What are the different classes of developers

[MingMingPhoto]

what are the different classes of developers and how can I identify them?

also what are the top three developers of every class?

for example I learned that d76 is a moderate developer. not known for acutance or anything special. it is also very popualar. what are two other developers that would fall into this category and waht are al lthe other categories?

solvent, non solvent meaning + effect
staining vs non staining meaning + effect

 

[mshchem]

I learned that d76 is a moderate developer. not known for acutance or anything special

D76 is commonly used, it is a fabulous developer. Can be an entire study done with D76, different dilution schemes, agitation etc.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Low, moderate, and high contrast. Low grain, moderate grain, grainy. One shot, and replenished. Diluted developers. Then there are non-staining, and staining developers. By using them, you will gain a better understanding of each developer's characteristics/qualities...

 

[koraks]

Developers are also sometimes classified on the basis of their constituents, esp. developing agents. E.g. PQ (phenidone-hydroquinone) vs MQ (metol-hydroquinone) and more recently also PC and MC (replacing hydroquinone with vitamin C).

The problem with these classes, however, is that they overlap and they are sometimes ill-defined. For instance:

for example I learned that d76 is a moderate developer.

What does that mean, a "moderate" developer? It doesn't say much/anything and only muddies the waters.

I'd not spend too much time and effort in studying how to classify developers, but instead on understanding the mechanisms that are involved in silver halide development. Solvent action, surface development, superadditivity, restraining, local exhaustion etc.

 

[Steven Lee]

Low, moderate, and high contrast.

What do you mean? Contrast can be high/moderate/low with any developer depending on time+temperature+dilution+agitation.

@MingMingPhoto There are several dimensions to slice&dice developers, but IMO the most practical framework is the speed/grain/acutance triangle. Every developer offers a balance of those 3, and I roughly see 4 categories:

• Speed boosting (Microphen)
• Highly solvent AKA "fine" grain (Perceptol)
• High acutance (Ilfosol 3)
• Balanced AKA "normal" (D76, Xtol)

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Solvent developers (fine grain):

• D-23 (stock and 1:1)
• D-76 (stock and 1:1)
• ID-11 (stock and 1:1)
• Xtol (stock and (1:1)
• Microphen
• DD-X

Non-solvent developers:

• Rodinal
• HC-110
• Ilfotec HC
• FX-37
• FX-39
• D-23, D-76 and ID-11 at 1:3 dilution become compensating developers

High acutance (high definition) developers

• FX-1
• FX-2

Staining developers

• Pyrocat-HD
• 510 Pyro
• PMK

There are no "top-three" in each class. That's not how it works. No developer is better than another. They each work differently than the other, and some, like Rodinal will give different results according to dilution (1:25 vs 1:50 vs 1:75 vs 1:100) or time (FX-2 normal vs FX-2 stand). Whether you like or not the result is a question of taste, style, etc. A good photo is a good photo, no matter what the film/developer combination was.

All these developers are available, as are a few others not mentioned. As I wrote in your other thread, The Film Developing Cookbook has all the info you need on these and a few others that may no longer be commercially available.

 

[Don_ih]

What do you mean? Contrast can be high/moderate/low with any developer depending on time+temperature+dilution+agitation.

You would generally classify a developer with those variables fixed. So, you classify D76 in its stock form, used at the recommended temperature for the recommended time, using the recommended agitation scheme.

 

[Milpool]

There are some broad generalizations/classifications that can be made, but even these are problematic in the context of modern/contemporary emulsion technology. Much of what is written on the internet and in most of the books out there is regurgitated ancient history and/or bad information, and some things such as "sharpness" can be tricky.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

What do you mean? Contrast can be high/moderate/low with any developer depending on time+temperature+dilution+agitation.

@MingMingPhoto There are several dimensions to slice&dice developers, but IMO the most practical framework is the speed/grain/acutance triangle. Every developer offers a balance of those 3, and I roughly see 4 categories:

• Speed boosting (Microphen)
• Highly solvent AKA "fine" grain (Perceptol)
• High acutance (Ilfosol 3)
• Balanced AKA "normal" (D76, Xtol)

I can get way more contrast with D-19's normal time than I can with XTol's normal time when working with HP5. HP5's low zones and B+F increase considerably with increased dev times. They do with D-19 but not as much. I am able to print HP5 in Carbon Transfer. I cannot with XTol.

 

[Saganich]

I think with solvent developers using dilutions of the same formula yields different enough results compared to stock that the dilutions ought to be considered like a low class high definition developer.

 

[markjwyatt]

Get this book.

