Real life differences between developers?

hi meno
glad you made it here
regarding the developers
some are build contrast faster than others
some work better a little warmer
some are a little more or less toxic
but for the most part a lot of them
make your film look very similar, if not
the same as some of the others ...
there is a lot of mystique about
some of the more boutique stuff ..
but for the most part most make film look
kind of the same.
im sure some say different ... but i haven't noticed much
other than some like to be agitated one way
others another way ( or your film will be too "contrasty" )
if you get old copies of photolab index
or some other data driven reports
there are folks who look at different grain structures
and whatnot under a microscope &c .. but for
the regular person with film to process its usually
what's easiest to mix, what lasts the longest and
what is it that i have on hand.

have fun !
john

Thanks for all the replies. Good to know its not just my impression but there is some truth in it.
Sadly I don't know anybody in my area to get some real examples and experiences so I have to rely on you guys, other internet sources and my own experiments. For that reason I'm leaning to stay with HC-110 for now and maybe do some comparison tests with DDX. I wanted to try d76 but as far as I understand it should be very similar to HC-110 which is way more convenient to me.
Maybe I can actually see a difference for myself but doubt it. Even so, I at least know what I like then.

Maybe I should concentrate more on my images and the light, but I'm very prone to experiments so I still did not decide which film I like best. For basically the same reasons. I really need to do some tests.

Sadly availability is not the real issue. I have to order via the Internet anyway. The shops have nothing film related in stock.

Best,

I'd say the quickest way to get nice images is in learning to print (not that i can do that either) rather than getting distracted by different films and developers (a rabbit hole i have fallen down)

one film, one developer, one paper (and a lot of it) and just slowly but surely learn how to build your negatives into images in darkroom

Developers do make a difference, but ya gotta start somewhere and stick with it until you figure out why you either like something or don't like it. As for people quoting Ansel - he wouldn't have gone through so much hell printing certain images if he had the same product choices and progress on the learning curve we do today. D76 is a good stock car of a developer, but shifts pH over time. So you either want to standardize on it freshly mixed, or let it mature in a glass bottle for about a week prior to use. I have used many developers, and now mainly use staining pyro formulas.

meno said:

Thanks for all the replies. Good to know its not just my impression but there is some truth in it.
Sadly I don't know anybody in my area to get some real examples and experiences so I have to rely on you guys, other internet sources and my own experiments. For that reason I'm leaning to stay with HC-110 for now and maybe do some comparison tests with DDX. I wanted to try d76 but as far as I understand it should be very similar to HC-110 which is way more convenient to me.
Maybe I can actually see a difference for myself but doubt it. Even so, I at least know what I like then.

Maybe I should concentrate more on my images and the light, but I'm very prone to experiments so I still did not decide which film I like best. For basically the same reasons. I really need to do some tests.

Sadly availability is not the real issue. I have to order via the Internet anyway. The shops have nothing film related in stock.

Best,

Click to expand...

I tried D-76, it's not bad, fairly consistent, but I found DD-X much better, and it works well with both T-grain and old formula films. I haven't tried X-tol, it's quite expensive here and having tried DD-X I have no need to try anything else at the moment, shooting medium format using fast speed films is the only option with the light we have at this time of year (if you want to handhold anyway)

bvy said:

You assume everyone using film is printing it in the darkroom. If you only ever scan your film, then you absolutely should pick a developer based on how it scans. Scanner software does make adjustments and corrections, but it doesn't nullify what a particular developer does. To your point, making printing decisions based on how it scans would be backwards.

ETA: Acknowledging that I took your statement out of context, since you were specifically responding to a printing concern.

Click to expand...

Oh sorry - I see this total different - because if you want to find out special characteristics of films in concern of different developers you may mixed this if you have just scanned your films.
If you want to compare a film with a special developer and you want to find out differences in developing methods from dilution in regard of tonals/grain
there is no way via scanning unit and scanning software.
The lens of your enlarger may also have an impact on your results.But with a good lens it may be ok.

