Film Choice for Beginner DIY B&W

bmattock

Veteran
Local time
8:23 PM
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Messages
10,655
All:

I've been asked to provide my opinion on the best film (and etc) for a beginner at DIY B&W processing. I thought I'd take the discussion public - I'd bet that a lot of folks would like to try processing their own B&W film at home, and I'm sure that others have other suggestions - so feel free to jump in.

My first thought is this - Kodak Tri-X and Kodak D76 Developer. Why? Mostly because (in the USA, at least), it is a 'tried and true combination'. It is hard to get it wrong if you follow the basic instructions - and if you do, there are lots of people with experience in just this combination who can help you.

There are films that will give better technical results, and I'd urge anyone to try them once they feel like they have the basics down:

* Ilford Delta 100 - great grainless smooth tones, sharp. I call it 'creamy'.

* Agfa APX 100 - If still available, this has always been an excellent choice and dependable.

* Ilford HP5+ -- kind of the European Tri-X, to my way of thinking. Someone correct me if they disagree with that assessment.

If you want to get away from the 'usual' and try something that might produce a more exotic effect:

* Efke KB 100 - very thick emulsion, very grainy, but still sharp and lots of tone.

* Fomapan 200 Creative - a "T" based emulsion (modern, like Kodak TMAX) and very inexpensive with good results.

For developers, I still prefer Kodak D-76 for most things. If a film has developing instructions listed at all (and it isn't Ilford or Agfa film), most often you'll find instructions for D76 at the minimum. Ilford has an equivalent, which escapes me at the moment - ID11?

The biggest drawback to D76 is that it begins to age as it oxidizes in the bottle - it has a distinct shelf life, whether you reuse it or dilute it and use it as a one-shot. It is also 'plain vanillla' - meaning that if you want to push film to get a higher speed, or higher acutance (sharpness), or even less grain - you will do better with another developer. Highly regarded developers that are reasonably easy to master are Diafine, HG-110, Rodinal, and ID11. Again, my thought here is that if one has problems with a particular combination, there are others who have used it or tried it and who may be able to give good advice based on their own experience.

There are many good photographers who never use anything but Tri-X and D76, and they get very good, very consistant results. There are some who swear by mastering ONE film and ONE developer - and that it should keep you occupied for the better part of ten years to do so. Personally, I feel that if using the same old thing is making you not want to do darkroom, then try something else - what can it hurt? Might shake you out of your doldrums. But on the whole, it is probably better to be master of one film/developer than have a smattering of many.

Personally, I used Tri-X and D76 for a long time, and only recently ventured into new territory. Mostly due to price (Tri-X is not the cheapest film out there) and partially due to a desire to experiment (Diafine, after reading all the glowing reports here about the stuff). I'm having a lot of fun - I'm even giving some serious thought to making up some of my own developer chemistry from old formulae I've found in darkroom books from the 1940's and 50's.

I have found a number of websites to get a person started doing their own developing, and I can post some of the links if anyone wants them. Kodak has a nice tutorial as well. If you scan your own negs, you need no 'darkroom' as such - you can process your own film in a kitchen or bathroom, anywhere with running water. The materials needed are minimal, and it doesn't take long, either.

Any comments regarding film / developer combos, remembering that we're talking about advice for the new DIY'er here?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
I am a recent beginner. I actually started off with three films (trix, acros, hp5), but after those three rolls, it was obvious I needed to first obtain consistent results before mucking around. I stuck with trix, because it seemed to have the best results, and I agree with your recommendation there.

Based on others' opinions in here, I was actually going to start with Diafine as the developer: apparently it is very lenient with temp and time. While at the store looking for diafine, however, the cute (awfully cute) girl convinced me it would be better to have a more strict approach with temp and time. She loaded me up with Xtol, because, well, that's what she used and said it worked with my choice of film: I ultimatley wanted to work with Acros. I have had good results with it.

*shrug*
 
jano said:
I am a recent beginner. I actually started off with three films (trix, acros, hp5), but after those three rolls, it was obvious I needed to first obtain consistent results before mucking around. I stuck with trix, because it seemed to have the best results, and I agree with your recommendation there.

Based on others' opinions in here, I was actually going to start with Diafine as the developer: apparently it is very lenient with temp and time. While at the store looking for diafine, however, the cute (awfully cute) girl convinced me it would be better to have a more strict approach with temp and time. She loaded me up with Xtol, because, well, that's what she used and said it worked with my choice of film: I ultimatley wanted to work with Acros. I have had good results with it.

*shrug*

I should have mentioned Fuji Acros - a very nice film that I put with Ilford Delta 100 as a premium film that has high acutance and low grain but a lot of tonal range. Great for portraits, IMHO.

