What is your favorite film developer?

[FrankB]

Ilfotec DDX - One size fits all, liquid, one-shot. I switched over from Ilfosol-S when Ilford started recommending it across the board for their films. I do prefer it to Ilfosol... ...just don't ask me why or I'll whimper!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Agreed with veriwide on the Delta 400/Perceptol combo--really beautiful tonality and nice grain in a 400-speed film. I'd use it more if it came in sheet sizes.

 

[MikeK]

Would you share your perceptol/Delta 400 processing (EI & times). I have some 5x7 Delta 400 sitting in my freezer and you have picqued my interest in this combination.

- Mike

 

[JohnArs]

Hi

XTol for everything because I like to work with the best, from a german labor test!
XTol is very dangerous and is not for every one, but some people asked me on a exibition, if my pictures are made from MF? But they have been 35mm 400 ASA film!
So to keep it simple I work from 35mm-4x5 with XTol!!
So take it only if you want the best!;-)))

 

[Jim Chinn]

As the forecast here is for snow this weekend, I will shift gears and do my annual testing of a couple new materials. I am going to be working with Pyrocat-HD and Perceptol. I am looking forward to trying the Pyrocat and have read very good things about it. I have also read pretty good praise for perceptol with Delta 400 from David Goldfarb and others so I will be comparing it to Xtol and Xtol/Rodinal combinations. So I may have to resubmit my poll answers later this winter.

 

[philldresser]

I have always used ID-11 (25 years) but mixed up some Pyrocat-HD from advice from APUG users. I cant wait to try this on my 5x4 FP4.All I need now is the weather to change from Zone V grey like it has been for the last week.

Phill

 

[matt.s.]

For 35mm & medium format I use Calbe A49 1:1 (same as Agfa Atomal), This developer is outstanding with APX-400 & 100. In 8x10 I use Pyrocat-HD to process Fortepan 200 & Fp4 plus, also with excellent results.

 

[SteveGangi]

D76, 1 to 1. Why? It is easy to get, and its behavior is well known and predictable. I've always used it (and Microdol X occasionally as another "second" favorite").

 

[FrankB]

Newbie questions, forgive me if the answers are unbearably obvious!

Ilford recommend Ilfotec DDX across the board for all their B&W process films (correct me if I'm wrong), and yet I'm the only one here who's so far admitted to using it! So...

• Why do Ilford recommend it?
  What benefits can I expect from switching to something else?

I primarily use FP4+ and Delta 400, with a little Delta 100 and Delta 3200 thrown in for good measure. All views / opinions / information gratefully received.

Thanks,

Frank

 

[Eric Rose]

I use HC 110 for 99% of everything I do in B&W. Just a bit of PyroCat HD but might use it a bit more as I get use to it. I think if I was going to switch developers I would probably go to Xtol, but only if I switch to T grain technology type films such as TMax and Delta. Right now I enjoy APX and Tri-X to much to switch.

 

[lee]

I mainly use PMK as I stated before. But in the past I have used HC-110 and D-76 and Microdol-x. D-23 us a particular favorite of mine also. It really doesn't matter to me as long as I plan for the developer when I expose the film. All that matters is that it works the same way every time. I don't know about Pyrocat-HD but it receives good press.

lee\c

 

[Donald Miller]

I used HC 110 for a lot of years. I have used ID 11 and D 76 as well during that period. I have recently used ABC Pyro and even more recently Pyrocat HD. The print tonality and sharpness is hands down in the corner of Pyro developers. I have found Pyrocat to be develop more evenly. It works very well both for negatives designed for enlarging and also for contact printing.

 

[noseoil]

PMK pyro (but ABC is better)

 

[johnnywalker]

Good question Frank. I'm basically in the same boat as you and will also be interested in the answers!

John

 

[Ole]

Newbie questions, forgive me if the answers are unbearably obvious!

Ilford recommend Ilfotec DDX across the board for all their B&W process films (correct me if I'm wrong), and yet I'm the only one here who's so far admitted to using it! So...

• Why do Ilford recommend it?
  What benefits can I expect from switching to something else?

I primarily use FP4+ and Delta 400, with a little Delta 100 and Delta 3200 thrown in for good measure. All views / opinions / information gratefully received.

Thanks,

Frank

Many of us who have used Ilford products for a long time have formed habits. DDX is relatively new, so we haven't tested it properly yet. It is a "universal" developer, optimised for the Delta films, which I don't use anyway. The large bottles make a lot of developer, more than I use before the concentrate dies on me. It is also suddenly unavailable in Norway, so I'm not likely to try it again.

 

[Lex Jenkins]

I got the impression that Ilford listed DD-X as *compatible* with a wide range of films. Not quite the same thing as *recommended* for a wide range of films.

 

[Annemarieke]

Frank, I also use Ilford DD-X in combination with FP4+ rollfilms. It is a great developer for that film! I used to use D76 (and still do sometimes because I can't find DD-X in Holland and have to order it from the UK), but I prefer the DD-X.

 

[FrankB]

I got the impression that Ilford listed DD-X as *compatible* with a wide range of films. Not quite the same thing as *recommended* for a wide range of films.

To be honest, I'm not sure of the correct terminology on this one, Lex. As you correctly point out, the word "recommended" is mine not Ilford's.

I arrived at it by checking the current datasheets on Ilford's website. Each has a section entitled "Choosing the best Ilford developer for the job". The dev's are then split into powder and liquid. In the liquid column, DDX is generally (FP4+, HP5+, Delta 100, Delta 400, Delta 3200) listed as the choice for "Best overall image quality", "Finest grain", "Maximum film speed" and "One-shot convenience". The other categories are "maximum sharpness", "economy", "rapid processing" and "replenishable".

As my primary concerns are with image quality and (being a 35mm shooter) grain size (plus I like the convenience of a liquid) those were the criteria I used. I apologise if this was misleading.

Regards,

Frank

 

[Jorge Oliveira]

Frank

From your criteria, I would seriously consider Xtol 1+1 or more dilluted, or one of it's equivalents (homebrew).

Jorge O

 

[johnnywalker]

But why Xtol over the DDX? What exactly is better about it for the Ilford films mentioned?
John

 

[Black Dog]

Those wanting a homebrewed XTOL equivalent should try Mytol (see the Film Developing or Darkroom Cookbooks). See also D96 A in the former.

 

[Jorge Oliveira]

Nah, E76 is simpler to mix and good to boot.

See:

http://www.stanford.edu/~cpatton/yingui/e76.htm

Jorge O

 

[Jorge Oliveira]

John

Not exactly an answer for your question, but Xtol curves with many films (and other devs, also) are over here:

http://www.fotoimport.no/pg02/PG02-1-1.htm

It's in Norwegian, but it's possible to undestand some of the data (and the curves are self explanatory).

Look also at my favorite combo - PX and Xtol.

Jorge O

 

[H. G. Hart]

this turned out to be a really great discussion. thanks to all those who contributed. it looks like everyone has their own opinion when it comes to developing film.

 

[Adrian Twiss]

I used Dixactol up until I moved house last year. I got negatives that were sharp, fine grained and very easy to print with minimal burning in. The Pyrocatechin and glycol combination gave beautifully graded negatives with lovely separation in the highlights. I was shocked and saddened to learn of Barry Thornton's death last year and am now looking for an alternative if Dixactol or any of its successors become no longer available. My researches lead me to try Pyrocat HD