One film and one developer or many films and developers ?

[Xmas]

The critical thing is not the film choice or the developer, but exposing it reasonable and dropping it off at a D&P shop that does not drop it on the floor and stand on it.

You should still be able to get a good print.

Difficult to beat XP2+ @50 ISO in mini lab.

If you are gonna home process fix, HCA and wash are the critical steps.

 

[markbarendt]

Yes. Re-immersing the film in an alkaline solution or used developer only creates an overall stain and does not contribute to the image. At the point where bath/solution C is used all the silver halide has been removed from the film. Using C only makes the negative harder to print. Think of it as just adding fog to the negative. One of the reasons that I dislike staining development is all the mythology that has grown up around it. Most of it is bad science.

I dislike the myths too. That's not a problem limited to staining developers though.

 

[KidA]

hi kidA

when i was living in a cheap loft
i ran out of money. i was film and paper rich
and barely had enough money for my rent and food.
i found a red and white can of " gaf universal developer" that
had been sitting on a drafty windowsill for probably 25 years. i had
never heard of gaf universal, and i mixed it up. it was 5 gallons, and i
processed all my film and paper in it continuously for a summer before
it went bad. ... i ran out of developer and money and eventually found
work and used a few other developers that didn't really cut the mustard,
so a couple of years later i got a photo lab index and had a conversation
with a guy names jc welch who owns equinox photographic. he knew of
gaf universal and didn't really know what it was but suggested i use ansco130
and it might have been the same stuff, so i did. that was around 1999-2003
i don't remember exactly but it began a long long relationship
i had with ansco 130. i used about 6 or 8 gallons of it a year, i'd buy it all at once
and mix it all at once and just use it until i ran out ( it has a mixed stock shelf life of a year )
and i'd buy some more .. i used it as a print developer and used it as a film developer. i put every film i could find in it.
it ended up being armloads ( thousands of sheets of tri x, tmx(100) and tmy(400) (4x5 and 5x7, and some 8x10 )
as well as every kodak, and ilford, sometimes foma and forte 35mm and 120 roll i cold find ( again thousands of them ).
the directions on the gaf-can said 1:1. 1:2paper, and 1:6 film and something like 6mins@68ºF so that is what i did with 130.
eventually i changed the dilutions to see what would happen if it was more or less dilute, if it was replenished,
exhausted, done in deep tanks or trays, or hand tanks, stand, semi stand, with hangers, rotary processors ..
i used this developer every way i could so i knew it backwards and forwards with every film i could find, expired,
fresh, papers expired fresh, and liquid emulsions too. about 5-6 years into this love affair
i met up with caffenol c .. and used that the same way too, and decided to break rank, and add 10-20 drams ( about 1-2oz )
of ansco 130 into the coffee and it worked great.
they were the perfect compliments for each other- easy to mix, easy to use, and PREDICTABLE ...
i used this developer like this for about 10 years. about 4 of those 10 years i sourced my own coffee
and roasted it myself for this coffee developer i eventually decided to use the ansco130 split processing so the A130 as a 1st bath developer
for 1/2 the development time and the coffee developer ( with a little ansco130 mixed in ) for the other half.
i did this for a couple of years too for both sheets and rolls until i ran out of ansco130 and didnt' want to pony up the cash for a few more gallons of it.
eventually after a bunch of tests i decided dektol would work just as well as ansco 130 and i could use up the few gallon packets i have on hand,
and lately i have scratch-mixed D72 ( pretty much the same thing as dektol ) and i have been using dektol and caffenol c
as my main print and film developer for about a year maybe more. i can't really complain.
a little bit of dektol ( or ansco 130 ) in 3-4 L of caffenol gives it an enormous shelf life
( i have procesed hundreds of sheets of paper and film ( rolls and sheets ) without replenishment ...

as for the reason why ... i like to know my chemistry and film backwards and forwards and not have any surprises
i like to know how it will work in any situation, so i use a developer and film until ... i know.

as with everything YMMV ...

good luck with your developer search !

While I find personal stories fascinating and often necessary to understand where and how individuals get where they do, I'm also interested in your thoughts on specific characteristics of the developers, films and papers you used. What, other than economic reasons, did you change and tweak your developers for? What was lacking? What was gained? And I'm not only asking you; if everyone here can give a little explanation, it would help us all.

