• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Is there a "Do it all" developer ?


Except ID-62 is a Universal developer and used to be recommended for films.





May & Baker (now Champion) Suprol was very similar and used extensively in photo finishing labs, their recommended use for 35mm films was 1+29. I tested FP4 with PQ Universal at 1+29 and the results were excellent.

I regularly used PQ Universal at 1+19 for processing Ilford Orto or FP4 sheet film.

Ian
 
There is no answer to this question. But if you really want a developer that you can put anything in and just get decent prints without much concern at all, Diafine and its newer clones are pretty foolproof. Diafine itself has gotten very expensive. But clones are more reasonable.

Original Agfapan APX-100 @ EI200 (scan from wet print)

Ilford HP5+ at box speed (scan from negative)
 
albireo said:
I'm puzzled by all these complaints on Rodinal producing grainy or 'harsh' results.
Click to expand...

Harsh, not necessarily so, but grainy - yes. Of course, grain is primarily a function of the film used. But I find rodinal to give more visible, pronounced grain than e.g. XTOL or Pyrocat. It's not necessarily unpleasant, though.

Ian Grant said:
Except ID-62 is a Universal developer and used to be recommended for films.
Click to expand...

Seems to fit the bill then!
 
koraks said:
Harsh, not necessarily so, but grainy - yes. Of course, grain is primarily a function of the film used. But I find rodinal to give more visible, pronounced grain than e.g. XTOL or Pyrocat. It's not necessarily unpleasant, though.
Click to expand...

All true, but I think perceived grain is also a function of print size, or scanned dpi+screen size most commonly used to evaluate the impact of that grain.

A 20x30cm print from a 35mm Foma 100 negative developed in Rodinal 1:50 will show stronger grain than a 20x30cm print from a 6x9 Foma 100 negative developed in Rodinal 1:50.

A 4000dpi scan from a 35mm Foma 100 negative developed in Rodinal 1:50 and shown on a 27 inch screen will show stronger grain than 4000dpi scan from a 120 Foma 100 negative developed in Rodinal 1:50 and shown on the same screen.

I tend to use Rodinal mostly with 6x6 or 6x9, and here the impact of Rodinal on grain is for my taste close to negligible, with its advantages more than outweighting its shortcomings.
 
Last edited:
albireo said:
All true, but I think perceived grain is also a function of print size, or scanned dpi+screen size most commonly used to evaluate the impact of that grain.
Click to expand...

All those things, and more. Boost contrast in digital post or by printing on higher grades and boom!, there goes your grain. Again, not necessarily a bad thing.

I might shoot some Foma 100 and develop in Parodinal later this weekend. I've been going through my last remnants of this film for target practice, which is a nice excuse to muck about with development a bit, too. Back when I used to develop Foma 100 in rodinal regularly I virtually always used 1+100.
 
Rodinal is excellent with some films but not so good with others, it's not ideal for faster films. With original Agfa AP/APX 25 and 100 it gave superb fine grain, it's similar with Tmax, I've not tried it with Fomapan 100 & 200.

albireo said:
A 20x30cm print from a 35mm Foma 100 negative developed in Rodinal 1:50 will show stronger grain than a 20x30cm print from a 6x9 Foma 100 negative developed in Rodinal 1:50.
Click to expand...

That's a format issue though rather than film/developer combination.

Ian
 
Ian Grant said:
That's a format issue though rather than film/developer combination.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And given all photographers pre-select a format prior to taking their pictures, generic claims that Rodinal produces strong or 'harsh' grain are imho not that useful unless format used is indicated.
 
Last edited:
  • koraks
  • Deleted
  • Reason: Offtopic
  • albireo
  • Deleted
  • Reason: Offtopic
I obtain that extra bit of needed edge acutance on TMax100 by using Perceptol 1:3 (which behaves quite differently than Perceptol 1:1).
 
 
I certainly have not tried all films nor have I tried out all developers and dilutions. Nor do I normally try to push or pull any film more than a stop one way or the other. But for the films I commonly work with the developer most likely to work is usually D-23.

However I have been doing a lot of work with Caffenol over the past few months and I am finding that developer to be very versatile. But, again, I haven't tried it with everything and likely never will.
 
Chuck1 said:
What's your favorite film with caffenol?
Click to expand...

Right now I am using quite a bit of TMX100. It responds very well to Caffenol. In fact that is probably why I ran into trouble with my TMAX Developer going bad before I expected it to. I was developing TMX100 with TMAX developer regularly and then I tried it with Caffenol once. I liked the Caffenol so much I just let the bottle of TMAX Developer sit half used without touching it for quite awhile. About 3 weeks ago I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't want to take the extra time to mix up my Caffenol so I pulled out the bottle of TMAX developer. I was shocked when I pulled a blank roll of film out of the tank. No numbers or anything. I knew the camera was working properly and I knew I didn't pour the fixer in before the developer so that left the developer. To be sure I tried developing a quick short-roll test and got the same results.

Certainly all my fault; not the fault of the Kodak developer. But, the lesson for me was...if you are going to start mixing your own developers then you best be prepared to stay regular with the new routine or you might get an unpleasant surprise.
 
My "Do It All" developer for black and white negatives is Replenished Xtol and I use it for all films developed either as a single type or in mixed batches of assorted types and brands. Developing times are adjusted for temperature and all films go through for the the same developing time.

Specifically avoided are techniques like pushing or pulling development, stand or semi-stand development, and other voodoo methods. I try hard to get exposure right and all negatives are easy to print given the tonal controls afforded by modern variable contrast photographic paper.

I shoot roll film and sheet film and make 8x10 enlargements (mainly) so anxieties about image sharpness and grain disappear.

Yes, one developer and one development process for all films; very convenient.
 
Developers like D-76 (ID11), D23 ( basically the same as D-76 without preservatives), XTOL are all general developers. I really question the need for any other with today films that do not have a lot of silver in them. Having said that I have a dozen chemicals to make mine own and 3 or 4 commercial developers. But really D76 is a great all around developer. D23 is incredible cheap and easy to make your own and delivers the same results as D76,
 
BTW, once upon a time, the "universal" developer for both film and paper was Kodak M-Q. That was followed by Dektol. Both were packaged - at one point or another - in Kodak "Tri Chem" packs for use by low volume hobbyists. It's how I got my start so many decades ago.

You can see some examples in the middle if this picture from the photo shrine in my office...
 

Attachments

  • 20240211-0002-Photo_Shelf.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 66
John Bragg said:
I fully understand that this is a very subjective question, but is there anything close to a universal developer that satisfies most needs ?
Click to expand...
Yes, imho.
And it's Kodak d76 (or Ilford id-11).
 
  • NB23
  • Deleted
  • NB23
  • Deleted

Rodinal was the developer I used with T-Max 100 and Agfa 100 ISO film back in the late '80's onward, and I was printing hundreds of quality negatives of "Product" and fashion model's in commercial product clothing, etc., for pro studio work, as well as my own, mostly model stuff.

Chosing the dilution, development time and consistency of processing, ie,
the mechanics and temperatures of 35m and 6x6 cm roll films or 4"x5" sheet stuff, really does matter a lot in how these films and developer get on.

I did not care for it with Tri-x either and I can't remember ever doing HP-5 with it.

Try shooting extra very short rolls or sheets of the films you want to try, in each dilution, and index them in Rodinal and close in on the images you like and gives you the look you want.

Hopefully you'll find the correct combination for you, and like it.

Cheers.
 

Thanks Eli. I have 2 full bottles of R09 and a 30 year old bottle that is partly used. I will have another go soon, but for now, Ilfotec HC is working well for me. I had to tweak the times for that, but patience paid off. It is also sensitive to time and agitation and I don't over shake the tank. I do 30 seconds initial agitation and 2 invertions at 1/3 total time and 2 more at 2/3, and that produces a good balance of shadow vs highlights and good sharpness. I feel that this regime would probably work with Rodinal 1:50.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register