Why did you (if you did) move on from D76/ID-11

A comparison between two developers and one film is completely meaningless unless you develop the two negatives to the same contrast.

That is perhaps an inconvenient truth, but truth all the same. Until that has been done, you have not made an apples to apples comparison.

What remains is convenience, and how a liquid concentrate that lasts longer might be easier to work with.

Matt paper doesn't actually have less black than glossy. But it appears that way because of the matte surface, which seems like a veil. I print on both Ilford MGIV fiber matte and glossy, so I know the products well.

miha said:

Hi Thomas, I don't believe they are too similiar. People usually say that because they look similar, are diluted in a similar way and have similar names but my feeling is that Ilfotec HC is a better developer. I'm kidding though as I have never tried the 'original', but those who did agree with me: http://www.chrisjohnsonphotographer.com/funfilm.shtml and http://www.chrisjohnsonphotographer.com/charts.shtml


I heve been developeing film for close to 20 years now but have never done the contrast thing - no densitometer in my darkroom, sorry. The difference between the ID11 and Ilfotec HC shows at the printing stage with my favorite paper - Ilford MG FB 5k (matt). As you know matt paper has a dynamic range that is more limited compared to glossy, also blacks can be visually weaker. After many random combinations of films and developers, HP5 (and Ilford Pan 400), even pushed, printed marveosusly when developed in Ilfotec HC at 1+31. Another matte paper, Fomabrom variant 112, although not as dead matte as Ilford also gives results to my liking when printed from films developed in Ilfotec HC. Very subjective I know, but I'm sticking to it as it gives me results I like from a paper surface that is not everybody's cup of tea. And more difficult to print too. In each case the paper, either Ilford or Foma, was developed in Neutol NE or Moersch eco 4812.

Click to expand...

Thomas, If I was asked to do a comparison between the two developers I would decline such a request.

You asked "How are the Ilfotec HC pictures different'' And I gave you my subjective answer. I found you statment that one can't compare two things unless they have proper tools to measure diferences unfounded. I can tell one thing is longer than the other without measuring it - what is needed is experience. I can also say that I prefer one thing over the other.

I also didn's say that MG FB 5k has less black, nor did I say that matte papers have less black in general as you suggested, what I sad is that MG FB 5k black can be visually weaker.

I believe there were some pictures taken in a concentration camp during WWII which were developed in urine. I think they depicted hangings and were very powerful images. So why are we even contemplating developer variation?

I haven't left D76, even though I bought several different developers to try. I did try Acufine and it did a wonderful job and was super easy, but I prefer D76 tonality to it. My only peeve about D76 is that I have to use it up within a month after it's mixed or it goes weird because sometimes out place gets a little too warm. I started out w/ D76 and Tri-X shot w/ a yellow filter thinking to keep things simple (and it was a classic combination I'd heard). The more I develop w/ this system, the more I suspect that I may have started where others finally end. I love the look.

miha said:

Thomas, If I was asked to do a comparison between the two developers I would decline such a request.

You asked "How are the Ilfotec HC pictures different'' And I gave you my subjective answer. I found you statment that one can't compare two things unless they have proper tools to measure diferences unfounded. I can tell one thing is longer than the other without measuring it - what is needed is experience. I can also say that I prefer one thing over the other.

I also didn's say that MG FB 5k has less black, nor did I say that matte papers have less black in general as you suggested, what I sad is that MG FB 5k black can be visually weaker.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to push buttons or be challenging. I asked the questions that I did to find out how you had arrived at liking Ilfotec HC better than the other developer. I'm very happy that you have a solution that works for you.

I was just stating fact that there is no value in comparing two developers unless the negatives are developed to the same contrast, which ultimately means that the two developers have been used differently. That might be of use to other forum members, perhaps. I don't know.
Kind of like testing the handling of almost identical cars, but putting comfortable 195 profile tires on one car, and sporty 225 profile on another, and then comparing results, which doesn't work.

I understand that you don't want to compare, or change, or any of that. I'm the same way.

Sorry about the comment regarding papers. I read your post wrong. It is true that the matte papers measure the same range as glossy, but appear less deep because of the surface. I run into that all the time when I print too, and find that I have to treat the same paper with the different surface differently.

Klainmeister said:

I'll be honest: I left D-76 in search of a magic bullet.

When I first started shooting film seriously (at age 15!), I used D76 and all the Kodak stuff available at the time. I was unsatisfied with my images, especially when I enlarged them. Lots of this was due to other issues. Poor focus, poorer exposure, mediocre equipment and lack of seeing. Therefore I searched the Gods of chemistry to avert my woes.

About the same time I upgraded enlarger, camera, and became more proficient right when I started using PMK. So in combo, my images dramatically increased in quality. After that it was habit until I started getting most of my chemistry either raw or otherwise from Bostick & Sullivan who turned me onto Pyrocat-HD, which I can print in my enlarger, via UV on alt processes, or scan with ease. Stuck with it ever since.

I do recommend D76 to beginners though...

Click to expand...

Along my quest, I never left D-76. At times I feel this held me back because, by definition, I cannot offer a comparison. And that's true, I can't tell you how my pictures would look developed in Pyrocat-HD. Maybe there would be very little difference. But very little difference is not the same as NO difference. We OFTEN talk of how there is very little difference between a good photograph and a great one.

It's interesting how often we'll have similar threads following similar lines yet once in a while I'll see a post that makes me think of something obvious I never thought before.

Klainmeister, There was nothing that kept me from following a silver bullet chase of my own. I once considered picking up HC-110 "because Ansel Adams used it". It's only by chance that I didn't. I stuck with one developer.

So here is the novel thought: If anyone saw my existing work and liked it... and they wanted to do the same... That person would need look no further than D-76 1:1

By the same token... If someone saw YOUR work and liked it, and wanted to do the same... That person might be well advised to experiment with Pyrocat-HD.

In that sense, a survey like this of preferred developers might prove extremely useful.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

I was just stating fact that there is no value in comparing two developers unless the negatives are developed to the same contrast, which ultimately means that the two developers have been used differently. That might be of use to other forum members, perhaps. I don't know.
Kind of like testing the handling of almost identical cars, but putting comfortable 195 profile tires on one car, and sporty 225 profile on another, and then comparing results, which doesn't work.

Click to expand...

This is where we disagree. Believe me - and this is fact - there are no experiments where every variable is kept under control, and in the field of Biology, a field where I work, there are even more things that can only be detected, rarely measured, but do influence the prediction accuracy. And with every experiments, even with the failed one - and there are many failed ones - there are sthings to be learned.

Of course I didn't push film with one developer and pull it with the other, but still I didn't measure gamma I admit. The results do have meaning to me and suggest certain trends, but they are not definitive. But how can they be? There are many more things that should have been kept under control than solely the contrast.

One more thing, the most important in fact, is the interpretation of the results; It's also the most difficult part. I often fail in this pursuit.

hi miha

i alluded to a post here about using caffenol c and ansco 130 ...
i don't measure my ingredients and i add maybe an 0z of straight ansco
to take the edge off my caffenol ...

to prove to me that it was my ansco 130 that does all the developing of my
film and paper, someone mixed a batch of caffenol c and added about an 0z of rodinal into it ...

and afterwards claimed his claim that it was not the caffenol ...

rodinal is used at small dilutions, ansco 130 isn't ...
rodinal will process film 1:100 in water, ansco 130 won't
( i even did my own test: (there was a url link here which no longer exists))


this is an extreme but true with all developers, they are all different.

it is possible to do as thomas suggests, homogenize development, but whats the point ?

jnanian said:

it is possible to do as thomas suggests, homogenize development, but whats the point ?

Click to expand...

There is no big point at all, other than scientifically satisfying curios minds, or to see for yourself what the true difference between two different developers are. That is, if you really want to know exactly how one developer is different from the other, you simply have to process them to the same contrast.
If you want to compare anything, like running 100 meters, you have to give everybody the same opportunity to perform. If one guy has to run 95 meters, and somebody else 110, then they are not competing on equal terms. Same thing with film developers, if you don't give them equal opportunity to shine, then it isn't a comparison that is worth making.

Of course there is a lot beyond a standard developing cycle. You know this as well as the next person, John, because you do not do things by any norm (which is a compliment).
In the case of D76, or any developer, learning how to use it well will give results as good as with the next developer, and it most certainly will be good enough for anybody. The true magic is not in the developer, I know that much from experience. But I try to be objective and not just see things from my perspective, which is why I might point out shortcomings in certain ways of discussing things, to the extent that my knowledge reaches.

