Joao
Negativistic forever
I have one package of Kodak Dektol to make 1 gallon of developer. I never used Dektol before, so I would like to have opinions about the best use for it :
Use it as a paper developer ? I use Fomaspeed 321 paper.
Or use it for film ? I will develop Fomapan, Eastman plus-X and Eastman XX.
Thank you for you advice
Joao
Use it as a paper developer ? I use Fomaspeed 321 paper.
Or use it for film ? I will develop Fomapan, Eastman plus-X and Eastman XX.
Thank you for you advice
Joao
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Paper.
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Dektol is for paper.
you can use it for film ( in an emergency) but it will not give you the highest quality
In the 50s and 60s they said 1+7 for 7 min or similar
www.photrio.com
you can use it for film ( in an emergency) but it will not give you the highest quality
In the 50s and 60s they said 1+7 for 7 min or similar
Using Dektol as a film developer
hi all, had to ask this one as soon as i heard it with my own ears. A friend of mine was telling me about how a woman who shot for Vogue back in the 50's used Dektol as her film developer. It gave hear a very graphic, high contrast look and obviously gave her the look she wanted. I am very...
www.photrio.com
Joao
Negativistic forever
Thank you
I was confused due the amount of reports of using Dektol for film. I will use it for paper then.
Regards
Joao
I was confused due the amount of reports of using Dektol for film. I will use it for paper then.
Regards
Joao
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Good deal. Back in the day, Kodak's paper developers often had the "ol" suffix as part of their naming conventions: Dektol, Selectol. Perhaps this was because there were also paper developers at the time like Amidol, Pyrocatechol. There were others, of course, that did not follow this convention, but Dektol is squarely in that tradition.
Last edited:
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Film and/or paper. It ws a popular brew in its time (1950s-1960s) and could still be useful if you don't mind rock salt grain on your negatives.
In the 1960s we used it in our newspaper darkroom. The goal was to process a film to the enlarging stage in one hour. I won the office prize (a can of Canadian beer, gee gosh thanks!) for doing it in 33 minutes.
The routine was develop in Dentol 1:1 for 3-4 minutes, a quick rinse in H2O, rapid fix for the required time, then wash a little and squeegee dry. Then off to the enlarger, usually the negs were damp but as they weren't meant to be archival anyway, nobody much cared. If a roll was judged to be good enough to keep, it could always be dipped in "archive juice" as we called that Kodak chemical mix of the time - I've forgotten its exact name and I don't know if it's even around any more, I've used the Ilford hypo clear for decades and find it works or seems to work, so all's okay with my negatives - and then wash for half an hour.
At the time I had a home darkroom and I used mostly Kodak Verichrome Pan and DK60a. In the late '60s I moved to Ilford FP3 and HP? and later to Plus-X and Tri-X which I greatly preferred. As I recall I didn't process those in Dektol so this paragraph is entirely BTW...
The newspaper went belly-up in 1982 and I've wondered what happened to all the negatives we took (I was a reporter-photographer from 1969 to 1970 and IRRC I averaged about five rolls every week, which all added up) or if they even still exist. Some would be of historical interest, notably big fires which occasionally happened in the small communities of mostly weather board houses, and I do hope the paper's film library went to the New Brunswick historical archives.
Anyway, you can process most films in Dektol. Short process times work best. Expect grain like salt but that works with some images. All our news prints were scanned and the scanners of that era required a rather muddy mid-gray print.
Google Dektol and film and see what you get. I've not used that mix for a very long time so I cannot provide any more information. Others may help with this.
In the 1960s we used it in our newspaper darkroom. The goal was to process a film to the enlarging stage in one hour. I won the office prize (a can of Canadian beer, gee gosh thanks!) for doing it in 33 minutes.
The routine was develop in Dentol 1:1 for 3-4 minutes, a quick rinse in H2O, rapid fix for the required time, then wash a little and squeegee dry. Then off to the enlarger, usually the negs were damp but as they weren't meant to be archival anyway, nobody much cared. If a roll was judged to be good enough to keep, it could always be dipped in "archive juice" as we called that Kodak chemical mix of the time - I've forgotten its exact name and I don't know if it's even around any more, I've used the Ilford hypo clear for decades and find it works or seems to work, so all's okay with my negatives - and then wash for half an hour.
At the time I had a home darkroom and I used mostly Kodak Verichrome Pan and DK60a. In the late '60s I moved to Ilford FP3 and HP? and later to Plus-X and Tri-X which I greatly preferred. As I recall I didn't process those in Dektol so this paragraph is entirely BTW...
