Why So Many Kodak Standard Developers?

[guangong]

Of course, many of these developers can be made at home. When Kodak dropped D19, that I use for developing BW movie film, I just bought chemicals and made it myself. Actually works better, because Kodak only sold 1 gal packages and I would use only about a quart at a time.

 

[DREW WILEY]

My gosh, everyone serious does their own testing with their own preferred developers. Things like the Massive Development Chart wouldn't even exist if darkroom workers weren't prone to habitually experiment to see if the grass is actually greener on the other side of the fence. Nor would forums like this one exist if there wasn't quite a bit of tinkering going on. Mfg spec sheets and web charts are just a starting place. Even in the past, some of the most highly used commercial developers probably never were pre-packaged by anyone, but were mixed from scratch using bulk ingredients, because it was way cheaper that way. All of this kind of thing has to be taken into account when any new film is formulated. Gosh knows how many parameters they test and have on file, even if they publish just the results relative to their own popular developers. This is what R&D film chemists and technicians are paid to do, not sit around playing checkers.

 

[cmacd123]

Which developer does Kodak use to ISO-rate their films? Must be the same one to make their films comparable. I am willing to be it's D76 because what else can this be?

if they are using the rules, they would have to use the ISO film developer that is part of the standrd, (which I belive is simalar but not identical to d76/ID11 etc) and run the required series of tests until they find the correct developing time in the ISO soup. THEN run the speed tests.

 

[MattKing]

As I understand it, there is no longer a requirement in the ISO standard that a particular developer be used. I assume that the revision also includes other measures to help maintain the standardization.

 

[markbau]

You have zero credibility, NB23. Just more totally uninformed babble. Kodak had no "master developer", whatever on earth that might hypothetically be. Does the same shoe size fit everyone? Just like they had a huge selection of films at one time, they likewise offered various developers depending on the specific application. They owned an entire chemical division. Maybe you should actually read some of their contemporaneous film handbooks. I've spoken in person with certain individuals involved in the testing of Tmax when it first came out, who wrote technical articles for Kodak.

But since you seem to be having some fun outright trolling, which is fine, I just don't want to bother with the annoyance, so you're on my Ignore list for awhile.

I reluctantly enter this dispute. I do recall an article in D&CCT around the time that TMax first came out that mentioned all the testing for TMax was done with D:76. If I recall, the TMax developers came out a bit after the film was released.
Regarding a "new" D:76. If the composition has been changed from the age old D:76 we have all been mixing for many years, it's no longer D:76. This is what I've been mixing for many years, if you change anything, it's not D:76 anymore, find a new name for it.

Water (125 deg. F)	750​	ml	24​	oz.
Metol (or "Elon")	2​	gm.	1/2​	teaspoon
Sodium Sulfite, anhydrous	100	gm.	4 1​	tablespoons plus teaspoon
Hydroquinone	5​	gm.	1-1/2​	teaspoons
Borax, granular	2​	gm.	1/2​	teaspoon
Cold water to make	1​	liter

 

[MattKing]

T-Max films may very well be designed to be optimal in one developer, while still being excellent in D76.
Particularly if that other developer was itself designed with T-Max films in mind.
Perhaps developers with names that are similar to the film ?
The process of designing new films is unlikely to have just one set of target criteria.

 

[NB23]

T-Max films may very well be designed to be optimal in one developer, while still being excellent in D76.
Particularly if that other developer was itself designed with T-Max films in mind.
Perhaps developers with names that are similar to the film ?
The process of designing new films is unlikely to have just one set of target criteria.

Correction:

T-Max films may very well be designed to be optimal in D76, while still being excellent in other developers.

 

[BrianShaw]

I’m not so concerned with what is considered “optimal” and much more interested in characteristics of film/developer combinations, development data, etc. The psychophysical statistical data underlying manufacturers testing is completely valid but there may be variations in need and expectations by individual users.

 

[Paul Howell]

As a buyer I look at a combination of factors. I start with the film data sheet, what developer provides a balance of good speed with shadow detail, what developer is best for push, acutance vs grain, how long is the development time, what is the capacity and what is keeping properties, can it be replenished? I have not found a single developer that meets all my needs. Right now I have D76, Photogpghers Formulary version, I bought it several years ago and just mixed it up. I use for Kentmere 400 that I use for my point and shoots, D76 provides very close to box speed. Once it gone will not likely replace it as I have Clayton F76+ which is one shot, saves on limited storage. I have DK 50 for 4X5 and 6X9, I had forgotten how well DK 50 works with 4X5. Although I had sworn MCM 100 due to price, in a moment of weakness bought another 1/2 gallon kit for 35mm. Last I have Rodinal for slow 35mm films like ILford PanF or Foma 100.