If you have no darkroom and you are in business via mixed workflow I can imagine your task.
You have to be focussed on good results and therefore you compare films AND developer in regard of good scanning characteristics.
But if you be happy with this it may happen that you find out later : New scanning unit, total different new software - new technology. ......and then?
Would you find out - therefore - an other developer would make the job better
then?
But you can't change it with the older films?
To have a focus on scanning issues isn't the right way.
To compare the grain isn't always the best via scanning.
I have lots of comercial enlargements
(layouts) some are realy a bit grainy.
But it isn't real grain from film.
It is comming from artefacts.
And I will never forget this remarcable compared test 4x5 inch Delta 100 /
6 x 7 Delta 100 / 35 mm Delta 100 - VS
Nikon D800?
Results : 35mm hasn't a real chance
6 x 7 did not REACH the resolution of Nikons new digital sensor but 4 x 5 did it.
Well - the Nikon D 800 wasn't able to be the winner but it was in the very near of 4 x 5 inch in bw operation.
Friends the D800 is much cheaper now.
That should be the alternate to 4 x 5 inch.
(All test results came from flat bed scanning unit)


with regard

PS : Sure 35mm reached a very bad result (onto a DIN A4 scanning unit)

So every comparison of films (special in regard of grain) vis scanning are strongly ....strongly
UNSCIENTIFIC.

(JUST FROM MY MIND)

I think you are right and the differences you can achieve by changing developer are subtle at best. That is why the advise to stick to one flim-developer combination for a while is a pretty good one. Nevertheless: when you want to get a feel yourself for the extremes that can be achieved: Trendland gave a valuable advise. You could try this for yourself, just to get a feel for it. Buy a small bottle of some of the Rodinal clones and a package of Perceptol and develop a few films in each of them. Both developers like generously exposed negatives, so halve your usual film speed. Except for subtle changes in film grain and sharpness you will see a shift in tonality with both developers. After evaluation you should decide for yourself if you like the results and no reading on the net can be a substitute for that.

meno said:

Hi,

im quite new (~6 months) to developing my own film and printing in the darkroom (I don't scan) so I do not have enough experience to feed this discussion but there is something that is haunting me.

There is a lot of discussion going on about different kinds of films and developers. Strong opinions are being thrown around.
Im trying to make an understanding for myself so I was looking for real scientific-style comparisons of different films and developers. This means, same situation, same image, just changing one variable, the film and/or developer.

The only real comparison I found is this article http://www.fotoimport.no/filmtest/filmTriX.html
They compare different developers on same films and you can also change the film.

To my eye, there is a extrem subtile difference between the developers. Maybe sharpness, maybe grain but to the naked eye, from an artistic point of view, I don' see enough difference. Maybe technically speaking one is cleaner then the other, but just talking about tonality, smoothness of the image, I can not see enough difference to switch developers.

Also everything is contradicting. A lot of sources say D76 should be producing less grain then HC-110 but in the images it looks the other way around. At least to my eye.

Is the test wrong? Are my eyes not good enough to see the differences? Do they even matter if you don;t care about the technical perfect image? Is choosing developer just about grain and sharpness or also about image appeal?

Im totally lost.

Maybe someone can point me to the differences.
Im looking to choose the right developer. I don't care about sharpness and technical perfection. I just want to have nice images with character. Creamy shadows. Hard to find the right developer combination. From this images, HP5 looks much harder then tri-x. On other occasions they look similar.

Best,

Click to expand...

I think, You already answered your own question. I'm still using the same developer I started with 40 years ago; the only difference is: NOW I know how it works.

TonyB65 said:

I haven't tried X-tol, it's quite expensive here and having tried DD-X I have no need to try anything else at the moment,

Click to expand...

If DDX is your developer of choice that's fine but the above sentence puzzles me. Xtol at most retailers, if not all, is anything between £7-10 cheaper than DDX . Each at its stock dilution makes the same 5L.

I switched to Xtol some years ago largely on the grounds of price. It does what DDX was doing on my range of films including D3200 which I use at EI 1250-1600. DDX might have the edge over Xtol at 3200 or higher but I can't say, as I haven't tried either at those speeds

At Sharif photographic, probably the cheapest retailer in the U.K. over a range of film and chemicals, Xtol is £9 and DDX is £15. Others are more expensive but the price gap is largely maintained.

If you know of anywhere where DDX comes close to Xtol in price, let me know. Thanks

pentaxuser

Your eye is the one... or two... that matter. What you see, matters. Since you are new to developing and printing, don't get bogged down with different developers and their dilutions. Become an expert with the combo you are currently using.

pentaxuser said:

If DDX is your developer of choice that's fine but the above sentence puzzles me. Xtol at most retailers, if not all, is anything between £7-10 cheaper than DDX . Each at its stock dilution makes the same 5L.

I switched to Xtol some years ago largely on the grounds of price. It does what DDX was doing on my range of films including D3200 which I use at EI 1250-1600. DDX might have the edge over Xtol at 3200 or higher but I can't say, as I haven't tried either at those speeds

At Sharif photographic, probably the cheapest retailer in the U.K. over a range of film and chemicals, Xtol is £9 and DDX is £15. Others are more expensive but the price gap is largely maintained.

If you know of anywhere where DDX comes close to Xtol in price, let me know. Thanks

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I bought my DD-X from Sharif Photographic, I prefer liquid developers and I don't want to mix and store 5 litres, I decant from the bottle and store in a vacuum pumped 1 litre glass bottle which I can easily store in my camping fridge, 5 litres would be a hassle and take up too much space, I also wouldn't be able to vacuum pump it to keep it fresher for longer. The extra cost is not prohibitive and makes it worth it for me. I also use Ilford Delta and HP4 and HP5+, so I like the idea of using the right chemicals for the film, and also supporting Ilford rather than Kodak.

Thanks TonyB65. Your reasoning makes perfect sense. It was just the "quite expensive" comment vis a vis DDX that threw me. I was maybe hoping that you had found somewhere that sold DDX at about the same price as Xtol

pentaxuser

As someone only lately out of being new at this myself, let me chime in: YES, there really is a magic bullet. But and if you're shooting a Werewolf, it works. If you're shooting pictures... not so much. As boring as the advice to find something and stick with it sounds, it actually works and frees you mentally to think of other, more creative things. The rest of the improvement I'm thinking comes from gradually tightening up development rather than using different materials, and more to the point, the more important work lies in making good negatives in the first place. If I were doing it over again and learning this stuff, maybe I'd have sent more negatives to a lab early on until my own developing was "better", and saved my own developing for my test shots. I have drive full of scanned test shots... so there's still plenty to do. But perhaps an approach of this sort would have eliminated my own silver bullet angst... sooner.

pentaxuser said:

Thanks TonyB65. Your reasoning makes perfect sense. It was just the "quite expensive" comment vis a vis DDX that threw me. I was maybe hoping that you had found somewhere that sold DDX at about the same price as Xtol

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

No worries, I know we all have our different needs, DD-X in 1 litre bottle form works for me, I'm pretty sure my missus wouldn't take too kindly to a 5 litre container of developer in the fridge and my camping fridge set-up is pretty good, so I stick with that. I'll let you know if I find DD-X any cheaper than Sharif, but I doubt it, it's a pretty good price as it is.

I may try X-tol but would split the 5 litres once mixed up into 5x 1 litre glass bottles, all topped up to the brim. Those bottles should last a long time if the X-tol fans are to be believed. I use the Tetenal Protectan for all my part used containers of chemicals, it seems to work really well. My DD-X is about 10 months old now in the original bottle and passed a simple clip of film test (1 clip dev + fix, 1 clip fix only) the other day.