The newspaper went belly-up in 1982 and I've wondered what happened to all the negatives we took (I was a reporter-photographer from 1969 to 1970 and IRRC I averaged about five rolls every week, which all added up) or if they even still exist. Some would be of historical interest, notably big fires which occasionally happened in the small communities of mostly weather board houses, and I do hope the paper's film library went to the New Brunswick historical archives.
Anyway, you can process most films in Dektol. Short process times work best. Expect grain like salt but that works with some images. All our news prints were scanned and the scanners of that era required a rather muddy mid-gray print.
Google Dektol and film and see what you get. I've not used that mix for a very long time so I cannot provide any more information. Others may help with this.
x-ray
Veteran
You’re talking about chemicals from my time, DK50 and DK60a. DK50 was pretty much the standard for sheet film. I ran many sheets of Super Pancro Press type B (Kodak sheets only) in DK50.
Most of my career was commercial work and before 8x10 Polaroid we shoot aashert of B&W film and run it for a minute in straight Dektol. It served as a quick check for lighting, details like a light meter left in the shot and to check focus.
Generally though Dektol is a good paper developer for most papers. LPD is another and my preference.
Most of my career was commercial work and before 8x10 Polaroid we shoot aashert of B&W film and run it for a minute in straight Dektol. It served as a quick check for lighting, details like a light meter left in the shot and to check focus.
Generally though Dektol is a good paper developer for most papers. LPD is another and my preference.
chuckroast
Well-known
It's an excellent paper developer when stock is mixed 1:2 with water and paper developed for 2-3 minutes.
It can also be an effective film developer when properly diluted.
Joao
Negativistic forever
Thank you once more. I don't need film developer ( I have a good stash of HC-110. Rodinal and a Diafine clone).
Dektol will be used on my Fomaspeed Variant paper.
Regards
Joao
Dektol will be used on my Fomaspeed Variant paper.
Regards
Joao
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Another plus-point for Dektol is how easily it can be mixed from basic chemicals.
Most Kodak developers, even the very ancient ones, can be brewed up from scratch as Eastman kindly published all the recipes.
For some years now I've been meaning to whip up a batch of DK60a, which I used in the early '60s in my first darkroom. It isn't really a fine grain developer but all the 120 roll film negatives I 'souped' in it, most of those on Verichrome Pan, print easily and show very little grain. Not sure how it will fare with 35mm film but as I still have several bulk rolls of Panatomic-X and Plus-X in my freezer, it will be fun to do tests.
Most Kodak developers, even the very ancient ones, can be brewed up from scratch as Eastman kindly published all the recipes.
For some years now I've been meaning to whip up a batch of DK60a, which I used in the early '60s in my first darkroom. It isn't really a fine grain developer but all the 120 roll film negatives I 'souped' in it, most of those on Verichrome Pan, print easily and show very little grain. Not sure how it will fare with 35mm film but as I still have several bulk rolls of Panatomic-X and Plus-X in my freezer, it will be fun to do tests.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Dektol is D-72, or near enough.
KODAK D-72
3 g Metol
45 g Sodium Sulfite
12 g Hydroquinone
80 g Sodium Carbonate (Monohydrate)
2 g Potassium Bromide
One litre of water
It scales up directly to any amount you dare make. Back in the day I mixed it 50L at a time.
As with all modern Kodak chemistry, current packaged mixtures are pH stabilised, have additives to chelate divalent cations and prevent caking.
Bonus! Two parts developer plus one part water, and you have a reasonable D-19 substitute.
Marty
chuckroast
Well-known
I'd commend D-23 to your attention as well. It's astonishingly versatile. I've used it straight, diluted 1:1, and 1:3. I've also diluted 1+9 with lye added to make a fine semistand developer (though I don't recommend this for 35mm unless you like very pronounced grain as the example below shows)...
Freakscene
Obscure member
Wow, that’s crazy. That grain looks like infectious development. How much hydroxide do you add? A pH of around 11 works best for lith printing, which relies on infectious development, so maybe you’re working in that range, but infectious development usually relies on quinones, whereas metol is an aminophenol.
chuckroast
Well-known
I mixed D-23 stock 1+9 and added 0.5g/l sodium hydroxide. This was Double X semistand developed for an hour - one initial continuous agitation for 2 min, and 15 seconds agitation at 31 min. A guy over on the 5x4 UK forum suggested adding the lye in this proportion.
