What film developer is your favorite and why ?

[Alpsman]

I started with Promicrol, a recommendation of my dealer.
When Promicrol was no longer available I changed to Tetenal Ultrafin.
After Tetenal ceased production I used Ilfosol 3.

Now I use Ilsosol 3 or Rollei Supergrain, whatever is available at my dealer.
Whit each of those developer I got images on my film stripes.

 

[skahde]

These days I like to use Moersch EFD with Delta 400. High accutance, still sharp but fine grain thanks to the Delta's characteristics and good shadow-detail, can be rated up to 640 ASA without pushing, just by a little less dilution.

 

[Freakscene]

These days I like to use Moersch EFD with Delta 400. High accutance, still sharp but fine grain thanks to the Delta's characteristics and good shadow-detail, can be rated up to 640 ASA without pushing, just by a little less dilution.

In the 1990s, I loved the first version of Delta 400 at 250 or 500 in Xtol. EFD is very similar as a dimezone-s ascorbate developer.

 

[trix4ever]

Leica M6, 50mm Summicron.
Another with Delta 400 in lc29 @1:29, these days I prefer Delta 400 to Tri-x ever since they altered Tri-x and it just doesn't look right to me.

 

[skahde]

In the 1990s, I loved the first version of Delta 400 at 250 or 500 in Xtol. EFD is very similar as a dimezone-s ascorbate developer.

I'm not sure how much similarity that means for the resulting negative. While XTol has moderate pH and high sulfite, EFD has high pH (carbonate) and low sulfite. They may be more similar when comparing very dilute XTol to EFD.
With EFD I found that e.g. FP4+ reacts more like to Rodinal 1:25 with respect to grain: Very gritty. I made a 28x35cm print from a 6x7 cm negative with easily visible grain, looked more like a fine grained 35mm-print. Not quite what I had in mind when carrying the big Bronica GS.

 

[Freakscene]

I'm not sure how much similarity that means for the resulting negative. While XTol has moderate pH and high sulfite, EFD has high pH (carbonate) and low sulfite. They may be more similar when comparing very dilute XTol to EFD.
With EFD I found that e.g. FP4+ reacts more like to Rodinal 1:25 with respect to grain: Very gritty. I made a 28x35cm print from a 6x7 cm negative with easily visible grain, looked more like a fine grained 35mm-print. Not quite what I had in mind when carrying the big Bronica GS.

EFD is buffered carbonate - it has potassium, sodium and calcium carbonate. It is grainier than Xtol but it has a lot of tonal and use similarities. You can also manipulate the part a and part b ratio and the dilution to optimise for different flims. I like Adox XT-3 best, but EFD is really nice.

 

[Mcary]

Can't say that I have a favorite developer as I've liked the results I've gotten from various ones to included XTOL, ADOX D76, ILFORD DDX and HC-110, over the years to my needs at the time. For the past 18 months or so I've been using Black White and Green from Flic film as its a one shot developer with a long shelf life so can mix it as needed whither that be to develop a couple of rolls film a week during the spring-thru fall or 1-2 rolls a month during the winter. Shoot primarily 35mm and 120 film along with a few sheets of 4x5 from time to time.

 

[luuca]

HC110

because it's eternal and suits my developing times

M4 - Ultron 75
Fomapan 200 - 7 min in HC110 1:32 6 years old

 

[steveyork]

Like liquid developers, don't do powders. Given that context, we like Clayton F76, for a clean, sharp look. Basically, liquid D76. But really limited shelf life; measured in months once a bottle is opened. I've been shooting older, singe coated lenses more, for the last several months and I like HC-110 (my bottle, the old version), because it respects the midtones. Before shooting these old lenses, didn't use HC-110 much and my bottle is 10 years old -- still chugging along though. Then, of course, we have a lot of Rodinal (really the clone stuff) -- Mr. Dependable -- because of shelf life. Good when you want contrast. So we usually have Rodinal and HC-110 in the house, and then F76 once or twice a year, but used up pretty quickly.

 

[steveyork]

I wasted plenty of films trying to learn stand developing. I started with films being destroyed by bromide drag and moved towards negatives that in the best of cases were in no way, shape or form better than standard developing.

Standard developing worked for me from the beginning and with time I got even better at it. So personally I don't see why to recommend stand developing and when others ask my view I tell them not to bother.

Most advocates of "stand developing" are probably actually doing some type of semi-stand protocol, e.g., limited agitations at 10,20, 30 min ect., because it avoids many of the problems associated with let-it-sit-for-an-hour-untouched type of thing. I worked out temperature independent, semi-stand protocol that gave, somewhat consistent, ok results, but it's really just as easy and more consistent to do standard developing. If my memory is correct stand/semi stand can really protect shadow detail at the cost of contrast and potentially blown highlights, especially when using older, single coated lenses, and in my case was temperature independent. I've largely gone back to standard developing though.

 

[skahde]

EFD is buffered carbonate - it has potassium, sodium and calcium carbonate. It is grainier than Xtol but it has a lot of tonal and use similarities. You can also manipulate the part a and part b ratio and the dilution to optimise for different flims. I like Adox XT-3 best, but EFD is really nice.

I'm tempted to ask Wolfgang on his personal opinion, I attended two workshops in his lab several years ago and still have loose contact via a mutual friend.

 

[Freakscene]

I'm tempted to ask Wolfgang on his personal opinion, I attended two workshops in his lab several years ago and still have loose contact via a mutual friend.

Sure, I am certain that he would have some views on using EFD.

