Recommendations for cheap B&W film & developers

[Buzz-01]

That's like $2.5 for a roll of 36. Is it possible to load film, say for 10 shots, or does the loader exposes film at the head/tail and loading a short roll is a waste of film? The one thing I don't like about 35mm is that I have to shoot 36 photos before developing.

You could re-roll a single 36-exposure roll into two ~16 exposure rolls if you find 36 frames on a roll too much. You'd have to do it in the dark ofcourse, I've done it several times in a dark bag, especially useful for quickly testing a new camera.

 

[radiant]

Cheapest developer? Make your own D-76, or perhaps even better (for certain usage scenarios) D-23, which is just two chemicals: Metol and Sodium sulfite. Couldn't be easier or cheaper.

Do you have any estimates how much self made D-76 costs? What kind of investments do you need to do (buying chemical)?

https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/fotochemie/adox-adofix-p-ii-zum-ansatz-von-5000-ml.html

Enough for 50 films (and you can really do 100) for 9 euros. 18 cents per film or extended 9 cents per film.

Rodinal:

https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/fotochemie/adox-rodinal-500-ml-konzentrat.html?cache=1618488142

100 films for 13 euros, that is 13 cents per film.

So total 13+9 = 22 cents per film. Does it need to be cheaper, really?

I would like to hear facts about prices for self-made developers, are they really cheaper than this? Considering the bulk investment in chemicals and the fuzz of mixing own - is it really worth it?

 

[eatfrog]

Do you have any estimates how much self made D-76 costs? What kind of investments do you need to do (buying chemical)?
I would like to hear facts about prices for self-made developers, are they really cheaper than this? Considering the bulk investment in chemicals and the fuzz of mixing own - is it really worth it?

It's around €2-2.50 per liter of stock solution for us here in Europe. Yes, you need to buy the raw chemicals:

• 2g of Metol
• 100g of Sodium Sulfite anhydrous
• 5g of Hydroquinone
• 2g of Borax

You can get them from Moersch in Germany. Borax you can get cheap off ebay. I got 1kg from Poland for €5,50.

1l pack of D76 from fotoimpex right now is €7, if you get the larger 3.7l pack the per liter price goes down to €3,25.

If it's worth it.. well, from an economical standpoint, no. But you can mix just the amounts you need without having to worry about shelf life.

 

[baachitraka]

For raw chemicals you may contact,

Saban Suvatlar <fotosuvatlar@live.de>

Hamburg, Germany.

I prefer to mix Agfa-44

 

[Don_ih]

I prefer to mix Agfa-44

That developer looks worth trying. Does it reduce contrast?

 

[juan]

I don’t think you can get cheaper than D-23 - metol , sodium sulfite and water.

 

[Jonno85uk]

I looked into D23 a while ago as I kept seeing people say it's cheap. From what I could find, D23 wasn't cheap for me.

I've just had a quick look again:

500g Metol ->£135
25Kg of Sulfite -> £80

That makes it, per litre, ~£2 of metol (7.5g) and ~£0.30 of sulfite (100g) for a total of ~£2.30.

If i choose a less ridiculous amount of bulk sulfite (1KG) the cost of 1L of D23 ends up being ~£3.40.

Is this a case of the price depends on where you live?

edit: i've just realised I totally missed the fact D23 isn't one shot

 

[baachitraka]

Cheapest option could be using replenished D-23.

 

[baachitraka]

I looked into D23 a while ago as I kept seeing people say it's cheap. From what I could find, D23 wasn't cheap for me.

I've just had a quick look again:

500g Metol ->£135
25Kg of Sulfite -> £80

That makes it, per litre, ~£2 of metol (7.5g) and ~£0.30 of sulfite (100g) for a total of ~£2.30.

If i choose a less ridiculous amount of bulk sulfite (1KG) the cost of 1L of D23 ends up being ~£3.40.

