When to start experimenting with different developers?

[saman13]

Thanks for all the insight. I see that it is easier to get good results by dialing in one specific developer, rather than constantly switching developers to look for good results with each. But, as has been said, sometimes it is just fun to try something new.

I want to try more alt processes sometime soon. I took an alt process class in college (an entire class of cyanotypes, wet plate tintypes, salt prints, direct positive pinholes) and it was FUN. That was actually the first photo class I took and it hooked me. Not that traditional developing and printing isn't fun, but it's just something different to change things up. I just need to find a process I like that is easy to do small scale for short periods of time, rather than having to mix up a lot of chemicals and have to use them all right then and there. I'm not sure what would fit that bill, but I'm pretty interested in trying more tintypes and also salt or palladium printing for the hand coloring potential.

This post here really caught my eye:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/lily-in-vase.57150/

 

[jim10219]

I do a lot of alt. processes which is why I only use D76 for all my B&W film. Is it the best? Probably not. But it works well enough and I can find it locally. My only real complaint with it is it doesn't last a super long time, and it can be difficult to work with when it starts to decline. It's usually best to throw it out rather than increase your times to compensate for old developer. But sometimes I need to develop without the wait or additional expense.

In any case, with also doing a lot of alt. processes, I find it difficult enough just switching between one process or another. Everything effects everything, and you can easily spend the rest of your life going through all of the available options. Therefore, I tend to stick with as few as possible papers, chemicals, mix ratios, pigments, UV exposure options, negative curves, printing methods, coating methods, types and techniques of sizing, etc. Experimenting can be a lot of fun, but if that's all you ever do (like me) you wind up with a dumpster full of experiments and very few prints to show for all of your efforts.

So at the end of the day, you have to ask yourself, are you a photographer or a scientist? I fear I may be more of the latter. Though one day, I hope to move into the realm of artist, and that's going to require more consistency in my technique than I can currently muster.

 

[tedr1]

Regarding chemical choices for B&W occasional use it may be that powders are a better choice because they are often cheaper than liquids, and they keep a very longtime unopened. My first choice has always been Ilford ID11 powder developer, one liter costs $6 at BH. The mixed solution is called "stock". You take some of it and dilute it for use once and the used portion is then discarded. The rest of the stock is kept in a sealed bottle for up to six months. This will develop many rolls of film. Stop bath is almost always liquid. Fix can be found liquid and powder. The concentrated liquid fix has better keeping properties than liquid developer.
Some of the very concentrated liquid developers seem to offer great economy for those who use up the concentrate before it expires. Always check the keeping properties of the opened concentrate before making buying choices. If the opened concentrate has a short shelf life the economy offered may not be achieved because it expires before being used up and most gets thrown away.

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

Occasional use B&W, the two kings of longevity are both liquids and painfully well documented and easy to use: HC-110 and Rodinal. Either will last you a half century and longer, just sitting up on the shelf. Both are mixed for just what you need for developing and used right away, then thrown away. (one-shot)
Stop bath can almost always be water or if your fixer requires an acid stop you can use white vinegar in a pinch. But also, regular acetic acid stop will last for years just sitting on the shelf.
Fixer you'll have to replace more often, but it's such an important step that it's not a big burden. I'd recommend liquid because you can mix it up immediately when you need, whereas a powder takes a bit of work and may stop you from playing!

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Nothing wrong with chasing a rainbow every now and again. Heck, you might even catch one and find that pot of gold at the end of it. This is just my opinion, for what that's worth, but as long as you stick with what you know(Xtol-R) and keep working with that I see no reason not to try WD2D+. I've used all of John's versions of Pyro and they are very good. I don't know what format you're shooting, but what you could do is shoot your normal roll for Xtol-R and another roll for pyro WD2D+. Then compare the two. My "go-to" developer is Xtol-R, but I also use and like Pyrocat-HDC for some scenes. Oh, and there is always a bottle of Rodinal on my shelf, but it gets used very little. The main thing is to have fun, enjoy what you are doing and don't make work out of it. JohnW

 

[Alan Johnson]

A lot of these you can buy in ready made up form , eg from Photoformulary, if you don't want to buy a scale and raw chemicals:
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~simgrant/jackspcs/fdev.htm

 

[saman13]

Was thinking about starting a separate thread on this, but I think I'll just ask it here.