The Film Developing Cookbook, Bill Troop, Steve Anchell

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

And nobody has mentioned "physical" Vs "chemical" development...

Speaking of muddying the waters, I once tried developing film in muddy water - no luck, even after 24 hours. I figured if old coffee, tea and the contents of the spice cupboard would work why not good organic mud; maybe if I added a bit more carbonate...

 

[markjwyatt]

And nobody has mentioned "physical" Vs "chemical" development...

Speaking of muddying the waters, I once tried developing film in muddy water - no luck, even after 24 hours. I figured if old coffee, tea and the contents of the spice cupboard would work why not good organic mud; maybe if I added a bit more carbonate...

To muddy it further, even caffinol can fail, especially if the main ingredient was fresh ground.

 

[Paul Howell]

Solvent developers (fine grain):

• D-23 (stock and 1:1)
• D-76 (stock and 1:1)
• ID-11 (stock and 1:1)
• Xtol (stock and (1:1)
• Microphen
• DD-X

Non-solvent developers:

• Rodinal
• HC-110
• Ilfotec HC
• FX-37
• FX-39
• D-23, D-76 and ID-11 at 1:3 dilution become compensating developers

High acutance (high definition) developers

• FX-1
• FX-2

Staining developers

• Pyrocat-HD
• 510 Pyro
• PMK

There are no "top-three" in each class. That's not how it works. No developer is better than another. They each work differently than the other, and some, like Rodinal will give different results according to dilution (1:25 vs 1:50 vs 1:75 vs 1:100) or time (FX-2 normal vs FX-2 stand). Whether you like or not the result is a question of taste, style, etc. A good photo is a good photo, no matter what the film/developer combination was.

All these developers are available, as are a few others not mentioned. As I wrote in your other thread, The Film Developing Cookbook has all the info you need on these and a few others that may no longer be commercially available.

This a very good list, groups that translate into how a developer will affect the final image. In addition there are divided developers including Diafine, Divided D76 and 23. Divided developers tend to be compensating or simicompentating meaning that highlights developer at a slower rate than shadows. To the list of solvent I would add Clayton F76+.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Solvent developers (fine grain):

• D-23 (stock and 1:1)
• D-76 (stock and 1:1)
• ID-11 (stock and 1:1)
• Xtol (stock and (1:1)
• Microphen
• DD-X

Non-solvent developers:

• Rodinal
• HC-110
• Ilfotec HC
• FX-37
• FX-39
• D-23, D-76 and ID-11 at 1:3 dilution become compensating developers

High acutance (high definition) developers

• FX-1
• FX-2

Staining developers

• Pyrocat-HD
• 510 Pyro
• PMK

There are no "top-three" in each class. That's not how it works. No developer is better than another. They each work differently than the other, and some, like Rodinal will give different results according to dilution (1:25 vs 1:50 vs 1:75 vs 1:100) or time (FX-2 normal vs FX-2 stand). Whether you like or not the result is a question of taste, style, etc. A good photo is a good photo, no matter what the film/developer combination was.

All these developers are available, as are a few others not mentioned. As I wrote in your other thread, The Film Developing Cookbook has all the info you need on these and a few others that may no longer be commercially available.

Which class does XTOL belong to?

 

[Bill Burk]

From 3rd edition Modern Developing Methods - Edwal 1946

 

[Paul Howell]

I would follow Alex's thoughts, it is less important to me how a developer works, what agent it used, rather the results.

 

[john_s]

Bill, your list doesn't have any type of Phenidone, a serious omission these days.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

If OP is still intent in running the tests mentioned in his other post, he should be reminded that there are few developers that are just one developer. D-23 and D-76 do not give the same results at stock, 1:1 or 1:3 ; Rodinal is at least five developers, if you just count the main usages, 1:25, 1:50, 1:75, 1:100 normal development and 1:100 stand development ; Pyro developers are used at normal development, semi-stand development, stand development, extreme minimal agitation, as well as in different dilutions ; for some, such as HC-110, there is still debate whether different solutions yield different results or not, but if you are testing, you should at least try a few so you can figure that out.

Now, going through the list I've posted above (adding some I forgot, such as T-max developer, Perceptol and Ilfosol 3), if you want to be thorough and try all significant (or possibly significant) variations of one developer, you'll end up with something between 30 and 40 "different" (or possibly different) developers.

Let's keep playing and say you want to test all main Ilford films — Pan F+, FP4+, HP5+, Delta 100, Delta 400, Delta 3200, and XP2 (leaving out Ortho and Kentmere for now) —, you end up with somewhere between 210 and 280 possible film/developer combinations. Add Kodak's Tri-X, T-Max 100, T-Max 400 and T-Max 3200, that's between 120 and 160 more, and you're up to somewhere between 330 and 440 combinations. And we haven't looked at Adox, Kentmere, Foma and others.