Is this a case of the price depends on where you live?

edit: i've just realised I totally missed the fact D23 isn't one shot

I have price list (2017) from Saban Suvatlar.

Indeed 500g Metol cost €105.90/- but Natrium Sulfit (Sodium Sulfite) costs €94/- for 7.5 kg

You don't have bad prices and good replenish scheme would save a tone.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Note however that D23 replenishment requires additional ingredients to make the DK-25R -- from memory, potassium bromide, sodium metaborate (or enough sodium hydroxide to produce it in solution), and hydroquinone, in addition to what goes into D-23 in the first place. And replenishment life isn't indefinite as is the case with Xtol; mix equal amounts of developer stock and replenisher, and when you've used the last of the replenisher, discard the tank solution and start over.

I am getting great results with EDU Ultra 200 and Xtol stock

If you replenish your Xtol, the cost can get down to about 14-15 cents a roll (at $12 per 5L package, cost after finishing off the first batch of replenisher). It's as cheap as fine-grain, full-speed developers get, but still costs much more than Adox Rodinal at 1:50, never mind Parodinal made with discount generic acetaminophen.

 

[Jonno85uk]

A while ago I made a spreadsheet of most developers that was available to me to find the cheapest

1. Rodinal (1+50)
2. HC-110 (1+79)
3. Ilfotec HC (1+49) / ID-11 (1+3)

I ignored FD10 because it's not something I ever want to use again.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I made a spreadsheet of most developers that was available to me to find the cheapest

Which goes to show this is location dependent. You paid 50% more (if not a bit higher) than I do for Xtol (current new stock at Freestyle $11.99 per 5L package). Even if you figure in shipping, buying a couple bags and some film to dilute that out makes it significantly less than you're paying. Get it from B&H and make a total order of $50 or more, and the shipping is free (in USA, anyway).

 

[John Wiegerink]

A while ago I made a spreadsheet of most developers that was available to me to find the cheapest

1. Rodinal (1+50)
2. HC-110 (1+79)
3. Ilfotec HC (1+49) / ID-11 (1+3)

I ignored FD10 because it's not something I ever want to use again.

What was so bad about FD10? I have never used it, but also have never heard anything negative about it. For me, I have three developers I use. X-tol R, Pyrocat HDC and Rodinal. Pretty much in the order listed. Xtol-R with almost any type scene, Pyrocat HDC with higher contrast, sunny bright scenes and Rodinal when I want that sharp/grainy look. Once mixed they are all cheap to me. Most importantly, for me anyway, is that they all have excellent shelf life and once mixed they are all liquid. I don't shoot 35mm very much at all so my findings are based on 120 and 4x5 film sizes. In 4x5 Xtol-R shines since I can use a Yankee 12 sheet bulk tank and not have to throw out the used developer. Now that's mighty cheap to me. JohnW

 

[Jonno85uk]

What was so bad about FD10?

Honestly, I don't really remember seeing it's about 15yrs since I last used it.
I used to get all Fotospeed products discounted from FocalPoint in Exeter (just discovered it no longer exists) for members of the photographic society I ran.

I do remember getting in a huff with it and chucking what I had away to stick with Agfa Rodinal instead. Nowadays XTOL-R is what I turn to.

You paid 50% more (if not a bit higher) than I do for Xtol

That's the way she goes with Kodak over this side of the pond.

 

[gone]

Got my order in at Freestyle. It would cost a fortune and take forever to try all the recommendations here, so I'm going to start w/ 2 rolls each of Foma 100, 200 and 400. I have D76 and Rollei Compard One Shot R09 for developers, and just in case, also ordered some Adox Rodinal. Had some bad experiences years ago w/ a Rodinal clone, can't remember who made it, and since there's so many versions of the "original" formula, can't hurt to try them both.

There's some Arista developers that are supposed to be D76 and Dektol clones in this order too. We'll see.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I must be doing something wrong.

Never seen sharp lens photos?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If we talk about MF and LF, and about giving film the light it needs (box speed or twice that light), most low cost films can be well used.
But if we talk about 35mm film, cheap films can't do what Ilford and Kodak films do.
For quality/price/reliability, D-76 or its clones are the best option.

 

[Autonerd]

+1 for Ultrafine XTreme (which may or may not be Kentmere -- I think it's more likely that it's Ilford Pan, which we can't get in the US). Their shipping costs do offset the bargain, but if you're close enough to Freestyle to drive to their store on Sunset, you can motor up to Oxnard and pick up your Ultrafine at the will-call window. (If it comes back in stock, that is.) I just finished my 100' rolls of FP4 and HP5, and trying to decide if my next hundred-footers will be Ultrafine.

I read lots of negative (heh) reviews of Kentmere and stayed away, but when I finally shot a roll of 100 myself, I was very happy with it. Unfortunately I only have the one-roll experience. I recently bought a couple more rolls but haven't shot them yet.

My one experience with Foma was okay, though the grain is a bit chunky.

As for discount developers -- I tried L-76 when D-76 wasn't available, and it worked fine, but I am pretty happy with D-76 and it's pretty economical when used 1:1. HC-110 is expensive per-bottle and doesn't work with all film types to my satisfaction, but it's cheap when used 10cc at a time.

I would definitely consider buying a 100' roll of film and bulk-rolling it. Cuts your film prices roughly in half. You don't need a bulk roller; I assemble my film rolls in a dark bag.

HTH
Aaron

 

[Jonno85uk]

Never seen sharp lens photos?

I don't shoot pictures mtf charts or brick walls but I know which of my lenses are subjectivity sharp (Nikkor 50mm f1.8d/zenzanon 75mm E2) and which aren't (Helios 44m, Zenzanon 50mm MC).

In any case, it depends on enlargement size.

 

[albireo]

If we talk about MF and LF, and about giving film the light it needs (box speed or twice that light), most low cost films can be well used.
But if we talk about 35mm film, cheap films can't do what Ilford and Kodak films do.

Do you have any evidence for this? Are you able to prove that your impression stated above is due to the film, and not -say- to sloppy technique?

For instance - when you use 'cheap' film as you call it, do you expose and develop with the same care you would observe for expensive film? Or do you do everything more liberally, because the lower costs might involuntarily lead you to think you can make more errors?

 

[juan]

If you can get triethenolomine Gainer’s PC-TEA should be cheap. Particularly at Sandy King’s recommended 1:100 dilution.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Do you have any evidence for this? Are you able to prove that your impression stated above is due to the film, and not -say- to sloppy technique?

For instance - when you use 'cheap' film as you call it, do you expose and develop with the same care you would observe for expensive film? Or do you do everything more liberally, because the lower costs might involuntarily lead you to think you can make more errors?

If you don't see the difference, you have work to do, to find your own evidence... Or use cheap film. I've tested and used Kentmere and Foma in 35mm: inferior films if you compare them (same scene) with HP5+, TMY and Tri-X.
Not close: vastly inferior. Why or how would it be the other way?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Best cheap film IMO is Kentmere 100.
No good cheap fast film IMO.

 

[pbromaghin]

I've only shot one roll of Kentmere 100, but I think it looks pretty good (scanned negatives <here>). That roll was processed in Kodak D-76 developer at 1+1. If you are shooting medium format, they should look even better than my results from 135.

Meanwhile, I've decided I'll be happier shooting ISO 400 film, so I just put a few rolls of Kentmere 400 in my shopping cart. Fingers crossed that the grain will not be too prominent.

You got all those keepers with 1 roll? Holy crap!

 

[runswithsizzers]

You got all those keepers with 1 roll? Holy crap!

Thank you for those kind words. Yes, those were all from the same roll, but notice I started that roll in January and did not finish it until August. So to say I am a slow shooter is no exaggeration.