I use this when I want best possible sharpness with semistand's other benefits. It's really more appropriate for larger formats, of course. Here's 9x12 Fomapan 100 done the same way:
(Both the images you've seen here are scans of my workbook prints made from the resulting negatives.)
EDIT: There are probably some similarities of outcome with infectious development. (Semi)stand development and related techniques like EMA give you full shadow speed because of the long duration development and rein in highlights because of the lack of agitation. I've been experimenting with this a great deal the past few years and am still dialing in exactly what I want, but it can be a powerful technique when used appropriately and carefully. My notes here:
Last edited:
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Another truly good thing about using Dektol (or D72, which someone has posted, just as good and in fact maybe even bette) for films. I just remembered.
If you have really old films - in my case, Kodak Panatomic-X going back to the 1970s, refrigerated throughout its life but most definitely in the long-in-the-tooth stage, as well as a few other 'vintage' films, some dating back to the 1950s - there is nothing like a good souping in Dektol to bring out any image, latent or other.
Often where other developers will fail, Dektol will usually produce some sort of image, whether usable or not, on almost all ancient films.
I no longer keep pre-packaged Dektol in my chemical stash at home, but thanks to Eastman's generosity in making all its old formulas readily available, I can home-brew a batch any time I like.
You can also mix some exotic film developers. I nowadays use an Ansco-Agfa (or maybe Agfa-Ansco) fine grain developer I was introduced to in the '90s by, IRRC, the late and sadly missed Roger Hicks. It produces beaut negatives with gorgeous mid-tones and it weaned me off D76 which I had been using for 20 years, so it's pretty good stuff.
Mixing one's own developers is not difficult. There is an initial cost for chemistry and some sort of scale (the cheap digital ones work as well as the old classic balances-and-weights ones) but once you have accumulated all the basics, the cost per liter is low, and almost all of the basic chemicals will last for ages. I have potassium bromide from the 1970s, now clumped but a few good whacks with a kitchen rolling pin (with the pot from in a plastic bag, of course) brings it back to powdered form.
Some will insist there is always a risk in using old chemicals in one's developers. That may be so, but in 40+ years of home-mixing I have yet to lose a film because of expired chemistry. And that's good enough for me...
Now I'llmix up a batch of D72.
If you have really old films - in my case, Kodak Panatomic-X going back to the 1970s, refrigerated throughout its life but most definitely in the long-in-the-tooth stage, as well as a few other 'vintage' films, some dating back to the 1950s - there is nothing like a good souping in Dektol to bring out any image, latent or other.
Often where other developers will fail, Dektol will usually produce some sort of image, whether usable or not, on almost all ancient films.
I no longer keep pre-packaged Dektol in my chemical stash at home, but thanks to Eastman's generosity in making all its old formulas readily available, I can home-brew a batch any time I like.
You can also mix some exotic film developers. I nowadays use an Ansco-Agfa (or maybe Agfa-Ansco) fine grain developer I was introduced to in the '90s by, IRRC, the late and sadly missed Roger Hicks. It produces beaut negatives with gorgeous mid-tones and it weaned me off D76 which I had been using for 20 years, so it's pretty good stuff.
Mixing one's own developers is not difficult. There is an initial cost for chemistry and some sort of scale (the cheap digital ones work as well as the old classic balances-and-weights ones) but once you have accumulated all the basics, the cost per liter is low, and almost all of the basic chemicals will last for ages. I have potassium bromide from the 1970s, now clumped but a few good whacks with a kitchen rolling pin (with the pot from in a plastic bag, of course) brings it back to powdered form.
Some will insist there is always a risk in using old chemicals in one's developers. That may be so, but in 40+ years of home-mixing I have yet to lose a film because of expired chemistry. And that's good enough for me...
Now I'llmix up a batch of D72.
Last edited:
Freakscene
Obscure member
Post the formula @DownUnder - there are over 90 Ansco formulae - it would be useful to know which one you mean.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
...and, ideally, some development times for some film stocks!
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Sure thing. I will dig it up (it's on one of my (too) many old laptops around the house) and post it soonest.
It is a very forgiving developer. I recall Roger (Hicks) told me I could mix it 1-1 or 1-2 and process almost any film up to ISO 400 for 7 minutes at 20C and get printable results. As I recall the mid-tones were especially nice, which made it easy to scan the prints for newspaper repro.
When scanning came on the photo scene some years later and many of us started the move to disposing of our enlargers, I varied this to 5-6 minutes for a thinner negative. They scan fine but it helps if you like big grain.
Last edited: