roll call, people who process their FILM in PRINT devloper

i know there are other threads asking if it is OK
in know some folks add their experiences into other threads
and others say NO DON"T DO IT ! GOLF BALL GRAIN ...

but some of us know better

SO, what PRINT developer do you use to process your film?

me ?
for more than 15 years i have used ansco 130 as my tried and true
anywhere between 1:6 - 1: 10 about 8 mins

i ran out and plan on using good old DEKTOL next ...
i'll probably use the same dilution as i do for the 130

what about you ??

I asked about doing this years ago and decided that it was not worth the risk of losing photographs. I never looked back because chemicals are so cheap.

Sirius Glass said:

I asked about doing this years ago and decided that it was not worth the risk of losing photographs. I never looked back because chemicals are so cheap.

Click to expand...

what developer were you thinking of using ?

I used to in school, we used D-72/Dektol or Universal developer.

When I started in 1973 I used to use Kodak "Tri-chem" packs. The developer in the kit was used for both film and prints.

I have used the Formulator's Ansco 130 for 120 Delta 100 about 1:5 or 1:6 dilution and it worked great , gave a higher contrast with a bit of gritty gran which was what I was after. Tried it on TMX but just did not look right.


Mike

Used to be standard for press photography when I started in the late '50s. 4x5 Royal-x Pan with flashbulbs was what I used for sports photos and Dektol was the developer of choice. The results using DK-50 were similar with perhaps better contrast for newspaper work. These are pretty much standard M-Q formulae. In the late '60s when we began using 35mm Tri-x, Microdol-x was a preferred developer.

jnanian said:

what developer were you thinking of using ?

Click to expand...

I had asked a generic question at FreeStyle.I was not thinking of any particular developer.

Used Rodinal for prints where do get your ideas from web gossip?

I think Dektol is going to give you a lith look on smaller films. Might work for 4x5 and bigger, but why even try it?

Xmas said:

Used Rodinal for prints where do get your ideas from web gossip?

Click to expand...

nope i don't get my ideas from web gossip. but from use and experience.

momus said:

I think Dektol is going to give you a lith look on smaller films. Might work for 4x5 and bigger, but why even try it?

Click to expand...

why try it ?
can't see why i shouldn't ..

130 is the only developer I have, It is the best I have found for paper and film. The key is working at a higher temperature. I process at 75, 1-10 dilutions, fp4 at 160 for 9 mins.

Paper I use it at 1-2 for 2 mins.

I have been known to use 130 for processing film.

I recently handed in some rolls of film for development when on holiday. I thought I would get them developed on site and travel home with the negs instead. This place is one of the few places in Cape Town where one can buy, develop and print film. I used, amongst others, Acros.

I was so impressed with the quality of developing so I asked them what they used to develop the Acros as I am always looking for a good recipe. They replied that they used Ilford Multigrade and I was sure that they were mistaken. I asked again and got the same reply.

I left thinking that the guy I spoke to obviously wasn't the one doing the developing. Maybe they did use Ilford Multigrade after all. If I remember correctly, I read on the Ilford PQ bottle that it could be used for film as well. I should try it some time.

Interesting poll.

Dektol straight, for 2 mins with tech pan, rated 200 asa. Worked great, highish contrast of course.

EdSawyer said:

Dektol straight, for 2 mins with tech pan, rated 200 asa. Worked great, highish contrast of course.

