Why not 2 bath developer only?

Sidd

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 18, 2023
Messages
101
Location
Kolkata
Format
35mm
What I have read and heard till now that 2 bath b&w negative developers have many advantages over conventional single bath ones. Like, they are temparature and film independent, very good for highligh control, usually maintain and sometimes increase film speed, keep for long time etc.

My question is, if 2 bath developers are so good, then why do we use conventional single bath developers at all?
 

retina_restoration

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2023
Messages
1,224
Location
Wilammette Valley, Oregon
Format
35mm RF

2 bath developers are NOT temperature independent. You can vary the temperature of the two baths somewhat, but if you work at 85F (or 60F) then you are most definitely going to change the results. Many two part (divided) developers use a Bath A that is a functional developer on its own. For example, Barry Thornton's version of Divided D-23 has a Bath A that is nearly identical to regular D-23 and it acts as a rather slow developer, without the use of Bath B. So if you are using a divided developer of this type and you deviate significantly from 68F, you're going to have an effect on the outcome.

I've found that 2 bath developers rarely deliver full emulsion speed. I prefer Thornton's version myself, but it always requires 1/2 to 1 full stop more exposure to get negatives I want. Karl Matthias's "2B-1" is better at enhancing film speed, sometimes giving an extra half stop of speed, depending on the film you choose.

Divided developers aren't more popular because they require making from scratch from chemicals that not everyone cares to acquire and keep in their darkroom (takes up space, tedious to weigh out and assemble). It also adds another step in the process, and many people barely have the patience for standard "develop/stop/fix" protocols, let alone adding another step.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,746
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
Thorton provides directions use as both a single bath and divided. I just finished my last batches of Diafine, very old still in cans. It was ok, but limited how I developed a negative as I was limited to a single ISO for each roll or sheet of film. As noted by Andew O"Neill expansion and contraction is much more limited. I found that Diafine held shadows very well, and provides a fine gained negative at the expense of edge sharpness. Most modern films can be shot at box speed or a bit above. the excpection is Tgain films which have very thin emulsions which cannot soake up much of the A solution, I had to shoot Tmax 3200 at 800. On the side of the coin, usable at any temp from 70 to 90, (at least Diafine) 3 mint A, then 3 mints B, water rinse, fix and done. In the 70s and 80s when a working PJ I carried a quart kit of Diafine, a packet of fixer, and small bottle of a wetting agent for emerancy use in the feild.
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,688
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
Divided developer are not bad at all and some folks would be better off using a 2-Bath developer instead of trying to play Ansel Adams the Zone master. I use Barry Thornton's 2-B, but have two different B baths. One bath B is with Sodium metaborate and the second is with sodium carbonate. You could use several bath B's for different results. You could use borax, sodium metaborate, sodium carbonate or even sodium or potassium hydroxide for different levels of PH in bath B. One nice thing about two bath developers is that they aren't real fussy on time and temp, which makes them very friendly for beginners.
 

dcy

Subscriber
Joined
May 9, 2025
Messages
593
Location
New Mexico, USA
Format
35mm

I have tried Barry Thornton's Two Bath. My view is that "it's fine". I was neither dazzled nor disappointed. This is the first time I hear that a 2 bath increases film speed. I cannot see why that would be the case, and it's certainly not something I've noticed. I did a side by side comparison of various developers, and, if anything, the film I developed with BTTB seemed to either need more exposure or more development in order to match the negatives I got with D-23, D-76, and PC-TEA.


I suspect that this is the main reason. My impression is that most people buy developers commercially. I like to make film developer, but as a point of comparison, I stopped making paper developer for the time being and switched to commercial ones. I suspect that most film photographers enjoy playing with chemistry less than I do.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,746
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
You can make a version of divided D76, standard formula for D76, just keep the borax out of solution A and mix with cold water to make 1 quart for solution B. I would go 4 mint A and 4 mints B, like any divided developer do not use an acid stop. I would start with box speed then adjust as needed.
 

ags2mikon

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
655
Location
New Mexico
Format
Multi Format
I used diafine in the early 1970"s and again in the late 90s and early 2000's and found it will in fact develop negatives and some film worked very good in it. Pan F, Plus X, Tri X were some of the best I tried. Foma 100, APX 100 and FP-4+ were not bad. I gave up on making T-max work in it. The formula did change over the decades, and so did the film. It is also expensive too. There are formulas out there for it or at least close to it. I was given what was supposed to be the formula from the 70's by a man in LA decades ago. Did it work? It did. Man did it have a lot of crap in it. I use D-23 1:1 and have been for the last 10 years. It works a lot like Perceptol (highlights) with better shadow speed. To each his own poison.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,746
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
Yeah, Diafine along with Acufine and Edwal is now part of Omega Brands, not sure if Omega makes it or has it made by Photosystem. I had a few quart kits in cans that I mixed up, a 1 gallon kit now runs around $90 a gallon. It is easy to replenish and you can run a lot of film in a gallon kit.
 
OP
OP

Sidd

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 18, 2023
Messages
101
Location
Kolkata
Format
35mm
Thank you all for sharing your thoughts and experiences on the topic, however, it would be interesting to know your thoughts on the image quality aspects of 2 bath developers more thoroughly.
 

F4U

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2025
Messages
551
Location
Florida
Format
8x10 Format

Because before most of us were born, Eastman Kodak Company spent more money than most countries' GDP on R&D to market the finest and most consistent quality products the world ever has known or ever will. All you needed was a bottle, some clean water, a thermometer, and follow the instructions as they wrote them. Tiny nuanced results from other products and experiments can't top that to any remarkable degree.
 

albireo

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,430
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
JerseyDoug said:
Life is so much simpler with a liquid one-shot developer.
Click to expand...

I'm a late convert, but poor, unfashionable, humble HC110 diluted B or E does so much really well.

And I've yet to find a developer that makes Fomapan 100 sing like Rodinal 1:50 regularly inverted does.
 

halfaman

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
1,411
Location
Bilbao
Format
Multi Format

I recall what PE said about developers: there is no magic bullet. Two baths developers work great with some films under certain conditions, and the opposite with others. Just like any other developer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…