar with, I always go to Flickr and do a search on it and click all the images that jump out at me as looking particularly good. I check out the developers used and see if there's one that these images have in common. For me these developers have had a strong tenancy to be either Rodinal, Pyrocat, or HC110. I still have yet to try HC110.

How do you choose a film developer to use ?

John Bragg

RudyMerz

John Bragg

juan

Keith Tapscott.

Fatih Ayoglu

John Bragg

FriedLouisStudio

MsLing

markbau

JWMster

geirtbr

grahamp

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

RudyMerz

D23

Paul Howell

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Pioneer

GregY

MattKing

Moderator

JWMster

John Bragg

grain elevator

john_s

Tumbles

How do you choose a film developer to use ?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency