Which Film Developer?

RebeccaSC · Jul 16, 2006

Have used Ilford and Rodinal mostly - fairly happy with the results across Ilford HP5 & numerous 35mm film ISO 125, 100, 400 - Fuji etc

The other day I paid to have some films developed and they just seem to be much clearer, crisper and more format quality like - Is there a film dev that is know to do that on 35mm or should I be getting that from my Rodinal - its fine don't get me wrong I just noticed on the other films they look like they have more clarity and are richer

thanks for your help

Roger Hicks · Jul 16, 2006

Dear Rebecca,

Try 1/3 to 1 stop more exposure. You'll get less sharpness and bigger grain but you may prefer the tonality. The dev the lab used almost certainly gave a higher true ISO than Rodinal: most things, except ultra-fine-grain developers, do.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandsfrances.com)

Ole · Jul 16, 2006

At a guess the lab used Xtol. Just about any modern developer gives clearer negatives with less grain than Rodinal (I may get flamed for this).

My favorite used to be Ilfosol-S, but it needs a higher throughput than I could give it for some years. Now I use Beutler's, FX-2 and Pyrocat-HD (the last for sheet film only), all of which give me better tonality than Rodinal.

arigram · Jul 16, 2006

Ilfosol-S that Ole suggested is a great combination with "tradional grain" Ilford films. I have used it extensively from Pan F+ to HP5+ and I really love the results I get. I find it smoother that of better tones than D-76 for example. I have stopped using Rodinal since I switched to Jobo rotary processing. I use medium format films but I guess the results wouldn't be different with 135.

Claire Senft · Jul 16, 2006

Pyrocat HD.

Ian Grant · Jul 16, 2006

Rebecca, I used Rodinal for years with excellent results, but only with 100 ISO films or slower. It is not a good developer for faster films.

Ole mentions Xtol and it is a superb developer, it gives good clean negatives with all the films I put through it, Kodak, Adox & Forte, of various speeds, and is equally as good with Ilford films.

Ian

Dave Miller · Jul 16, 2006

At the risk of sounding like a record stuck at a groove: Prescysol EF for 35mm.

srs5694 · Jul 16, 2006

You've already received several recommendations for alternatives to Rodinal, but if you think you're getting superior results from your lab-processed film compared to what you get yourself, I suggest you don't guess. Call the lab and ask them what they used. You can then try that product yourself. Of course, there's nothing wrong with trying products mentioned in this thread; it's just that it'll take you a while to sort through them all.

JohnArs · Jul 16, 2006

Take just the best and soup it in XTOL!
Be not happy with the 2 best for your films, only the best is goo enough for my films!
If there is a magic bullet its XTOL!
But don't drink it only take it for the films.
Look never back!

mcgrattan · Jul 17, 2006

I've been using Adox ADX A + B a lot recently.

It comes as two liquid concentrates which you mix together and then dilute at the time of use. e.g. 12ml of A, 12ml of B + water to make up to 500ml.

I really like it. It's quick and easy to use and gives very smooth low-grain negatives with good tonality. HP5 with ADX is a great combination. It's also fantastic with the Fuji Neopan films.

I used to use a few different devs but now it's just ADX for most film and Ilford DD-X for Delta 3200.

André E.C. · Jul 17, 2006

Ilfotec DDX for everything!

Cheers

André

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 17, 2006

Rebecca,

I second srs5694's opinion. Ask the lab what they use, try it yourself, and specifically make sure it's not something that's in your process rather than the chemistry.
By your email I don't know how much experience you have, but it took me a long time to realize what my film needs to look like to make a good print. In actuality, your negs don't really have to be perfectly clear to print well. People use staining developers all of the time, more for their printing qualities than what the negative looks like.

Just as a suggestion. All the recommondations you've gotten for suggestions of what to use - they probably all work really well for the people recommending them. No guarantee it will work well for you. To paraphrase Sandy King who formulated a popular staining developer - in the end, the film developer probably accounts for about 5% of the desired results. If your negs print well - don't worry about them not being so clear. The developers you use are fine.

