Just discovered Barry Thornton's developers. Would Exactol Lux work well with Fomapan 100 in 135 format?

[Andrew O'Neill]

I am confidant that you will be pleased with Exactol-Lux, even though I have never used it. I have Thornton's developers, such as his 2-Bath, and FX-55 and have been happy with the results (mainly with HP5, and Ferrania P30). If I could mix Exactol-Lux from scratch, I would try it. I prefer mixing up my own. Besides, I've tried and use several staining developers that work very well, especially Pyrocat-HD, which works quite well with HP5 in all formats.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the video link. I came across it but wasn’t sure that it was suitable for my investigation because is Thornton’s “2 bath developer” the same thing/another name for his Exactol lux?
Or am I really confused?

Maybe it was I who was confused since you mentioned Thornton's 2 bath as one you had just discovered and seemed to be asking about which finer grain

However if it is a comparison between Thornton's 2 bath and Exactol that is your prime interest then I can't help It appears to me that the two are not the same at all in terms of how each work but in terms of which produces the finest grain then I'd be interested to see if there are any sources for a comparison between Thornton's 2 bath and Exactol Lux Do I take it that your "london" is not London, England ? I can see no stockists of this developer in the U.K.

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

That may be true, but I can tell you from personal experience, his D-23 type Two Bath Developer is quite excellent - better than DD-23 or other divided developers of that family.

Maybe it is, but there are more efficient/ effective ways to the same end point - and which were quite clearly explored by the big manufacturers over the years, before they found that regular old PQ can do the same without as many headaches (and with the potential to be run in a replenished system).

Effectively what it boils down to is this: metol at or below 0.5g/l concentration in the working solution can produce development inhibition effects as a consequence of its progressive exhaustion. A carbonate or carbonate equivalent pH (the metaborate used by Thornton - it's highly likely that Kodak initially came up with metaborate to resolve emulsion damage problems with poorly hardened mid-20th century emulsions when they were developed in carbonate containing developers) will produce optimal sharpness at this metol concentration. The effect of a fairly short immersion in D-23, followed by an alkaline bath will be to effectively end up at about that point of metol concentration, the only question really being the extent to which the sulphite has had a chance to act upon the emulsion & release development inhibiting byproducts. I have few doubts that a single-bath developer made of metol, sulphite and carbonate could be formulated that would give at least as good, if not better results. Given how much Thornton praises Perceptol, it's quite interesting how close he managed to sail to it without ever twigging to its (or Microdol/ Microdol-X's) formula.

PQ developers (but not MQ) developers can also produce a similar effect, but across a wider range of P:Q relationships and seemingly via development inhibiting byproducts rather than simply exhaustion effects (thus the whole thing is more tuneable and controllable). Xtol, DD-X, Ilfosol-3 etc evolved from this knowledge (that likely originated in the formulation process of ID-68/ Microphen).

 

[albireo]

I shoot the Fomapan 100 at iso 50 and 100. Hoping this will tame down the grain a little.

In my experience Fomapan 100 in 35mm is extremely fine grained in some of the most common, widely available developers. D76, plain D23, Xtol, Excel, Fomadon LQN - all good, provided it is not underexposed and/or overdeveloped.

Fomapan 100 35mm, D76 1+1, 2 inversions per minute. Exposure and development according to the curves in the official Foma leaflet (D76 plot, gamma = .6, 20°C - plot here https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-100)

I find that developer choice has a relatively minor impact on perceived grain with this particular film, while exposure and development time choices have high impact.

I haven't seen your negatives, but I would keep your developer choice fixed (D76 is great to start with) and optimise your development time to taste.

 

[pentaxuser]

In my experience Fomapan 100 in 35mm is extremely fine grained in some of the most common, widely available developers. D76, D23, Xtol, Excel, Fomadon LQN - all good, provided it is not underexposed and/or overdeveloped.

D76 1+1, 2 inversions per minute. Exposure and development according to the curves in the official Foma leaflet (D76 plot, gamma = .6, 20°C - plot here https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-100)

I find that developer choice has a relative minor impact on perceived grain, while exposure and development time choices have the highest impact.

I haven't seen your negatives, but I would keep your developer choice fixed (D76 is great to start with) and optimise your development time to taste.

This looks pretty damn good to me

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

One problem with how B&W developers are often discussed is that lots of (lofty) qualifications are attached to it, but not much in the way of objective measurement or comparison. It's neither advertising, nor lies, necessarily.

Imagine this: you're a reasonably proficient B&W photographer with an interest in pictures and enough darkroom experience to mix up a developer if the instructions are provided. Not only that - you actually enjoy the aspect of handling chemicals and making something by yourself. It's fun! So in an adventurous mood, you mix up a developer, develop some film in it and...the negatives are glorious! Every scene just seems to glow, the light is golden even though the film is B&W, and the grain...oh, the grain is there, but it's the most beautiful, fine pattern....so you go online and post an enthusiastic 'review' of this developer, because surely, it must have been this magic soup that gave such a convincing result. Trying to put your subjective experience of these gorgeous images into words, you speak of things like "tight and well-controlled grain", "a beautiful rendering of the tonal scale" and some other statements rich in well-chosen adjectives.

But what, actually, does it mean? Maybe you nailed the exposure a little better than you did last time. Maybe the photos were of your freshly-arrived grandchildren and even if you had recorded them on an early model Sony Mavica they would have 'glowed' to you. And maybe the negatives are really fine - but not necessarily much better than if you had developed them in D76 or some other profoundly boring developer.

However, the glowing praise of this developer remains on record, and it turns up in the search results every time someone keys in "Billy Anchovis grainulator developer experience".

Evidently, there are differences between developers. The main problem is, that 98% of what we read about developers online is barely or not at all substantiated by objective testing, or even subjective side-by-side comparisons. And even if it is, there's still the issue that one person's "glowing tonal scale" is another person's "chalk and soot", or that the massive enlargement of a quarter square inch of mid-grey grain (we need to isolate that and study it, after all) says little about how the entire negative looks when printed at a normal enlargement.

This is not to disqualify Thornton's or anyone else's work. Neither is it intended to discourage you from trying different developers. It's just a gentle reminder of the sometimes prosaic realities of how people talk about their hobbies. We get carried away, sometimes. Q.E.D.!

I happen to agree with this, although I'm not sure that “quod erat demonstrandum” is entirely appropriate in this context (it is an argument, not a demonstration or proof).
Speaking more generally though, and in response to a communication received outside the thread, we would remind people here that, with the exception of Sean, those of us who are moderators were all active participants here on Photrio before we became moderators, and in most cases still are.
If you see a post from someone like koraks, Andrew, myself, mooseontheloose or David Goldfarb about photographic subjects here that you disagree with or want to otherwise respond to, feel free to do so. Just be sure to respond in ways consistent with the site rules, including the rules that attempt to enforce civility.
None of us moderators would have been likely to have agreed to sign on for moderation duties if we had to stop participating here - which includes having people disagree with us about things like developers. If you happen to disagree with one of my posts that aren't related to moderation decisions - fire away (civilly, of course).
I doubt any of us would have signed on for moderation duties if we had to stop participating here as a consequence.
{Note: incomplete sentence rectified}

 

[Paul Howell]

Thanks Paul. May I ask, which of the Barry Thornton developers did you use with the foma 400?

I buy mine from Photographers Formulary, don't think they ship outside the U.S.

Barry Thornton's Exactol Lux (Liquid)

Developer Exactol Lux Barry Thornton Film Chemistry

stores.photoformulary.com

 

[koraks]

although I'm not sure that “quod erat demonstrandum” is entirely appropriate in this context

Ah, that was in fact a joke, but it seems to have gone lost; it's not a reference to the 'proof' (quod non!) of the subjectivity of many developer discussions - it's a reference to the brief sentence preceding the Q.E.D. - the one about getting carried away!

The remainder of my post should also be read as a tongue-in-cheek observation and not as a discouragement to anyone to experiment with developers, or to discuss such experiments in whichever terms they choose.

 

[markbau]

jodad, it might be worthwhile for you to look at the video below The presenter John Finch develops and then prints from the negative using Barry Thornton's 2 bath developer. What he has to say about the advantages of 2 bath,why the amount of sodium sulphite is what it is and the times to use may be instructive for you. Some of the comments on the video may be worth reading as well

If the advantages of 2 bath for your film do not prove to be enough to tame the grain as you want it to be tamed then D23 may be the way to go

Here it is:

pentaxuser

I have been experimenting with Thornton's 2bath developer and have given up on it. On normal scenes I found I was printing at grade 3 1/2 at a minimum, often grade 4. The negs, for me, just are too soft.

 

[john_s]

I buy mine from Photographers Formulary, don't think they ship outside the U.S.

Barry Thornton's Exactol Lux (Liquid)

Developer Exactol Lux Barry Thornton Film Chemistry

stores.photoformulary.com

They do ship overseas. I can get most things here, but glycin from them.

 

[retina_restoration]

Ah, that was in fact a joke, but it seems to have gone lost; it's not a reference to the 'proof' (quod non!) of the subjectivity of many developer discussions - it's a reference to the brief sentence preceding the Q.E.D. - the one about getting carried away!

The remainder of my post should also be read as a tongue-in-cheek observation and not as a discouragement to anyone to experiment with developers, or to discuss such experiments in whichever terms they choose.

O

I have been experimenting with Thornton's 2bath developer and have given up on it. On normal scenes I found I was printing at grade 3 1/2 at a minimum, often grade 4. The negs, for me, just are too soft.

If you're getting flat negs from Thornton 2-bath, then your Bath A times are too short. The starting point recommended is 4.5 minutes in each, but with most films I start at 5 minutes in A and sometimes go up to 7. My negs are suitable for grade 2 printing, generally.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have been experimenting with Thornton's 2bath developer and have given up on it. On normal scenes I found I was printing at grade 3 1/2 at a minimum, often grade 4. The negs, for me, just are too soft.

In John Finch's video he shows the print and says it was at grade 3. The negative was taken on a day where the light conditions made the range very flat His print didn't look soft to me but it might depend on how users' view prints

pentaxuser

 

[JWMster]

FWIW, the perception thing that Koraks speaks of is so much on the mark that it even echoes Barry Thornton in Edge of Darkness (fresh re-reading last night btw) that expectations of films and developers based on what the chemistry SHOULD do and what our eye perceives are well documented.

But I'd also add Barry T's point that unless you're meticulous in roll film to use different rolls for different dynamic range / brightness condition and soup these in the appropriately different ways, we're gonna run into differeent "looks" from the same roll. Sheet film shooters should have an advantage here.