if you could use 1 developer for film AND prints and never another what would it be ?

[removed account4]

i know i am walking on thin ice
because a lot of people here don't use
1 developer for film and prints but ... some do just the same.

if you could just buy 1 developer for film and prints .. and NOT buy anything else
what would it be ?

==

years ago there used to be things called " universal developers "
and they worked OK and a lot of people used them ... film was processed
in 1 dilution and prints in another ... and life seemed good ( and people's darkrooms weren't cluttered
with 14 different developer ( one for every different situation under the sun ) )

so what would it be ? something old and tried and true or something new ?


--

 

[JackRosa]

PD-130 (1+10) with FP4

i know i am walking on thin ice
because a lot of people here don't use
1 developer for film and prints but ... some do just the same.

if you could just buy 1 developer for film and prints .. and NOT buy anything else
what would it be ?

==

years ago there used to be things called " universal developers "
and they worked OK and a lot of people used them ... film was processed
in 1 dilution and prints in another ... and life seemed good ( and people's darkrooms weren't cluttered
with 14 different developer ( one for every different situation under the sun ) )

so what would it be ? something old and tried and true or something new ?


--

Formulary's PD-130. I use it exclusively for prints and learned (from you) that it does a very good job with film as well (different dilution, of course)

 

[JackRosa]

PD-130 should have been the title block above

PD-130 for both

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Dektol (D-72) can be used in several dilutions for film and provides good negatives. Kodak originally formulated D-72 to be a universal developer for both films and prints.

 

[mike c]

Ansco 130, which I think is the same as PD 130 from the Formulary, like it for prints and have tried it on film a few times with so,so results.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would not waste the effort to find one.

 

[NedL]

You didn't mention price, so I'm going "cheat" a little and assume it doesn't matter. In that case HC-110. I've seen lovely prints made with it, and it's my every day film developer.

I've never used 130, but from your results I'd guess that might be a great lower cost choice.

 

[Xmas]

You didn't mention price, so I'm going "cheat" a little and assume it doesn't matter. In that case HC-110. I've seen lovely prints made with it, and it's my every day film developer.

I've never used 130, but from your results I'd guess that might be a great lower cost choice.

Rodinal was so used in past, it was only the development of miniature cameras like TLRs that made fine grain developers desirable.

Paying more money for HC 110 is like buying a Leica?

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Well, I'm cheap.
It would be Fomadon R09 or Fomadon Universal.

 

[Simon R Galley]

I wouldn't...

Using one developer for both compromises one or the other process:

That's why you have film dev's and paper dev's

It's also why I include monobath's in this area.

KODAK and ILFORD and many others develop and invent chemicals to ensure optimal results... why would you not want to get the best out of your photography, negatives and print's.

And before someone says ease of use or cost saving, it does not take long to make chemistry, and it certainly will not save you very much money, if any.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology

 

[Xmas]

I wouldn't...

Using one developer for both compromises one or the other process:

That's why you have film dev's and paper dev's

It's also why I include monobath's in this area.

KODAK and ILFORD and many others develop and invent chemicals to ensure optimal results... why would you not want to get the best out of your photography, negatives and print's.

And before someone says ease of use or cost saving, it does not take long to make chemistry, and it certainly will not save you very much money, if any.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology

http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology/Monophen.pdf

 

[pdeeh]

Well, that's only of historical interest than anything else, really, so hardly a contradiction of what Simon is saying.

More to the point is that Ilford still make "PQ Universal" , but then again the data sheet explicitly says

PQ UNIVERSAL is not recommended for processing general purpose 35mm and roll film

 

[baachitraka]

I lith print most of the negatives so there is nothing universal for me. :-(

Rodinal(flat day) & X-tol(sunny day) for negatives and SE5 lith for lith prints.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Xmas...

And I notice it cost about 8 and a half bob for 500ml's !! 42 English new pence!

I will check in the warehouse we probably still have some... !

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Xmas]

Dear Xmas...

And I notice it cost about 8 and a half bob for 500ml's !! 42 English new pence!

I will check in the warehouse we probably still have some... !

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

You were correct the AP review said it was exception for a mono bath only a small loss in ASA, grain and sharpness...

In the past few pros or amateurs even used 120! So universal was not a handicap.

 

[pdeeh]

Dear Xmas...

And I notice it cost about 8 and a half bob for 500ml's !! 42 English new pence!

I will check in the warehouse we probably still have some... !

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

And according to the bank of England inflation calculator, that's about £8.40 now or nearly £17 a litre ...

 

[removed account4]

for me if it would be ansco 130 ( or dektol / d72 )..
and if i was still addicted to drinking coffee, i'd drop a few espresso shots in every time
i diluted it for use.

YMMV

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Jnanian,

I know.......

and I only drink expresso.... !

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Terry Christian]

If I was going to use just one, it would be Rodinal, since it was originally advertised for both. Admittedly both films and papers have changed quite a bit since it was put on the market. I've used it for prints, mostly in experiments, and it actually does a pretty good job!

 

[JackRosa]

Agree

I wouldn't...

Using one developer for both compromises one or the other process:

That's why you have film dev's and paper dev's

It's also why I include monobath's in this area.

KODAK and ILFORD and many others develop and invent chemicals to ensure optimal results... why would you not want to get the best out of your photography, negatives and print's.

And before someone says ease of use or cost saving, it does not take long to make chemistry, and it certainly will not save you very much money, if any.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology

------

Agree, Simon and after testing PD-130 as a film developer, I concluded I obtain better results with developers formulated (by Kodak or Ilford) to develop film. In a pinch, however, the results obtained with PD-130 (1+10) are not bad at all. I was expecting terrible results (with film) and was quite surprised by how good the results were. PD-130 (1+1) remains my preferred paper develop, second only to Amidol.

 

[RPC]

I have compared Ansco 130 to D-23 and D-76 and personally prefer the tones of 130. I wouldn't hesitate to use it for both film & paper, and have, but as I have a preference for glycin developers and am now trying Agfa 8 for film to see if I like it even better than 130.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would not waste the effort to find one.

I use replenished XTOL and Rollo Pyro for the best film developing results that I want. They will not work on paper and why should I limit myself to less quality to only use one developer for paper and film. Furthermore I would have to be careful not to interchange the two sets of developer. The whole idea is lose, Lose, LOSE!

 

[Xmas]

Well, that's only of historical interest than anything else, really, so hardly a contradiction of what Simon is saying.

More to the point is that Ilford still make "PQ Universal" , but then again the data sheet explicitly says

It was the historical interest I ment not to contradict Simon alas that part was your imagination.

Monophen was introduced about 1960 or 61 when

- most families only had 6x9 box or folding cameras
- pro cam imports were restricted unless you were a working pro
- Ilford had not sold the pre lanthrium /3.5 35mm sportsman in volume
- drop off monochrome processing and printing was the norm

I don't think Monophen was a success even then... Too much of a compromise.

Simon might have been unaware that Ilford even marketed it - without any prejudice.

But universal developers were the norm cause a 120 film in a 6x9 en printed or contacted on PoP did not show much grain.

I only had a 127 Brownie and a contact frame never saw any grain only used universal. And powder fix.

Bought a 35mm in '61 (UK manufactured) and switched to colour slides...

In 1960 some of Belfasts commercial centre was still bomb cinder courtesy of Ge airforce unlike Coventry (or Dresden) we had hung on to the cathedral.