School me on B/W developers

[Shootar401]

I want to try out some new developers. I currently use D76, HC110 and DD-X. I wanted to give some others a shot and see what the different looks they give me are. I noticed Freestyle has the "Legacy Pro" brand that has "Mic-X" (a copy of Microdol-X) and also their version of HC110 and TMAX.

I would assume that they just as good as the name brand stuff? Should i stay away? The price is really good and would help to save a few bucks.

 

[Klainmeister]

I've never had any issues with any of the rebranded Freestyle stuff. Go at it!

 

[Ian Grant]

I've never had any issues with any of the rebranded Freestyle stuff. Go at it!

They aren't rebranded they are made by the company who make & sell Unicolor chemistry, PSInc, some will be clones others as close as they can get.

Ian

 

[pbromaghin]

Never mind. Ian beat me to it.

 

[Klainmeister]

OK, so they also manufacture film and paper now? I was talking of freestyle in general, so yes, some is also direct.

 

[jp498]

If you really want to save some $, get the pyrocat-hd in glycol kit. Nice developer, inexpensive to use. Ditch the stop bath too for developing film.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I noticed Freestyle has the "Legacy Pro" brand version of HC110

There is no relation between this and actual HC-110. Check the MSDS for each.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

OK, so they also manufacture film and paper now?

They don't manufacture paper and film they rebrand. Unless you can find out what you are actually buying then you are buying the proverbial pig in a poke.

Since your profile says you shoot LF, different developers are not going to make much difference for you except perhaps for staining developers.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer XTOL. I use it replenish for better tonality and finer grain.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf

 

[Ian Grant]

OK, so they also manufacture film and paper now? I was talking of freestyle in general, so yes, some is also direct.

There's a huge difference between using a product you know is rebadged and a third parties attempt at a near clone. Although I don't suggerst that PSInc or Fressyle are remotely decieving their customers, but it was done in the past and by a former APUG sponsor J&C. that's another sotory though.

Ian

 

[cliveh]

If you already use D76 look no further.

 

[Roger Cole]

They don't manufacture paper and film they rebrand. Unless you can find out what you are actually buying then you are buying the proverbial pig in a poke.

Since your profile says you shoot LF, different developers are not going to make much difference for you except perhaps for staining developers.

I agree about the developers.

But it's very easy to identify most re-branded Freestyle stuff. Arista EDU Ultra film is Foma. Arista Private Reserve RC paper is Adox. Arista Premium 400 film is Tri-X. The Premium 100 they used to have was Plus-X. I've used all of these and compared to the name brands - I'd bet money on these. No pig in a poke to it, as it's very easy to figure out. Now their paper I'm not so sure of, so there's some question there, but the simple answer if curious is to try it and use more if you like it, don't if you don't.

If you already use D76 look no further.

While I really like T-Max RS for sheet film and for pushing TMZ and D3200, I have to say this is also pretty on target. There at subtle differences with some developers that may be improvements for some folks, but D76 has remained a standard for decades because, while it isn't the absolute best in any one area, it's plenty good in pretty much all respects.

I could live with just D76 and Diafine. In a pinch I could live with D76 but I do like Diafine for pushing Tri-X and for contrasty light. Heck, in a pinch I could live with just Diafine as I used to do, but it's nice being able to do zone system expansion, which Diafine is utterly incapable of. It does what it does and that's all it does, and that is a bit flat and highlight compensating.

There's a huge difference between using a product you know is rebadged and a third parties attempt at a near clone. Although I don't suggerst that PSInc or Fressyle are remotely decieving their customers, but it was done in the past and by a former APUG sponsor J&C. that's another sotory though.

Ian

I totally agree here too. I use some Legacy Pro stuff. Last time I bought fixer I got their Rapid Fixer because it came in 5 gallons, where Kodak only comes in 1 gallon and 10 gallon and the 5 gallon size fit my needs at the time better. I use their brown toner because I can't get Kodak and availability of other brands of similar toner is spotty. But these are well known formulas that I am confident are functionally identical if not totally identical. Some are going to be closer than others, depending on how much knowledge they have of the original.

 

[Klainmeister]

Sorry I even said anything. I was just trying to point out that some of their in-house is rebranded as well. Either way, everyone of their from-scratch developer or fixer or whatever has performed exactly as expected. There's nothing to worry about, otherwise I don't think they'd put their names on it.

That said, it could interesting if you try a scene with the exact same exposure, then develop in 4-5 different developers. Rodinal, Pyro (p-cat or PMK), D76, Microdol-x, and maybe HC-110 and see what you like. Heck, I'd be interested to see a side by side.

The difficult part is determining film speed and contrast. Are the effects of different developers really that apparent or is it other variables that influence our decisions?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I pick one film and one developer. Stick with it until you reliably get what you want. Then change only one of them and start over.

Do not get into comparison tests until you get consistent results with several pairs. By then you will have chosen what you like the best and you will not have to waste time on testing.