I'll start with my (very) limited experimentation, especially with developers. As mentioned before, I've only ever used HC-110 and as of a few months ago, Rodinal. At first, I thought I disliked Rodinal. My first roll was Tri-x in 135. My initial thoughts were, 'ew, this feels flat' I felt like it lacked the depth that the smooth HC-110 gave. I knew kind of what to expect for the grain and sharpness and I did find it pleasing after a few minutes of staring at my first print (HC-110 is so different and it's the only developer I used before Rodinal so the experience was quite the shocker!). But then, on the same roll, I continued to enlarge a few other negs and I started to love it! Of course, it wouldn't be my first choice for anything and everything, and I still think it has a certain old school 'flatness' that I'm finding more and more charming. Thus far, I've run only HP5 and Pan F, along with the Tri-x thru Rodinal. I fucking love Rodinal in Pan F! But I really love HC-110 in Pan F as well...

In a nutshell: If I want softer looking prints usually for portraits and nature I'll go HC-110 and for most other things I'll go Rodinal. I really enjoy still lifes (or lives <---what would be the correct way??) in Rodinal.

My question to all of you who have perhaps tried a few different developers: Is there a developer that gives strong grain presence, perhaps a little more tame than Rodinal, that gives decent shadow speed, and perhaps a bit more 'depth'? I hope I'm not the only one who thinks Rodinal is 'flatter'.

A while back I bought a package of D-76 that I haven't yet opened. That will be the next experiment!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I dislike the myths too. That's not a problem limited to staining developers though.

Yes there is always Rodinal. But staining developers seem to have more myths associated with them. The one that staining developers produce less grain is particularly egregious. The dye-cloud around each grain just makes the grain less apparent.

 

[KidA]

Also, forgot to mention that Delta 400 pushed N+1 gives a VERY cool grain. It almost looks dreamy especially if printed in a higher key. It's likely not everyone's style, but I found it very unique considering the typical products used.

 

[brokenglytch]

KidA, you might try TMAX Dev or RS for Kodak, or Microphen from Ilford. They're pretty comparable developers, but Microphen comes in a powder and TMAX is liquid. Since HC-110 and Rodinal are both liquid concentrates, TMAX Dev or TMAX RS might be more to your liking. I tend to shoot a lot of push photography in low-light situations and prefer a shot with more contrast for most uses, including street photography and portraits with some grit to them. As long as I get the exposure right, both TMAX Dev and Microphen deliver very good results with t-grain films (Tmax & Delta) in my experience. I haven't tested RS yet, but I've heard some people speak very highly about it as well, mostly for it's contrast curve.

Also, I've been testing mixing developers of late and gotten some promising results. I need to put some more rolls through it before I decide if it needs some tweaking, but I've been pushing 2-4 stops with TMY-2 and Delta 3200 and putting it through a mix of Rodinal and Microphen, then semi-stand processing for 75-90 minutes at 65 degrees. I'll be enlarging some of these images in the next couple weeks, but so far the contact sheets look very interesting. Maybe not an every day recipe, but certainly a good tool for the right kind of event. Current soup mix is 3 parts Rodinal (1:25 dilution) and 1 part Microphen (1:1 dilution). Gentle inversions for the first 30-60 seconds, then put the steel tank in a cold water bath and do one inversion every 10 minutes or so until the full time is up.

 

[removed account4]

I'm also interested in your thoughts on specific characteristics of the developers, films and papers you used. What, other than economic reasons, did you change and tweak your developers for? What was lacking? What was gained? And I'm not only asking you; if everyone here can give a little explanation, it would help us all.

gaf was purly economic, nice contrast and grain, long tonal scale everything developed in the same time, i could use it for prints and films ....
as far as i could tell 130 and gaf were pretty much the same thing ( although they aren't )
i used 130 for economic reasons. prints and films, i could this one developer, lasts a long time.
the coffee ... a friend gave me the recipe and it was simple to mix and use, i visit family overseas once in a while
and if i bring film over i would rather process the sheets than deal with airport security .
plain caffenol-c negatives can look full scale with contrast, or thin with a glow to them.
with both mixed film has a nice stain, and glow from the caffenol and grain, density and contrast from the 130... and it costs me 1¢/roll/sheet of film/paper

 

[markbarendt]

Yes there is always Rodinal. But staining developers seem to have more myths associated with them. The one that staining developers produce less grain is particularly egregious. The dye-cloud around each grain just makes the grain less apparent.

