Why So Many Kodak Standard Developers?

[NB23]

Why do my posts keep disappearing?

 

[DREW WILEY]

The other problem with 76 commercially was its known pH shift. Labs can't wait around for that to balance itself out.

Markbau - B&H is a very minor, almost nil, provider of darkroom chemicals because they can't even ship much of the relatively tiny selection of chemicals which they still do sell, walk-in only. They apparently don't want any haz-mat shipping hassles, so barely get involved in chemistry sales at all. And I hardly think a camera store in Melbourne would be representative either. We still have a few traditional photo stores around, but the vast majority have closed for good due to the digital revulsion (mis-spelling deliberate). Most people I know go for non-standard developers offering something special. I sometimes still use Perceptol, one of the very few still found at the local camera store, but mostly mix from scratch. The serious action for non-commercial users is taking place more at the specialty product level, like Photog. Formulary here in the US, and several similar suppliers catering mainly to darkroom enthusiasts, including Freestyle in LA. Brick and mortar retail, darkroom-wise, is close to dead. All the D76 those venues sell combined in probably just a tiny percent of overall film development options. The local mini-labs doing automated b&w film processing standardize mainly on Xtol.

And as far a Darkroom Techniques articles go, the editor back then was someone local I knew, who asked me to write certain things for them; but they couldn't pay anywhere near equal what the Architectural glossy mags did, which I did contribute a few articles to. I've had plenty of conversations in person with people contracted to write early tech articles related to TMax, and know the mantra, which was all mainly marketing related. There are certain things they expect you to promote under contract, and if D76 was it relative to amateur photo magazines, it was a different story entirely with respect to technical and commercial applications, where HC-110 prevailed at the time. But marketing-wise, it still made sense to come up with yet another option bearing a matching label, and allegedly even "better", namely, TMax developers, which are now half-extinct. Many of we loyal TMax types switched to pyro developers anyway, which of course is not something Kodak is going to promote because they never offered it; and it's not appropriate for dabblers with ungloved fingers in the soup.

I have nothing against D76. If it were the last developer option on earth, I could make it work competently for my needs. I just have other developers I prefer instead, and for valid reasons. But this whole thread is largely moot with the local darkroom beginner classes, since they avoid TMax films entirely, and recommend something easier for beginners and their so-so TTL metering skills, like FP4.

 

[NB23]

Drew, lots of nonsense.
HC-110’s sole purpose of existence was to supplement D76 in the commercial and art world.

And no, artists, commercial photogs, and amateurs, that mix their own developer will never outnumber the ones that buy commercial developers.

D76 is still a huge Seller.

I have no idea where you get your numbers but it’s definitely not planet earth.

P.S.: to the moderator that keeps on deleting my posts, if you delete this one, please delete ALL MY STUFF I have posted on here. All of it. I’ll be done with this place.

 

[MattKing]

Normally, we don't reply to moderating comments.
But for the educative value in it take a look at the edits I've done to your above post.
The struck out but still visible portions are personalized attacks at another poster. They are reason to delete an entire post, which you will note I have not done.
The rest of the post is a reasonably civil argument, with opinions and facts and suppositions.
They are fine - go for it. You are free to disagree, if you do it civilly.
We rarely have the resources to edit posts. If you intersperse argument for arguments sake and personalized attacks with acceptable material, we will most likely delete the entire post.
And so that you know, I've tried to do the same with Drew's posts as well.

 

[Sean]

Thanks Matt, and @NB23 please keep it civil. Some here can get into a mode of looking for a fight, being overly argumentative at every turn, not simply disagreeing and posting their views but trying to take it personal and lashing out at those who 'dare have a different view'. Cumulatively it sours threads, the forum and becomes a problem.

 

[amam]

Drew, lots of nonsense.
HC-110’s sole purpose of existence was to supplement D76 in the commercial and art world.

And no, artists, commercial photogs, and amateurs, that mix their own developer will never outnumber the ones that buy commercial developers.

D76 is still a huge Seller.

I have no idea where you get your numbers but it’s definitely not planet earth.

P.S.: to the moderator that keeps on deleting my posts, if you delete this one, please delete ALL MY STUFF I have posted on here. All of it. I’ll be done with this place.

I couldn't agree more
D76 is the bar that most developers try to meet or exceed, and it is the developer that codac uses to determine the ISO value, there must be something to that. There are several D76 clones that people use, I do not know if they should be considered D76 or not, and what about DD23 (divided with the borax bath) some suggest that is the pre-curser to D76, that bath mixed together. Who knows and who cares, I certainly don't I don't buy any codac products anymore, ever .. the company has let me down for decades, and I don't support companies that don't Kare.

 

[NB23]

Thanks Matt, and @NB23 please keep it civil. Some here can get into a mode of looking for a fight, being overly argumentative at every turn, not simply disagreeing and posting their views but trying to take it personal and lashing out at those who 'dare have a different view'. Cumulatively it sours threads, the forum and becomes a problem.

I’m not sure you are protecting the forum, or adding any Quality to it, by letting him post such misinformation and false facts, while also erasing posts of people correcting what he’s saying...

 

[Down Under]

So you have D76, XTol, HC110, TMAX, and I believe still a few others if they still make Microdol X.

D76 is D76, XTol is it's 'replacement'. Okay I get that. Lots of improvements, more environmentally friendly.

HC110 and TMax are also out there. I know some labs that use TMAX is their Refrema Dip & Dunkers.

Is there really so much of a difference between HC110 and D76, or HC110 and Xtol, or TMAX and XTol? I mean when it comes to Rodinal and D76, world of difference. XTol and Pyrocat HD, I get it. And it's not like TMAX is for TMax films, it's just another choice for standard developers and is supposed to be quite good.

Also I should say I'm not arguing that these developers should not exist, I'm just wondering why they do...if that makes sense.

---From someone still unhappy that I can't get Acutol anymore....

So you forgot DK60a and DK50. okay, Kodak no longer makes them, but those (and there are many) of us who have scales and access to basic chemistry can still brew them up - and they are pretty good developers every which way, economical to make up and use, and they give surprisingly good results with modern day films, if one can resist the temptation to overdevelop.

Yes, D76 is a wonder, but let's not forget the good old tried and true film developers of their time.

Eastman Rochester made many varied film developers in its day, and (almost all of) them are supremely good, in their own way. They all served a purpose, to give the best results to the films of their time, and with a little tinkering and some experimentation, often as not they can be repurposed to suit modern day emulsions and give excellent results.

We could also talk about D23, but I've never used it, so I know enough to keep my (big) mouth shut about it.

Maybe a DK60a and DK50 appreciation society. Memberships, anybody?? Free to all.

PS Disagreeable disagreements and unwarranted arguments about this posting will not be responded to. Posters of such will be auto-awarded a Miserable Git Consolation Prize.

 

[sasah zib]

weather changes... sometimes amateurs don't maintain their attention to the current climate. Always best to check for yourself.

BH as of today:

Black & White Film Developing Chemicals | B&H Photo

Buy Black & White Film Developing Chemicals from top brands like Photographers' Formulary, Ilford, Moersch Photochemie and Legacy Pro, at the best prices.

www.bhphotovideo.com

in stock, ready to ship. D-19, D-76, ID-11, Dektol ... put them in my cart and off they go.

 

[sasah zib]

@ozmoose from my early enough days -- was a time when making a color print meant several types of film, and several different developers. Anytime we could find a way to eliminate something from the "chain" we would.

DK-50 was a magical bullet - it hit many marks with dilution, agitation changes. It didn't address the needs for highlight or specular masks, but that was a job for D-11, D-19.

then a Kodak Lab notice: HC-110. First version solved the DK-50 dilution matter. About 6 months later, Kodak had solved the agitation difference. It was BANG. DK-50 became a dodo in 4 shift labs.

