How do you choose a film developer to use ?

[loccdor]

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.

I do this too, but the big caveat here is that post-processing may be playing a much bigger role than the development. The exposure and light of the image, and even the subject chosen, can also influence us.

I have sometimes fallen in love with a photo and tried to emulate their film selection and development process, only to realize something else was doing the heavy lifting to elevate it into sublime art...

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

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.

I didn't realise that Roger came from Roche. I was there last year and photographed Roche Rock which makes a nice photo against a good sky.

 

[mtnbkr]

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.

Thanks for the heads up on FFP's D76. I've wanted to try D76, but not if I have to mix a gallon.

As for my choice, I use LegacyPro L110 because I can mix it as needed in small amounts and I can use HC-110 recipes. It works for all of the B&W films I use. But, now that I know about FFP D76, I may give that a try.

Chris

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Try Defender 4-D. Similar to D-76:

http://backglass.org/duncan/apug/dupont_defender_films_sheet_194709.pdf

 

[cliveh]

I want complete consistency of process and that's why I chose D76 at 1:1 dilution and discard after use. I could have chosen several other developers that would give me the same consistency, but for me D76 is what I decided to use as a life choice.

 

[Don_ih]

D76 is what I decided to use as a life choice.

My opinion is, it seems to have been a wise choice. Your photos tend to agree.

I'm currently using instant Mytol because it works well with Tmax films - which were killing my replenished D76. I also use an acetone developer, based on what's commonly called Bishop's but @Merg Ross said in a post on here it was not actually developed by Bishop. Anyway, I increase the sulfite and add hydroquinone, so it's a bit different. It works well with sheet film. Well, it does what I want it to. But I'll be the first to admit it's a lot of unnecessary messing around. D76 1:1 can develop pretty much everything very well, provided you get everything right.

Some developers are more forgiving of not getting everything right.

 

[John Bragg]

I didn't realise that Roger came from Roche. I was there last year and photographed Roche Rock which makes a nice photo against a good sky.

I need to re-visit the rock since my last time photographing it was over a decade ago.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

first, we must realize that negative characteristics are mostly defined by the choice of film. That is not to mean that it doesn't matter what developer you use but, don't expect too much from the developer choice if you already decided on the film. After the film choice, start with one of the standard time-proven developers such as D76, ID11 or Rodinal and experiment from there.

 

[Maris]

The developer I choose is Replenished Xtol because it is cheap, consistent, convenient, and long lasting.
Cheap: about 30 cents a roll.
Consistent: All films develop for 11 minutes 15 seconds at 20 Celcius.
Convenient: Nothing to mix or dilute. Use it straight out of the stock bottle.
Long lasting: I'm on my second batch since 2007 and it's working perfectly.

Because I use roll-film and sheet film and make moderate enlargements I never see hurtful grain or sharpness loss.
The "image technical" qualities of the developer I use are remarkably irrelevant in terms of my production of positive prints.
The densities in the negative do not irrevocably dictate tones in the positive. I use variable contrast paper, work in a limited genre, and know how to print.

 

[cliveh]

The developer I choose is Replenished Xtol because it is cheap, consistent, convenient, and long lasting.
Cheap: about 30 cents a roll.
Consistent: All films develop for 11 minutes 15 seconds at 20 Celcius.
Convenient: Nothing to mix or dilute. Use it straight out of the stock bottle.
Long lasting: I'm on my second batch since 2007 and it's working perfectly.

Because I use roll-film and sheet film and make moderate enlargements I never see hurtful grain or sharpness loss.
The "image technical" qualities of the developer I use are remarkably irrelevant in terms of my production of positive prints.
The densities in the negative do not irrevocably dictate tones in the positive. I use variable contrast paper, work in a limited genre, and know how to print.

Cheap! And I once noticed that you said you are rich. So why are you penny pinching on developer?