If the dye-cloud makes the grain less apparent... and the print looks less grainy... then... ?

___________

I believe in the technical idea that the silver is developed less (than with GP developers) and that the dye provides the balance of the density (to match GP developers) and that that combination of factors can result in less apparent print grain. I think I've seen this in my own work.

I also believe that it is not a monumental difference.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The problem is the expectation that finer grain will result in greater resolution. The dye-cloud is several times larger in diameter than the silver grain and actually lessens resolution.

 

[markbarendt]

The problem is the expectation that finer grain will result in greater resolution. The dye-cloud is several times larger in diameter than the silver grain and actually lessens resolution.

I don't see how the size of the cloud makes any difference.

One reason I'm doubting the logic there is that the staining developers I've played with generally seem to print a bit sharper, better defined, to my eye, than say DD-x or Xtol.

PS
I find similar differences when comparing say Delta 400 to Portra 400.

 

[nolanr66]

I like to keep things simple and today I shot a roll of Tri-X using ID-11 stock developer and the pictures are just right for my eyes. I am going to go with that and just work on other aspects of my photography. Well when I run out of ID-11 I will try D76 and decide on the 2 developers. I know they are about the same but D76 has a lot of information that comes with it for developing Tri-X and the ID-11 only gives develop time for box speed.

 

[nolanr66]

I went to BHPhoto to order some Tri-X and I looked at the 100ft roll which is $110.00. So based on 20 rolls you would be losing money over just buying the single rolls which would be $99.00. Very strange. However if you buy HP5 in 100 ft rolls you would save about $36.00 based on the 20 rolls figure. I guess I want to take another look at HP5.

 

[markbarendt]

I like to keep things simple and today I shot a roll of Tri-X using ID-11 stock developer and the pictures are just right for my eyes. I am going to go with that and just work on other aspects of my photography. Well when I run out of ID-11 I will try D76 and decide on the 2 developers. I know they are about the same but D76 has a lot of information that comes with it for developing Tri-X and the ID-11 only gives develop time for box speed.

What works for d76 works for id11 and vice versa. You can even exchange the instructions for developing.

 

[MattKing]

I went to BHPhoto to order some Tri-X and I looked at the 100ft roll which is $110.00. So based on 20 rolls you would be losing money over just buying the single rolls which would be $99.00. Very strange. However if you buy HP5 in 100 ft rolls you would save about $36.00 based on the 20 rolls figure. I guess I want to take another look at HP5.

We have had more than a few discussions about the Kodak pricing for bulk film.

One thing that people often underestimate is how much of the cost of the film we buy arises from things other than the actual manufacturing cost of the film. Things like packaging, edge printing, cassettes vs. cores and cans, etc.

As an example in the 120 film realm, Ilford/Harman has posted here that it costs them more to buy the backing paper for a roll of 120 then it does to make the film itself.

Compared to Ilford/Harman, Kodak probably has a cost structure that makes it much more expensive for them to switch over to bulk roll packaging from individual rolls. So their bulk rolls aren't competitively priced.

 

[nolanr66]

Thanks for responding guys. I am pretty new at the developing process with B/W film and have stuff to learn. However since I like Tri-X developed with ID-11 just the way it is I figure to stick with that for a while. I probably do not need to worry about bulk loading anyway as Tri-X by the roll is cheap enough for my purposes. Probably what I will do is buy Kodak and Illford products and throw a bit of support at both companies.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

What works for d76 works for id11 and vice versa. You can even exchange the instructions for developing.

I'll bet a new thread in that would go in for 100 posts or so.... ;-)

 

[nolanr66]

Well I just ordered 10 rolls of Tri-X. I have a question if somebody wouldn't mind. I did google it up but every answer in the book comes up and that does not help. Anyway the question is does Tri-X need a pre rinse before the developer. With Illford they actually say not to in their info but I did not see a word about it with Tri-X. I have only shot one roll of Tri-X so far and I did not do a pre rinse and the results were fine. The developer did not turn purple or anything but maybe it will after a couple rolls. I am using the developer as a stock solution so that I can get 10 rolls per liter.

