Settling on Delta and maybe Rodinal...

[markbarendt]

Thomas,

You have about got me convinced.

Do you know if Ilfotec HC and HC-110 are the same?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Mark,

Judging by the 'word around the camp fire' - yes, they are about the same. But I have never tried Ilfotec-HC.

- Thomas

 

[Morry Katz]

Developer?

Hi:

All the attention seems to be on Delta 400 - and there are many good suggestions. But what about the Delta 100. I'd recommend Ilford Peceptol. It's easy to mix a 1litre batch, and is used at 1:1 or 1:3. With Delta 100, the negs are virtually grainless! Check Ilford's web site. Their information is excellent and covers Ilford films and others.

Cheers
Morry Katz
Lethbridge, Alberta

 

[markbarendt]

Hi:

All the attention seems to be on Delta 400 - and there are many good suggestions. But what about the Delta 100. I'd recommend Ilford Peceptol. It's easy to mix a 1litre batch, and is used at 1:1 or 1:3. With Delta 100, the negs are virtually grainless! Check Ilford's web site. Their information is excellent and covers Ilford films and others.

Cheers
Morry Katz
Lethbridge, Alberta

Hi Morry,

It's not that I don't want to use D100 or D3200 and I may sneak in some rolls of those films here and there over the next few years, but Anscojohn earlier in the thread reminded me that it might be a good choice to get good at one film first. I want to take that a step farther to printing on #2 paper.

When I can reliably nail the exposure, the developing, and the printing, with the grain and detail I expect within these constraints it will be time to look at D100 and D3200 for me.

Also digital has left me with a mild distaste for perfectly grainless prints. I've made the artistic choice that grain should be a supporting character in my shots. D400 will allow me to "dial in" or "Dial out" the grain more than D100 or D3200 can by altering my EI and development technique.

Given D400's ability to be shot from EI 200 to EI 3200 it's the only one of the three Deltas that can cover the range I normally shoot in while providing reasonable grain characteristics.

In my shooting the default EI for daylight is set between 320 and 800. EI 1600 is a very normal part of my shooting, 3200 is not rare; EI 100 is actually fairly rare right now, I actually have more need for 6400.

The reason for this is that my subjects tend to be in motion; people at events, people running rapids on rivers, dogs, wildlife, and the like; they tend not to be in bright light and tend to turn and wiggle without warning.

This is why I settled on D400 for now.

 

[André E.C.]

Rodinal for Delta?

I think you can get much better than that for Delta films development!


Cheers


André

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Andre - you are not a believer?

There is no 'best' or 'most beautiful' developer. It's always opinions as we all have preferences and tastes that vary wildly from one another. Rodinal is great for the Delta films, it's just a matter of whether you care to learn how to use it or not.
Some things you can't get around, like shooting D3200 at 6400 and expect good shadow detail. But I'm sure you get the drift. Different development techniques will help a lot, especially with grain.

The whole idea of Rodinal not working well with fabricated grain films to me is just a bunch of bogus. I've used a fair amount of Kodak TMX for example, and I developed all of it in Rodinal 1+75 using an 'every two minutes' agitation. They are some of the most detailed, and contrast pleasing negatives I've ever produced. I've attached a scan here of an example. I had to shoot the film at EI 80, so I lost about 1/3 stop if it matters.

- Thomas

 

[jeroldharter]

...

Kodak actually claims 2 months in partially filled bottles of XTOL stock solutions, 6 months in full sealed bottles. 5 liters of stock mixed 1 & 1 means I need to be shooting 40 rolls in 2 months or I'd have to decant into various bottles that would need to be kept at a well controlled temp, a temp that would be tough to manage in my home. This is a pretty tight time line and a hassle.

...

Film is usually the most expensive item in the chain, before printing paper. the cost of film developer is almost immaterial. I don't like keeping track of the freshness of developer and then wondering if it has lost a little juice. Xtol costs about $9 for a gallon of stock which is 2 gallons of 1:1 solution. Unless I have had a specific photo trip, that is more volume than I am likely to use in 2 months of casual shooting. So just mix a new gallon every other month for $60 per year max and you have no worries.

Or spend about $15 for a bottle of Rodinal or HC-110 and try to milk it for a whole year saving $45. Unless you truly prefer those developers, the $45 per year savings are not worth it.

