what is the WORST! developer you have ever used and why?

Eco pro stuff is pretty bad, and easily the worst i have used. Its nice to the environment though and has no hydro quinine.

wiltw said:

My personal worst first solution was fixer, when I grabbed the (wrong) bottle hurriedly while the brain was in neutral, and poured it in! whattadumbsh*t

Click to expand...

I did this too.

APUGuser19 said:

The worst film developer I've ever used? No question--Rodinal. But then I was doing small film. Probably great stuff in it's day, when view cameras and magnesium powder were the technology.

Click to expand...

It's excellent for 35mm work with the old Agfa APX100 or Tmax 100, very fine grainm excellent sharpness an tonality (good tonal range).

Ian

Apx 100 is unmatched in D76. Ohh la laaa!

dpurdy said:

Seems a bit funny to me you guys with the character assassination of Xtol. I have to speak up in it's defense because I have used it for custom film processing for at least literally 15,000 rolls of film and it was always the most dependable and all round best developer with none of the problems you speak of. I could and did build all the density I wanted and accidentally way more than I wanted with any film I processed. In 24 years of using it I don't know how many packs of it I went through.. but a lot... and it never had any such sudden death. I went through times of using it straight, or 1-1, replenished, and extended method.
I have to wonder if you guys don't have a problem with contamination.
Dennis

Click to expand...

+1

XTOL is one developer that I cannot complain about.

I've used most of the above developers with excellent results but I agree about the shelf life of Ilfosol and the Paterson liquid developer(s) of the 1970s. I haven't tried Caffenol but wouldn't expect good results anyway. The worst film speed I ever got was from 510-Pyro.

I'll stick with Xtol unless I need a staining developer for its effect on acutance and contrast control in which case I use Pyrocat.

I have had a few screw ups but not from developers.

Like D76/ID11, Rodinal, HC110, Ansco 130, Caffenol, DDX.

Right now D76 is my go to developer. As soon as I finish off the last 3 gallons I am going to start working with Caffenol again as I really did not get a chance to really get it working the way I want.

BTW jnanian, if you get around to cooking up some more beans let me know. I'm out.

So far I haven't drunk the Pyrocat and poured the coffee into the tank...but I'm getting older...

I had good results from Xtol when it wasn't dead, but was burned by the old 1L packets and also by the "sudden death with no symptoms" thing.

I've never been able to get results I really liked from Rodinal. I know that's heresy but there it is.

For years Diafine was all I used. I became a fan of two bath developers in general though I've never scratch mixed one as folks here talk about. It does seem true that modern films don't get quite the effects from them that older films did. Even Tri-X in Diafine, while still a great combo, isn't quite like it used to be - not quite the effective speed. But I still like Diafine. I did try the old Cachet A/B though. Good speed, not a Diafine boost but at box speed negs were a bit too dense, good tonality - and grain like golf balls. I've never seen anything like it before or since. Others didn't have that problem and I wonder if some more fine tuning of the EI would have helped as my negs really looked overexposed at box speed but it was so grainy that even if I could have refined it some I judged it not worth it and went back to D76 or T-Max RS for normal stuff and Diafine for times when I needed its particular magick.

I like XTOL; it works, gets good shadow detail (i.e film speed), calms the highlights a bit, and is predictable.

Tom

Pioneer said:

I have had a few screw ups but not from developers.

Like D76/ID11, Rodinal, HC110, Ansco 130, Caffenol, DDX.

Right now D76 is my go to developer. As soon as I finish off the last 3 gallons I am going to start working with Caffenol again as I really did not get a chance to really get it working the way I want.

BTW jnanian, if you get around to cooking up some more beans let me know. I'm out.

Click to expand...

hi dan

i will be in touch !
the weather has been too lousy
( i roast outside ) ...

thanks !
john

I figured that someone might pick rodinal as both their best and worst developer. Any thoughts?

Tetenol Ultrafin--it just develops the surface & gives an awful lot of grain.

chip j said:

Tetenol Ultrafin--it just develops the surface & gives an awful lot of grain.

Click to expand...

I've had problems with Ultrafin, processing 400 speed films. Suspect the developer is better suited to the likes of FP4+.

Tom

Ilfosol 2.

I do not believe there are bad developers, only bad developers. ;-)

I have never had an issue with a developer that was not, in the end, my own error.

Neal Wydra

Like many, I don't think there are any truly bad developers, but one can mis-match developers and films or formats.

For example, PMK is one of my favorite developers for 4x5 and 120 HP5+, but I find it results in grainy negatives when used on 35mm. Similarly I have had great results with HC-110 on 4x5 Tri-X, but didn't like the grain I got using it with 35mm. On the other hand, I preferred Microdol and D-76 1:1 with 35mm, but never tried either on 4x5.