I agree that Diafine is going to work in most cases no matter what you do if you get Solution A and B in the right order. Due to its forgiving nature, it may hide exposure errors - a new users might be encouraged that they got results - but not know that they were not getting ALL they could out of the film, since effectively you can't 'push' Diafine - it already maximizes the film speed and you can't make it go any faster than that.

So Diafine might be great for self-confidence right out of the box - but bad when later trying to figure out what the heck happened if you should try another developer and suddenly your negs are a bit naff.

If Diafine is so forgiving, why not just keep using it all the time? Because there are some tradeoffs - it is not a magic elixir. You always get something and lose something. In the case of Diafine, what you lose is some contrast. I'm told that low-contrast films to begin with end up looking pretty bad in Diafine. Others feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here - I'm working from memory of what I've read.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
As you mentioned, the shelf life was a major issue for me. I guess it depends on the volume of developing the 'beginner' anticipated doing. I chose HC110 for that reason (as well as rodinal) among others. Not having to deal with mixing stock solutions was another, as there are well-defined methods for using HC110 syrup on an as needed basis.

As regards film, I chose to start with HP5. Tri-x, and many others, would work well, too.
 
Bill,

I would give them one standard combo like Tri-x and D76.
Teach them to use it in different situations. Bright, contrasty light: rate it at 200 and cut back dev time. Low, available light: push it a bit, etc. That way, I think they would learn the fundamentals better than throwing several films and chemicals at them. That's what i'd do.

Also, the particular combo you decide on should maybe take into account the kind of shooting situations they are in most often or what kind of "Look" they prefer. No mention of this above.

Gary
 
gns said:
Bill,

I would give them one standard combo like Tri-x and D76.
Teach them to use it in different situations. Bright, contrasty light: rate it at 200 and cut back dev time. Low, available light: push it a bit, etc. That way, I think they would learn the fundamentals better than throwing several films and chemicals at them. That's what i'd do.

I think that's sound advice.

Also, the particular combo you decide on should maybe take into account the kind of shooting situations they are in most often or what kind of "Look" they prefer. No mention of this above.

Gary

Hmm, good point. I feel that Tri-X is a good 'all around' type of film - you can use it for nearly anything with good results. Certainly lots of films are better at any given thing, but I feel it is hard to find a better 'do everything' film that is also as forgiving as Tri-X.

Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
ray_g said:
As you mentioned, the shelf life was a major issue for me. I guess it depends on the volume of developing the 'beginner' anticipated doing. I chose HC110 for that reason (as well as rodinal) among others. Not having to deal with mixing stock solutions was another, as there are well-defined methods for using HC110 syrup on an as needed basis.

As regards film, I chose to start with HP5. Tri-x, and many others, would work well, too.

Remember, you can mix up D76 in one-litre amounts as well - no need to do a full gallon. Of course, a gallon is more economical, but you can buy D76 in 1 liter packets. Hard to have that go bad on you.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Delta 100 in Rodinal or Ilfosol-s is pretty good. Both developers are simple one-shot mix from liquid.

Peter
 
Thank you for the excellent info Bill and all, I have a question about slide film though, is it as straight forward to DIY develop as print film? Or is it a completely different animal?

scott
 
tri-x or hp5 are both good films to start with.

i prefer liquid developers just cause they are so much easier to mix and can be mixed with water at the right temperature for processing right away.
i like ilfosol s as one shot developer.
 
I have only been processing my own for about six months now.
I am sticking to Tri-X and FP4 for now until I think that I have some real control of the entire process. I keep both Diafine and D76 on hand. I am only now getting consistant results from both my film and my developers. Diafine when I want more speed, D76 when I am shooting at the films rating.

When my current batch of D76 is either used or expired I may try something else. I am sticking with the Diafine however, it is easy to work with when I want to push either films I use.
 
D76 is a great starting point. When reading or researching b&w developers, you will undoubtly hear some form of the following phrase, "similar to D76, but...." D76 is an excellent point of reference, because just about every developer is compared to it. That's as good a reason to "know" it as any. Supposedly, ID11 is closer to the original composition of D76, than Kodak's own current recipe. D76 is incredibly easy to mix (as are most developers) from scratch, and many variations of it exist. It is also very versatile, good for everything, even pushing.

:)
 
I would have said that Tri-X was a good film and recommend it untill kodak changed it two years ago. Now on a scale of 1-10 I would have to say it's a 4. I used Tri-X for my fast film or about twenty five years and was one of the trade trial testers for ilford Delta 400 and 100 before they came out (also tmax 100 for kodak). After testing the delta films I totally switched to the 400 for my fast emulsion and 100 for my normal work. Up to that point I had been Tri-X and agfa 100 and 25. Film is an individual thing like cars and women. My personal combo for the Delta films is to process in Ilford HC 1:31 or HC-110 1:31 (same as HC). My second choice in fast film is HP-5.