 

[markbarendt]

Rodinal for Delta?

I think you can get much better than that for Delta films development!


Cheers


André

After the feed back I've received here I think I'm reserving Rodinal for left overs. What I mean is that if somebody at our camera club and gave me a bottle and a few rolls of film from the closet they were cleaning out, I'd play with it.

For now it looks like HC-110 or it's Ilford equivalent. If I have issues with grain or highlights that I can't master with that combo I'll probably step up to DD-X.

 

[markbarendt]

Film is usually the most expensive item in the chain, before printing paper. the cost of film developer is almost immaterial.

Agreed. That's the reason that DD-X's cost is really not a big issue to me. That's not to say that I'm above saving a buck where I can. Saving 70 - 75 cents a roll means I can "afford" more film. If I shoot 24 shot rolls it's like getting every eighth roll free.

My impression though that Rodinal might be a challenging choice but once I'm into the HC-110's, Ilfotec HC's, XTOL's, D-76/ID-11's, and DD-X's that can all do a respectable job with the Delta film's it comes down more to my skill and experience more than the chemistry.

If that's true, cost and convenience become reasonable ways to sort out the rest.

Is that a reasonable thought or are XTOL and/or DD-X that much better than the others?

If they are, specifically how?

I don't like keeping track of the freshness of developer and then wondering if it has lost a little juice. Xtol costs about $9 for a gallon of stock which is 2 gallons of 1:1 solution. Unless I have had a specific photo trip, that is more volume than I am likely to use in 2 months of casual shooting. So just mix a new gallon every other month for $60 per year max and you have no worries. Or spend about $15 for a bottle of Rodinal or HC-110 and try to milk it for a whole year saving $45. Unless you truly prefer those developers, the $45 per year savings are not worth it.

This is the same logic I was using for DD-X but, with DD-X it keeps better and I have a 6 month window with partially filled bottles. I'd probably use the DD-X up in 3-4 months so I would not be tossing any and the yearly cost would be nearly identical.

So is D400 in XTOL going to significantly better than D400 in DD-X? How?

 

[André E.C.]

Andre - you are not a believer?

- Thomas

No Thomas, I´m not a believer or member of the church of Rodinal!

I believe yes, in what suits my interpretation of a negative, I like what I´m getting, so, I stick with it. I also believe, it's great you are happy with what you get out of your Rodinal development, therefore, we might conclude, the interpretation of what a negative should be, it's strictly personal and no universal truth can be applied.


Cheers



André

 

[markbarendt]

Film is usually the most expensive item in the chain, before printing paper. the cost of film developer is almost immaterial.

Agreed. That's the reason that DD-X's cost is really not a big issue to me. That's not to say that I'm above saving a buck where I can. Saving 70 - 75 cents a roll means I can "afford". If I shoot 24 shot rolls it's like getting every eighth roll free.

My impression though that Rodinal might be a challenging choice but once I'm into the HC-110's, Ilfotec HC's, XTOL's, D-76/ID-11's, and DD-X's that can all do a respectable job with the Delta film's it comes down more to my skill and experience more than the chemistry.

If that's true, cost and convenience become reasonable ways to sort out the rest.

Is that a reasonable thought or are XTOL and/or DD-X that much better than the others?

If they are, specifically how?

I don't like keeping track of the freshness of developer and then wondering if it has lost a little juice. Xtol costs about $9 for a gallon of stock which is 2 gallons of 1:1 solution. Unless I have had a specific photo trip, that is more volume than I am likely to use in 2 months of casual shooting. So just mix a new gallon every other month for $60 per year max and you have no worries. Or spend about $15 for a bottle of Rodinal or HC-110 and try to milk it for a whole year saving $45. Unless you truly prefer those developers, the $45 per year savings are not worth it.

This is the same logic I was using for DD-X but, with DD-X it keeps better and I have a 6 month window with partially filled bottles. I'd probably use the DD-X up in 3-4 months so I would not be tossing any and the yearly cost would be nearly identical.

So is D400 in XTOL going to significantly better than D400 in DD-X? How?

 

[wogster]

Wayne,

It's my understanding that the HC-110 concentrate will last almost indefinitely and that DD-X in a partially filled bottle will go 6 months. I just mix up what I need that day with either.