 

[Klainmeister]

I pick one film and one developer. Stick with it until you reliably get what you want. Then change only one of them and start over.

Do not get into comparison tests until you get consistent results with several pairs. By then you will have chosen what you like the best and you will not have to waste time on testing.

Exactly, that's why I'll leave it to someone else I got my developer already, just a matter of figuring out how to actually make a good picture...

 

[Roger Cole]

Sorry I even said anything. I was just trying to point out that some of their in-house is rebranded as well. Either way, everyone of their from-scratch developer or fixer or whatever has performed exactly as expected. There's nothing to worry about, otherwise I don't think they'd put their names on it.

That said, it could interesting if you try a scene with the exact same exposure, then develop in 4-5 different developers. Rodinal, Pyro (p-cat or PMK), D76, Microdol-x, and maybe HC-110 and see what you like. Heck, I'd be interested to see a side by side.

The difficult part is determining film speed and contrast. Are the effects of different developers really that apparent or is it other variables that influence our decisions?

Why would you be sorry you said anything? There wasn't even a minor dust up.

Compared to boards that get really contentious, and even some threads here, no one was upset in the slightest. I did disagree with the "pig in a poke" business though. For the rebranded stuff I know what I'm getting. For other stuff I just try it and use it if I like it, like anything else. Sounds reasonable to me.

Back to topic, I don't think "exact same exposure" is really a good test. Developers do affect film speed a little, and contrast and curve shape more, so it's best to optimize things like that for each combination and then compare, or at least to compare combos with similar capability. If one gives only an effective speed of 100 with Tri-X, for example, then it won't matter if it looks better than one that works well at box speed when it really should be compared with medium speed films.

 

[removed account4]

you might like sprint film developer.
i don't usually use "normal" film developer
unless i have to, and when i do ... well its sprint.
it is hard to blow out highlights with sprint .. its easy to use ...

if you want to try something out of the box
try making caffenol c you might not use anything else
( i know i don't for the most part )
its forgiving, easy to mix and not filled with hectic ingredients
just coffee, washing soda and vit c.

ansco 130 ( formulary 130 paper developer ) also
works as a film developer. and its better than most ..

 

[Roger Cole]

Doesn't Caffenol stink though? I don't know, haven't tried it.

But for a self-mix that's very cheap and somewhat more conventional than Caffenol, it's hard to beat D23.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/D-23.php

Some people just use measuring spoons. One version I found gives two level teaspoons metol and four level tablespoons sulfite to make one liter:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-98728.html

 

[BradS]

Some people just use measuring spoons. One version I found gives two level teaspoons metol and four level tablespoons sulfite to make one liter

That's how I remember my mom making it years ago and it's still how I do it all these years later. Seems to work just fine. As she always said, if you cannot get a printable negative, it's not because you measured the metol and sulfite with teaspoons and tablespoons.


To the OP, I would only suggest that you step back and ask yourself what you're looking for. If there is something that you want that you cannot achieve with D-76 or DD-X, then you are not going to find it in any of the other conventional developers either. Said another way, choose one and practice with it until you can make it do what ever you want / need. To do otherwise is..well, interesting but it will not advance your photographs.

 

[removed account4]

Doesn't Caffenol stink though? I don't know, haven't tried it.

stink as in smell bad or stink as in is terrible ?

it smells bad unless you are used to it
( but a lot of things smell bad
there is an old joke i learned when i started using caffenol ( THANKS WHITEY ! )
it goes like this ..

photogeek 1: hey, you use caffenol c wow that's cool, but how do you know when your film is done ?
photogeek 2: oh that's easier than mixing it, your film is done when you can't stand the smell !

stink as in is terrible?
naaah, it stinks when people use the wrong coffee, or they can't find washing soda so they use something else
or they use some weird canning goop instead of vitamin c, but truth be told .. i've film through it that't better than
anything else i have used ( sprint, xtol, dk50, tmax, tmaxrs, and a few others ) ....

i put a shot of print developer in mine and stand develop for 25-30ish minutes ...

 

[Roger Cole]

Sorry, "stink" as in smell bad.

 

[gmargo]

Developers for scanning and for wet printing

To add to the OP's question about general schooling on B/W developers, I'd like to ask the group about comments I have heard that some developers are better for making negatives for scanning, others for printing in the darkroom. This came about when I was told my XTOL developed negatives were a bit flat in the higher tones for easy printing but would scan better. I print in the darkroom and I would appreciate pointers to developers that prepare negatives well for wet printing with a full tonal range.
Geof

 

[Ian Grant]

The question is more apt for DPUG.

However I have no issues with and developers I've used over the past 40+ years when it comes to scanning and they were all processed for conventional darkroom printing. Some people who only scan process slightly flatter, to get less contrast in their negatives. You need to join DPUG to discuss this in depth.

Ian

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Ian ,

that's another sotory though.

Did you use sotory by mistake ? Sotori means enjoyment from sex in japanese

Umut

 

[Ian Grant]

Yes a mis type Umut, to late to change.

Ian