Characteristics of different developers?

[markbrennan]

Hey all - apologies for the somewhat naive generality of this question. And my candid disclaimer is I don't actually do any of my own processing (though I aspire to).

I've recenlty learned that the lab I use to process my B&W film (mostly TRI-X, but occassionally some TMAX 3200, along w/ some JandC Xpan 400, and I also want to try to Neopan 400) uses ONLY XTOL.

They seem to do a decent job w/ the TRI-X, although I think TRI-X is a VERY forgiving film.

I guess my question is basically what's the difference between XTOL and some of the other developers such as Diafine and Rodinal? I see some VERY good results w/ these developers posted by other users and I'm very impressed w/ the tonality of their images.

I guess eventually I need to soup my own film and scan myself. Right now I don't even get scans, just machine 4x6 proof prints; and I find the tonal range, specifically the grays, just isn't up to par w/ what I see here (granted it could be my own technique w/ the camera).

Apologies again for the rather untutored generality of the question and lack of images to back up the question.
Any info or insights greatly appreciated!
Regards,
-Mark

 

[GeneW]

XTOL is a very fine developer and can be used on just about any film.

In general, B&W developers divide into 2 categories: solvent and non-solvent (this is a very simplified view).

1. Solvent developers tend to soften the grain of the film, creating a softer, finer-grained look, but losing a little sharpness in doing so (but not much). Examples are D-76 and XTOL.

2. Non-solvent developers don't do this, so the grain is full-sized (which most of us see as 'grainier' though this is a slight misnomer). Examples: Rodinal, HC-110

Many non-solvent developers are also used in highly-dilute solutions, which creates 'adjacency effect', which is sometimes mis-called sharpness. It acts a bit like unsharp mask in Photoshop in that contrasty edges get a little more development, making them stand out slightly.

Solvent developers such as D-76 and XTOL are also often employed in higher dilutions, such as 1:1 or 1:2 for additional adjacency effect, with a little less solvent action.

Some photographers prefer to use non-solvent developers on slow-speed films such as Acros 100 and solvent developers on high-speed films such as Tri-X. Others are happy to use non-solvent developers on anything that'll fit into the film tank. Still others use a solvent developer such as XTOL for everything. There are no right or wrongs.

After a lifetime of agonizing over this, I still haven't reached any solid conclusions about which is best 😀

Gene

 

[kaiyen]

First and foremost, you should consider getting Anchell and Troop's Film Developing Cookbook. It really covers everything you need.

In a very general sense...most developers are either solvent or non-solvent (acutance). Solvent developer reduce grain at the cost of sharpness. Non-solvent developers increase sharpness but at the cost of grain. Developers of both types vary in terms of film speed/shadow detail.

XTOL is a solvent developer, technically. But it has remarkably good sharpness and film speed for a solvent developer and, like most, acutance goes up as you dilute it.

Rodinal is an acutance developer, though it's not super-sharp or super-grainy. But it's pretty sharp.

Diafine is a third type - a two-bath developer. I don't know enough about the actual characteristics, other than that they are generally very useful in controlling contrast.

allan

 

[djon]

Diafine is often used by people who want to process all their various B&W films the same...not necessarily a great idea, not good at all if you're trying to learn about different developers. Acufine (same company) was once ultra-popular for pushing...it once seemed only rivaled by Edwal FG7 and D76 in popularity in the US.

Rodinal leaves grain sharp rather than dissolving it, the way almost everything else does. It also produces a distinctive "edge effect,' a black line around certain contrast zones...nice. I use Rodinal 1:50. Not a good developer for pushing, but it does allow Neopan 400 @800 comfortably. Not the best for TMax, though I just tried that and it was "OK."

I use Tetenal Emofin (which may be like Diafine) for most purposes because it allows a lot of pushing without increasing grain and doesn't lose shadow detail or highlight detail..flat neg, great for scanning. It doesn't look quite as "sharp" as Rodinal because the grain isn't as pronounced.

I intend to start using Neofin Blau (Blue) when I can find it in stock somewhere... like Rodinal but no edge effect.

 

[Jordan W.]

It's really easy to get caught up in "the developer game". I do it too, and from time to time I have to remind myself that it's the image that matters, and the developer is just a tool to get to that image. There aren't any "magic bullet" developers that do what no other developer can, and usually the difference between films developed in the same developer is greater than the difference a series of developers can make to a particular film.

That said, I think you're doing just fine with XTOL. I haven't heard of anyone disliking the image quality they get with it. Others have outlined its qualities above. If you want to read in more detail about developer properties, you should probably read Anchell and Troop's book (mentioned above) which goes through the various constituents of developing solutions and what they do.

As for your problem -- the lack of tonal range in the proof prints you get from your lab -- it's hard to know whether that's from faulty processing (commercial labs often tend to overdevelop film) or bad printing. Only by looking at the negs can you really tell.

You don't need a dedicated darkroom to develop your own film. I scan all my negs, and use only a changing dark-bag to load my tanks. The actual processing takes place over the kitchen sink. Simple, easy, and cheap (much cheaper than paying the lab).

 

[JMP]

One more thing to keep in mind is the type of paper being used. I believe most of the photo places print on resin coated paper. RC paper tends to show less gradations/tonality than fiber paper, or, the direct source, a negative. So, if you're comparing RC machine prints to scanned negatives or fiber prints, there might be a difference.

Another factor is that the individual photographer printing their own work (or scanning their own negatives) is going to spend the time with each shot to tweak it using various filters and trying different exposure times, even dodging and burning. The machine is not doing this.

 

[markbrennan]

Thanks, guys for the great replies! I've really learned a lot. It's clear I need to get into souping my own film, but it may be a little bit before I do. But i'm starting really to look forward to it.

I do like some of the images I've seen processed in Rodinal; it must be the grain. My own prints simply don't exhibit as much. The grain lends a crispness to these images, to my eye.

I may try to some non-RC prints when I get some images I like, in order to see the difference. And, of course, I need to start scanning, or at the very least, get some scans done for me.

Many thanks,
-Mark