I just developed four sheets of 2x3 Arista EDU 100 film that I shot to test what EI I should shoot the film at and get an idea of development times. Well, I got some thin negatives. Usable, but definitely thin. So, how do I know what I need to change: Exposure, or developing times?

I shot two scenes, one metering as ISO 50, the other metering as ISO 100. 50 is on the left and 100 is on the right.

50 definitely has more shadow detail. Both still have highlight detail (can see the clouds in the sky in the negatives). Don't know If that shows up too well in the scans or picture.

Here are the scans of the negatives shot at 50 with minimal post. Just adjusted curves slightly and didn't adjust the brightness (exposure).

They actually scanned pretty well (not sure if that means they'll print well, I'm new to scanning), and I could probably make them look decent with some time. But, they're thinner negatives than any of my others (FP4 and HP5 mostly) so I want to get them to a similar density because I have my printing of those pretty dialed in.

I'm thinking I just need to increase development time by a minute or two because ISO 50 seems like a pretty standard sensitivity to rate this film. I can't see needing to go much lower than that. But, is there a general rule of thumb for which to increase? Exposure or developing time?

 

[aleckurgan]

We should probably strat with how you measured. Both of these look like hard ligting conditions to me, with very high contrast (especially if you want to have shadow detail and details in the sky in first image and say lamp details and outside the window details in the second).

 

[saman13]

I metered using a Gossen luna pro with spot meter attachment (old but effective!). I also shot higher contrast scenes on purpose to see If the film can handle it at ISO 100 or if it should be shot at 50.

Now, I know these numbers won't mean anything empirically, but they're good for relative stops.

Lamp: 11 1/3
Back of the chair: 8 1/3
Table and top of the window: between 6-6 2/3

So, basically there are 5 stops of difference between the table and the lamp. So, I set the back of the chair for middle grey.

If you want to go by the zone system then (as long as I understand it correctly) the chair is V, the lamp is VIII, the table is III.

After I took the shot, I realized I should have accounted for reciprocity failure of this film a little better than I did. The meter said 1 second when I was shooting at 100, so when I took the next shot at 50, I doubled the exposure (2s) then added a second (3s). When really, looking at the reciprocity characteristics, it should have been 7(!) seconds.

In all, not a great exposure test. Too many variables!

 

[Rudeofus]

There are slightly different effects from over/underexposure vs. over/underdevelopment: Changes in exposure typically maintain negative contrast, whereas changes in development do not. If you keep going to grade 4 or 5, you need to increase development, likewise if you find yourself printing at grade 0 or 1 all the time, try reducing development. Once this is dialed in, adjust your exposure until you have the desired level of shadow detail.

Note, that this procedure may have to change, if subject contrast changes a lot, c.f. zone system you already referred to.

 

[removed account4]

regarding a developer that is easy and you don't have to mix a ton up at once
look into d23 ( metol sodium sulfite and water ) or divided d23 same as d23 but with a borax bath
some people mix it up with teaspoons if you get the measure right ...
you can buy the metol and sulfite from a photo chemical supplier and borax from your grocery store.
cheap and easy and its been a useful developer for a long time ( ansel adams writes about it in "the negative" i think too )
https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/DD-23/dd-23.html
have fun !
john

 

[E. von Hoegh]

When you have very consistent darkroom procedure, and are familiar with how your first developer works under various conditions, then you can start tinkering. I usually start with recommended time & temp. and figure out an E.I., then fine tune the developing time for contrast. Keep detailed notes, and change only one variable at a time.

 

[R.Gould]

I am a great beliver inif it ain't broke why fix it, if the developer you are using gives you results you like why change it?, for around 50 years I have used rodinal, I know it backwards, I know what to expect and what it can do, My choice of films over the years have changed, and at times I have tried other developers, but I always come back to Rodinal, I know what to expect from it, there is no magic bullet, but I have always believed in sticking to a developer, get to know it backwards, then should a film go wrong, yes, it does happen, then you cann be pretty sure that at least the developer is not at fault

 

[E. von Hoegh]

"If it ain't broke why fix it"
You'd be making Daguerreotypes if everyone followed that dictum, also using candles, or perhaps flaming pine knots for light, and crapping in an outhouse. And dying of sepsis from a splinter.

