My developer shootout...help interpreting

[BetterSense]

I shot a whole roll full of a scene in harsh sunlight. I used less exposure than I normally would have, since I wanted to evaluate shadow speed. I developed pieces of the film in all the developers I have using all the times I usually use. I wanted to see how the contrast varied so that I could fine-tune my development time for each developer, plus I wanted to compare the graininess, since I had noticed HC110 was grainier than D23. After developing them in a 20C water bath with 3 inversions per minute, I printed them using the same enlarger times using a grade 2 filter. I found that the D23 was much slower than the other two, so I printed an additional frame for less time so that I could fairly compare the tonality and grain. I scanned all the prints side-by-side using my basic scanner software and no processing. The image was gigantic so I had to upload it to my website. You should be able to get it here or go straight to the image:

chazmiller.com/images/devtest.jpg

First of all, Rodinal is the most grainy, clearly, but it's worth noting that the image area shown is less than a 110 frame. It's probably a 2x3 inch piece of an 11x14 print. HC110 was similar in graininess to the Rodinal, and D23 was much less grainy than either. However, the D23 was much slower. The difference looking at the negatives was subtle, the different looking at the 35mm contact prints was noticeable, and the difference when printing them at the same time was obvious. I really didn't know I was losing so much speed with D23, and it's making me wonder if I mixed it up right. I do like that it has very low graininess, yet retains detail well. I don't really see a loss of resolution with the D23 due to the solvent action, if anything it seems a bit better. But I'll have to remember that in any underexposure scenario, I'd better reach for a different developer.


Do others find that D23 is this much slower than other developers?

From looking at these prints, can you make any suggestions as to development times? To me it looks like I should either pull the HC110 time a bit, or increase the Rodinal and D23 times.

Film:TMY1, expired
Exposure: Texas sunlight, 1/500 at f/11.
Developers left to right:Rodinal 50:1 9min, HC110 50:1 9 min, D23 8 min, D23 8 min
Printing times L-R: 20s, 20s, 20s, 10s

 

[Anscojohn]

Hi Better,
Certainly, all are printable negatives. I am surprised you found low-tone densityl lacking with D-23. I sometimes find detail in low tones of negs souped in D23 that I do not even want in my print. That being said, I routinely rate my films at about one-half box speed, finding over the years with tests looking for .1 above base/fog level, that most films end up about there.

I am wondering if your using a T-grain emulsion, that is also outdated, might have skewed the results with D-23?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I wonder how this would compare to D76.

 

[Anscojohn]

I wonder how this would compare to D76.

***********

The benchmark against which all film developers are (or should be) compared.

 

[BetterSense]

I will probably conduct a mini-test again later with fresh Tri-X, and fresh D23. Now I am second-guessing whether I accidentally changed the exposure.

On the negative it's easy to see that the D23 has less dense shadows compared to the other two, but it looks like HC110 has more shadown density than the rodinal, yet on the print, the rodinal appears to have more open shadows.

 

[nworth]

Your interpretation sounds correct to me. My experience has been similar. HC-110 is a bit more contrasty that most other developers at the usual dilutions. D-23 is a bit (not a lot, maybe a third to half a stop) slower, and its negatives often look an print "different." The difference is hard to describe, but it is definitely there. It probably has to do with the somewhat greater compensating effect D-23 has. Rodinal is not so much grainier as it has much more apparent grain. But the grain is tight and it gives a very good looking negative. Rodinal probably gives just a little less speed than HC-110, but you can still rate your film normally. D-76 gives about the same film speed as HC-110 with a bit less contrast and somewhat finer grain, though not quite as fine as D-23.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Your interpretation sounds correct to me. My experience has been similar. HC-110 is a bit more contrasty that most other developers at the usual dilutions. D-23 is a bit (not a lot, maybe a third to half a stop) slower, and its negatives often look an print "different." The difference is hard to describe, but it is definitely there. It probably has to do with the somewhat greater compensating effect D-23 has. Rodinal is not so much grainier as it has much more apparent grain. But the grain is tight and it gives a very good looking negative. Rodinal probably gives just a little less speed than HC-110, but you can still rate your film normally. D-76 gives about the same film speed as HC-110 with a bit less contrast and somewhat finer grain, though not quite as fine as D-23.

