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

[removed account4]

what is the worst developer you have ever used, and why ?


me, it has to be xtol, and while i love mixing it ( it is fun to watch the orange disappear )
i used it for years and never could get enough contrast or density out of my film.
i did use it for years, it wasn't just a mix 1L and use it and not like it sort of thing.

( even though I tried to process some stuff with alum hardener .. I'm sticking with xtol )

 

[wiltw]

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

 

[Jim Noel]

XTOL - doesn't produce necessary contrast even with long development, and twice I have had it die in the original package.

 

[John Bragg]

Not had many disasters, but the worst has been Ilfosol 2 which had a habit of sudden death, like Xtol, even in unopened bottles ! Capable of some outstanding results, but only when fresh. I believe that Ilfosol 3 has improved on that. Also I can not get Rodinal to work as well as some folks do. At least not in a consistent manner.

 

[jim appleyard]

I'd have to go with the divided devs in Darkroom Cookbook. This may not be the devs fault, tho. It has been said many times that film emulsions are just too thin for divided devs to work as they used to. IDK.

Had good luck with Xtol the couple of times I used it; Rodinal has never let me down.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Caffenol, because I have crappy results with it. But it is just me, I guess.

 

[dpurdy]

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

 

[blockend]

Some developer works better with particular films. If they're matched, most turn out an acceptable negative. The college where I learnt in the 1970s used something called PQ Universal, which could be used for films and paper if I recall correctly. Being young and inexperienced, we blamed our lacklustre results on the cameras, lenses, film, exposure and personal stupidity, but in hindsight the mediocre technical quality was largely down to the developer, because I never got results as bad since.

Edit: Ilford still make it, so I suppose it works for some people! Maybe someone who appreciates its qualities will contribute to the thread?

 

[removedacct1]

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

 

[removed account4]

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

hi Dennis.
I'm not trying to assassinate xtol' character. I know of people that use it and love it and I tried ...

when xtol originally came out I was told by a lady who did some of my printing for me
that it was a great developer and I should try it. she had met the couple who formulated it,
and I did my best to use it. i mixed it with distilled water, as well as tap water, I used it
as instructed ( you probably remember the pamphlet with all the dilutions and developing times )
I never did the excessive 1:10 or whatever it was they suggested back in the day, but I used it either straight or 1:1. and 1 shot ... I just could never ger used to it. my film was always sort of thinnish, even if I extended development vy 30 or 50%, even over exposed film ... I stuck with it though,
tried to be loyal ... kept using it with sheet film in small tanks with hangers and roll film in hand tanks ..
eventually I ran out of $$ and decided to use something else I had laying around.... and really never looked back ...

maybe it was user error, probably ... who knows...
I have to admit a few years ago I bought some more to try it again ... still didn't work well for me, so
I used somethng else ....
john

 

[MartinP]

I was going to say that by far the worst developer I had ever used was rapidfix, but I see that I'm not the only one. The accidental test is something one only does once, early on, for obvious reasons...

 

[MattKing]

I was going to say that by far the worst developer I had ever used was rapidfix, but I see that I'm not the only one. The accidental test is something one only does once, early on, for obvious reasons...

I find that a pre-soak, followed by stop bath, followed by fixer is an even worse developer

 

[R.Gould]

Fotospeed fd10, tried everything to get some sort of a negative, the published times were so way out I could not get an image at all, not even edge marking. double the time and I get a thin image, not printable, and could barely read edge marking, finally gave up on the stuff and poured 5 litres down the drain, worst film developer I have ever used bar none, sticking to Rodinal/d76 they never let me down

 

[pdeeh]

Without doubt the worst developer I ever used was the one that I liked but someone else hated

 

[fotch]

I once used a do all 1 bath develop fix solution. It did work but the negatives had murky grain the size of marbles. I don,t remember what it was called but it was really bad. This was from the early 1960's. Anyone else ever used it or remember it?

 

[railwayman3]

Some developer works better with particular films. If they're matched, most turn out an acceptable negative. The college where I learnt in the 1970s used something called PQ Universal, which could be used for films and paper if I recall correctly. Being young and inexperienced, we blamed our lacklustre results on the cameras, lenses, film, exposure and personal stupidity, but in hindsight the mediocre technical quality was largely down to the developer, because I never got results as bad since.

Edit: Ilford still make it, so I suppose it works for some people! Maybe someone who appreciates its qualities will contribute to the thread?

When I first started photography as a schoolboy, Johnsons of Hendon made something similar by the name of "Universol", which, IIRC, suffered from being a compromise formula.
I was advised by the master running our school camera club to try "Unitol", from the same makers, which, again IIRC, was a one-shot developer using one ounce per film with adjusted times for different films....much more predictable.

 

[Ian Grant]

Kodak D163 which was sold as a Universal developer, it was recommended by the girl in the photography section at the chemists (drug store). I'd borrowed a Yashicamat 124G to try roll-film annd had grain like golf balls. It was quite common here in the UK for chemists shops to have a Photography section selling cameras, films, chemicals etc.

I think D163 was never made or sold by Eastman Kodak, it was a Kodak Ltd UK developer.

Ian

 

[Matt Fattori]

I'm sure the fault lies with my use of it but I never could get decent results with Rollei High Speed...HATE that stuff!

 

[snapguy]

hc 110

I could never get excited about HC 110. I started to use it years ago instead of D76 and I could not see that it was better, at least for what we were doing, which was developing film for a busy photo news service bureau. Most of the photogs had their own stash of susper dooper developer they would use instead of the HC 110. I was a lowly lab tech at the time. I think Kennedy was president then, or was it that guy from Taxes. Rolleiflexes were a big thing with newspaper photogs at the time.

 

[railwayman3]

I once used a do all 1 bath develop fix solution. It did work but the negatives had murky grain the size of marbles. I don,t remember what it was called but it was really bad. This was from the early 1960's. Anyone else ever used it or remember it?

Yes, I can remember it, used it once but not impressed. Wasn't there also a kit of some kind which actually developed the film inside the cassette ?

 

[brian steinberger]

I remember trying FA-1027 and also mixing a simple 2 bath, both were super thin. Worthless negs. But I'm sure if I would have worked with those developers I would have cut my EI in half and they would have worked fine. I always tried to keep true ISO of films as high as possible.

I agree that any developer will do the job once you get things dialed in, though some film/developer combos aren't so hot (HP5 and rodinal comes to mind), but that's subjective of course. I stick with what works well for me for all the films I shoot, ID-11 and rodinal.

 

[MDR]

Ilfosol 2 and sudden death it wasn't a bad developer but just not predictable enough will it work or not.

 

[NB23]

Yes, Ilfosol-2. Great results but died quickly.

I really like ilfosol-3 now!

 

[cliveh]

I'm told you can develop film in urine. I haven't tried it, but would expect D76 or Rodinal to have an edge on that.

 

[blockend]

I stick with what works well for me for all the films I shoot, ID-11 and rodinal.

Same here, Rodinal for 100 ASA-, ID-11 for 400ASA+.