Two developer darkroom - What should I pair with Rodinal?

[cirwin2010]

In short I am currently using Rodinal and HC-110 in my darkroom, but I am running out of HC-110. I love Rodinal with certain films like Acros, but I reserve HC-110 for faster films like HP5. The HC-110 works well enough and I like it keeping properties, but feels a bit middle of the road when it comes to graininess and sharpness in 120 and 4x5 formats. Too gritty for for its lack of apparent sharpness, nor fine grained enough to justify it.

I only really want to keep two developers around in my darkroom and have them be different enough to have specific purposes. Xtol is a popular choice, but I don't want to keep 5 liters of it around nor would I be able to use it all before it goes bad. Pyrocat HD in glycol is something I'm possibly looking at, but I want to look at other options as well.

What sounds like a good pairing for Rodinal in the darkroom? Looking to try something new.

 

[koraks]

The universe is a big place Any chance of narrowing it down a little with some requirements/wishes?

 

[madNbad]

It’s a bit expensive but Ilfotec HC is a good replacement for HC-110. You can use the same dilution and it’s much closer to the original formula HC-110 than Kodaks new version.

 

[logan2z]

It’s a bit expensive but Ilfotec HC is a good replacement for HC-110. You can use the same dilution and it’s much closer to the original formula HC-110 than Kodaks new version.

I'm in a similar situation as the OP. I use Rodinal for slower speed films like FP4+ and HC-110 with HP5. I'm running low on my original formula HC-110 and bought a bottle of the new formula, but I'm unsure if I can use the same dilutions/development times. Are the old formula HC-110 dilutions/times applicable to Ilfotec HC? If not, are any of the other HC-110 clones similar enough to use the same dilutions/times? It would be great to be able to switch developers without having to redo a lot of testing, but maybe that's a pipedream.

 

[Donald Qualls]

For my darkroom, if I don't want Parodinal, I'll use either D-23 (same true film speed as Parodinal) or Xtol (almost a full stop higher true speed, with the sharpness of Rodinal and the fine grain of D-23). Both run replenished in my use, but both can be used one-shot or reused with time adjustment if you prefer.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use Rodinal and HC 110, in the past I kept as many as 5 developers on hand, MCM 100, DK 50, D76, and Clayton F76+, post and pandemic I just shoot enough film to keep most developers in use. As HC 110 is a middle of road type, a balance of speed, fine gain, and acuatance, I would pick another middle of the road type, D76, Clayton F76 are good choices. Freestyle sells rebranded Clayton as its house brand in small sizes. Photographers Formulary sells a 1 quart size of their version of D76. I plan on buying ILford's version of HC 110 when I use the last of my current bottle.

 

[MattKing]

Xtol is a popular choice, but I don't want to keep 5 liters of it around nor would I be able to use it all before it goes bad.

X-Tol is $18 for a 5 litre package at B&H, and generally not a lot more at other places.
If it only lasted the recommended 6 months, that is $3.60 per month.
Most of us regular users have no problem with X-Tol lasting much longer than that. 12 months is generally not a problem. That is $1.80 per month.
If you aren't using up 5 litres in e.g., a year, then any you decide to discard won't have cost you much money. And environmentally speaking, discarded X-Tol has very little impact.
Unopened packages will generally last a very long time, so the best practice is to buy two packets, mix up one, and have the second ready for mixing when you need it. And 5 litres of liquid takes less storage space than you might expect.
There are other reasons to consider other developers, but wastage of unused developer is less meaningful with X-Tol than you might initially think.

 

[albireo]

For my darkroom, if I don't want Parodinal, I'll use either D-23 (same true film speed as Parodinal) or Xtol (almost a full stop higher true speed, with the sharpness of Rodinal and the fine grain of D-23)

This is interesting, I've only used Adox XT-3 (Xtol clone) and not the real Xtol - though I have heard they should be pretty much identical. I also know very well a few versions of Rodinal (Foma and Adox). which I use exclusively in 1+50 dilution. I make my own D23 too, and use it 1+1.

In my experience XT-3 gives negatives that are less sharp than D23 and significantly less sharp than Rodinal 1+50.

 

[albireo]

What sounds like a good pairing for Rodinal in the darkroom? Looking to try something new.