Kodak actually claims 2 months in partially filled bottles of XTOL stock solutions, 6 months in full sealed bottles. 5 liters of stock mixed 1 & 1 means I need to be shooting 40 rolls in 2 months or I'd have to decant into various bottles that would need to be kept at a well controlled temp, a temp that would be tough to manage in my home. This is a pretty tight time line and a hassle.

Which brings me to Tex,



The reason I don't like ID-11 so much is that I don't use it fast enough to keep up with it's shelf life once it's mixed. That means I store up films rather than developing as I go. That's a real pain.

I want to be able to mix for 1, 2, or 4 rolls, whatever I shot over the last week, without worrying that I need to shoot 16 more in the next 30 days.

Staying with Ilford is why I thought about DD-X. I still like the idea.

Storage of developer between rolls, I have a few comments.

1) Full bottles last longer, this means that you need something to make up lost volume, marbles and glass beads work quite well, just add enough to your developer bottle to bring the volume to the top, and use a good sealing cap.

2) My darkroom used to vary from 10℃ to 25℃ and I never had trouble with mixed developers stored in those temperature ranges. You want them warmer when using them, but the jug was usually fine, (I used ID11 in those days). So even if you need to store 3 or 4 bottles, the storage temperature is not critical, wouldn't want to let get much below about 10℃ though, I would say 5℃ is probably the absolute limit though.

3) When they say that a developer is good for 2 months, it doesn't suddenly on the 61st day die, but gradually deteriorates from fresh. Ilford tends to be very conservative with these numbers, so you might be happy with it even 3 months out.

4) Some developers are available in smaller packets, ID11 is I think available in 1L and 5L, so maybe try the smaller packet, although the price for a 1L packet is not that much less then for a 5L packet, so your probably better off to buy the 5L packet, mix it up and if you only use 2L then that's fine, it's still cheaper then the 1L packets, and also cheaper then the 1L of DDX concentrate

 

[markbarendt]

Storage of developer between rolls, I have a few comments.

1) Full bottles last longer, this means that you need something to make up lost volume, marbles and glass beads work quite well, just add enough to your developer bottle to bring the volume to the top, and use a good sealing cap.

That's a great thought wogster.

2) My darkroom used to vary from 10℃ to 25℃ and I never had trouble with mixed developers stored in those temperature ranges. You want them warmer when using them, but the jug was usually fine, (I used ID11 in those days). So even if you need to store 3 or 4 bottles, the storage temperature is not critical, wouldn't want to let get much below about 10℃ though, I would say 5℃ is probably the absolute limit though.

3)When they say that a developer is good for 2 months, it doesn't suddenly on the 61st day die, but gradually deteriorates from fresh. Ilford tends to be very conservative with these numbers, so you might be happy with it even 3 months out.

Don't doubt that a bit. As discussed above though the cost of developer is so small compared to rest of the costs that using expired developer seems kinda silly.

I'm on a septic system and actually more worried about limiting the amount of waste.

4) Some developers are available in smaller packets, ID11 is I think available in 1L and 5L, so maybe try the smaller packet, although the price for a 1L packet is not that much less then for a 5L packet, so your probably better off to buy the 5L packet, mix it up and if you only use 2L then that's fine, it's still cheaper then the 1L packets, and also cheaper then the 1L of DDX concentrate

At working solution strength, the difference in cost of 5 liters of ID-11 and 5 liters of DD-X is only $5 or $6. We're talking $20-$30 a year difference at my volume. If I end up tossing 6 leftover liters of ID-11 because I don't trust it past 60 days, I'm breaking even with DD-X.

Given such a small difference, if any, in yearly cost I don't really see what advantage ID-11 has that DD-X might lack.

 

[markbarendt]

Okay, I gotta ask this of all you die-hard powder developer guys because I'm just not seeing any advantage in powders over HC-110 or DD-X but you keep suggesting them even after I said I didn't want powders.

Maybe I don't know what I'm missing.

Assume the only thing I care about is a great negative and that cost makes no difference unless the results are at least equal to HC-110 or DD-X.

Remember that I'm shooting this film, 35mm D400, at EI's from 200 to 3200 and I only want one developer.