Unfortunately kodak did the nasty and removed much of the silver from tri-x. Now it has no guts. It's a pathetic flat film with no character. The only worse film in my opinion is the tmax films.

D-76 is an excellent developer but I prefer a non or low sulfite developer like Rodinal or HC. My reason, the silver in film has polar characteristics when wet. High sulfite developers etch silver to reduce grain size. The silver because of it's p[olar characteristics migrates to the higher silver areas of the film and deposits itself there. This creates a finer apparent grain but also creates non image forming density in highlights that only blocks detail and builds highlight density. HC has a more compensating effect (more open highlights and shadows) than D-76 and gives very fine grain and long tonality. Rodinal has much the same characteristics as HC. Other high sulfite developers are Diafine, DK-50 and most of the powder developers. Another great quality of HC or HC-110 is that it can be mixed from the concentrate and keeps very well before mixed.

Much of my gallery is original tri-x for the older images and Delta 100 or 400 for the more recent. You can see from these shots that I like a film with guts. No wimpy films for me!

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the comments. I'm also a newbie who just started with HC 110 and HP5. Unfortunately, my first mistake was mixing the syrup at a 1:9 dilution instead of 1:31, resulting in lots of grain and blocked highlights. But I love being on the learning curve (you might say it's the roller coaster for adults). Guess that's like saying being dumb gives me a sense of awe and wonder! Anyway, just chiming in to say thanks to the more experienced and helpful hands here at RFF.
 
bcs89 said:
Thank you for the excellent info Bill and all, I have a question about slide film though, is it as straight forward to DIY develop as print film? Or is it a completely different animal?

scott

Scott,

Good question! The simplest answer is no - both E6 (slide film) and C41 (color print film, including chromogenic "B&W" films) require more chemistry, more expensive, chemistry, and are both more time sensitive and temperature sensitive. They are also a tad more toxic, as I understand it. Now, plenty of people *DO* process their own E6 and C41, so I don't want to tell you no, you can't do it. You can if you really want to. I'd suggest it is not for the beginner, though.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
x-ray said:
I would have said that Tri-X was a good film and recommend it untill kodak changed it two years ago. Now on a scale of 1-10 I would have to say it's a 4.

Given your experience, though - what would you recommend for someone just getting started with B&W development?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
In my opinion, I think that if you want good results, and you want the least hassle, just as long as you are disciplined enough, you should use Tri-X and soup it in Diafine.

Tri-X is the sensational film whether you're a novice or "advanced". You get different results with different ratings and different developers. Few other emulsions are as versatile as Tri-X.

That Kodak's been lazy to back info on the new Tri-X emulsions is another story, but claiming that it has less silver is ... well ... that's not the point of this thread.
 
bmattock said:
what would you recommend for someone just getting started with B&W development?
Bill, I'd suggest picking any 100/125 or 400asa film (slower and faster films are less easy to work with0 and one developer (I'd suggest a liquid [HC110, Ilfosol or Rodinal] for ease of mixing.
Shoot a roll bracketing (one stop over, meter reading and one over) and see which is best considering your metering/development style.
Get comfortable with the combination you've chosen and then you can experiment with other films/developers.

Hope this helps,
Peter
 
Plexi:
I'm not trying to get a war started. Like I said film is like cars and women, we all have different likes. As far as my statement about reduced silver this is from an article that I read published by kodak just after the film came out. I base my statement on my persona likes and dislikes in film and that I've shot tens of thousands of rolls of tri-x since the sixties. I think this qualifies me to know a little about the film. Granted I haven't shot that much of the new because my first impression was so bad.

My fuji rep was in my studio a couple of weeks ago. He was trying to get me to start using their B&W. I had used some of the 1600 and 400 before but stopped due air bells forming on the emulsion during developement. I don't think it was a film problem but an issue with disolved air in the water supply. Fortunately the only other film that I had problems with this was Kodak IR. The short story is, I really don't care for Fujis B&W. I do however love Fuji Astia, and Provia E-6 film. I also love Kodaks E-100 GX E-6 films. E100 SW and now GX are the main films that I've used over the past dozen years since their introduction. At one point for aboput a three year period I was shooting about 250 rolls of 120 per week. Does that sound like I hate and just want to bash Kodak or is it personal taste in film?

For anyone who likes tri-x and gets great results I'm happy for you and you should keep ueing it. For me it's not the film it used to be and I dislike it. Just my opinion. It's worth what you paid for it ;<)

bmatlock:

I particularly like the Ilford films, delta 100 and 400 processed in HC Ilford 1:31.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

www.x-rayarts.com
 
Back
Top Bottom