That also means that for each film, you have to shoot between 30 and 40 times the same scene in the same exact condition.

I don't know how much time you have on your hands, but supposing you can shoot and develop between 10 and 20 films a week, that's still a lot of time devoted to your test project. Time and money — even if you do half of it with just one film, say 15 developer variations with just Tri-X, that's still a lot of time and money.

Not saying you shouldn't. Honestly, if I were young, rich, and with a lot of time on my hands, I'd probably do it.

EDIT: thought about it, and no, would still rather go out and have fun with the camera.

 

[MingMingPhoto]

Get this book.

The Film Developing Cookbook, Bill Troop, Steve Anchell

I had it but never opened it till now

Which class does XTOL belong to?

Xtol is solvent + it's speed increasing similar to microphen - film developing cookbook

Bill, your list doesn't have any type of Phenidone, a serious omission these days.

what is this?

If OP is still intent in running the tests mentioned in his other post, he should be reminded that there are few developers that are just one developer. D-23 and D-76 do not give the same results at stock, 1:1 or 1:3 ; Rodinal is at least five developers, if you just count the main usages, 1:25, 1:50, 1:75, 1:100 normal development and 1:100 stand development ; Pyro developers are used at normal development, semi-stand development, stand development, extreme minimal agitation, as well as in different dilutions ; for some, such as HC-110, there is still debate whether different solutions yield different results or not, but if you are testing, you should at least try a few so you can figure that out.

Now, going through the list I've posted above (adding some I forgot, such as T-max developer, Perceptol and Ilfosol 3), if you want to be thorough and try all significant (or possibly significant) variations of one developer, you'll end up with something between 30 and 40 "different" (or possibly different) developers.

Let's keep playing and say you want to test all main Ilford films — Pan F+, FP4+, HP5+, Delta 100, Delta 400, Delta 3200, and XP2 (leaving out Ortho and Kentmere for now) —, you end up with somewhere between 210 and 280 possible film/developer combinations. Add Kodak's Tri-X, T-Max 100, T-Max 400 and T-Max 3200, that's between 120 and 160 more, and you're up to somewhere between 330 and 440 combinations. And we haven't looked at Adox, Kentmere, Foma and others.

That also means that for each film, you have to shoot between 30 and 40 times the same scene in the same exact condition.

I don't know how much time you have on your hands, but supposing you can shoot and develop between 10 and 20 films a week, that's still a lot of time devoted to your test project. Time and money — even if you do half of it with just one film, say 15 developer variations with just Tri-X, that's still a lot of time and money.

Not saying you shouldn't. Honestly, if I were young, rich, and with a lot of time on my hands, I'd probably do it.

EDIT: thought about it, and no, would still rather go out and have fun with the camera.

I'm gonna reread this comment another time. yo ushould head back to the other post becasue I don't think you understand what i'm doing. this is really for ME and I'm sharing iwth the community becasue there is someone who might find it useful. I'm not looking to find the objective right answer of all truth of the universe. I shoot TX on my camera. I'm going to run the experiment for my workflow. get this - I bet I'll still have time to go shoot after I'm done running the experiment.

 

[MingMingPhoto]

Thank you everyone for responding!!

 

[Paul Howell]

I had it but never opened it till now


Xtol is solvent + it's speed increasing similar to microphen - film developing cookbook


what is this?


I'm gonna reread this comment another time. yo ushould head back to the other post becasue I don't think you understand what i'm doing. this is really for ME and I'm sharing iwth the community becasue there is someone who might find it useful. I'm not looking to find the objective right answer of all truth of the universe. I shoot TX on my camera. I'm going to run the experiment for my workflow. get this - I bet I'll still have time to go shoot after I'm done running the experiment.

Regardless of what is online, or what Kodak, ILford and Foma include in the datasheets, I think it is a good idea to test film and developer combinations. Although difference are often subtle those small difference often make the difference in tones, film, speed, and acutance that could tip the scale in which combination you decide on. My only caution, once you find a pairing you like stick with it, don't go on the everlasting hunt for something that might be better.

 

[Bill Burk]

You know, what I would do if I were running a community darkroom, would be to put up a wall poster showing the different kinds of developers and what you can expect from them.

I’d have an MQ (Or PQ) standard like D-76/ID-11 always available but also would support a Pyro and maybe two or three others.

I don’t think it needs to be an exhaustive set, just a representative group with an emphasis on diverse creative results.

So maybe a lith developer and one other.