SCOTFORTHLAD
Slow learner,but keen!
Could you humour me with a query ,which no doubt has been brought up before.It is some time since I home processed in B/W,at which time it was FP4 and Ilfosol.I am thinking of dipping my toe in the water again,but using HP5 or TX,and am looking for any advice or comments which you can offer.I would be using 35mm and 120 film at different times, and not
looking to push or pull at all.Thanks.
Brian.
looking to push or pull at all.Thanks.
Brian.
Last edited:
GeneW
Veteran
For me, Rodinal or HC-110
Gene
Gene
Xmas
Veteran
If you ask 2x Photogs you get 3x opines
Noel
Noel
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
I use Rodinal for both. Some people don't seem to like it with HP5, though. YMMV.
markinlondon
Elmar user
Ilfosol is OK with HP5 an Tri-X, nice tonality but a bit grainy for some tastes. DD-X is excellent but expensive.
Mark
Mark
jshelly
Established
Prefer D76 with both
popstar
Well-known
I love DD-X. It is more expensive, but it suits my needs perfectly.
kully
Happy Snapper
Brian,
I go with popstar and Mark - DDX. It is expensive but it's bloody nice. I use it with HP5+ @ 1600 & 400. I like Ilfosol when HP5+ is at 400 too.
I've also shot a couple of rolls of Tri-X @ 1600 and run them through Diafine, very cheap but the grain ... needs getting used to.
I go with popstar and Mark - DDX. It is expensive but it's bloody nice. I use it with HP5+ @ 1600 & 400. I like Ilfosol when HP5+ is at 400 too.
I've also shot a couple of rolls of Tri-X @ 1600 and run them through Diafine, very cheap but the grain ... needs getting used to.
Jamie123
Veteran
I've only started developing my own bw negs a while ago and only tried out Ilfosol-s so far. Shot almost exclusively medium format HP5+ and the results have been pretty nice so far.
kully said:Brian,
I go with popstar and Mark - DDX. It is expensive but it's bloody nice. I use it with HP5+ @ 1600 & 400. I like Ilfosol when HP5+ is at 400 too.
I've also shot a couple of rolls of Tri-X @ 1600 and run them through Diafine, very cheap but the grain ... needs getting used to.
Try your TriX at 1250 and Diafine.
For a one off though, I use DDX and like the results.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
D76 or DD76 for the classic look.
Kodak XTOL and Ilford DD-X if you wangt every ounce of performance.
You can't go wrong with any of them
Kodak XTOL and Ilford DD-X if you wangt every ounce of performance.
You can't go wrong with any of them
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I've used DD-X and liked what I saw on the negs, but it has a higher base + fog density, so if you are wet-printing this may be important. Other than that, I agree with Gene: Rodinal or HC-110. D76 largely leaves me cold, though ther are those here who use it well. I've also used Edwal FG-7 and like it, though it has more sulfite thus the grain is "shaved" more than an acutance developer such as HC-110 or Rodinal.
Another optin would be a PMK developer. I haven't used it, but have seen great results with it, at least with Tri-X. I've seen a few good results with Diafine, but lots of not-so-good results as well. I think Diafine is overrated, but that's a horribly subjective opinion based on no personal experience. :angel:
Another optin would be a PMK developer. I haven't used it, but have seen great results with it, at least with Tri-X. I've seen a few good results with Diafine, but lots of not-so-good results as well. I think Diafine is overrated, but that's a horribly subjective opinion based on no personal experience. :angel:
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
Rodinal all the way for Tri-X.
I prefer DD-X for HP5+, for me Ilford chemicals tend to match well with Ilford films.
Ronald M
Veteran
I use home mixed D76. I use it one shot undiluted or 1:1. I costs me $3 gallan to make. That is 16 rolls per gallon undiluted. Do the math.
mwooten
light user
I always liked Ilfotec HC when I was developing film in the bathroom. The concentrate seemed to keep well, and it gave great results with HP5.
SCOTFORTHLAD
Slow learner,but keen!
Thanks everyone!! much good advice,and much for me to read up on.
Cheers,
Brian.
Cheers,
Brian.
michael.panoff
Established
XTOL 1:2 for Tri-x and FP4+, I really liked the results with FP4+.. but then again, I'm sort of a noob with this B&W wet chemistry. Gots to try DD-X and Diafine eventually.
jano
Evil Bokeh
Xtol 1:1 for tri-x is very nice, anywhere from 200 to 1600 
For those of you doing tri-x in rodinal, what's your methodology? I've tried it once, but the results were.. poor.
For those of you doing tri-x in rodinal, what's your methodology? I've tried it once, but the results were.. poor.
markinlondon
Elmar user
jano said:Xtol 1:1 for tri-x is very nice, anywhere from 200 to 1600
For those of you doing tri-x in rodinal, what's your methodology? I've tried it once, but the results were.. poor.
Jano,
for Tri-X in rodinal I usually go with 1:100 20C for about 20mins at EI400 or 15 at EI200. Agitate continuously for the first 30 seconds, then agitate for 10 secs every 3rd minute. This gives remarkably fine grained, sharp negatives. Times quoted are for diffusion, you may want to reduce them a bit for scanning or condensers. I've had no problems using 3ml of concentrate made up to 300ml for a Paterson tank.
Mark
micromoogman
Well-known
Rodinal or Ilfosol S for convenience and result. Don't like the Xtol, use it with Delta or Acros not for old school films. It creates too soft negatives for my taste. And of course D76. But if you don't want the hassle to mix and dilute powder, Xtol&D76 for example, go the mentioned Rodinal or Ilfosol S. I usually go 1:50 for the Rodinal... I have heard good things about the DD-X but haven't tried it yet.
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.