Ronald M
Veteran
D76 1+1
delta 100 or T Max 100 or 400 or Plus x or tri x.
Delta 400 is garbage with D76. Use DDX or Xtol. First versions of Delta400 were fine with 76. Around 2008 0r 2010 it was improved. Right, so you had to use Ilford developer with secret coded exp date. I buy Kodak now.
Nokton48
Veteran
Yes D-76 is my favorite, I prefer it straight. Actually I mix a D-76 derivative called "ADOX Borax MQ" from raw chemicals. Very economical and easy to use. With the matching replenisher I pitch it after about fifty 36-exposure rolls, and mix fresh.
HC-110 is another winner. A major plus is the long shelf life of the concentrate.
HC-110 is another winner. A major plus is the long shelf life of the concentrate.
DNG
Film Friendly
With HC110 (H 1:63) NOT (B 1:31), the shadows are much better, so is sharpness. also a few seconds agitation every 3m is better for shadows also...
make sure you have at least a 10m developer time so you have 2x or 3x agitations after the first 30s agitation.
That is with Tmax 400 at 400 with my testing.
Pete B
Well-known
Pete B
Well-known
Good!
Pete
Pete B
Well-known
Seconded by Chris Crawford:
Thanks Ned (and Chris). I didn't know this.
Pete
Thanks Ned (and Chris). I didn't know this.
Pete
Pioneer
Veteran
A really, really good place to start your developing process is with the manufacturer's data sheets on both the film and the developer. It is absolutely amazing what you learn.
I am sure there are lots and lots of great films and developers on the market. But I personally stay very closely with Kodak and Ilford because both companies publish excellent information regarding their films and developers. I am really trying hard just to figure out how to take and print good photographs. I just don't have the time to re-learn everything that Kodak and Ilford have already learned about exposing and developing their films.
I am sure there are lots and lots of great films and developers on the market. But I personally stay very closely with Kodak and Ilford because both companies publish excellent information regarding their films and developers. I am really trying hard just to figure out how to take and print good photographs. I just don't have the time to re-learn everything that Kodak and Ilford have already learned about exposing and developing their films.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I use H also. I have not really tested it against anything but Rodinal. Both Tmax films currently available have excellent shadow detail with HC110h. The Tmax films are both so sharp I really can't see any sharpness difference with either 120 or 35mm, but I'll take your word for it. I use H dilution because it allows for agitation that you describe; well almost just like you.
Bingley
Veteran
+1. HC 110 dil. h is my go to developer these days for Tri-X, TMax, and Fomapan films.
However, when I need a speed boost, I use Tri-X, expose it at iso 800, and develop in Diafine. I get very nice tonality.
michaelwj
----------------
A little off topic, but I too stopped using DD-X when the cap became impossible to get off. A great product let down by horrible delivery. Such a shame really.
Interestingly the cap on the bottle of Ilford rapid fixer is fine, its just DD-X...
DNG
Film Friendly
I am mostly comparing sharpness with the listed developers on the chart.. HC110 is good compromise between other developers good and bad points.
It does well with the grain edges, and with 3200dpi TIFF scans, the grain is very well preserved, allowing for good sharpening results in Lr.
There are sharper results with other developers listed.. it is always what is more important, and using a developer that does what you want.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
HC-110 is in the middle of the pack of the Kodak developers, concerning grain, speed and sharpness, but the definite best concerning longevity.
I alternate between Rodinal for slower films and HC-110 for higher speeds and slowers speed films, works very well.
The contrast you can alter trough shooting, development and processing and also in the darkroom, so I doubt you'll see any huge difference between the various developers, not sure, I am not experienced enough with IE XTol (which, as you can see from the chart, has best speed, lowest grain and very high sharpness).
Mind you: I've been told many times that the differences aren't huge if you start comparing by eye, the chart are measured relative indicators.
It really is too bad that XTol come in huge batches and doesn't last for very long, I am a low volume guy but love the results I get from XTol.
- But HC-110 is definately no slouch....and it will outlast any developer on that list, and then some.
XTOL easily lasts for 6 months, so even low-volume shooters are looking at $20/year for developer.
maddoc
... likes film again.
That is pretty much the reason why I gave up on D76 developer. I only use 250ml stainless steel tanks these days so would be limited to straight D76.
HC-110 "B" (I mix from stock solution, 1 + 3) works pretty good for me for Tri-X, Double-X, Delta400, HP5, either at box-speed or pushed up to two stops.
However after the recent price increases in Japan, the bottle of HC-110 (1 Liter) costs now about US$68. D76 (1GL) is about US$9. Using dilution "B" and my 250ml tank I can develop about 128 135-36 rolls, for about 53 cents/roll. 1 GL of D76 (used straight) would allow me to develop 15 rolls so the cost would be about US$76 or 60 cents/roll to develop the same amount of film.
znapper
Well-known
I don't shoot enough to run trough 4-5 liters of xtol in 6 months, I use _ maybe_ 1.5 liters in that time, so it's a lot of waste. :/
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Low Toxicity
Low Toxicity
The flip side is that it's one of the few developers that does not contain hydroquinone, so the waste is pretty benign.
Low Toxicity
The flip side is that it's one of the few developers that does not contain hydroquinone, so the waste is pretty benign.
codester80
A Touch of Light
News to me. I've been doing two rolls in a 16oz tank 1:1 for over twenty years without a problem. Ned is right about one thing, the internet is a bad place to get your information about developing film. There are all kinds of theories out there. The best place is right from the horses mouth.
From the D76 Data Sheet:
"You can develop one 135-3 roll (80 square inches)
in 473 mL (16 ounces) or two rolls together in 946 mL
(one quart) of diluted developer. If you process one
135-36 roll in a 237 mL (8-ounce) tank or two 135-36 rolls
in a 473 mL (16-ounce) tank, increase the development time
by 10 percent (see the following tables)."
Sid836
Well-known
With all developers judging the result is subject to personal preferences. The internet can provide you with a good starting point from where you can get to what you like most.
I love the flexibility and the consistency in the results of the D-76. Longevity is not much of a concern for me as I mix it on my own and a 500ml bottle lasts for me for less than a month.
I love the flexibility and the consistency in the results of the D-76. Longevity is not much of a concern for me as I mix it on my own and a 500ml bottle lasts for me for less than a month.
Drago
Established
I like Rodinal and HC-110. Easy to use, shelf life long enough not to care about it and you can develop just about anything in them. And that's the Pros of them, which is enough imo. Mixing powders doesn;t work for me
mfogiel
Veteran
I have always developed up to 4 rolls of Tri X in 900cc of D76 1+1 ( 125cc of straight D76 x film), there have been no issues with developer strength that I could notice.
Highway 61
Revisited
Same remarks with 100cc of straight D76 per 135-36 roll because I use (smaller) steel tanks ; no issues with developer strength whatsoever.
For MF I use it at 1+3 to save a bit of money (with, frankly, the same results as with 1+1) ; 1+3 with 120 gives approx. the same quantity of straight D76 per sq inches as 1+1 with 135-36.
Very consistent results, good wet darkroom FB prints, good scans off the negatives. For more than three decades.