One developer for both film and paper?

[What About Bob]

Anyone have any experiences using only one developer type for both film and paper? Would there be other developers that would be better at providing this same kind of functionality?

I am thinking of going the "make your own" route for developers. It would not only be cheaper but also having the ability to make any kind of developer, on the spot.

Very first developer I used when starting with a photography class in community college was D76. Some years later at Hallmark the students used HC-110. Connecting with the photography process during those times were the best times of my life.

 

[koraks]

Many of us have developed negatives in paper developer if a lot of density had to be built in little time and things like grain and optimal film speed didn't matter.
On occasion, I've developed a few prints in rodinal because I ran out of paper developer (this was before I started mixing my own)...it took a long time and tray life was obviously hopeless, but it got the job done.

You can drive a nail into the wall with an axe, and destroy a log with a hammer. Does that mean we should just chuck either the hammer or the axe and settle on either of them for all chores?

I am thinking of going the "make your own" route for developers.

Especially in that situation I don't see merit in using just one developer for both film and prints.
With less than a dozen ingredients you can mix a whole slew of different developers.

 

[xkaes]

Paper and film emulsions are different. Since you are mixing your own chemicals, there is no need to use the same soup for both. The developers for each are pretty much the same chemicals, just in different amounts.

If it ain't broke, find something else to fix.

 

[Ian Grant]

I have used PQ Universal to develop film, it was the only developer I used with Ilford Otho sheet film. It's very clean working, less base fog compared to ID-11/D76. Back in the mid 1980s I did test it with 35mm FP4 diluted 1+19 and 1+29 and it gave excellent results but a slight drop in speed, around 1/3rd of a stop compared to ID-11.

May & Baker (now Champion) Suprol is very similar and was used for large scale photofinishing of films and papers, their data sheets suggested 1+19 and 1+29.

I use ID-78 which is essentially the same as PQ Universal without Benzotriazole, and increased Bromide instead, which is an Ilford Warmtone print developer, however I mix to a higher concentration replacing the Sodium Carbonate by Potassium Carbonate and a small volume of Sodium Hydroxide solution.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

There's a glaring error in the video, that no-one spotted. He was actually mixing up ID-62, so it is not equivalent PQ Universal, which is 2.5x more concentrated. So when he talks about diluting 1+29 that should be 1+11,for the film developing, and the 1+9 for print developing should actually be 1+3.

Ian

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Kodak used to sell "Universal M-Q Developer" to the low end of the hobby market - it came in the Tri-Chem pack with developer, stop and fixer for two rolls of film or 50 wallet size prints all for $0.25, available most drugstores. I don't think it had much to recommend it over Dektol/D-72 paper developer or D-76 film developer. More up-market there was Versatol. TTBOMK M-Q and Versatol are no longer available.

Kodak also mentioned using Dektol for press photography's 4x5 sheet film. There are processing protocols for reversal processing that use modified Dektol for the first developer.

If you are going the mix-it-yourself route there is no reason to try an use one developer for both applications; it will just create more problems than it solves.

 

[eli griggs]

Ansco 130 was used, not by me, for paper and film developing, as I recall reading.

Ansco 130 is my main paper developer and will last years, giving blacks on Amidol is said to better, and in the Adams series books, there is a formula that uses a "pinch" of Amidol as a kicker.

I suppose Amidol could be used as duel duty developer, but someone else should hold forth on that topic.

 

[xkaes]

If you are going the mix-it-yourself route there is no reason to try an use one developer for both applications; it will just create more problems than it solves.

You can lead a horse to water..........

 

[What About Bob]

I will then go in the direction of getting the components that will lead to making different developers. It would be very limiting just sticking to one type.

Thanks everyone.

 

[MattKing]

You can probably find a couple of recipes that are very similar - perhaps differing only in relative proportions and maybe as few as one different constituent chemical.
That would make it easy to keep an inventory of chemicals.
That subject would be perfect for its own thread (hint, hint).
I always use packaged mixes, so I'm not the one to ask .

 

[xkaes]

FYI, it's called D-76 (film) and D-72 -- AKA, Dektol -- (paper).

 

[Don_ih]

sodium sulfite, metol, hydroquinone, borax, sodium carbonate, and potassium bromide will make you D76 and D72 and a number of other ones you don't need to worry about.

 

[koraks]

sodium sulfite, metol, hydroquinone, borax, sodium carbonate, and potassium bromide

That's a nice starter kit of ingredients. Add some phenidone or dimezone-s, and maybe a jar of ascorbic acid and the possibilities multiply once again.

 

[cjbecker]

I used 130 for a long time as my one developer. Used it 1-10 for film.

Here soon i will work up dilutions and times for liquidol for film. Its very nice only stocking one developer.

