Film developing by inspection: yes or no?

[Fotohuis]

Well, I do not work in L.F. 🙂

 

[Trius]

Personally I normally use the same developer. Grain is only one factor, and for me it is not the most important. The advantage of using a limited number of developers, if not just one, is that you get to know its characteristics really well.

Unless you are working with "ancient" films and chemistry, I would regard those ancient books as interesting history. There is value in referring to them, but the techniques often do not translate to available materials.

 

[x-ray]

I use HC110 for most films both large and small. This has been my primary developer since 1975. Occasionally I'll use Rodinal since 1968 or Acufine depending on the film and circumstances. I have used others like pyro but that's rare.

 

[sevo]

My opening post has caused a fervent debate, but nobody answered my second question: Do you use the same developer for large and small format?

Ancient photo books recommended different types of developer, since with large format you do not need fine grain.

Ancient photo books had to deal with film that had little more than three straight stops to their curve - so success often depended on the minor variations of knee and neck you can get through different developers. These days, you generally have a problem with exposure if any of your image content lies outside the six or seven stop straight line...

 

[BillBingham2]

Tried it in High School, but my eyes were a lot better in the dark back then. Only on sheet film and with a green filter in the safe light.

New exposures or old? If I was that worried about LF shots I would take the shot I want and label the holder as such. Then expose three or four other sheets the same scene and try to decide the best by developing one of them at a time. When I find the one I like, then soup the sheet I care about.

B2 (;->