Click to expand...

you can say THAT again, i LOVED that combination ... absolutely no grain at all ...
i shot a wedding using 4x5 techpan and 35mm techpan iso 200 processed in dektol too,
the bride and groom loved it ... ( they knew what they were getting ahead of time )

while that might be true at a certain level you can be satisfied with your results using a developer and having it do everything.
i used to drive a 73 beetle ... it drove like a charm. it could be repaired easily, the engine removed easily, trailer hitch added easily
so it could easily tow a trailer, and the back seat could be removed so the top part could be folded down to reveal a enormous area to haul stuff
inside the car. it was a simple car that didn't cost very much money, very much like dektol is a simple developer that doesn't cost very much money.
it is well known to make lovely photographic prints, and is also known to make nice negatives.
sure, i know the beetle was a deathtrap, it didn't have a lot of horsepower, it handled like a beetle, it didn't have high back seats so you could get
whiplash if you were driving people around and got into a fender bender, when towing a trailer you had to drive even slower because of the extra weight
or when a truck went by you were pushed by the wind and a bunch of other things that a lot of people didn't like ... but it worked fine.
just like using a developer ( i will say ansco 130 because of my long running affair with it ) ... it made beautiful long scale prints, and lasted for a long time ..
and it also made beautiful negatives ( any format ) large and small ... and worked as a great additive in coffee based developers ...
it took a little of effort to learn how to process film in it, but most things in life take a little effort ...
i never really noticed any trade off whatsoever or any sort of compromises when using a130 as both a print and film developer, actually just the opposite
seeing i never had to buy anything else, i always had 1 developer on hand and it never let me down.

it is easy to always be looking for compromises and reasons NOT to do things ( excessive grain, contrast &c ) they told me the same story
when i was using ansco 130, and i never found any of it to be true ...i am confident dektol won't let me down either ...

I've done a few rolls of HP5+ in Tetenal Variospeed W. Can't recall the times ATM, but something around 2,5 minutes in 1+9 for EI 800. Hard but not impossible negs. Here is a scan from a 135 frame: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cl3mens/14053749621/

cl3mens said:

I've done a few rolls of HP5+ in Tetenal Variospeed W. Can't recall the times ATM, but something around 2,5 minutes in 1+9 for EI 800. Hard but not impossible negs. Here is a scan from a 135 frame: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cl3mens/14053749621/

Click to expand...

nice photograph !

whenever i look at PLI ( photo lab index )
their description for universal developers
is always "clean, and crisp" and this print you
linked to is clean and crisp !

Sirius Glass said:

I had asked a generic question at FreeStyle.I was not thinking of any particular developer.

Click to expand...

they must have sold you 2 developers then or maybe 3
its much better to spend 15-20$ instead of 5-7$ !

Used to process xray film in Dektol as well as prints. I found it gave too much contrast with the film, as you might expect. A few months ago I picked up several bags of Kodak D11 at closeout prices from the local camera store (i.e. basically free). I've been using the developer with a lot of success on paper and will UltraFine Xtreme 100 speed 120 film. I'll be looking to pick up more of it. It's a wonder there's so much fussing about developers, if you're not out to get a certain look and just want to produce some negatives to make prints, print developer works well when diluted. For the casual hobbyist, which I am, it simplifies the process. I also usally develop to completion, or near enough and just drop the negative into the fixer. So the counterpoint is, if you don't want to play fast and loose with your negatives, use film developer for film, print for print, etc.

A dark room rat at one of the newspapers my mom worked for years ago showed me how they processed B&W negative film in Dektol /D-72. I've run a fair bit of film in dektol...no complaints. Carefully handled, it is capable of beautiful results.

snip

michr said:

So the counterpoint is, if you don't want to play fast and loose with your negatives, use film developer for film, print for print, etc.

Click to expand...

hi michr

could easily suggest if you don't want to play
fast and loose with your film one should know
how to process his/her film in any developer ?
i have seen an awful lot of poorly processed film that was put through film developer ...

jnanian said:

they must have sold you 2 developers then or maybe 3
its much better to spend 15-20$ instead of 5-7$ !

Click to expand...

So I use replenished XTOL, Rollo Pyro and FreeStyle's paper developer, but not all at the same time.

FreeStyle is a sponsor, so no nasty comments please.

i'm not making any nasty comments, just commenting they have a great sales staff
using a universal developer isn't for everyone ...