Post-Poll on Developer: Divided Developers

[JWMster]

After posting a poll on favorite, most commonly used developers, a couple of ideas came out of that. Mostly, Perceptol and D-23. Following Barry Thornton's lead in "Edge of Darkness", I've now tried Perceptol 1:2 dilution using HP5+ downrated to ISO 200. Pretty decent images as a place to start. Lots of promise for 120 6X6, and will have to give it a wider application together with some testing, but it is definitely a finalist.

Downside of course is Perceptol's downrating pushes for some research on D-23 for a full-speed option. Seems like there's a lot of downrating done with D-23, too, so that's not the slam dunk escape hatch. However, downrating FP4+ and then adding an Orange filter like I tend to do outside... you're staring at some very low ISO's.... so the brain's still busy.

This course of study leads to Divided D-23 and there's a tad more data suggesting this might be of more interest. D-23 seems more commonly used in larger formats.... MF 120 and up than in 35mm rolls which may reflect an interest in LF tray development "by inspection" and the inability to easily do this in 35mm may be why D-23 just doesn't make the radar screen much. Nice as that is, I'm a 35mm and 120 guy so that won't likely be the selling point in my case either. But it still pokes interest. So I'm curious and will probably give it a shot, but it seems that even Barry Thornton suggested that eventually the divided bath development routine he was using began to wear on him and he went much more "in" for one-bath.

Again, part of my research for one or two developers is due to liking Pyrocat-HD's results, but wondering whether similar (or "better for my taste") results are equally available from chems without some of the handling bugaboos (which is not to suggest I want to drink my developer or be overly casual.... but simply not live with the prospect of an obit mentioning, "well... of course he died in the darkroom...").

So reading down the rathole... Bruce Barnbaum's "Art of Photography" addresses his go-to Divided Bath HC-110 (Bath A @ 1:10 and Bath B @ 1:90). And then Hornstein's "Beyond Basic Photography" also deals (as many do) with Divided D-23 and Divided D-76. Many other books address this, too. Even if one is not a "Zonie", these and other present to prospect of adjusting for contrast levels (zero shadows, light and strong)... and there seems merit in that.

Curious whether folks just bagged the whole of it, do this with a one-bath, prefer to adjust in post-process (scanned-to-ink or enlarger-to-wetprint images), sought out simpler developers, or just ignore the whole issue. Barnbaum suggests the Two Bath approach offers much greater contrast range. Some of the other books push it as the "roll film" answer to the advantage LF's sheet film gives a zonie.

Thoughts? Experience? Suggestions?

 

[Peter Schrager]

Repeat after me
One film
One developer
One film
One developer
Sure why not 2,bath if you fully realize what it brings to the table
Many roads lead to the path

 

[removed account4]

hi JWM
i use divided developers often,
but im not a zonie and i don't use
the typical divided system others use ...
i use DEKTOL ( or ansco 130 ) 1:8
both at ambient room temperature
for 4 mins .. regular agitation if it is a hand tank
or continuous in a tray
then i put it in a tank of caffenol ( with a splash of dektol or ansco 130 )
i don't measure my ingredients with caffenol c and i use home roasted beans
( it works with instant too )
and i continuously agitation in the hand tank and continuously shuffle in trays for 5 mins
i haven't used any other film developer except for sprint film developer ( as directed by their website )
in maybe 10 + years, and just ansco 130 before that to 2000'ish ...
i do it because it works great with any film, any iso &c so i process everything at once
otherwise i use ansco 130( or dektol ) splashed caffenol c stand developed for 30-35 mins
the film comes out well that way too ...

good luck
john
ps. peter knows his stuff i'd follow his lead !

 

[Peter Schrager]

And John makes a great cup of coffee
Oops I mean some great negatives
Don't matter how you get there
Just go!!

 

[JWMster]

Peter:

Good advice of course, but like all advice, more often breached than followed - ESPECIALLY by photographers. And greatness... maybe the Hedgehog is right in knowing only one thing, but the Hedgehog doesn't take pictures. Yeah... okay... like the random monkey that manages to type out a Shakespearean sonnet entirely by chance... yes, it's possible a hedgehog could take a selfie that ends up on the cover of Time, but not twice and never by intention. Thanks for the admonition to stop wasting my time here. Guess I earned that. Ouch!

Regards,
JWM

 

[MattKing]

Thanks for the admonition to stop wasting my time here. Guess I earned that. Ouch!

It isn't a waste of time to wonder.
It isn't even a waste of time to go through all the time and effort to set up the poll.
It is only a waste of time if you don't pay at least some attention to what Peter posted in answer.
In particular, it is good advice to others who are reading your thread.
BUT... don't forget that that advice includes the following: "Many roads lead to the path".