 

[Don_ih]

All films develop for 11 minutes 15 seconds at 20 Celcius

But Tmax and TriX are supposed to develop for 6.5 - 7 minutes. HP5 is 8. Foma400 is 7.

 

[Maris]

But Tmax and TriX are supposed to develop for 6.5 - 7 minutes. HP5 is 8. Foma400 is 7.

My 2 litre stock of Replenished Xtol is several years old and has done hundreds of films, rolls and sheets. The actual chemical composition of my developer is unknown (unknowable?) and surely incorporates some residues from everything that's been through it. I replenish at the rate of 90ml per film and I check developer activity after every developing session in case there is drift. Developer activity is now less than that of a fresh mix but it hasn't changed since 2021.

A curious result that initially surprised me is that all conventional panchromatic films, Tmax, TriX, Acros, Foma, Rollei, Shanghai, can go through this developer in mixed batches for the same time and yield easily printable negatives. How this actually works at the molecular level I don't know but I'll take it as a convenient stroke of luck.

 

[Craig]

Cheap! And I once noticed that you said you are rich. So why are you penny pinching on developer?

One way to get rich is to not spend....

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Thanks for the heads up on FFP's D76. I've wanted to try D76, but not if I have to mix a gallon.

As for my choice, I use LegacyPro L110 because I can mix it as needed in small amounts and I can use HC-110 recipes. It works for all of the B&W films I use. But, now that I know about FFP D76, I may give that a try.

Chris

D76 is so easy to mix from bulk chemicals; always fresh; any amount you need.

 

[MsLing]

all conventional panchromatic films, Tmax, TriX, Acros, Foma, Rollei, Shanghai, can go through this developer in mixed batches for the same time and yield easily printable negatives.

Wow,what a convenient solution.Mine can't do this.Sometimes for printing on graded papers,I need to control CI strictly

 

[mtnbkr]

D76 is so easy to mix from bulk chemicals; always fresh; any amount you need.

I'm sure it is, but then I have to buy/store bulk chemicals. I don't develop all that much, maybe 10-15 rolls a year, so having a bunch of stuff around is not what I want. My current developing kit fits in a box a bit larger than a shoebox.

Chris

 

[Sirius Glass]

Over many years I read views, especially ones by film companies and developer manufactures. I look for film sharpness, smooth tonality and fine grain. About 20 years ago, I came across this recommendation from Kodak.

I found for myself that XTOL, in stock form, 1:1 and replenished provided the results I was looking for. I also found that the XTOL was very accommodating and not cause problems if my chemistry got too. Replenished XTOL is the least expensive techniques of the three. Now this it has gotten harder to regularly find XTOL, one should look at other companies forms of XTOL.

 

[Steven Lee]

I have a strange affinity to grain appearance. My limitation is that I do not have a darkroom and all my photos, even the printed ones, come from scans. Grain has a huge impact on the final appearance of scans. I am not into super-smooth results, I like grain and texture, but I need grain to exhibit the certain quality that I call tightness. Think of it as a combination of uniformity of size, placement, and grain contrast.

When I got back into film, I quickly learned that people on forums and social media have different requirements for developers that do not apply to me. For example, when people say fine grain, they usually mean blurry grain, not smaller grain. The finest grained developer in my mind is Rodinal or Ilfosol3, because they keep grain its natural (smallest) form. Even Ilford for some reason recommends DD-X for "best overall quality" with all of their films, even though it delivers awful grain tightness.

So... I experimented, and quickly discovered that D76/Xtol are almost perfect. I treat them as almost the same developer in my mind, because they're much closer to each other than anything else. Out of those 2 I prefer Xtol because it lasts forever and is perfect for infrequent development sessions.

However, when I need PERFECT grain tightness and I don't mind sacrificing shelf life or convenience, I reach out for Ilfosol 3. I discovered Ilfosol almost by accident, and I'm blown away by its grain quality. It has never gone bad on me, but that's because I've been super careful consuming it quickly being under influence of the advice I found online.