I'm using Rodinal 1+50 and D23 1+1 for 80% of my 35mm and 120 negatives. I also have and use a few other exoteric ultra concentrated liquid developers.

A couple of days ago I purchased a bunch of 1L bags of the new Adox D76, which I will be using 1+1. If I like this more than the D23 (and I suspect I might given what I've seen in the past from ID11/Kodak D76), I will stop purchasing D23 ingredients and settle on Rodinal and Adox D76 for all of my development.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

What sounds like a good pairing for Rodinal in the darkroom?

We need a sommelier.

Here’s another direction: Diafine. I too was a Rodinal/HC110 guy (now strictly Rodinal, stand processed) but I kept jugs of Diafine handy for rolls shot under challenging exposures. It’s not an optimal developer but if you’re shooting Tri-X and there is anything on the negative, Diafine will coax it out. The stuff lasts forever and it’s fast and not temperature-sensitive.

 

[GregY]

We need a sommelier.

Agreed. I have used PMK and then Pyrocat HD in glycol as my only developer for decades now. Every film from Agfapan 25, the Ilfords Pan F, FP4,,Delta 3200, Kodak Tri-X, Tmax 100, Tmax400, Verichrome Pan, Bergger & Efke. Small tanks & open trays....

 

[pentaxuser]

We need a sommelier.

Nice one

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

In my experience XT-3 gives negatives that are less sharp than D23 and significantly less sharp than Rodinal 1+50.

How does D23 compare to XT-3 on film speed? Is it OK at box speed for instance?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[albireo]

How does D23 compare to XT-3 on film speed?

XT-3 wins here. I haven't tested this scientifically but I'd say based on what I'm seeing that D23 needs approx. 2/3rd stops overexposure wrt XT-3 to achieve similar shadow detail.

 

[Donald Qualls]

In my experience XT-3 gives negatives that are less sharp than D23 and significantly less sharp than Rodinal 1+50.

This can depend very strongly on your dilution and agitation, and on what you're actually seeing. Rodinal and its derivatives are well known to produce acutance artifacts (Mackie lines and their opposite whose name has slipped my mind) with high dilution and low agitation, but in normal agitation at 1:25 or 1:50 it's fairly ordinary for sharpness (though the unsoftened grain can also make an image appear sharper). In terms of real measured sharpness (resolution test charts with reference grade lenses), Xtol beats everything, even at stock strength, and gains a little at 1+1 or 1+3; I know of no reason to expect XT-3 to be any different. I've only used D-23 in stock strength (same for Xtol), but never had any complaints about sharpness with any of them. Unless you routinely enlarge beyond 4x, you likely can't actually tell the difference in a print, either (a scan viewed at 1:1 can lie in other ways, too).

My own trick for both Parodinal and D-23 is to agitate less and develop longer. Even with stock strength D-23, you can get all the way back to box speed simply by cutting agitation to five inversions every third minute and extending development 40%. Same is true for Parodinal (another speed loser), which I usually use at 1:50. I haven't tried this trick with Xtol, but I have no reason to believe the result will be any different -- and that would then be 2/3 to 1 stop above box speed measured in shadow detail. Presuming it works the same, the longer exposure to stock strength should also soften grain even more. I might have to give this a try next time I have a roll of Kentmere 100 or GP3 ready to go in the tank.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

My own trick for both Parodinal and D-23 is to agitate less and develop longer. Even with stock strength D-23, you can get all the way back to box speed simply by cutting agitation to five inversions every third minute and extending development 40%.

Donald, how do you feel about stand processing with dilute Rodinal? I use something shy of 1:100 and let it sit for an hour, with a few gentle inversions halfway through. I love the results and it is tolerant of exposure variations, over and under.

 

[pentaxuser]

. In terms of real measured sharpness (resolution test charts with reference grade lenses), Xtol beats everything, even at stock strength, and gains a little at 1+1 or 1+3; I know of no reason to expect XT-3 to be any different. I've only used D-23 in stock strength (same for Xtol), but never had any complaints about sharpness with any of them. Unless you routinely enlarge beyond 4x, you likely can't actually tell the difference in a print, either (a scan viewed at 1:1 can lie in other ways, too).

My own trick for both Parodinal and D-23 is to agitate less and develop longer. Even with stock strength D-23, you can get all the way back to box speed simply by cutting agitation to five inversions every third minute and extending development 40%.

