When to start experimenting with different developers?

[Cholentpot]

I tinkered from day one.

If I want ultra consistent I can always pick up my DSLR. I've settled on HC-110 for expired film, D-76 for the good stuff, Tmax Dev for a hearty push and Rodinal for when I'm lazy.

 

[John51]

Even experimentation can be standardised.

80% of rolls processed in your standard developer, the other 20% get one of two very different developers. I'd go for Rodinal and (D)D23 as opposite ends of the (regular photography) developer spectrum but others may have different opinions on that. Rodinal lasts/works for years even if it looks gross and dry chemicals keep indefinitely.

Doing something the exact same way 10 times isn't always 25% better than doing it the same way 8 times. Law of diminishing returns. You can't accurately decide on a different developer after a very different shooting situation if you have zero experience with that developer. imo, get that experience, just in case you need it later but keep your regular processing on point.

 

[saman13]

I seem to have dialed in the exposure and developing time for my Foma 100. I exposed at ISO 50 and developed for 7min at 76F (room temperature).

Now that I got the exposure down, I'm really impressed with this film. The tonality is great, dries flat, emulsion seems pretty durable.

The biggest downside is, in my opinion, its reciprocity characteristics. If your meter is recommending 5s, you're going to be giving it 30s.

I'll take that tradeoff though for its low price!

 

[Adrian Bacon]

There’s nothing wrong with experimenting, but if you want reliably consistent results, then it’s best to pick one developer and get to know it inside and out. Same with films. From there, you can identify what you don’t like about it and change from there.

 

[removed account4]

been looking for the link, can't find it ATM .. there IS someone here on photrio who makes developer from cheep beer..
and it gives pretty good results !

found it !!
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/film-ferrania-p30.146259/page-14#post-2010377

 

[Bill Burk]

saman13 that’s a very satisfying picture. I think you could have developed longer not as a criticism but just saying “right” is right... because I think you have nominally developed correctly... But some low contrast scenes can look like there was more light when developed longer. And that’s the kind of experiment you can try with scenes like this.

 

[saman13]

saman13 that’s a very satisfying picture. I think you could have developed longer not as a criticism but just saying “right” is right... because I think you have nominally developed correctly... But some low contrast scenes can look like there was more light when developed longer. And that’s the kind of experiment you can try with scenes like this.

I'll gladly take any advice on how to improve my photography!

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying increase the development time because that will increase the contrast in the image? I thought that the way to do that would be to reduce exposure, then maybe also increase development time. But you're right, this scene is a little dark. Could probably be a little brighter with higher contrast.

 

[Bill Burk]

Yes developing more will directly increase contrast. But with the proper exposure the result can be a full and rich image.

Underexposure and developing more and using high contrast paper also increases contrast - a proper esthetic for street, night clubs and concert photography, but without satisfying detail in shadows that helps nature photography.

 

[saman13]

Good to know. So, say for a scene like this, expose "normally", then develop ~10% longer?

Will that not just give me a denser negative? Raise both shadow and highlight values?

 

[Bill Burk]

About 10% longer sounds fine. Shadows are not much affected by longer development, and the rest of the scale increases - think of a straight line that gets steeper.

I really think a lot of people develop less than they need. It technically makes better negatives in terms of grain and resolution. But if your photography doesn't depend on the absolute pinnacle of resolution and fine grain... developing longer gives you a richer range of tones to work with.

Don't take my word for it though. Your negative is perfectly fine and you can print on higher contrast paper if you believe it will help.
But experiment and find out what you really prefer.

 

[saman13]

I'll try that next time I'm developing. Thank you!

 

[Arklatexian]

+1000

I/m with John if your current developer has been giving yo the results you like then why change. I haven't changed developers in 15 years. Consistent negatives is the goal.

Gerald, maybe you have hit on the proper answer to the question. When you get bored with consistent negatives, try a different developer or developers, then: goodbye to consistent negatives until you find another developer that returns you to consistent negatives.........Regards!

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

What I would do is figure out what you want out of a developer. Here's what you might want to look for. Sharpness. Fine grain. Compensating. More economical to use. Even how it toxic it is to use. To test too much too soon. I discovered Pyrocat HD through Flickr. I didn't look for a new developer, but the images from the developer had a look I liked. One I used for 30 years and I still use today is HC-110 (B). I have to shoot slightly less than box speeds. I like the HC-110 for Arista EDU which is Foma. Enjoy the journey in searching for your favorite developer.