have you standardized on your film/dev?

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
2:55 PM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
i sometimes toy with the idea of standardizing on one film and developer combo, in the hopes of making life easier.

for example...hp5 in ddx shot from 200 to 400 normal and pushed to 1600 for low light.

has anyone done this and howse it working for ya?

joe
 
more or less.I still experiment but my main films are plus-x for 125 iso tmax for 400(which I am trying to push to 1600).everything in tetenal ultrafin.
 
Rodinol

Rodinol

Hello:

Rodinol 1/50 with HP5+and APX100=FP4>PlusX>PanF>EFGE25 in order of use.

Cheap reliable and classic-you must like grain which others will always mention.

yours
Frank
 
I'm in the process of standardizing.... I've just recently started w/ hp5 & ddx at the recommended time of 9 mins. I'm trying to get to know this combo before I venture on to something else... It's been fun learning...
Cheers, j (your neighbor to the south in Flames city)
 
back alley said:
i sometimes toy with the idea of standardizing on one film and developer combo, in the hopes of making life easier.

for example...hp5 in ddx shot from 200 to 400 normal and pushed to 1600 for low light.

has anyone done this and howse it working for ya?

joe
Click to expand...

Yes, film is adox chm 400 and I shoot it ISO200-1600 and dev with XTOL. Depending on the shooting light (contrast) I vary the process with agitation and dilution. It didn't take long to figure out how to developed negs shot in totally different lightning and still get equally thick/thin negatives.

ISO200 (usually shot if there is high contrast in lightning - a.k.a. straight hard sunlight, like in all of my rock festival photos at my gallery) XTOL 1+2, agit every 2-3 min

ISO400 - xtol 1+1. Agitation every 1-2 min.

ISO800-1600 - xtol 1+2, agitation usually every 1-2 min. And often in the middle of development I decide to give some extra and give some semi stand development as well...

My life became a lot easier than before when i discovered XTOL. Just fantastic dev...gives excellent shadow detail and is sharp, but not harsh. To be honest, my thermometer broke few weeks a ago and I have developed many rolls after that with only quessed temperatures... Last time I developed a full 5 roll tank with ISO1000 - 1600 rolls with quessed temperatures and partly quessed dev times = just excellent results.

One film and one dev = easier and happier life :)
 
Standardizing

Standardizing

I standardized once for a few years, but that was a long time ago. I WANTED to figure out a standard film/developer combo, so I could put that decision off the table, and concentrate more on other aspects of photography. After many experiments with a variety of films and developers, I settled with Kodak Panatomic X souped in Diafine. Those years of using one film and developer resulted in a beautiful period of successful photographs for me. Since then I've gotten experimental again (and therefore confused) especially since digital started happening. Mostly, back then, I was using a Nikon F with a 35mm lens, Vivitar 283 flash...rugged old equipment. Sometimes I wonder if my involvement with the whole digital revolution introduced so many new variables that it was somewhat of a mistake to even try to chase that ever-changing meteor.
 
Joe and others, I've been using HP5 and D76. I'd love to hear the advantages/differences of ddx and rodinal over D76.
 
At the moment I mainly use HP5+ and Delta 400 (for portraits) with Ilfosol S. I'll probably try DD-X sometime but at the moment I can't bring myself to pay that much money for a developer.
 
Hc-110

Hc-110

Tri-x @ ei200 1:63, Neopan @ ei 300 1:63, Pan-F+ @ei32 1:100.

I run long spells between processing and HC-110 lasts about forever. If I get back to processing more often I might add Aucfine for a little speed boost with Tri-x.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My second stab at posting something relevant to your question....

No, I am not standardising, but can I join in the thread anyway? I've been developing my own film for 18 months or so, and along the way I've found a few film/dev combinations which consistently give me what I like.

High speed - Neopan 1600 @ 2400 in Diafine
Low speed - PanF @ 50 in Rodinal

I am sadly lacking a combination I like around ISO400.
 