I think everyone finds what works best for them, one size does not fil all.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why so many Kodak standard developers? Different strokes for different folks.

 

[faberryman]

It would be a sad day indeed if everyone's photographs looked exactly alike.

 

[DREW WILEY]

markbau - you need to keep in mind the distinction between engineering and marketing. For example, around the same time, they were advertising TechPan as "4X5 quality in 35mm". Besides being total BS, that is exactly the kind of thing one would encounter in magazines like Pop Photography, trying to drum up some popular usage along with a particular specialty developer, despite all of that kind of usage amounting to only a tiny amount of the potential usage of that particular film, along with the numerous respective developers needed for an overall suite of applications. Pictorial photography was only a supplementary side branch.

Similarly, if TMax was going to replace Super-XX, Plus X, and Tri X functionally, like the silver bullet film they anticipated, the usage of multiple developers had to be factored right from the start. All kinds of technical applications were in mind. But when it came to advertising the product to casual users, of course they wanted to make it easy for amateurs, and had the sample prints done by John Sexton using their most commonly available developer, D76. I saw a number of those actual early prints. Doesn't mean he stuck with that same developer himself later on, but that at the time, he was formally contracted to use that particular combination. But totally different developers would have logically been recommended for color separation applications, or astrophotography, or whatever, which were potentially much higher volume applications back then, but that didn't involve the type of people who sat around reading Shutterbug or Pop Photo.

 

[faberryman]

Meanwhile, you have not demonstrated any ability to produce a single photo...

Drew used to have a website, but it was taken down someone in 2014. You can still see the first page of his gallery section containing a dozen of his images on the Internet Archive. They are quite different than I expected.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131019032934/http://www.drewwiley.com/gallery.php

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've pretty much forgotten about the old site; but yeah, been there, done that. It was only a small part of my body of work anyway. All of that was geared to slower web speeds of former days; and the site was handled by one of the best pro firms in Silicon Valley. But despite hits and nice comments from almost every nation on earth, I learned that web surfers and real print collectors are two entirely different categories. The latter make their decisions on seeing prints in person; a web presence has very very little to do with it.

None of the old black and white pages come up; but some color images were large Cibachrome prints on public exhibit. The poppy petal image was of a 30X40 Ciba among others of mine in a retrospective split with the largest collection of AA's big mural prints ever assembled. Another interesting rite of passage experience that I don't ordinarily think about. A couple other examples still there were purchased by another A list photographer. That was typical. Right time, right place.

I couldn't care less what folks on the sidelines think. If all they recognize is what pops up on the web, that's an awfully small petty universe indeed !

 

[MattKing]

I've taken my moderator's shears to a bunch of personalized arguments here.
It is amazing what heat can be generated about the meaning of two quite distinct terms like "optimal" and "reference". But when the heat becomes personal, the posts will go.
And by the way, the membership on this site includes an amazing variety of people, whose strengths range in a variety of different ways. I've met great photographers who shouldn't be allowed near anything other than a camera, great technicians whose best work by far has been done on other people's photography, and many people who fit at every spot between the two.
But if they have something civil to say here, let us hear their position and their support for it.

 

[mshchem]

Well done moderator!

 

[bluechromis]

As said, Kodak formerly had a greater diversity of developers. I think they had their own version of Rodinal at one time. Perhaps with modern films, there is less need for specialized developers. D-76 had been the gold standard of general-purpose developers even though the version Kodak sells may not be the best one. But then Kodak created Xtol. Some say that the advantage in Xtol's performance over D-76 is small but significant. I would agree with that, especially with the superfast films. Xtol is more environmentally friendly than MQ developers, something that matters with some people and potentially with the citrus industry. Xtol is self-replenishing. But the bigger point to me is that Kodak showed it is possible to innovate, to create chemistry that was better than that developed in the 1920s, if only by a small margin. But it was Kodak's chemistry swan song. I find it sad that neither Kodak nor Ilford are doing much innovation in BW chemistry nowadays. Kodak shut down its BW R&D in the 1990s and doesn't even manufacture its chemistry now. One wonders what might have happened if they kept going. I realize that it is probably not economically advantageous for Ilford and Kodak to invest in new chemistry. Some people may feel that D-76 is plenty good for all eternity and no need to explore anything else. But I find that depressing and cannot believe the field cannot continue to advance. Most innovation now is done by amateurs and small enterprises and I applaud them.

 

[flavio81]

Here is a comparison. Choose the qualities you want. None deliver everything. It is a trade off.
View attachment 229309

Something I should mention to @NortheastPhotographic , that I only figured out decades after starting on film photography...