Current HC doesn't have the same "agitation" scheme (for me) so, back to DK-50

 

[warden]

in stock, ready to ship. D-19, D-76, ID-11, Dektol ... put them in my cart and off they go.

Yep, my liquid and powder chemistry comes from there, easy as can be and free shipping too.

 

[DREW WILEY]

DK-50 was still used by some big labs well into the HC-110 era for reasons of economy.

And NO, B&H is not a significant darkroom chem supplier. Just try ordering any basic RA4 color chemistry from them;
and they've nearly thrown in the towels on color paper entirely, but that might be temporary due to pandemic issues. They do seem to be slowly improving in some b&w categories. Nice to see them adding certain Formulary products, since our local store dropped them. But I generally order directly from Formulary. B&H is great for me due to its fast shipments; but they aren't set up for HazMat types of sales.

 

[Down Under]

@ozmoose from my early enough days -- was a time when making a color print meant several types of film, and several different developers. Anytime we could find a way to eliminate something from the "chain" we would.

tell me about it - I processed my first ever roll of slide film in 1961, using what was then sold as an Ansco Slide Home Processing Kit (or maybe Anscochrome Home Processing Kit, I've forgotten which). The film was, naturally, Anscochrome, with an ISO speed of I think, about 50. Horrible colors, maybe more due to my inept temperature control in my makeshift darkroom than the actual film or chemistry.

I recall we had to 'fog' the film using a photoflood light, a process eventually made redundant by the introduction of, IRRC, bleach-fix.

Once in 1963 I inadvertently put my still wet slide film too close to the flood lamp and somehow shook it, and splashed a few drops of chemistry-water on the light, which of course blew up, covering my film with glass shards. I washed it under the cold water tap in the bathroom and then quickly set up my enlarger lamp head to finish the fogging. Film came out fine. I still have those slides. The images aren't worth much (I wasn't very good as a photographer in those long ago days, being all of 15 years old) but the colors have held up well for almost 60 years. Almost no fading.

By contrast almost all my Ektachromes and Agfachromes from those days show obvious fading, the former much more so than the latter, which I think is odd. The Agfa color film of that era (Agfacolor and Agfa CT18) were slow and not so fine-grained. Orwo and Perutz made similar emulsions which occasionally could be bought in Canada, but I candon'tt recall ever having used it or trying to soup it at home as they were "proprietary" processes. By 1965 I had a Voigtlander Vito and using Kodachrome and a year later after I bought my first Rolleiflex TLR, to Ektachrome in 120.

DK50 as I recall was mostly a larger (4x5" or bigger) format film developer. Newspaper photographers I worked with mid-'60s used it. My go to was DK60a which did everything I wanted it to. I still have many of my old negatives and they print exceptionally well for their age and the B&W film types I used then, mostly Kodak Verichrome Pan or Ansco (by then known as GAF if memory serves me) Versapan, with now and then Tri-X or Super-XX when I had to up the ISO for low light images.

Ah, again the good old days, now ancient history. It's good to know you are still using DK50. Me, every now and then I mix up a batch of home-brewed DK60a for the sake of nostalgia, but I'm now almost out of metol and unlikely to buy any more, when the last of it has been used up it will be only Phenidone developers for me, I have 500 grams of it in my darkroom chemicals box, which with the very small amounts I use in my film developers may very well see me out. So it goes.

 

[Sirius Glass]

tell me about it - I processed my first ever roll of slide film in 1961, using what was then sold as an Ansco Slide Home Processing Kit (or maybe Anscochrome Home Processing Kit, I've forgotten which). The film was, naturally, Anscochrome, with an ISO speed of I think, about 50. Horrible colors, maybe more due to my inept temperature control in my makeshift darkroom than the actual film or chemistry.

I recall we had to 'fog' the film using a photoflood light, a process eventually made redundant by the introduction of, IRRC, bleach-fix.