 

[MattKing]

Well I just ordered 10 rolls of Tri-X. I have a question if somebody wouldn't mind. I did google it up but every answer in the book comes up and that does not help. Anyway the question is does Tri-X need a pre rinse before the developer. With Illford they actually say not to in their info but I did not see a word about it with Tri-X. I have only shot one roll of Tri-X so far and I did not do a pre rinse and the results were fine. The developer did not turn purple or anything but maybe it will after a couple rolls. I am using the developer as a stock solution so that I can get 10 rolls per liter.

Ilford says not to pre-rinse (or pre-wash) in one particle context.

We used to have a former director of Harman/Ilford regularly post here. His posts on the subject were that a pre-rinse was not necessary, but a pre-rinse will generally do no harm.

A pre-rinse is recommended for colour film.

Many of us here pre-rinse as part of our regular routine - I am one of them. I use Hc-110 in a replenishment regime.

Some people swear that a pre-rinse helps. Some people swear that you shouldn't pre-rinse. The discussions can sometimes sound almost religious in nature.

I have a feeling that provided you are consistent in your process, it will work either way. You may, however, need to refine your times as a pre-rinse can affect them.

 

[markbarendt]

Well I just ordered 10 rolls of Tri-X. I have a question if somebody wouldn't mind. I did google it up but every answer in the book comes up and that does not help. Anyway the question is does Tri-X need a pre rinse before the developer. With Illford they actually say not to in their info but I did not see a word about it with Tri-X. I have only shot one roll of Tri-X so far and I did not do a pre rinse and the results were fine. The developer did not turn purple or anything but maybe it will after a couple rolls. I am using the developer as a stock solution so that I can get 10 rolls per liter.

No, no pre-rinse required for what you are doing.

 

[nolanr66]

Thanks for the help. I will skip the pre rinse.

 

[MattKing]

Thank you for your help Matt. I guess I will go with a pre rinse at least for now. Besides it will probably bring the film and container closer to the 68 degree developing temperature.

You are welcome.

One thing to consider. If your ambient temperature is something close to 68F, consider always working at ambient temperature. It is easy to adjust developing time to match the temperature.

Working with all your chemicals and wash water at room temperature is really nice.

 

[markbarendt]

Just to be clear, Nolan. There's no rule against pre-rinsing. Matt and others use it very successfully.

For example I pre-rinse when using RolloPyro, it's the norm with that developer and it's not just water to wet the film, it's a sodium metaborate bath that sets up the film chemically for the developer.

My point here is simply that a pre-rinse should be used to solve real problems with "the normal way" or for real technical reasons. I say this because it doesn't always help.

With D76 and ID11 pre-rinse is not the norm.

If you use a pre-rinse with D76 or ID11 then you will have to adjust the published development times to compensate and if you encounter uneven development or whatever then you have to figure out if it's the pre-wash or the developer bath.

 

[nolanr66]

Thanks for your help guys. It's clear I should not use a pre rinse unless I have some reason to use it for problem solving. So, no pre rinse it is. I doubt I will move on from ID-11 or D76 since it seems to work well and I can have it shipped no problem. My son is getting interested in film now and I think he is going to buy a developing kit also. He lives in Montana until May and then he graduates with his Masters Degree and is coming back to Calif and will live only an hour away so I will have somebody in the family to talk shop with. It will be fun.

 

[nolanr66]

I guess as far as one film one developer goes I am not necessarily a fan of that but I am going to stick with Tri-X and ID-11 for a while until I feel like I know the combination very well and what happens if I vary the process. I am just somebody taking photos and Tri-X seems to give a nice sharp picture with lovely grain and contrast. That works for me. Besides Sabastio Salgado liked Tri-X before he went digital. I saw that on a Kodak website. I guess there is a difference between saving the world taking pictures and shooting snap shots of your Grand kids but it's still cool that he used to shoot Tri-x back in the day.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Use one and master it. Then pick a high or low to compliment it.

You decide. If you do landscapes, low speed is a priority. If you do rock concerts, a high speed one.

I do 99% of all my work with slow emulsions.