D76 can be used at full strength, 1:1 (diluted) or 1:3 (diluted even more).

The fine grain qualities will be much more present when used at full strength. Using it diluted will give larger (more present) grain.

 

[bluechromis]

As I understand it, there is no longer a requirement in the ISO standard that a particular developer be used. I assume that the revision also includes other measures to help maintain the standardization.

As an example of this, some might say that Foma was a bit deceptive in establishing the ISO for their films using Microphen, one of the most speed-increasing developers, rather than more typical developers like D-76 or even one of their own developers. The casual user might not realize that they could not attain box speed with Foma films unless they used a special developer.

 

[DREW WILEY]

This isn't the only photo forum I participate in. There are others where it seems NOBODY uses D76 anymore, and probably hasn't for decades. Perhaps a few still do; but it would be like a Model T rally. Serious practitioners have been cooking up their own special brews for a long time. None of the former big commercial labs in this area used 76, and the smaller remaining ones don't. Relatively little chemistry seems to come off photo store shelves, and not much even remains of those retail venues. The alleged importance or dominance of 76 seems to be blown way out of proportion in this thread.

 

[markbau]

markbau - you need to keep in mind the distinction between engineering and marketing. For example, around the same time, they were advertising TechPan as "4X5 quality in 35mm". Besides being total BS, that is exactly the kind of thing one would encounter in magazines like Pop Photography, trying to drum up some popular usage along with a particular specialty developer, despite all of that kind of usage amounting to only a tiny amount of the potential usage of that particular film, along with the numerous respective developers needed for an overall suite of applications. Pictorial photography was only a supplementary side branch.

Similarly, if TMax was going to replace Super-XX, Plus X, and Tri X functionally, like the silver bullet film they anticipated, the usage of multiple developers had to be factored right from the start. All kinds of technical applications were in mind. But when it came to advertising the product to casual users, of course they wanted to make it easy for amateurs, and had the sample prints done by John Sexton using their most commonly available developer, D76. I saw a number of those actual early prints. Doesn't mean he stuck with that same developer himself later on, but that at the time, he was formally contracted to use that particular combination. But totally different developers would have logically been recommended for color separation applications, or astrophotography, or whatever, which were potentially much higher volume applications back then, but that didn't involve the type of people who sat around reading Shutterbug or Pop Photo.

I was never a Pop Photographer or Shutterbug reader but I did subscribe to Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques for many years and I still miss that magazine. The D&CCT article, if I recall correctly, was written by someone at Kodak who was involved in the development of TMax and they quite clearly stated that D-76 was the standard developer used in the testing anddevelopment of the new film. Perhaps someone still has the copy that the article appeared in? Obviously at some stage Kodak would have extensively tested the new film in all sorts of developers.

 

[NB23]

I was never a Pop Photographer or Shutterbug reader but I did subscribe to Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques for many years and I still miss that magazine. The D&CCT article, if I recall correctly, was written by someone at Kodak who was involved in the development of TMax and they quite clearly stated that D-76 was the standard developer used in the testing anddevelopment of the new film. Perhaps someone still has the copy that the article appeared in? Obviously at some stage Kodak would have extensively tested the new film in all sorts of developers.

Exactly. Tmax was developed with D76 as its benchmark. Its very own PAPA.

 

[markbau]

This isn't the only photo forum I participate in. There are others where it seems NOBODY uses D76 anymore, and probably hasn't for decades. Perhaps a few still do; but it would be like a Model T rally. Serious practitioners have been cooking up their own special brews for a long time. None of the former big commercial labs in this area used 76, and the smaller remaining ones don't. Relatively little chemistry seems to come off photo store shelves, and not much even remains of those retail venues. The alleged importance or dominance of 76 seems to be blown way out of proportion in this thread.

I don't know about that, at Melbourne's last camera store that stocks darkroom chemicals there is always plenty of D-76 and it is always fresh which would indicate that they sell a lot. If you do a search for B&W film developers at B&H and sort by "Best Sellers", D-76 comes out on top. It is still my go-to developer although I have returned to D-23 of late. I think you underestimate the popularity of D-76.

 

[NB23]

D76 is still WIDELY used. Extra widely.

 

[MattKing]

D76 is still WIDELY used. Extra widely.

Not around here much, but ID-11 has a following, because the Ilford Chemicals are easier to get.
I doubt that you will find much D-76 used commercially any more, because there is no longer a replenisher available for it.
It remains as a reference though.
And in response to markbau's post earlier, while the working ingredients in D-76 may essentially be unchanged. commercially packaged D-76 has changed many times over the years due to changes in the additives to it that deal with the issues relating to packaging, problems with water quality variation and shipping, handling and age related deterioration.