 

[R.Gould]

"If it ain't broke why fix it"
You'd be making Daguerreotypes if everyone followed that dictum, also using candles, or perhaps flaming pine knots for light, and crapping in an outhouse. And dying of sepsis from a splinter.

I apply the same dictum to my classic cars, they are well maintained,serviced regularly, but I don't replace paprts for the sake of replacing parts,whatever the so called experts, they will tell me that, for instance, I replace the cam belt then I should also replace the water pump, but as long as the water punp checks out why replace it? never failed me in 30 years of ownning and using classic cars every day, some things you need to fix, I have ried other developers, in the last couple of years I tried D76, but I went back to Rodinal, I prefer Rodinal, but I have never made Daguerreotypes, but if I was around in the 19th centuary then I might have given it a go, and when something better came along I would have moved on, Flaming Pine Knots? where I live we never had the option, things move on, When it looked as if Rodinal was gone forever I moved on, but when it came back I went back to an old favorite, as far as crapping in an outhouse, well as a Child I have done that, but times move on, and anyway, craopping in an outhouse, using it as a composting toilet is on the way back, not for me, you could die from sepsis due to a splinter today, inspite of the wonderfull advances in medicine, It happened last year to an old man who dropped of the rader, liver amongst old rusty cars and piles of rubbish, his inquest has just concluded, death due to sepsis caused by untreated wood splinters, so sorry, for me my developing ain't broke so why fix it, I from time to time try something new, but from past experiance I will return to my 50 year favorite Rodinal cause I am happy with it, it is one less variable in my Photography

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I apply the same dictum to my classic cars, they are well maintained,serviced regularly, but I don't replace paprts for the sake of replacing parts,whatever the so called experts, they will tell me that, for instance, I replace the cam belt then I should also replace the water pump, but as long as the water punp checks out why replace it? never failed me in 30 years of ownning and using classic cars every day, some things you need to fix, I have ried other developers, in the last couple of years I tried D76, but I went back to Rodinal, I prefer Rodinal, but I have never made Daguerreotypes, but if I was around in the 19th centuary then I might have given it a go, and when something better came along I would have moved on, Flaming Pine Knots? where I live we never had the option, things move on, When it looked as if Rodinal was gone forever I moved on, but when it came back I went back to an old favorite, as far as crapping in an outhouse, well as a Child I have done that, but times move on, and anyway, craopping in an outhouse, using it as a composting toilet is on the way back, not for me, you could die from sepsis due to a splinter today, inspite of the wonderfull advances in medicine, It happened last year to an old man who dropped of the rader, liver amongst old rusty cars and piles of rubbish, his inquest has just concluded, death due to sepsis caused by untreated wood splinters, so sorry, for me my developing ain't broke so why fix it, I from time to time try something new, but from past experiance I will return to my 50 year favorite Rodinal cause I am happy with it, it is one less variable in my Photography

And unless the O.P. tries something other than X-tol, he'll never know will he? Maybe X-tol will be his primary developer for life, but unless he tries others as you did with Rodinal, he'll never know. That's what he started the thread for.

 

[saman13]

And unless the O.P. tries something other than X-tol, he'll never know will he? Maybe X-tol will be his primary developer for life, but unless he tries others as you did with Rodinal, he'll never know. That's what he started the thread for.

Yes, thank you. This is essentially what I was asking. I started by using D76 while in college, but never was crazy about it so when I started developing home I decided to try something new which is why I went with XTOL. Maybe because it seemed to be the "trendy" thing at the time (as trendy as apug can be) on this forum, with every other thread being about replenished XTOL. I like it just fine, but maybe some time I'll discover a developer I'll like better, which is something I'd never find out if I only developed with XTOL for the rest of my life. Which is why I was asking, when would be a good time to experiment with another developer.

I think, for me, the answer is in a few months once I get a good feeling for XTOL. Or, when I want to do some kind of process that XTOL can't do.

I think a lot of this stems from my reading of the Film Photography Handbook by Chris Marquardt (great modern introduction to a new film photographer, by the way) and he mentioned having one main developer and several developers he always has on the shelf for special purposes i.e. developer X for expired film, developer Y for stand development, and developer Z for those rolls of film you loaded with the backing paper towards the lens, opened the camera back in bright daylight, and jump-roped with the emulsion.

 

[saman13]

Plus, replenished XTOL is very convenient for me right now. I'm using the Yankee cut film developing tank, which works great, is easy to load, and gives me even development. The only downside is, I need to use double the volume of chems than I do for my Paterson tank. But, with replenished XTOL, I use no more developer! Just dump it right back in.

