Remarks on developing b/w film.

[phototone]

I see many posts here inquiring about how this exotic, or that exotic developer works, if it is good, etc., etc.

From my almost 40 years of experience in developing my own, and others b/w film I have a philosophy about learning to develop.

I feel that you should learn to develop your own b/w film with standard, easily available developers, such as Kodak D-76, or Ilfords identical developer ID-11. These are "universal" developers which represent the best compromise in regards full emulsion speed, sharpness and grain structure. Learn this developer, learn how to make excellent negatives with this developer, and then...experiment with other developers and compare the results to D-76/ID-11. In some cases you may get more interesting results with other developers, but....if you have no "standard" to compare it to, how do you really know???

While I have used Rodinal (and keep a bottle around), and pyro and home mixed developers I keep going back to D-76 because it is predictable, dependable, has long shelf-life mixed up, and gives me great results. I use it for b/w films from 8x10 down to 35mm.

Other opinions welcomed.

 

[FrankS]

I agree. Kodak's D76, or Ilford's Ilfosol S/ ID-11. Tri-x, Plus-X/ HP5, FP4. That will get you started for sure.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Coming from a newbie's perspective, I kind of wished I would have started with Diafine instead of breaking down and getting the D-76 because it was readily available at most of the camera stores. Both the negatives I pulled from the Diafine look extremely good and I had trouble getting D-76 to behave. Most of that is due to the fact that the conditions I'm developing film in aren't really that ideal (a damp basement, a bathroom with towels on the windows as a place to remove film from the canister, etc). I'm dreading the day I start working with an enlarger down here. We're thinking of making me a small enclosed 'darkroom' with some plywood so that I can have a space that is completely lightproof yet won't be expensive to make.

As a newbie, Diafine makes more sense for my type of shooting. I like shooting in available light. The extra one or two stops push to the speed of the film helps with this; I can handhold the camera in more situations than I could if I was just using a regular developer. The fact that it doesn't produce much grain when pushing is also a plus; I don't have to worry about really grainy photos.

I like to shoot Kodak and Ilford black and white film, HP5 and Tmax 100 the most. For me, Diafine has been the easier of the two developers to use.

 

[FrankS]

For sure Diafine is more forgiving, however I still think that a traditional developer is a better teacher of basic darkroom skills that should be mastered. Diafine tolerates a sloppiness that will not carry over to other developers and darkroom processes.

It's a good thing to have a strict teacher with high standards.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

That's very true. Strict is very good when starting out in anything because it teaches you to be vigilant as to times and temperatures. My biggest problem is not having a thermometer. I am lucky that the basement here in this house stays a relatively nice 75 degrees all year round and can therefore develop at that temperature without worrying much.

I have finally gotten good negatives out of my D76, but now that I have Diafine for my faster film I think I may only use it when I'm developing slower films. As much as I really want to dunk my Pan-F in Diafine regardless of what people have said about grain, I think that the fact that it was mighty expensive will probably stop me from doing so.

 

[xcapekey]

i've played with a few diff dev. but have ultimately settled on d76....it is readily available and there's lots of data on it...i've used diafine as well, but i shoot a lot during the day as well and shooting 1200 speed film in So. CA with a leica is pretty limiting as far as depth of field options... i'd say have your combo for regular conditions and lowlight conditions... or shoot neopan 1600 at 1200 for lowlight and just buy d76 🙂

i actually like the look of the neopan better than my forays with diafine...

 

[RayPA]

...if you have no "standard" to compare it to, how do you really know???...

Words of wisdom and great advice from Phototone. D76 is THE standard. Its popularity, functionality, and usefulness made it so. I don't believe there is a more versatile developer. Darkroom/developer specialists/chemists have over the decades spun countless variations off it, seeking to improve and/or change its characteristics, thus making it the most scrutinized and understood developer. If you'd like to develop your own film then you owe it to yourself (and your darkroom habits/skills [as Frank points out]), to get to know D76. You will want to move onto other developers, and as you research where to go next, very often every direction you consider will be lit by some comparison to D76, as in "similar to D76, but...", "grain like D76...," "speed similar to D76..." You get the picture (pun not intended, but welcomed). 😉
🙂
🙂

 

[iggers]

Tolerant Diafine.

Tolerant Diafine.

That's what I need!

Diafine tolerates a sloppiness that will not carry over to other developers and darkroom processes.

 

[rover]

I have more or less settled on the team of Diafine and D76. Though most of my stuff now goes into the Diafine for the reasons noted above, I have to admit that I like the results from D76 a bit more. It is also so versatile. It is written somewhere, probably in the Darkroom Cookbook, that though no film manufacturer will admit it, all true B&W films are formulated to perform well when developed in D76.

Photography is simple, and it is about choices. Shutter speed, aperture and film sensitivity are the basics. If you develop your own you have to work your developer choice into your choice of film. Diafine simplifies this last choice, but knowing and being able to work with other options is good too.