 

[removed account4]

what matt said !

JWM
if you read a lot of the posts kind of like yours in the film/developer / darkroom pages
you will notice a lot of people have been in the same shoes as you
some love just shooting a differnet film every time and processing it in a different developer
or using a different method every time they process .. others might have tried that, and prints on different
papers and different processes toners &c and overextended themselves so much that they were chasing their tails
meaning they got oodles of experience doing all the fun stuff they were doing, but they didn't know anything inside-out
the trick with making negatives and prints is to see something that you want to photograph, commit it to film, and then
making a negative and fine tuning that negative to a sheet of paper kind of knowing what is going to happen every step of the process.
there is a lot more to using 1 film and developer than meets the eye, it seems boring, but its not ...

have fun !
john

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I have never had much success with divided developers whether Diafine or others. The negatives are usually thin and have too much contrast. Conventional development permits much more control.

 

[Cholentpot]

Repeat after me
One film
One developer
One film
One developer
Sure why not 2,bath if you fully realize what it brings to the table
Many roads lead to the path

Back in the day when film was the only way to get images, sure. Today when film is the calligraphy of photography I might think otherwise. I use what strikes my fancy. Tri-x today, portra last week, HP5+ pushed in some weird mixture in a TLR for the past 6 months, sure.

If I had to pick one of everything I'm sure I can chose though.

 

[JWMster]

Cholenpot: Yes. Exactly ...in many ways! And at the same time, just as monks were told "Your cell will teach you everything".... yes, the straightjacket will teach you a lot. Not everything perhaps, but a lot. The dictum has merit, but we're not hedge hogs either.
Gerald C Koch: Thanks! You are the reason I've not stayed satisfied with Pyrocat-HD... but determined I ought to pick a traditional developer (like Perceptol or D-23) and run with that and make it sing.

Others: Forgive me if this sounds a bit... I'm not sure... cheeky? but repeating "one film, one developer" as if it is the wise thing everyone needs to hear is pure BS because it emphasizes technique as the end all. Segovia counselled guitarists to do scales, but never as a regimen or an exercise, but always as music. The goal is music, not technique. To play a rote scale as though a piece of beautiful music is a gift both to the guitarist and their audience - even those accidentally passing by. Anything less is a waste of notes... mere technique and you might as well have a machine play it as it teaches all the wrong things. Admonitions and dictums are not wisdom and cannot teach or produce art. The goal is the objective. Technique is a tool and a pathway, and if it is not the right tool, you master enough of it to move towards picking up the next one. Yes, there is a pearl of great price and when you find it - and it may be different for each person, you sell everything you have in order to make it your own. No, it is not a magic bullet... but it moves your heart, and that is enough. That's the source. I think this BS is repeated completely in error and at best it is a half truth. Yes as the monks say, "My cell will teach me everything and the course to salvation", but a developer is neither, and salvation not a matter of domicile, but of the heart. And frankly, some of us are doomed to damnation... even photography hell... no matter our best intentions otherwise. Whether this is my course or yours... who's to say? Thank you.

 

[Down Under]

I recommend to anyone who is looking for a 'TMD' (Truly Miraculous Developer) to try the late Barry Thornton's two bath, which comes in three formulations (I prefer the Ansel Adams version for slightly sharper contrast and more variability in contrast control).

It is easily mixed (there is even a supereasy teaspoon mix formula on the Thornton site). All the data can be easily found OL, just Google "Thornton Two Bath" and you will get a cornucopia of data.

I first used two bath developers in the 1960s after reading an article by the late (and great) Ron Spillman in an British photo magazine. Changed developers often over the years, but finally after much much chopping and changing and no end of testing with too many rolls of film, I saw the light and went the Thornton way in 2002 or 2003 and I will never, ever go back. Except for my second favorite developer, Kodak's good old D76 which I ALWAYS use 1+1.

Roger Hicks, whose good and intelligent advice I always otherwise respect, dislikes the two bath way. So be it. To the others who want consistently good results I can only say, try it.

KISS...

 

[JWMster]

oz: Thanks for your note. If I recall from the "Edge..." you'd be talking about DD-23, Stoekler's and Dixactol... or did the Dixactol come later? It's rather amazing what a closer and closer reading brings you to ponder. Thank you for going against the grain and sharing your notes on two bath. Seems every book I've run across mentions it and the advantages to roll film, but we're all doing single bath mostly. There's a part of us that just wants to get the images... and deal with it from there. I get that. Are you then USING the Ansel Adams version (I think Divided D-23 or DD-23)? or the BT version? or both? THanks!