- Thom

RebeccaSC · Jul 17, 2006

The main reason for my original question was because it did seem to have an effect on the final print - the films I had developed seemed to me to make a grainer print than the prints using the same process from the lab - does that make sense - basically same printing technique slightly different grain/sharpness etc from the negs (same film type)

Gerald Koch · Jul 17, 2006

You didn't state how often you develop film. This is an important consideration and can effect your choice of developers. For example, the smallest size for Xtol is the 5 liter package. This is economical only if you are going to develop 40 rolls in the next 6 months. This calculation is based on the 1:1 dilution and Kodak's suggested shelf life for fully filled containers. If you are developing less then HC-110 might be a better choice since it lasts forever as a concentrate and gives finer grain than Rodinal.

Roger Hicks · Jul 17, 2006

Gerald Koch said:
If you are developing less then HC-110 might be a better choice since it lasts forever as a concentrate and gives finer grain than Rodinal.

Or Ilford DD-X. When I moved house I had a half-empty bottle of concentrate that moved with me and still worked many months later.

Cheers,

Roger

srs5694 · Jul 17, 2006

RebeccaSC said:
The main reason for my original question was because it did seem to have an effect on the final print - the films I had developed seemed to me to make a grainer print than the prints using the same process from the lab - does that make sense - basically same printing technique slightly different grain/sharpness etc from the negs (same film type)

Yes, Rodinal is known to produce grainier but sharper results than many other developers.

don sigl · Jul 17, 2006

I switched to pyro staining developers about 11 years ago. I used Rodinal, and D23 for a lot of my 35 back then. I thought the PMK to be superior to either, especially in the higher tones. I rarely shoot 35 anymore, but I continue to use PMK and Pyrocat for all my 120 and LF. HP5 and FP4 are really good films to use with these type of developers. You might want to get Gordon Hutchings "Book of Pyro". Excellent book.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 17, 2006

It makes total sense that the negs would print differently. If that's the underlying problem, then I'm sure the suggestions would be different.

I have very little experience with Ilford developers, but Rodinal I've used extensively. It should produce very sharp negs, it's not a fine grain developer however.
Your results also depend a lot upon what you do for agitation. The less you agitate, the finer the grain (and the longer the development time). Dilution also matters. With Rodinal, for instance, try to use a higher dilution; 1+100 seems to be a favorite.

The original recommendation of finding out what the lab uses is also good. Then you could try it yourself, and once again make sure it isn't in the actual process.

- Thom

Paul Howell · Jul 17, 2006

Just by happen stance I shot 2 rolls of neopan 1600 over the weekend, I tested both rolls by shooting all ISO from 200 to 6400 in 1/2 stopes. I developed one roll in DDX 1:4, 5 mints the other Edwal 12 stock 8 mints. The DDX came in at 1600 although the high lights were somewhat flat and I need to tinker with the time. The roll developed with Edwal 12 came in at 1200. I like the tones of the roll developed in DDX better that Edwal 12, but the Edwal is almost gainless. Based on the positive experience noted above I may also test in Rodinal stand development.

tim rudman · Jul 17, 2006

Dave Miller said:
At the risk of sounding like a record stuck at a groove: Prescysol EF for 35mm.

Hi Dave
I have just processed my first roll films in Precysol today - still wet but look nice. Is there much practical or discernible difference with the EF version?
Tim

Dave Miller · Jul 17, 2006

tim rudman said:
Hi Dave
I have just processed my first roll films in Precysol today - still wet but look nice. Is there much practical or discernible difference with the EF version?
Tim

Peter Hogan said that the EF version is designed for small negatives, such as 35mm, to give finest grain and sharpest detail. The none EF is for larger formats where grain is not an issue, so this one gives enhanced staining.
The bit that really appeals to me is the standard developing time with out loss of efective film speed.

Which Film Developer?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency