Why pay more?..

[Alexander Ivashkin]

Hi there everyone,


I had been wondering what was the difference between brands of paper developers. Searched the net but found no conclusive answers. Decided to test it hands-on and bought an Ilford MG to try it alongside Foma Fenal.

Strip-tested them both and adjusted the exposure to about 1/6 of a stop between two prints. Waited for them to dry up and compared them (asking for an external review as well).


The end result was: apart from the small change in density due to that 1/6 of a stop, we could not see any difference at all!


Am I doing something wrong or is there really no difference between paper developers?..


Cheers,

A.

 

[Ian Grant]

Many Foma formulae are based on published Ilford formulae so tht's probably why you are seeing little difference.

Ian

 

[tedr1]

Yes there are differences. For some kinds of work they may be unimportant, and in other cases very important and therefore the combination of developer and paper is chosen with care. Two things that first come to mind are the color of the image (warm black, neutral black, cold black) and the amount of paper that can be processed by a certain quantity of developer. There are many others.

 

[trendland]

Hi there everyone,


I had been wondering what was the difference between brands of paper developers. Searched the net but found no conclusive answers. Decided to test it hands-on and bought an Ilford MG to try it alongside Foma Fenal.

Strip-tested them both and adjusted the exposure to about 1/6 of a stop between two prints. Waited for them to dry up and compared them (asking for an external review as well).


The end result was: apart from the small change in density due to that 1/6 of a stop, we could not see any difference at all!


Am I doing something wrong or is there really no difference between paper developers?..


Cheers,

A.

As you mentioned the price difference with :"Why Pay more"
I can tell you : It is the package design and the color of some Ilford Logos they
are wispering : "Please it is your choise -
take me home and never lock again to these simple Foma scratch "
But I would like to say : Foma has learned
meanwile - their design becomes more and more modern.
In practice there is no great difference -
in price it is indeed the fact.
But when you are fixed to the price and
you don't care about design and the Name of a product and in addition you don't need any nicely presented advertising - you should make you
homebrew.
Best in price, mostly better in quality (not allways of cause it is depending to your
expertise ) and if you like create a nice
Logo to your stuff.

with regards

PS : Notice : THE most advantace is due to storage in concern of raw chemicals
(Powder)
........and howbody knows to what date one can buy industrial stuff ?
Nobody does!

 

[pentaxuser]

It seems to me that if you can see no difference between the two developers in terms of print appearance and I believe it is a reasonable assumption that both work properly then price would seem to be the crucial distinguishing factor. Based on this I'd act accordingly.

Ilford does not make any of its chemicals as far as I know. Certainly I never saw any chemical factory on the Mobberley site. I think that Champion chemicals may be contracted to produce Ilford paper developers and fixer so the key question is: does Ilford specify higher/better levels for its named dev and fix than the levels applied by Champion to its own brand chemicals. I do not know but I do know that stockists of Champion developer and fixer sell these much more cheaply than Ilford sells its own brand dev and fix and I suspect than Champion is unlikely to want to sell its own chemicals id these are truly inferior - if for no other reason than it is likely to be "found out" with serious consequences for its sales.

I use Ilford as an example but clearly it's the principle that counts. If the chemical manufacturer such as Champion sells its chemicals more cheaply than does say Ilford/ Tetenal or other own-branded stuff and both give the same result then I know what I'd do.

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I believe that it is Tetenal who manufacture most or all of both the Ilford and Kodak black and white photo chemistry, but I'm prepared to be corrected.
Champion formerly supplied a lot of the Kodak chemicals, and were a major victim of Eastman Kodak's bankruptcy. I'm not even sure that they survived it.
Besides price, criteria like storage life, post-mixing longevity, ease of use, flexibility and package types and sizes also enter into the equation. The 1 litre bottles of concentrated Polymax T that I buy satisfy my needs really well. A package of powder developer that would mix up into 5 US gallons of stock solution would be totally impractical.

 

[Neal]

Dear Alexander,

Differences in photographic paper are often subtle and only important to darkroom geeks like those of us who populate this forum. I used to concern myself with the difference between Kodak Polycontrast III and Kodak Polymax. Rather than ramble on about nothing, I'll stop and suggest that you take a look at Ilford Cooltone products (my current favorite). You should see a bigger difference in tone when compared to Foma. Whether or not it appeals to you is another question.

Enjoy,

Neal Wydra

 

[Peter Schrager]

I mix up my own amidol...lasts ALL DAY UNTIL IT'S GONE

 

[LarsAC]

There are differences in paper developers, but maybe you picked two with a similar formulation. If you make a comparison of a cold-tone vs a warm-tone developer (e.g. Moersch SE6 or Tetenal Eukobrom vs Ilford Warmtone developer) on a warmtone paper, you should clearly see a difference.

Lars

 

[esearing]

The individual costs of paper developers have more to be considered than just price per Liter/Gallon.

Shelf life, color/tone (cold-warm), toxicity, working temperature, Prints per liter of working strength, effect on toning, and shipping costs.

Shelf life has to be factored into pricing. I notice most Kodak/Ilford/PF paper developers "Stock" solutions only last 3-6 months. I started using Ethol LPD and a gallon I mixed up 2 years ago still works. Its working solution 1:2 is usually still working after 3 months. You can also change its dilution from 1:1 for colder/neutral images to 1:8 for warmer/softer images, though the difference is subtle and depends on paper used.
$15 for 2 years/gallon stock = $.62 per month VS $10 for 3 months/gallon stock = $3.33 per month. Then you can get into the specialty developers like Amidol which have only one day use, which may or may not be suitable for your frequency of developing and are typically more expensive due to the cost/rarity of the chemistry.

Toxicity: some are just more toxic than others so you have to understand what you are pouring down your drain or disposing of. Health hazards are also important in your pricing since you may need to wear masks when mixing, gloves when processing, or a trip to the Doctor if you have reactions.

Working temperature - some only really work well in the 68-72 degree range or become oxidized. I have used Ethol LPD up to 80 degrees with no problems (Its hot in my darkroom in summer).

Prints per liter working strength - 20 vs 50 8x10s is a big difference. Dilution also comes into play here; more dilute = less prints, or less dilution may lead to wasted developer.

Toning - there is some difference in tone when using poly sulfide or selenium toners. Paper and developer determine the final colors.

Shipping: liquid is usually more expensive to ship than powders or sometimes the chemical make up requires additional costs. Availability outside of US/Europe seems to be an issue for some.


Ultimately if you find a developer that seems better than others (to you), your costs per month/liter is still relatively low compared to Film and Paper costs.