The Developer Project

There have been a few posts lately comparing developer X to developer Y along with the "which developer is best for film Z."

What I propose is this:

Let's build a comprehensive thread about every developer that we've used. This would be a different thread for each developer.

Something like this:
(Post title) Developer Project: HC-110

HC-110 is a (blank) developer (compensating? high accutance?, etc.)
It is great for films X and Y and really is not lovely with film Z.
In general, it is good if you want these kinds of results (grainy, smooth, etc.) and any kinds of anecdotal information, special forumlae or tricks you've found to work (Cardwell's notes on semi-stand for Rodinal, for instance) or things to avoid (including any notes on toxicity!). Also maybe some images (links to gallery posts?) that were done in those dev/film combinations, and links to well-known treatises on the dev. EG, Covington's HC-110 page or Unblinking Eye's Rodinal page.

Im quite sure that different posts in the threads will have differing (if not contradictory!) information. That's fine. Maybe we can dig into those contradictions and find out their causes.

When we've exhausted our knowledge and opinions on this, I'll make a meta-thread with an index to each of the developers so we can have them all in one place.

If this has already been done (I searched the forums for this, I promise! ) somewhere, please let me know, or if we already have enough of this hashed out on any or all developers that I just need to make the meta-thread, that's fine -- just say so. I'll take those off the list.

Thanks!

-Clint

Clint,

you could try:

Massive Developer Chart

Happy New Year

phfitz said:

Clint,

you could try:

Massive Developer Chart

Happy New Year

Click to expand...

MDC is great (if not the definitive source!) for development times and some very specific notes about films/devs, but I'm hoping for very comprehensive information. Peoples' experiences and results and anecdotes.

Would be better to create a subforum called "The Developer Project" and post the threads in there..

Sean said:

Would be better to create a subforum called "The Developer Project" and post the threads in there..

Click to expand...

What about a wiki? Threads can often create pages and pages of discussion.

It would be good to post development times (N, N+, N-, developing method, etc) also for us sheet film users who are too lazy to do proper testing like me......and for those who want to try out a developer before testing. Unblinkingeye did it once, but I suspect apug could do something more comprehensive given the number for folks on the site.

Here's a start:

Dead Link Removed

If it is to make sense, all aspects of the experience must be repeatable by one who did not do the test. We have seen conflicting reports from two or more who seem to have used the same developer on the same film in the same way. Maybe personal magnetism is real and not just personality, but I lean toward differences in measuring exposure which are not so easily reconciled. I asked one time, and never got a straight answer, exactly what it means to me when someone else says "I use ISO 200 on this film whose box speed is 400." I have the feeling that 6 of us could measure the same scene and get 6 different results. We might in fact wind up with the same f-stop and shutter speed simply through different measurement techniques, but as soon as I use your film speed with my technique, our exposures will be different. Yet these differences enter into such characteristics as granularity and sharpness.

Yes, I'm an old grouch. After 79 years I'm entitled.

Thanks for posting your initial data, Fred. Good start! Here are a couple of comments:

Expose and develop each frame to the same Contrast Index, if possible.

Some of your frames appear to show the effects of camera and/or subject
movement.

You might consider using a USAF resolution target (from Edmund Scientific) as your subject, along with a Stouffer 21 step density scale.

gainer said:

If it is to make sense, all aspects of the experience must be repeatable by one who did not do the test. We have seen conflicting reports from two or more who seem to have used the same developer on the same film in the same way. Maybe personal magnetism is real and not just personality, but I lean toward differences in measuring exposure which are not so easily reconciled. I asked one time, and never got a straight answer, exactly what it means to me when someone else says "I use ISO 200 on this film whose box speed is 400." I have the feeling that 6 of us could measure the same scene and get 6 different results. We might in fact wind up with the same f-stop and shutter speed simply through different measurement techniques, but as soon as I use your film speed with my technique, our exposures will be different. Yet these differences enter into such characteristics as granularity and sharpness.

Click to expand...

I could not agree more. Few photographers can design a reliable, repeatable experiment to the standards of a modest laboratory; even fewer are willing to follow anyone else's methodology, unless they are besotted with hero-worship. Some of the variables:

Film speed up to +/- 1/3 stop from batch to batch

Film speed affected by dev +/- at least 2/3 stop AT ISO CONTRAST

+/- at least 1/2 stop for developing to more or less than ISO contrast

Meter variations +/- 1/3 stop with identical technique

Meter variations +/- at least 1/3 stop with identical meter and different technique/degree of optimism in reading scales

Thermometer variations of +/- 0.5 degrees C, 1 degree F

Timing from (a) adding dev or (b) dev fully added to (a') starting to drain (b') adding short stop/fix

Lens/body flare from almost unity to 2+

'Lazy' shutters -- often +1 stop with older ones

Variations in shutter efficiency with aperture

Development to suit condenser, condenser/diffuser, diffuser enlargers

Variations in what consitutes 'grade 2'

And that's just a start before we get into personal assessments of what constitutes 'fine grain', 'acutance', 'speed increase'...

This is, after all, why manufacturers advise you to establish your own EIs and dev times: it they could give more than guidelines, they would.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

You have all left out some important points.

1. A stand alone test is rather meaningless unless you have something to compare the developer with. This includes a standard exposure. So, if you adopt for example, Dektol 1:2 or 1:3 for prints and HC110 Dil B for film as your standard, then everyone can compare results, especially if you use a standard stepwedge as one of the exposures.

2. Developer capacity is critical in getting good results when more than one roll is processed with film or more than one print is processed with paper.

3. Shelf life of the concentrate and the working solution are also important when it comes to judging the worth of a developer.

What use would you have for a developer that gave the best results ever, but only came in a 1 gallon concentrate to make 10 gallons, and only lasted 1 week after you open the concentrate, 1 month for 10 gallons and only did 1 roll of 35mm per quart? It would be great reporting but useless economically. I have seen this when designing processing solutions in the past.

So, before you start, we should have a full planning session or the results will be nothing but a group of artifacts standing alone and meaningless.

PE

I think it will start one hell of a fight, let's do it.