Bill Burk said:

Along my quest, I never left D-76. At times I feel this held me back because, by definition, I cannot offer a comparison. And that's true, I can't tell you how my pictures would look developed in Pyrocat-HD. Maybe there would be very little difference. But very little difference is not the same as NO difference. We OFTEN talk of how there is very little difference between a good photograph and a great one.

It's interesting how often we'll have similar threads following similar lines yet once in a while I'll see a post that makes me think of something obvious I never thought before.

Klainmeister, There was nothing that kept me from following a silver bullet chase of my own. I once considered picking up HC-110 "because Ansel Adams used it". It's only by chance that I didn't. I stuck with one developer.

So here is the novel thought: If anyone saw my existing work and liked it... and they wanted to do the same... That person would need look no further than D-76 1:1

By the same token... If someone saw YOUR work and liked it, and wanted to do the same... That person might be well advised to experiment with Pyrocat-HD.

In that sense, a survey like this of preferred developers might prove extremely useful.

Click to expand...

Oddly, I look at my pictures and see the film and not the developer. I can tell which is Acros, Neopan 400, Ilford FP4, HP5 readily and easily, but if you pressed me which was which developer (PMK, Xtol, Pyrocat) I probably couldn't ever tell you. I developed a bunch of rolls and sheets with Xtol to compare once, and although they weren't exactly the same (in terms of contrast), I can say that if it wasn't for consistency sake, I don't see why I couldn't use it. I just am in the Pyrocat boat nowadays for reasons listed above. The hardened negative is nice too.

jnanian said:

this is an extreme but true with all developers, they are all different.

Click to expand...

They are and that's the beauty of the hobby. One can try many different combinations under inherent conditions, trusts their eyes and decides what works best for them.

it isn't that i didn't understand what you were suggesting, but i still fail to see the point.

oh well, it won't be the first time
but then the problem is that average person may not be able to develop film like
the person who tested it ... i know this seeing my "foolproof" ansco 130 1:6 72ºF 8.5 mins for sweet crisp negatives
gives others negatives so contrasty they can't even use them for salt prints -- gotta love it !


vive la difference !

I think we're getting stuck on the 'what you and I know works' and the idea of making a valid scientific comparison. They are two completely separate things, and should be treated differently.

1. What you and I know works:
I have used Xtol for many years, and I have a routine down that helps me make the prints I want to make. It's a system that I have refined over the years and won't change unless I have to. Same as you with your coffee brews and 130. Don't fix what is not broken.
With that said, I have some freebies in my darkroom, some D76, some Mic-X, and some Sprint, which I also happily use, because I have figured out how to work them so that I get prints that I like from them too.

2. Scientific comparison:
If any photographer decides that they don't like the results they get with a certain developer, goes to find out about other developers and tried a second developer and has better results, this could mean one of two things: Either they don't know how to use the product properly, or they don't care to try properly. There is nothing wrong with the not caring piece, by the way. Some people feel their way, and as long as anybody finds something that works, that's totally all right.
But the hiccup I see is that if you don't know how to adjust the film developing so that a certain product can be tweaked to work, then you are stuck with the thought that you change materials to find a solution, while in fact the problem could have been solved by just working with what is at hand differently. You can dilute a developer, alter the developing time, alter film exposure, and change agitation - and it can give wildly varying results, much more than a change of developer will, and THAT is key knowledge to have.

Bottom line: It isn't so much the comparison between Developer A and Developer B, as it is the realization that most any result can be had by just changing our technique.

jnanian said:

it isn't that i didn't understand what you were suggesting, but i still fail to see the point.
sure one can make the contrast or whatever of developer B just like developer A to see
the nuances under those conditions seeing developer B wasn't originally going to do "that"
why not just use developer A to begin with ?

but for the average person with a camera i don't really understand what the point is, unless the point is
that there is a sad photographer whose favorite go to developer WAS developer A,
and to suggest developer B might fit the bill seeing developer A isn't made anymore and its formula is proprietary ...

but then the problem is that average person may not be able to develop film like
the person who tested it ... i know this seeing my "foolproof" ansco 130 1:6 72ºF 8.5 mins for sweet crisp negatives
gives others negatives so contrasty they can't even use them for salt prints -- gotta love it !


vive la difference !

Click to expand...