My current standards:

FP4+ at ISO 65 or 125
HP5+ at ISO 200 or 400 (and going into pushing now)
All development in Rodinal 1+50 and experimental development times (of which I'm not 100% happy yet)

But... I've just ordered a batch of ADOX (EFKE) film (ART100 and PRO400). The PRO400 should be identical to HP5+, but the ART100 will require some new standardizing.

I'd be very much interested in your method of standardization! There are so many parameters to tune (dilution, time, agitation, temperature) and I'm pretty clueless what's the effect of these. I can understand that more time, less dilution, more agitation and more temperature will increase the development effect and create denser negatives, but I've got no clue as related to the more subtle effects like contrast, shadow detail, grain,...

Do you use special calibration targets to compare the development effect?

I've been thinking about a scientific approach:
1. shooting a roll, the subject being a white wall, giving each shot one stop more than the previous, such that the measured exposure is the shot in the middle.
2. Then develop and scan the negative.
3. Read the average pixel value for each shot and put this in a graph (will have to be logarithmic, I guess).
4. This will draw the typical S-curve that's found in film documentation and you can easily read contrast (slope of the linear part of the curve) and dynamic range (min and max pixel values) from that curve.
5. If the results are not according expectations (*), the test is done again with modified development parameters and the result is re-evaluated; until the desired result is reached
6. This test can also be used to establish the optimal ISO setting for a film/development combination, indicated by the center of the S-curve (at least if you want equal detail in shadows and highlights) (**)

(*) question is: what are the expectations? I think you want to map the S-curve's active range onto the average exposure range of the subject. For high-contrast scenes, there's a wide exposure range, so the S-curve has to be stretched. For low-contrast scenes, there's only a very narrow exposure range (maybe not more than 4 stops) and the S-curve should be narrowed, in order not to waste dynamic range.

(**) maybe this alone is reason enough for doing the test. Normally, we do it the other way around: e.g. pushing a 400 film to 1600 is done by increasing development time by X minutes, but it makes more sense to start from the fact that you'll be developing for X extra minutes and then find the optimal ISO to shoot at...

Groeten,

Vic
 
A couple of years ago I would have had the same standard as Joe but then I went on a crazy magic bullet hunt.
I'm currently settling on HP5+ @200-1600 in HC110 (dil H <EI400, dil B >400). I'm still testing with Delta 100. I need to catch up with some printing before I make a final decision.
 
Last edited:
I use Rodinal 1+50 for D-100 and Fomapan 100 and DDX for D-400. Outstanding combinations that after two years I am starting to come to grips with.

Kent
 
I have been an experimenter for the past year using Adox 100, FP4, PlusX, Classicpan/ Forte 400, (Agfa) Silvertone 400, TRi-X and HP5. I found after messing around with HC110, Rodinal and Ilfosil S which are my developers of choice, I love HP5 for 400 speed film and Adox 100 and FP4 for medium speed film.

Bill
 
It took me forever to get Tri-X (new) where I wanted it with one developer, so I am happy with that. But it seems that I can't keep my hands away from some new film. For some reason I don't feel that way about developers.
 
Film yes, developer almost.

I shoot Neopan 400 almost exclusively (an occasional roll of Neopan 1600 or Tri-X) with Rodinal or HC-110. I really like a little more grain than HC-110 gives so I've been using Rodinal lately but I find I like the tonality of HC-110 better. Rodinal gives me a very long strait curve at 1:50 while HC-110 seems to give more contrast (I use it at 1:50 also) and a tonality I really like. For 120 film it's gorgeous. I'm going to try Rodinal at 1:25 for some more punch.

If I could find something with the punch of HC-110 and the sharpness and graininess of Rodinal that would be just about perfect but till then I use both depending on the subject and my mood. Usually though I will use one for a few months and then another for a few months, I don't vary roll to roll so much.

I've never had good luck with Illford's films and don't like the more modern T-grain films so it wasn't real difficult finding a film. And I like easy to get and use developer so those two both keep well and mix well. Powders are a pain in the ass to me although I've been tempted by XTOL. Not sure of it's characteristics though. A lot of shots I've seen with Diafine look awfully flat and low contrast to me so I ruled that out.
 
Tri-x rated at 320 developed in Rodinal 1:35 -- I've been using this combination almost exclusively for the past year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom