What, no magic...?

[Arvee]

Having some idle time I decided to fool around with a developer(s) experiment. Started with a 36 exp. roll of Agfa APX100. Set up the tripod, chose a bright sunlit scene with a pure white and a hard black, lots of vegetation, some shadows, measured the exposure and fired off 36 before the light could change.

Went into the darkroom, sliced the roll into four pieces and developed each according the mfrs. tech data in D-76, HC-110, Rodinal, and T-Max.

Printed one neg from each strip at the same enlarger exposure. Result: after a lot of examination of densities, grain, midtones, I couldn't see any significant differences, density or otherwise, between the 76, 110 and Rodinal. The T-Max had a higher density and I had to print it down +1/3 stop more to be in the same density range as the rest. This possibly explains the speed increase touted by T-Max users.

I kept hoping for some significant advantage/difference (highlight separation, mid-tone separation or shadow detail) or a 'look' between the developers, but I and my wife couldn't point at anything at all that jumped out.

My empirical conclusion: these developers are virtually the same; the major differences being whether they are liquid or powder and the convenience of dilutions, use, etc.

Everyone talks about the 'look' of Rodinal, I couldn't see it. I couldn't choose one print that looked better than any other.

Did I miss something here?

 

[2F/2F]

You didn't miss anything...and you found a lot!!!

 

[Vaughn]

Did I miss something here? -Fred

Yeah, you missed the experience of working with the developers over a period of time, different light conditions, different films, different exposing methods, different developing methods, and different printing methods (different papers, alt processes, etc).

As I recently read, all developers are basically 85% to 90% the same in what they do. It is that last 15 to 10% where one can, with experience, tell the difference.

Vaughn

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

and developed each according the mfrs. tech data

mfrs give recomended starting points. If you want to see the real potential of any film/developer combo you have to do your own testing. First for film speed, then for developement (and by making prints at each stage). Ideally, targeting a certain paper. I've been working with Rodinal for several years now and am still learning to make better negs and prints.

If this test is as far as you ever take your film/dev combos then no, you probably won't see a signifigant differce between your tools/materials. Not that there is anything wrong with that...

+1 on what Vaughn wrote as well.

 

[JBrunner]

Rodinal is the most "different' of these developers IME, and I have some very cool negatives from my Rodinal binge, but you aren't going to see much difference without some stretching. Used on average developers perform on average.

 

[2F/2F]

Rodinal is the most "different' of these developers IME, and I have some very cool negatives from my Rodinal binge, but you aren't going to see much difference without some stretching. Used on average developers perform on average.

exactly!

 

[MikeSeb]

Congratulations, son, you're a man now. This is something that each B&W photographer has to learn for him-/herself at some point in our darkroom careers.

Some of us still can't stop tinkering.... ahem.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Try the same experiment with a hundred rolls of film. Change your exposure, explore different lighting conditions, overexpose, underexpose, change agitation, work with dilution, work with development time.

Take a flatly lit scene, underexpose, and overdevelop the film - see how well your developer helps you build density to where you want it.
Take a harshly lit and high contrast scene, overexpose, and slow down agitation while you cut your development time, and see where your highlights fall compared to the mid-tones and shadow detail. See how each developer handles these exercises. Change only one thing at a time to see the effect. Push the limits, exceed the limits, use your technique to really push the envelope.
I'll bet your experience will be different.

But, I have always touted that technique counts for most of your results, and materials are important - especially if you keep it simple and you know them intimately like the palm of your own hand, and you need to be able to rely on them to do exactly what you expect of them. Every time.

You made a great start to exploring these developers. You'll have to decide if it's worth it to push the envelope and take it farther, or just continue with one of them and live happily ever after.

 

[Arvee]

Yep, I think I'm sticking with the D-76 that I have used for the last thousand or so films over the past 50 years. There is no silver bullet to replace hard work and consistency. Plus one for Alessandro, the 'stellar' performance of one developer over another that folks rave about is all marketing hype, much akin to the 'Emporer's clothes' or 'tilting at windmills.'

 

[Wade D]

You might get different results with different exposures/development times but it all boils down to what looks good to you. If you are happy with what you get then you are good to go.

 

[Ian Grant]

The test's too simple because ideally you need to optimise the exposures and dev times for any film/developer combination. Often differences in film/developer combinations are subtle and only begin to be important when enlarged a reasonable degree. Often it's how easy or difficult negatives are to print, not just sharpness, tonality and grain.

There may well be one developer that suits you better and allows for an improvement in terms of print quality, ease of printing, but i think you've realised it can be time consuming and wasteful spending time trying every possible combination.

Ian

 

[Wade D]

Good points as well Ian. Too much experimentation wastes time and resources.

 

[Arvee]

Intrinsically, I was attempting to say, from my perspective there ain't a nickel's worth of difference between the commonly used developers. I believe all the 'arm-waving' is more in the eye of the beholder than that represented on the print.

Just my $0.02,

 

[BetterSense]

The results of your test suprise me. I did a 3-way shootout with Rodinal, HC110, and D23. I found pretty radical differences in grain, and substantial differences in speed. You can see the scans on my embryonic website.

chazmiller.com/projects/devtest.html

 

[Arvee]

Better Sense,

I, too, see the minor differences in grain, speed. Grain doesn't bother me, I care far more about what impact/content an image has. I was under the impression from all the arm-waving I would see more intrinsic differences in mood/tonality, you know, the things that really matter. But, alas, they are all just about the same.

 

[BetterSense]

Well, that much is true. When developed to the same contrast, the differences is going to be either in shadow speed, or grain character, with minor curve changes possible. My test only illustrates that there ARE substantial differences in speed and grain between developers.