Multi-Purpose Developer?

[Thomas Satalino]

Does anyone have any suggestions for a developer that might be used for both film and paper? I was thinking Rodinal would be good. I’d like to avoid Ilford Multigrade.

 

[removed account4]

Ansco 130 (formulary 130. ) Dektol/d72
The dilution#is the time( 1:6 6 min’s, 1:8 8 mins &C) and with 130--72F, with dektol/d72 68F degrees.
I’ve been using these developers for film and paper for years
130 for 15+\- and d72/Dektol for about 3-4 years
Good luck!

 

[saman13]

Ilford PQ universal? Never used it for film, and I’ve only just started using it with paper (3 sessions) but I like it fine. I know it was developed to be used with both paper and film, hence “universal”.

 

[MattKing]

The Ilford data for PQ universal indicates that it is really only suitable for larger formats and sheet films.
Print developers tend to be a lot more energetic than film developers. With film, high energy developers tend to result in a lot of grain, which is of much greater concern with smaller formats like 35mm and 120.

 

[removed account4]

i've never had issue with grain when using the 2 i've used ..

 

[pentaxuser]

My impression, having been here for 12 years, is that there are few if any developers that do a good job with both film and paper. If your ambition is to develop both film and paper to your best ability I'd go for separate paper and film developers. I have always used Ilford Multigrade for paper development and found it to be a fine developer.

If you tell us why you wish to avoid Ilford Multigrade we might be in a better position to steer you towards a more suitable paper developer

pentaxuser

 

[Thomas Satalino]

Ansco 130 (formulary 130. ) Dektol/d72
The dilution#is the time( 1:6 6 min’s, 1:8 8 mins &C) and with 130--72F, with dektol/d72 68F degrees.
I’ve been using these developers for film and paper for years
130 for 15+\- and d72/Dektol for about 3-4 years
Good luck!

I’m using Formulary paper developer currently, very pleased with their products. Tf-5 is great

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The correct term is a univarsa developer. To avoid the grain problem they are usually used diluted. For example D-72 as 1+5, 1+7, 1+9.

 

[Thomas Satalino]

My impression, having been here for 12 years, is that there are few if any developers that do a good job with both film and paper. If your ambition is to develop both film and paper to your best ability I'd go for separate paper and film developers. I have always used Ilford Multigrade for paper development and found it to be a fine developer.

If you tell us why you wish to avoid Ilford Multigrade we might be in a better position to steer you towards a more suitable paper developer

pentaxuser

I have a sort of asthmatic reaction to Ilford chems?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've had great success developing film (mainly HP5 and FP4) with Ilford MG 1+49, but too bad you can't use it.

 

[Down Under]

Observations based on being in the darkroom (well, not all the time) since 1963.

In the '80s a then-popular US magazine featured a detailed article lauding the qualities of Ilford PQ Universal as a film developer. My copy has long vanished, but I recall the illustrations were of images shot on 120 FP4. There were some mentions of PQU and 35mm film, but I can't remember these. I would greatly appreciate a copy of this article (published in 1985 or 1986 I believe), if someone has it and could send a PDF.

I did tests with 120 and 35mm Ilford and Kodak films with PQU at the time, and I still have the negatives, tho darn it all if I can find them in the mess of my film archives. Nothing I've shot before 1990 is organised in any intelligent way. The 120 negs were okay but nothing special. The 35mm were grainy beyond salvation. In 1985 I shot five rolls on Kuta Beach in Bali and processed them all in PQU, but when I came to print them, the grain was so obvious (and so large) that the images were basically ruined, and they were good shots. I should try scanning them and then apply a few of the many tricks we can now do with computer software. If ever I find those bloody negs...

In the late '80s I did some further tests, again with Ilford and Kodak films, using highly diluted Dektol and home-brewed D72 print developers. As usual I kept detailed notes, but again as usual the notebooks for that era are now mislaid - likely in one of 200-250 boxes I've packed away somewhere in our two car garage, if you saw that garage...!

Anyway, for reasons I've never really understood (not being a chemistry major and all that), the D72 processed negatives were far better than those souped in Dektol. Same dilutions, same time tests.

After all this effort I came to the conclusion that if one had to rely on only one developer for films and prints, for me that would be D72.

I've never tried films in Ilford Multigrade, but the post by Andrew O'Neill (#10) has rekindled my interest. Andrew, do you have any further thoughts to share with us about this developer? I do know that both PQU and Multigrade are Phenidone based, which may have a positive effect on films, that the traditional MQ developers don't, but then D72 is an MQ.

I've also used PQU for prints, but I favor the cooler tones and crisper mid tones produced by D72.

This post may seem all over the place but I'm interested in pursuing this, and so am definitely open to others' ideas about all these developers.

 

[AgX]

But why would one use a universal developer?
I can only think of economy, but that only would apply in case of scarcely use, with the chance for the developers to go bad being high.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Ilford data for PQ universal indicates that it is really only suitable for larger formats and sheet films.
Print developers tend to be a lot more energetic than film developers. With film, high energy developers tend to result in a lot of grain, which is of much greater concern with smaller formats like 35mm and 120.

Actually PQ Universal works very well as a fine grain film developer at dilutions like 1+19 or even 1+29 or 1+39, the main disadvantage is a slight drop in film speed compared to D76/ID-11. I've used it with 35mm with great results. The other issue is it needs to be reasonably fresh for consistency.

May & Baker's Suprol (now Champion) was their equivalent of PQ Uninversal and was used in B&W photo-finishing machines for both film and paper processing, it came with very comprehensive instructions for small scale and large scale use, including reversal processing of cine films, including replenishement rates etc. I used the M&B Suprol data when testing PQ Universal at higher dilutions than Ilford suggested.

PQ Universal (or Suprol) was our main film developer for 5x4 Ilford Ortho film, sometimes FP4, at 1+19 when we produced copy negatives, which was on a daily basis as part of our work flow.

Ian

 

[Craig75]

champion suprol
http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/champion-suprol-universal-film-print-developer-1-litre/p500

ahh just seen Ian has already mentioned it

 

[mnemosyne]

Just for the record, Foma sells a developer called "Foma universal" that is advertised as suitable for film as well as paper and available in packs for 1 liter and 5 liters. However, as you say you've problems with astma, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to handle powder chemicals at all.

 

[Ian Grant]

Just for the record, Foma sells a developer called "Foma universal" that is advertised as suitable for film as well as paper and available in packs for 1 liter and 5 liters. However, as you say you've problems with astma, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to handle powder chemicals at all.

Foma's Universal Developer is a powdered PQ developer probably quite similar to Ilford Bromophen. While Bromophen is sold as a paper developer it's similar to their liquid PQ dvelopers so could be used more dilute with films, the main difference is PQ Universal contains Benzotriazole so gives cold tones with warm tone papers.

Foma make a liquid equivalent to PQ Universal which is Fomatol LQN.

Ian

 

[removed account4]

But why would one use a universal developer?
I can only think of economy, but that only would apply in case of scarcely use, with the chance for the developers to go bad being high.

hi agx
i use a universal developer first because i had no money and i found a can of it
on the drafty windowsill of a studio where i was living / renting. it worked better than
any other developer i have ever used. beautiful tight grain and snappy negatives and prints.
easy to use too. ever since then i tried to find it ( GAF Universal ) and scoured old photo lab indicies
talked to old timers googled the internet when alta vista and jeeves were king. i was told by someone
it was ansco130. it wasn't 130 but still, i never looked back. and when i ran into hard times ( $$ wise )
i started to use dektol/mix my own d72 and it worked the same way. snappy negatives nice tight and smooth grain.
it just didn't last as long because there is no glycin in dektol.
over the years i have tried to streamline my darkroom chemistry. 1 developer instead of a few, no stop bath, 1 fixer, perma wash
i never really saw any value in having separate film and paper developers when all i might need is one. its kind of like
something else i would love to do ... get rid of everything i have but 1 camera and 1 lens, and make my own emulsion from scratch every few weeks.

 

[Vaughn]

I have used Ilford PQU for a long time -- very good for my use (LF film for alt processes).

 

[AgX]

Jnanian, with such attitude of restriction you just disqualified yourself to mingle between GAS-Apuggers...

 

[trendland]

Observations based on being in the darkroom (well, not all the time) since 1963.

In the '80s a then-popular US magazine featured a detailed article lauding the qualities of Ilford PQ Universal as a film developer. My copy has long vanished, but I recall the illustrations were of images shot on 120 FP4. There were some mentions of PQU and 35mm film, but I can't remember these. I would greatly appreciate a copy of this article (published in 1985 or 1986 I believe), if someone has it and could send a PDF.

I did tests with 120 and 35mm Ilford and Kodak films with PQU at the time, and I still have the negatives, tho darn it all if I can find them in the mess of my film archives. Nothing I've shot before 1990 is organised in any intelligent way. The 120 negs were okay but nothing special. The 35mm were grainy beyond salvation. In 1985 I shot five rolls on Kuta Beach in Bali and processed them all in PQU, but when I came to print them, the grain was so obvious (and so large) that the images were basically ruined, and they were good shots. I should try scanning them and then apply a few of the many tricks we can now do with computer software. If ever I find those bloody negs...

In the late '80s I did some further tests, again with Ilford and Kodak films, using highly diluted Dektol and home-brewed D72 print developers. As usual I kept detailed notes, but again as usual the notebooks for that era are now mislaid - likely in one of 200-250 boxes I've packed away somewhere in our two car garage, if you saw that garage...!

Anyway, for reasons I've never really understood (not being a chemistry major and all that), the D72 processed negatives were far better than those souped in Dektol. Same dilutions, same time tests.

After all this effort I came to the conclusion that if one had to rely on only one developer for films and prints, for me that would be D72.

I've never tried films in Ilford Multigrade, but the post by Andrew O'Neill (#10) has rekindled my interest. Andrew, do you have any further thoughts to share with us about this developer? I do know that both PQU and Multigrade are Phenidone based, which may have a positive effect on films, that the traditional MQ developers don't, but then D72 is an MQ.

I've also used PQU for prints, but I favor the cooler tones and crisper mid tones produced by D72.

This post may seem all over the place but I'm interested in pursuing this, and so am definitely open to others' ideas about all these developers.

Nice - because D72 has a relative simple formula and it is real cheap as homebrew.
In addition (just from my point of view) it is a very smart middle way if your focus is also to environmenal protection.
1) with a homebrew you use the exact volume you will need from time to time - and you have not to waste developer caused from expired shell live.
2) D72 is easy to replenish. (Just from mind. I have to look for - but I remember simple D72 replenisher formulas - hope I do not mix. the issues........ !
Sure some may say to environmenal protection D72 is not the best (look at Kodak xtol) ....but Kodak xtol is not so smart as paper developer - I would like to state.But I am not so sure ... (never heard about).
And I am also positioned in a form : "One should not overdo it"

with regards

 

[removed account4]

Jnanian, with such attitude of restriction you just disqualified yourself to mingle between GAS-Apuggers...

LOL
i know
its fun though reading
what the latest useless and un-needed
gear people convince themselves they have to buy ...

 

[Thomas Satalino]

But why would one use a universal developer?
I can only think of economy, but that only would apply in case of scarcely use, with the chance for the developers to go bad being high.

limited space for darkroom use

 

[blacksquare]

Caffenol

 

[removed account4]

Caffenol

!!!! YES!