Some very interesting points here Donald especially about D23's ability to get back to box speed with stock solution. That gives D23 an edge on simplicity of its formulation and its indefinite life in practical terms as you just make it up as you need it from two simple powder ingredients. It has to be close to top pf the league on cost as well

Given that at worse it is no better than Perceptol in terms of speed then at 1+3 and your agitation regime there would appear to be a chance that at 40% extension of development time D23 might even exceed box speed

pentaxuser

 

[mshchem]

X-Tol is $18 for a 5 litre package at B&H, and generally not a lot more at other places.
If it only lasted the recommended 6 months, that is $3.60 per month.
Most of us regular users have no problem with X-Tol lasting much longer than that. 12 months is generally not a problem. That is $1.80 per month.
If you aren't using up 5 litres in e.g., a year, then any you decide to discard won't have cost you much money. And environmentally speaking, discarded X-Tol has very little impact.
Unopened packages will generally last a very long time, so the best practice is to buy two packets, mix up one, and have the second ready for mixing when you need it. And 5 litres of liquid takes less storage space than you might expect.
There are other reasons to consider other developers, but wastage of unused developer is less meaningful with X-Tol than you might initially think.

Excellent analysis.
My dear wife buys little bottles of juice at Trader Joe's. These PET bottles, filled to the brim will keep XTOL indefinitely.
Biggest factors with XTOL are storage and proper water, if one can get over this that's how I would go.

 

[Craig]

I use wine bags from the homebrew store to keep Xtol in. They work very well.

 

[MattKing]

Oops - not $3.60/$1.80 per month - $3.00/$1.50 per month. Must have lost a month somewhere .

 

[albada]

Oops - not $3.60/$1.80 per month - $3.00/$1.50 per month. Must have lost a month somewhere .

It's hard to get upset over $3/month for Xtol, even if using only half of it.

Mark

 

[Steven Lee]

I like to think of B&W developers in terms of 3 categories, not 2:

1. High acutance developers. Rodinal is king, but the newer formulas like Ilfosol 3 or FX-39 should also be considered.
2. Normies. D76, Xtol, HC-110, Ilfotec HC. I always felt that the difference between them is negligible. I like Xtol due to its supposedly less toxic nature, but when I want convenience of a liquid, I go with Ilfotec HC.
3. Speed boosting developers. Shooting Delta 3200 or HP5+ at EI 1600? You need Microphen. There are probably others, but I like the convenience of 1L packets.

 

[albireo]

This can depend very strongly on your dilution and agitation, and on what you're actually seeing. Rodinal and its derivatives are well known to produce acutance artifacts (Mackie lines and their opposite whose name has slipped my mind) with high dilution and low agitation, but in normal agitation at 1:25 or 1:50 it's fairly ordinary for sharpness (though the unsoftened grain can also make an image appear sharper).

I have only observed the mentioned differences when using Rodinal 1+50 and XT-3 1+1 on 35mm material. Both of the developers were used according to the 'Ilford' agitation method: slow continuous inversions for the first minute, followed by 3 raps of the tank, and then 2x inversions every minute, at the beginning of the minute. I am not interested in stand, semistand, reduced agitation, or non standard dilution workflows as I'm happy with the consistency and look of the negatives I obtain with simple standard agitation+dilution methods.

I have not observed what I would call artifacts in my Rodinal negatives, but it might certainly be that the 'sharpness' I'm describing is a subjective description of sharpness particular to my workflow, and not an inherent characteristic of the potential of the two developers on paper. Also, I've not run a standardised experiment so mine are purely subjective impressions.

 

[ole-squint]

You might want to take a look at John Lynch's website, pictorialplanet.com. He also has quite a few youtube videos covering a lot of the ground being discussed here. He shows real world examples of his negatives from various developers. He primarily uses 35mm film. I can also recommend his book, "The Art of Black and White Developing". Not a listing of historical formulas as "The Darkroom Cookbook", and they're all currently available commercially. Or easily mixed yourself, like D-23. And he shows actual results of grain and sharpness.

 

[koraks]

look at John Lynch Finch's website, pictorialplanet.com

!

Keep in mind his website is mostly geared towards selling his own stuff, and features some really arguable statements on e.g. alkaline stop and fixer.