So what specifically does your favorite powder do better than HC-110 and/or DD-X?

Better speed?
Better grain?
Better highlights?
Better shadow?
Better midtones?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You will find, Mark, that it is very difficult to get an objective view of how one developer is better than another.

Once again - a lot of the 'magic' that happens between exposure and the great prints you see by the masters has to do with skill and very little to do with the film developer used. Any of the developers in this thread will, if you work at it, yield an amazing negative.

"Better" is difficult to explain. I know about Ilfotec DD-X, Rodinal, HC-110, Pyrocat, FA-1027, and to some extent Xtol and Edwal 12. Those are the developers that I've used enough that I can say I understand them.
Out of these, DD-X, Xtol, Edwal 12, and somewhat HC-110, will give you great film speed (shadow detail), and fine grain. The highlights and midtones are very much determined by development time and how you agitate. But out of the three I much prefer Edwal 12 for its very fine highlight separation AND brilliance. Some people may not like that 'brilliance'.

My favorite developers here are undoubtedly Rodinal and Edwal 12. Rodinal for the sharp and crisp negatives I get using reduced agitation techniques in combination with high dilution. Acutance is phenomenal and my prints come out very vivid with great midtone separation and a lot of information in the entire spectrum from black to white. Edwal 12 for its incredibly fine grain, soaringly beautiful highlights, and film speed. This developer yields a print that is sharp, has great impact, and beautiful tonal shifts (especially in the highlights).

They suit how I print, both with standard and lith chemistry. So for me all of the above is better for me with those two developers than the others. But it's fairly marginal.
Don't beat yourself up over this. Others will tell you what their favorite developer is, and getting that objective hard data of what makes one better than the other is just plain difficult.

- Thomas

 

[wogster]

That's a great thought wogster.



Don't doubt that a bit. As discussed above though the cost of developer is so small compared to rest of the costs that using expired developer seems kinda silly.

I'm on a septic system and actually more worried about limiting the amount of waste.



At working solution strength, the difference in cost of 5 liters of ID-11 and 5 liters of DD-X is only $5 or $6. We're talking $20-$30 a year difference at my volume. If I end up tossing 6 leftover liters of ID-11 because I don't trust it past 60 days, I'm breaking even with DD-X.

Given such a small difference, if any, in yearly cost I don't really see what advantage ID-11 has that DD-X might lack.

The idea of using marbles or glass beads is not new, it's been around for at least 40 years. With septic systems, developers don't really do much, fixers on the other hand... Used fixer contains silver, silver is a very good bactericide, and septic systems depend on bacteria to break down the contents, so if your using a septic system, then check to see where the nearest hazardous waste depot (HWD) is, collect up your fixer and film wash water (use the Ilford minimal wash method) and take it to the HWD for disposal. Maybe get a 10 or 20L bottle or barrel to put these chemicals in, and when it's near full take it to the HWD, used and expired developer can go in the bottle or barrel as well,*without harming anything if your concerned.

If DD-X works for you, then use DD-X, it's not a bad developer, the real advantage that powders have, is if your ordering your chemistries from elsewhere, with a powder developer packets last forever on the shelf if they don't get wet. A packet of ID-11 weighs almost nothing, if your ordering from a place like Freestyle or Darkroom Central you can order a years supply of ID-11 at once. Don't forget that shipping costs are front end loaded, you pay the most for 1lb, subsequent pounds cost very little.

Liquid developers like DD-X would need to be ordered on an as needed basis, and you end up paying to essentially ship water, water weighs 1kg/L so needing to order twice a year means double the shipping costs. If you really want a liquid developer the highly concentrated ones, like Kodak HC-110, Ilfotec HC and Rodinal, might work well for you.

 

[gainer]

It may seem that I have a financial interest in the manufacture of ascorbic acid, but the combination of 1+50 Rodinal and a teaspoon of sodium or potassium ascorbate per liter may suit some of you. It happens that 1 tsp of ascorbic acid and 1/2 tsp of sodium bicarbonate added to a little water and allowed to effervesce, then added to the Rodinal solution, will do the job. The 1+50 now acts like 1+25 and the grain is better.

 

[gainer]

P.S.
You can add it to HC-110 working solution as well.