And finally, once I started shooting large format I had to adopt rotary processing. Grain is not an issue there, but I am not comfortable reusing developer with rotary agitation, so I needed a last-forever one-shot liquid (because I shoot very little of LF). Ilfotec HC was the obvious choice by being the most available HC-110 equivalent.

 

[John Bragg]

I have a strange affinity to grain appearance. My limitation is that I do not have a darkroom and all my photos, even the printed ones, come from scans. Grain has a huge impact on the final appearance of scans. I am not into super-smooth results, I like grain and texture, but I need grain to exhibit the certain quality that I call tightness. Think of it as a combination of uniformity of size, placement, and grain contrast.

When I got back into film, I quickly learned that people on forums and social media have different requirements for developers that do not apply to me. For example, when people say fine grain, they usually mean blurry grain, not smaller grain. The finest grained developer in my mind is Rodinal or Ilfosol3, because they keep grain its natural (smallest) form. Even Ilford for some reason recommends DD-X for "best overall quality" with all of their films, even though it delivers awful grain tightness.

So... I experimented, and quickly discovered that D76/Xtol are almost perfect. I treat them as almost the same developer in my mind, because they're much closer to each other than anything else. Out of those 2 I prefer Xtol because it lasts forever and is perfect for infrequent development sessions.

However, when I need PERFECT grain tightness and I don't mind sacrificing shelf life or convenience, I reach out for Ilfosol 3. I discovered Ilfosol almost by accident, and I'm blown away by its grain quality. It has never gone bad on me, but that's because I've been super careful consuming it quickly being under influence of the advice I found online.

And finally, once I started shooting large format I had to adopt rotary processing. Grain is not an issue there, but I am not comfortable reusing developer with rotary agitation, so I needed a last-forever one-shot liquid (because I shoot very little of LF). Ilfotec HC was the obvious choice by being the most available HC-110 equivalent.

Steven, I am very much like you in my liking of grain. I have used Ilfosol 3 exclusively for 3 years and am constantly amazed by how it gives THE most amazing grain and microcontrast. I was blown away years ago by the work of James Ravilious for the Beaford Archive. He was able to show fine detail even in a simple bowl of sugar. (He used Perceptol 1:2 I gather). That fine sugar grain describes how I see the fine whites in a composition. If I can achieve that then I am happy. Ilfotec HC also gives me that if I do my bit right. My first go with HP5+ in it was less than stellar and I ended up with grain that looked more like oatmeal. Once I got it dialled in, then it came alive. Enough exposure at Ei200 to give shadow detail that I like and just enough development to give vibrant highlights. I also tend not to agitate much. That is often a part of the overall equation that is forgotten.

HP5+ @ Ei200 developed in Ilfotec HC 1:49 for 7 minutes @20°C with initial agitation of 30 seconds, and 2 invertions at 3 minutes, and 2 more at 5 minutes.

Untitled_258021GB by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I'm sure it is, but then I have to buy/store bulk chemicals. I don't develop all that much, maybe 10-15 rolls a year, so having a bunch of stuff around is not what I want. My current developing kit fits in a box a bit larger than a shoebox.

Chris

For you, mixing from raw ingredients is ideal. You simply buy some metol, sodium sulphite, borax, and hydroquinone. If kept tightly closed and in a cool, dark place, they will last almost indefinitely. I have metol that is quite old and it works perfectly. You may want to get some potassium bromide and sodium carbonate to make paper developers too.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

It depends on what kind of film you are using above all. Very slow films require developers that are much gentler than average, and very fast films require developers that are much more vigorous than average. Medium-speed and fast films do well in solvent MQ borax developers.

 

[gbroadbridge]

The very first roll of film I developed was Tri X Pan in 1974. D76 as it was the only developer thing my mum could find.
Went to ID11 when D76 was difficult to find and I'm still using it. I did try Infosol S about 20 years ago for a bottle or two