Once in 1963 I inadvertently put my still wet slide film too close to the flood lamp and somehow shook it, and splashed a few drops of chemistry-water on the light, which of course blew up, covering my film with glass shards. I washed it under the cold water tap in the bathroom and then quickly set up my enlarger lamp head to finish the fogging. Film came out fine. I still have those slides. The images aren't worth much (I wasn't very good as a photographer in those long ago days, being all of 15 years old) but the colors have held up well for almost 60 years. Almost no fading.

By contrast almost all my Ektachromes and Agfachromes from those days show obvious fading, the former much more so than the latter, which I think is odd. The Agfa color film of that era (Agfacolor and Agfa CT18) were slow and not so fine-grained. Orwo and Perutz made similar emulsions which occasionally could be bought in Canada, but I candon'tt recall ever having used it or trying to soup it at home as they were "proprietary" processes. By 1965 I had a Voigtlander Vito and using Kodachrome and a year later after I bought my first Rolleiflex TLR, to Ektachrome in 120.

DK50 as I recall was mostly a large format film developer. A few newspaper photographers I worked with mid-'60s used it. My go to was DK60a which did everything I wanted it to. I still have many of my old negatives and they print exceptionally well for their age and the B&W film types I used then, mostly Kodak Verichrome Pan or Ansco (by then known as GAF if memory serves me) Versapan, with now and then Tri-X or Super-XX when I had to up the ISO for low light images.

Ah, again the good old days, now ancient history. It's good to know you are still using DK50. Me, every now and then I mix up a batch of home-brewed DK60a for the sake of nostalgia, but I'm now almost out of metol and unlikely to buy any more, when the last of it has been used up it will be only Phenidone developers for me, I have 500 grams of it in my darkroom chemicals box, which with the very small amounts I use in my film developers may very well see me out. So it goes.

I too developed slide film, Ektachrome, back when one had to fog the film. The first time I was in the basement and I could only fog with a florescent light and I was afraid that since it was not incandescent that I had ruined the film. I worried until I hung the film to dry and saw that it had developed correctly.

 

[Vaughn]

Anyone ever use Agfachrome Speed? I had bought a sample to use in-camera, but never got around to it, so made a few prints.

"Agfachrome Speed was a single sheet on which an enlargement was made then immersed in an alkaline activator to reveal an image on the side opposite of exposure." For color prints from transparencies.

I had made B&W prints, but this was all too strange to get a handle on for me back then! The prints still look like they did when I made them -- pretty bad.

 

[takilmaboxer]

My thanks to the mods and the polite posters. I rarely post on this forum because of the acrimonious nature of so many replies. But there aren't many other places to get the expert opinions of photographers with decades of experience with film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

ozmoose - yeah, developer preferences changed as more and more emphasis became placed on smaller film formats, finer-grained films, and less grainy or mushy developers. In hindsight, one wonders how Super-XX was ever classified as a "fine grain" film; but it was all relative to the particular era. But that's what's so nice about large format photography even today; you can pay more attention to qualities like tonality, range, and edge definition, and choose between a larger selection of films accordingly. With MF, one often has to be more nitpicky about grain itself.

 

[Vaughn]

I was surprised to see so many posts...tho I'm guilty of off-topic post, too.

I was surprised no one (or perhaps I missed it), referenced this chart:

Some kind of comparison chart for all developers?

Hi everybody I 'm looking for a comparison chart of developers all kind... Does it exist ?? Can't find it. Thx

www.photrio.com

 

[Down Under]

So much good and useful information in this thread. And yes, we are all behaving ourselves and being nice to one another, aren't we?? Let's hope this is the way of the (post-Covid) future for us all.

Just now the thought came to me that two positive things about (almost) all Kodak developers are - (1) how easy they are to mix up, using available chemistry, and (2) how well they all work even with modern films. D76 dates back to the late 1920s and I believe was concocted to process B&W movie films in Hollywood studios. Amazing that it has lasted so long, and still goes on working so brilliantly. If we had no other developers available, D76 would still do its work, and give us entirely useable negatives.

Vaughn, many thanks for the list you so kindly posted (#93). I will be making good use of this in the near future, in my ongoing quest for the perfect Phenidone film soup. Yesterday I did a quick stock-take in my home darkroom and discovered I have one kilo of the stuff. At the rate I use it, most of it will have to be sold off by my executor as part of my estate...

 

[sasah zib]

I’m not sure you are protecting the forum, or adding any Quality to it, by letting him post such misinformation and false facts, while also erasing posts of people correcting what he’s saying...

@NB -- I understand, and have sympathy for your viewpoint -- however: this place isn’t the source or keeper of light. It is a place of gossip; casual, convenient, conventional.

In my life I worked at, managed, or owned deeply specialized color labs — none of that knowledge is useful here to a broad, barstool audience.

I am a grateful, low-active member of a group of people who have preserved knowledge of a very specialized photography. I don’t attend, but this last meeting was about opening the archive to a general public; maybe publishing a book. The vote was against.

knowledge is being stored, just not in the freezer, nor among those sitting highpost

 

[Paul Verizzo]

So you forgot DK60a and DK50. okay, Kodak no longer makes them, but those (and there are many) of us who have scales and access to basic chemistry can still brew them up - and they are pretty good developers every which way, economical to make up and use, and they give surprisingly good results with modern day films, if one can resist the temptation to overdevelop.

Yes, D76 is a wonder, but let's not forget the good old tried and true film developers of their time.

Eastman Rochester made many varied film developers in its day, and (almost all of) them are supremely good, in their own way. They all served a purpose, to give the best results to the films of their time, and with a little tinkering and some experimentation, often as not they can be repurposed to suit modern day emulsions and give excellent results.

We could also talk about D23, but I've never used it, so I know enough to keep my (big) mouth shut about it.

Maybe a DK60a and DK50 appreciation society. Memberships, anybody?? Free to all.

PS Disagreeable disagreements and unwarranted arguments about this posting will not be responded to. Posters of such will be auto-awarded a Miserable Git Consolation Prize.

After a long hiatus from analog photography, I'm jumping back in. I decided to return to/stick with dilute DK-50. I wrote up a post about this back when: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/dk-50-still-alive-and-well.124365/unread

 

[Paul Howell]

My 1962 Kodak Master Data guide lists 10 commercially available developers, most were general purpose developers, Polydol, Versadale, HC 110, D76,Microdol X and DK 50 all fall or fell in the general purpose type. The others were high contrast developers. Kodak published a number of formulas, some for underexposed negatives, a color weather, a tropical developer. As film as improved the need for so many developers has diminished. Still under the Kodak brand there are still 3 general purpose developers. In my neck of the world Tempe Camera sell a lot of D76 and ID-11.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Maybe a DK60a and DK50 appreciation society. Memberships, anybody?? Free to all.

Hey, I'm in. I've spent quite a lot of time recently with DK-50 1+1, and now I'm doing it replenished. I'm curious about DK-60a, because its only difference with DK-50 is the amount of sulfite and alkali.

Also of interest is D-61a, which is an older formula, a sodium carbonate MQ developer. It's quite intense, so you have to use it either on large format, or quite diluted, but it gives an interesting look.

And finally, AGFA has near-equivalents to the Kodak developers (or is that the opposite?), but the proportions are tweaked differently.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hey, I'm in. I've spent quite a lot of time recently with DK-50 1+1, and now I'm doing it replenished. I'm curious about DK-60a, because its only difference with DK-50 is the amount of sulfite and alkali.

Also of interest is D-61a, which is an older formula, a sodium carbonate MQ developer. It's quite intense, so you have to use it either on large format, or quite diluted, but it gives an interesting look.

And finally, AGFA has near-equivalents to the Kodak developers (or is that the opposite?), but the proportions are tweaked differently.

Take a look at XTOL and replenished XTOL.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Take a look at XTOL and replenished XTOL.

View attachment 309215

I love that chart. But our endeavor here in the last few comments is about DK-50. Not searching for the best all around developer.