 

[chuckroast]

• Most advocates of "stand developing" are probably actually doing some type of semi-stand protocol, e.g., limited agitations at 10,20, 30 min ect., because it avoids many of the problems associated with let-it-sit-for-an-hour-untouched type of thing. I worked out temperature independent, semi-stand protocol that gave, somewhat consistent, ok results, but it's really just as easy and more consistent to do standard developing. If my memory is correct stand/semi stand can really protect shadow detail at the cost of contrast and potentially blown highlights, especially when using older, single coated lenses, and in my case was temperature independent. I've largely gone back to standard developing though.

What you describe is actually called EMA - Extreme Minimal Agitation. Agitating once at the beginning and one more time at the time midpoint is semistand. Stand is only doing one initial agitation.

After tons of testing I found that stand does not work with modern films reliably. Semistand and EMA do. BUT ... they require several conditions to remain streak free:

• Get the film off the bottom of the tank. That means hanging sheet film horizontally and putting reels on an inverted funnel in a double height tanks.
  
  
• Have absolutely minimal contact between the film and it's support system. For sheet film I use the Kodak #6 hangers (with the film hanging horizontally).
  
  For roll films I only use Nikkor stainless reels because they have well spaced, very low profile winds which leaves room for gravity to pull away development byproducts during standing periods. In my experience, high walled plastic reels and framed sheet film hangers are death for standing type development...

 

[Freakscene]

What you describe is actually called EMA - Extreme Minimal Agitation. Agitating once at the beginning and one more time at the time midpoint is semistand. Stand is only doing one initial agitation.

After tons of testing I found that stand does not work with modern films reliably. Semistand and EMA do. BUT ... they require several conditions to remain streak free:

• Get the film off the bottom of the tank. That means hanging sheet film horizontally and putting reels on an inverted funnel in a double height tanks.
  
  
• Have absolutely minimal contact between the film and it's support system. For sheet film I use the Kodak #6 hangers (with the film hanging horizontally).
  
  For roll films I only use Nikkor stainless reels because they have well spaced, very low profile winds which leaves room for gravity to pull away development byproducts during standing periods. In my experience, high walled plastic reels and framed sheet film hangers are death for standing type development...

This is all good advice and helps a lot.

But it is no gravity that pulls development by-products away from the film. It’s diffusion.

 

[Myrrys.eu]

In my experience stand development (and semi-stand) works relatively well if you plan on scanning the negatives, but result in low contrast negatives which are pain to work with in darkroom. My personal favorite developer was adox atomal 49. Makes pushing slow films easy and consistant. Also when not pushing can result in wonderful fine tonality while still having contrast.

Haven't been in the darkroom in almost couple of years though even if I still have it. Need to find some time for it in near future. And replenish chemicals and get rid off all the old paper developers and fixers which were once liquid and are now crystalized.

 

[steveyork]

What you describe is actually called EMA - Extreme Minimal Agitation. Agitating once at the beginning and one more time at the time midpoint is semistand. Stand is only doing one initial agitation.

After tons of testing I found that stand does not work with modern films reliably. Semistand and EMA do. BUT ... they require several conditions to remain streak free:

• Get the film off the bottom of the tank. That means hanging sheet film horizontally and putting reels on an inverted funnel in a double height tanks.
  
  
• Have absolutely minimal contact between the film and it's support system. For sheet film I use the Kodak #6 hangers (with the film hanging horizontally).
  
  For roll films I only use Nikkor stainless reels because they have well spaced, very low profile winds which leaves room for gravity to pull away development byproducts during standing periods. In my experience, high walled plastic reels and framed sheet film hangers are death for standing type development...

Yeah, we discovered pure stand developing is fraught with issues. We've found we get ok results with subsequent agitations at 5 min, 10 min, 20 min and 45 min, everything at room temp. I called that a "semi stand" protocol, but that might be the wrong phrase. Other than temp independent, I'm not sure there's much benefit with this protocol. We've largely gone back to standard developing. Never really messed around with different development tanks and reels, because never imagined it would make much difference. Learn something new every day.

 

[chuckroast]

Yeah, we discovered pure stand developing is fraught with issues. We've found we get ok results with subsequent agitations at 5 min, 10 min, 20 min and 45 min, everything at room temp. I called that a "semi stand" protocol, but that might be the wrong phrase. Other than temp independent, I'm not sure there's much benefit with this protocol. We've largely gone back to standard developing. Never really messed around with different development tanks and reels, because never imagined it would make much difference. Learn something new every day.

You may want to peruse my notes I kept while I worked on this - link below.

The benefits - when done right are several:

• Full box speed to hold shadow detail
• Highlight protection
• Better overall acutance (with the right developers)
• More pronounced edge effects (some dev-film combinastions)
• Mid tone contrast expansion (this is the real win)

It is not for every situation, but when it it appropriate, it's a great tool to have in your bag of tricks.


I kept notes on my multi-year exploration of this. They can be found here:

tundra/Stand-Development

gitbucket.tundraware.com

 

[chuckroast]

In my experience stand development (and semi-stand) works relatively well if you plan on scanning the negatives, but result in low contrast negatives which are pain to work with in darkroom. My personal favorite developer was adox atomal 49. Makes pushing slow films easy and consistant. Also when not pushing can result in wonderful fine tonality while still having contrast.

Haven't been in the darkroom in almost couple of years though even if I still have it. Need to find some time for it in near future. And replenish chemicals and get rid off all the old paper developers and fixers which were once liquid and are now crystalized.

I have never had an issue with low contrast with semistand/EMA. If anything, the negs have tended toward a higher CI.

 

[chuckroast]

This is all good advice and helps a lot.

But it is no gravity that pulls development by-products away from the film. It’s diffusion.

Can you say more about what you believe to be the diffusion effect. I would expect that the diffusion would occur whether the film elevated or not. No?

 

[tonytantillo]

Hello,

I prefer HC-110 and Rodinal for semi-stand black and white development. I go with ECN2 (diyECN2 kit) for both C-41 and ECN2 development.

Best regards,

Tony