 

[dynachrome]

Kodak used to make a liquid developer called Versatol, which could be used for film or paper. The old bottles mention plates too. I see that I have four 1 Gallon unopened cans of Polydol. With the right dilution it might work for paper but was made for film. I think it was used mostly for medium and large format films.

 

[What About Bob]

Right now I am making a list of chemicals. Going to keep orders small for now, get only what is needed.

I was hoping to use only one online store to get these chemicals, to keep ordering simple, but it looks like B&H doesn't ship hydroquinone. For some reason it can only be purchased in-store. They will ship Metol with no problem? Adorama is the same deal with the in-store only purchase of hydroquinone. Looks like I will have to go to Freestyle for that one. I would order from the Formulary but the last time I ordered from there the shipping charge was astronomically way out there; just for a 1lb container of sulfite and TF-5 fixer. I had to cancel the order and then head on over to Freestyle. When I created the account at the Formulary back in 2019 I don't recall shipping prices being high like that.

 

[pentaxuser]

There's a glaring error in the video, that no-one spotted. He was actually mixing up ID-62, so it is not equivalent PQ Universal, which is 2.5x more concentrated. So when he talks about diluting 1+29 that should be 1+11,for the film developing, and the 1+9 for print developing should actually be 1+3.

Ian

Interestingly, Ian, he did go on to say that 150ml to 850ml was better in his experience than 100ml to 900 which gets it close to 1+ 5. So not quite your 1+3 but much closer

Is there any way to tell from his print what might have been even better at 1+3 or for that matter what areas of his negative would have improved? Might that for instance have compensated for his feeling expressed at the end of the video that using a lower film rating of 80 in the future instead of 125 would improve shadow detail?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

I tried an number of developers for film and paper, but for film I settled on XTOL and especially replenished XTOL [harder to get today so look for replacements by other manufactures which seem to work the same way, as reported on Photrio]. XTOL provides a small ISO boost which translates for slightly more shadow detail. Check out the developer comparisons:

For printing I has standardized on Kodak Dektol because it allows one to standardize on 2 minute developing which removes one variable and takes all the guesswork about how long to develop. With Dektol one can concentrate on exposure time and f/stop to get the best print.

 

[xkaes]

This is a good point. With a film developer you can choose deciding on the most important factors -- such as grain or sharpness or speed -- and that might vary from subject-to-subject, format-to-format, etc. With paper, you don't worry about grain or sharpness. Contrast, sure, but the developers are different for different reasons.

 

[What About Bob]

Interestingly, Ian, he did go on to say that 150ml to 850ml was better in his experience than 100ml to 900 which gets it close to 1+ 5. So not quite your 1+3 but much closer

Is there any way to tell from his print what might have been even better at 1+3 or for that matter what areas of his negative would have improved? Might that for instance have compensated for his feeling expressed at the end of the video that using a lower film rating of 80 in the future instead of 125 would improve shadow detail?

Thanks

pentaxuser

I wasn't clear on why he chose the 150ml either. I don't see what advantage or enhancement would come out from it. For film I could see it having some kind of a change but for prints?

 

[cmacd123]

I sometimes use Versatol back in the day, I don't know if I will ever open my Last Bottle of the stuff...

Ilford PQ universal might be a possiblity, but if mixing your own, I would stick with the combo of D76 (or D96) and D-72.

 

[mshchem]

I will then go in the direction of getting the components that will lead to making different developers. It would be very limiting just sticking to one type.

Thanks everyone.

First rule for me, just a personal choice. Try to make things as complicated as possible. It's fun. Get a nice Ohaus Harvard Trip two pan balance, a small set of Ohaus weights. A dozen components will make nearly every thing you'll ever need.
All the formulae can be found online or buy an old copy of The Darkroom Cookbook.
Don't mess with concentrated acids.

 

[MattKing]

I probably shouldn't, but I can't resist.
Does anyone else think of J.R.R. Tolkien when they read the title to this thread?

 

[250swb]

I probably shouldn't, but I can't resist.
Does anyone else think of J.R.R. Tolkien when they read the title to this thread?

And look at the trouble all that malarkey caused.

One developer is a nice idea to try for the hell of it, something to do in the void between Christmas and New Year , but given films are all different, the light is always different, and interpretation can always be different with a bit of imagination, this is where the idea comes up against a wall.

 

[xkaes]

...make things as complicated as possible. It's fun. Get a nice Ohaus Harvard Trip two pan balance, a small set of Ohaus weights.

A balance with very-easy-to-misplace weights certainly is one way to complicate your darkroom experience. Ohaus makes great balances with the weights built-in -- for the same price. Nothing to loose -- except complications.