 

[R.Gould]

The point I am trying to make, maybe in a hamfisted was stick to one film/developer combination until you know it so well that even before you start to develop a film you are confident of what you should get, know it backwards, then is the time to try different developers, different films, I started with Rodinal in glass bottles, I used it for a year, with Tri X, my only film/developer comb, then I decided to try different films with Rodinal, such as the Ilford, range, Agfa films, Verichrome Pan, Plus x Ect, cthen tried different developers, I won't list them because the ones I tried no longer exist, Personally I always went back to Rodinal with every film, then for a very long time I settled for Trix/Rodinal, until Kodak took some of the silver out and, to my mind, ruined it, then I used HP5, still with Rodinal, and for the last 15 years I have used Fomapan 200 or 400, again in Rodinal, to me a lovely combination, tried it in D76/ID11 but not a patch on Rodinall, so my advice, for what it's worth is by all means experiment, but get to knowo ne combination until you know it backwards

 

[saman13]

Now Rodinal seems like the trendy thing to try...

Although @jvo just dropped off a 5L packet of XTOL (great guy) so looks like I'll be sticking with that for a while seeing as I'm not even through my first of three 1L stock bottles. I better get shooting!

 

[mark]

I metered using a Gossen luna pro with spot meter attachment (old but effective!). I also shot higher contrast scenes on purpose to see If the film can handle it at ISO 100 or if it should be shot at 50.

Now, I know these numbers won't mean anything empirically, but they're good for relative stops.

Lamp: 11 1/3
Back of the chair: 8 1/3
Table and top of the window: between 6-6 2/3

So, basically there are 5 stops of difference between the table and the lamp. So, I set the back of the chair for middle grey.

If you want to go by the zone system then (as long as I understand it correctly) the chair is V, the lamp is VIII, the table is III.

After I took the shot, I realized I should have accounted for reciprocity failure of this film a little better than I did. The meter said 1 second when I was shooting at 100, so when I took the next shot at 50, I doubled the exposure (2s) then added a second (3s). When really, looking at the reciprocity characteristics, it should have been 7(!) seconds.

In all, not a great exposure test. Too many variables!

I am not familiar with the film, but since I have some coming in a few days I will be leaning quite a bit about it.

What was your exposure based on? You say what the highs and lows were but not what you exposed for and why. This is pretty important information. It helps us understand what you were thinking.

 

[saman13]

I am not familiar with the film, but since I have some coming in a few days I will be leaning quite a bit about it.

What was your exposure based on? You say what the highs and lows were but not what you exposed for and why. This is pretty important information. It helps us understand what you were thinking.

"I set the back of the chair for middle grey", so I metered for the back of the chair because it was in the middle of the two light values.

It's my first time shooting with this film too! I was considering buying a 100ft roll of it for bulk loading a few months back so I did a lot of research into its characteristics, but never got around to it.

Then, when I got this camera, my options for sheet film were Ilford FP4 (which I love in MF) and HP5 or Arista 100 or 400. The Ilford was $35 for 25 sheets while the Arista was $39 for 50 sheets. I don't have any grand delusions of submitting to a fine art gallery, so the cheap stuff is good enough for me!

Now, just need to dial in the development time.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

One thing to keep in mind - the larger the piece of film, the less you need to think about grain, go for the tonality you want.

 

[MattKing]

That chair back looks to be reasonably well exposed and developed. I don't think your negatives are thin (given the light and the subject).
Those are not the subjects and lighting conditions that I would use to "dial in" my metering and development with a new film!

 

[saman13]

That chair back looks to be reasonably well exposed and developed. I don't think your negatives are thin (given the light and the subject).
Those are not the subjects and lighting conditions that I would use to "dial in" my metering and development with a new film!

You're right, of course. But I really wanted to get some shots in!

I probably should have had a negative that I've processed previously next to the others on the light table because you can't see the relative difference. But, when comparing a previous negative that was shot in similar light to the outdoor shot, the difference in density is significant. And with these previous negatives, I am pretty happy with the prints I get on a condenser enlarger at grade 2, so the densities of those seem to be in the right ballpark.

I think I'll try increasing my development by 20%. If that ends up being too much, I'll split the difference the next time.