 

[Poptart]

I've used just about every commercial developer around, including dektol, for developing negatives and D76 has never been anything other than a last choice for me. Maybe it's because I always want to be a little different and D76 negative have a deadly sameness about them. As far as easy goes, Diafine is certainly that. Maybe these people without thermometers should get some split D76 and try that. It kind of amazes me that anyone still develops film. I know people who went through four years of photo classes in college and never got their hands wet.

 

[oftheherd]

...

It kind of amazes me that anyone still develops film. I know people who went through four years of photo classes in college and never got their hands wet.

How sad. One wonders what else they failed to learn?

 

[titrisol]

Phototone is correct.
I started in the late 70s/early 80s with Rodinal and Metinol because my father used those.
After a hiatus in the mid 80s I started back with D76 and clones, Microdol-X and some home brews....

Here I am in the earlyt 21st century still using Rodinal (sometimes perverted) and Ilford DDX as my standards.

Have I tried Diafine, YES, did I like it, YES. Would I use it as my everyday developer.... NO
Diafine is excellent for getting images out of film, but I prefer the "tricks" gimmicks and games one can play with the normal developers. Divided developers like DD23 and DD76 are fun to play with too, but for 35mm and 120 I'd rather stick with the simplicity and effectiveness of a normal developer.

 

[Nick R.]

I think it's better to experiment and match the developer to film to shooting style. You can't fit one developer into every square hole unless you constantly shoot the same film in the same manner, or find a way to shoot different films to fit the one developer.

BTW Stephanie, of all the films I've developed in Diafine, PanF+ might be the best.

 

[phototone]

I think it's better to experiment and match the developer to film to shooting style. You can't fit one developer into every square hole unless you constantly shoot the same film in the same manner, or find a way to shoot different films to fit the one developer.

Yes, experiment after you have mastered basic developing technique and are getting good negatives. It is easy to get good scannable or printable negatives with D-76/ID-11. This is the standard. If you are going to rate your film ISO at what the manufacturer recommends, and you are going to shoot a variety of different types of photos, then the results will be good, when developed in D-76, 1 to 1 dilution. Getting the correct developing temperature is a snap even in an un-airconditioned darkroom if you use the 1 to 1 dilution. (1 part developer, 1 part water). You just use ice as part of your "1 part water" and pull the ice out when the temperature of the developer reaches the correct value. You do not need to chill the fixer, if the fixer has hardener in it. "Kodak Rapid-Fix w/Hardener" is one example. Another way to get correct starting developer temperature is to mix your solution then set it in the refrigerator for a while with a thermometer in it, and check it frequently until it achieves correct temperature. You could keep bottles of both fix and developer in the frige, if you live in a very hot climate to cool them down some.

 

[GeneW]

I've always had good luck with D-76 and think it's a solid, dependable and highly predictable developer. Never had bad negs with it except for exposure errors on my part.

Gene

 

[Kin Lau]

That's what I need!

Diafine tolerates a sloppiness that will not carry over to other developers and darkroom processes.

I was going to suggest that for your old roll of T-Max 400, but the deed's already done.

 

[Kin Lau]

My preference for a "standard" developer is HC-110, simply because I find it easier to work with and cheap.... also helps that's it's AA's standard dev also.

I've tried ID-11 (Ilford's D76 equiv), and didn't like mixing powder, and then storing that much dev, especially since I don't have much space.

 

[iggers]

I just walked down to Downtown Camera and to Henry's (on Queen Street, in Toronto), looking for Diafine or Accufine. Both places had what seemed to me a limited selection (whatever became of X-Tol?), and neither had any of those particular developers. At Henrys I bought a bag of D76 powder to make 1 liter (C$3.99 & tax).

At Downtown Camera one of the old-timers asked what I was looking for and what I was proposing to use it with. Um, T-Max 400. He told me I'd have to walk a long ways to find those developers, as no one around here carries them anymore. No demand. They're fine developers, but there's no demand. Besides, he said, you're not likely to get decent results on T-Max, as you need the T-Max developer to take advantage of the T-something or other of the emulsion. (That might explain at least in paryt why the roll of ancient T-Max that I developed on the weekend with Rodinal was so very dark.) So I bought a bottle of the T-Max liquid developer (C$11.99% tax).

So:
Are accufine or diafine available in the Toronto area? Where do you get yours?

Now that I have this honking big bottle (makes 1 gallon) of T-Max developer, will I be able to use it with non-T-Max films, such as Ilford Delta 100?

 

[iggers]

D-76 Shelf life - just 2 months in a not-full bottle?

D-76 Shelf life - just 2 months in a not-full bottle?

I just bought some D-76. According to the package, the solution life is 6 months for a full bottle, and 2 months for a half-full bottle of stock solution. Do you get more than 2 months useable life with a not-full bottle?

...I keep going back to D-76 because it is predictable, dependable, has long shelf-life mixed up, and gives me great results. ...

 

[T_om]

So:
Are accufine or diafine available in the Toronto area? Where do you get yours?

Um.. you DO know that Acufine and Diafine are two VERY different developers, right? You are not looking for them to produce the same results, nor even require the same developing techniques, right?

Just wondering.

As for Diafine, you can mail order it from Huron Camera and have it delivered to your door.

Tom