Thanks, that's a valuable practical comparison.

I think, the reason we don't see an 'official' list comparing developer characteristics in absolute or relative terms is that the differences are not uniform across films and dilutions. In other words, depending on emulsion developer A may produce finer grain in one film, but developer B does better with the next emulsion. I'm not sure if this is actually true, but like to find out. Of course, there are some fundamental differences, Rodinal will always produce more grain than D76, but making general statements about all developers for all films is risky. Any experience on that subject out there?

 

[Ian Grant]

Rodinal is a developer which works far better with some films than others, Rodinal and APX100 gives extremely fine grained sharp results and also with Tmax100 but I found Xtol far better for TMax400.

I'd disagree that Rodinal always produces more grain than D76, that's true with some films but can swing the other way with others.

Ian

 

[Anon Ymous]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to make objective comparisons between two different developers with the same film, you need to compare them at the same density. Even the with a specific film - developer combination, granularity varies with density and increases as density increases in BW negatives.

 

[df cardwell]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to make objective comparisons between two different developers with the same film, you need to compare them at the same density. Even the with a specific film - developer combination, granularity varies with density and increases as density increases in BW negatives.

Granularity is the amalgam of every variable in the image chain. If you want to see how the developers affect the look of the image, you might do well make the exposures under the enlarger. Reduce the problem to light and film, and you'll have fewer questions to ask later.

It would be good as well to look at a Zone VI or Zone VII, where the granularity will be easier to see than a shadow. You need to verify that you are making identical densities. If you haven't nailed that yet, a practical way to get there in a hurry is to expose at 400, and find the development time to reach Zone VI or VII. When you go outside and make pictures, you'll be able to see the shadow differences between your developers quickly. A densitometer isn't desirable here, making contact prints is a very good way to judge this stuff.

If you find any difference in the granularity, be sure to question what you have done to affect the results. When you have neutralized the test as much as possible, then you'll have a good look.


Have fun.

 

[Ian Grant]

Yes ideally there should be a range of bracketed exposures, so then you can also begin to determine possible variations in effective film speed as well.

D76 isn't the best developer for fine grain and sharpness with Tmax films, it might be the de facto standard but in practice Xtol is a better developer in my experience, which happens to mirror Kodak's recommendations as well - see attached.

Ian

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Rodinal is a developer which works far better with some films than others, Rodinal and APX100 gives extremely fine grained sharp results and also with Tmax100 but I found Xtol far better for TMax400.

I'd disagree that Rodinal always produces more grain than D76, that's true with some films but can swing the other way with others.

Ian

Actually, that was my point Ian. A general statement about grain for any one developer is difficult if not impossible, because what is good for one film may not be the best for another.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to make objective comparisons between two different developers with the same film, you need to compare them at the same density. Even the with a specific film - developer combination, granularity varies with density and increases as density increases in BW negatives.

Depends on what you are looking for. With grain, yes, with speed, no.

 

[Ian Grant]

Actually, that was my point Ian. A general statement about grain for any one developer is difficult if not impossible, because what is good for one film may not be the best for another.

It's also a case of what works best for each photographer as an individual. I know that Sandy King prefers D76 to Xtol, some of the minor differences are only noticeable with extreme enlargement anyway.

Ian

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Yes ideally there should be a range of bracketed exposures, so then you can also begin to determine possible variations in effective film speed as well.

D76 isn't the best developer for fine grain and sharpness with Tmax films, it might be the de facto standard but in practice Xtol is a better developer in my experience, which happens to mirror Kodak's recommendations as well - see attached.

Ian

I'd like to see diluted D76 and see how that compares. Of course, this graph contradicts the whole idea that one developer can be better for one film but another developer be better for another film.

 

[Anon Ymous]

DF, before making my last post, I hadn't thought about making any tests, but that's about to change. I have some negative strips which are bracketed exposures from a gray card +-5 stops from the camera reading, lens focused at infinity. I do this to see if my process is ok and see how film - developer combinations behave. These strips are contact printed and exposed for the minimum time for maximum black. With the enlarger head raised at maximum height, I can probably make fair comparisons between frames of the same film with different densities, or frames of different films with the same density.

I'll have fun.

EDIT: All these strips were made with the same camera - lens.