More recently I ended up with uneven density in open sky on my 4x5 negatives using PMK, and switched to Pyrocat-HD which didn't seem to have the same problem. But when I look at older PMK negatives, there was no such unevenness. So I'm 99% convinced that the issue is not the developer, but either a change in my processing (although I haven't consciously changed anything in my tray developing) or more likely, some aging effect on the PMK (which might not be as immune to aging as I thought). So again, I would blame the issues on something other than the developer itself.

alanrockwood said:

I figured that someone might pick rodinal as both their best and worst developer. Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

Rodinal emphasises sharpness at the expense of grain. For slower films this isn't a problem. For faster films the already visible grain is even more clearly defined. For that reason I only use Rodinal for slow to medium speed films. Some people swear by Rodinal for up-rating fast film, so it all comes down to personal taste.

blockend said:

Rodinal emphasises sharpness at the expense of grain. For slower films this isn't a problem. For faster films the already visible grain is even more clearly defined. For that reason I only use Rodinal for slow to medium speed films. Some people swear by Rodinal for up-rating fast film, so it all comes down to personal taste.

Click to expand...

It can be great with fast film if you like a gritty sharp image-I used to use it with TMZ or 2475 Recording Film.

paulbarden said:

I don't believe there are any truly "bad" developers, only bad practices. Any developer can appear inferior if not used properly.

Click to expand...

+1 The OP reminds me of the saying that it is a bad craftsman that blames his tools. When used correctly most developers do the job they are designed for.

Developers are like ice cream, everyone has their own favorite. You just have to find the flavor that gives you the results you like.

I might be the only person on earth that hates D-76, I can't for the life of me understand why Kodak kept making the stuff after HC-110 came out.

But: I mixed up a batch of D-76 yesterday, I am going to see if I can overcome my dislike of the stuff and try and get good results.

Red Tractors said:

Developers are like ice cream, everyone has their own favorite. You just have to find the flavor that gives you the results you like.

I might be the only person on earth that hates D-76, I can't for the life of me understand why Kodak kept making the stuff after HC-110 came out.

But: I mixed up a batch of D-76 yesterday, I am going to see if I can overcome my dislike of the stuff and try and get good results.

Click to expand...

"try and get good results"? With D76??

funny.

Gerald C Koch said:

+1 The OP reminds me of the saying that it is a bad craftsman that blames his tools. When used correctly most developers do the job they are designed for.

Click to expand...

hi jerry

i did my best with xtol ... i used it by the book, as directed, even spoke the the good folks
at kodak professional about my problems. i changed my water supply
changed how i exposed FRESH film, and how i processed it and for a few years and put lots and lots of film through it.
i don't know how many 5L bags i went through, but it wasn't like i processed 1 or 3 rolls though it, shrugged my shoulders and called it a day...
i really wanted it to work because i had heard such great things about it ... so i did everything i could with it.

since i started processing my own film in around 1980 i haven't really used too many .. maybe 5 developers ...
so it isn't really that i am/was looking for a magic bullet, or i am a member of the developer of the month club. i stick to what i like
and to what i can depend on and what gives me results i can use. ( and seeing i do client work i can't be with my fingers crossed
hoping my developer will deliver ( no time for do-overs ) )

if your assessment of a craftsman without skill blaming his tools instead of his lack of skill were to be true
then the other developers i had used before + after would have given me negatives without density and contrast
and the oodles of sheets of film ( 60+ sheets a day for 10+ months ) i processed for the portrait photographer would have been useless as well.?
but it was pretty much the opposite. i can spot every negative and sheet of film i put though xtol of the thousands
i have processed ... they seem to lack the sparkle the others all have.

if i had a clue back when i was first using xtol i should have added a teensy bit of dektol to it ... and i might still be using "DEXTOL" today..
it seemed to do the trick with caffenol C ( when my results were thin and lacking contrast )

Developing noob here-- just 33 rolls in, and only mucking about in a small pool so take it with a grain of salt (or KBr if you please). Worst: Caffenol. Never gotten any result at all. How this started a movement is beyond me. Best: Caffenol - C. OK, now I get it. Having tried it on a bunch of films, I have a tip: Temperature seems crucial, especially if you're goofy like me and try to get a few rolls out of 1 brew. I just processed my 4th roll in a batch, and at exactly 20c (10 seconds in the microwave after storage under the kitchen sink here in SoCal) it worked like new.

Foma Fomadon Excel (W27), I tried this after Kodak dropped the 1 ltr size of Xtol. Crappy results, huge grain, fog and poor tonal range. Maybe I had a defective batch.