sunrisecody1
Newbie
The title says it. I'm getting ready to get back into developing my own, but I'm curious what developer(s) are best. Back in my old days I used D76 1:1, Xtol, and Microdol X. What do you think the best choices are today?
Thanks guys!
Thanks guys!
johnf04
Well-known
I use Rodinal (the original Agfa developer) mainly because I had problems in the past with developer concentrate failing to work correctly once the bottle was opened. I don't process a lot of films.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
I use Pyrocat HD in glycol for films. Occasionally XTOL for 3200 asa films. I appreciate the highlight separation & the subsequent ease of printing.
Formulary Ansco 130 for prints for the beautiful tonal separation on fiber papers. I always have some LPD (in cans for easy storage on hand for when the 130 runs out before i can get more. Both great developers.
Formulary Ansco 130 for prints for the beautiful tonal separation on fiber papers. I always have some LPD (in cans for easy storage on hand for when the 130 runs out before i can get more. Both great developers.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Rodinal, HC-110.
Easy to mix, takes little space, long storage time, lots of info.
Easy to mix, takes little space, long storage time, lots of info.
jwnash1
Well-known
. I use R09(Rodinal) for the same reason. Sometimes I do 1:100 stand development with it other times I use 1:25 and timed development depending on the film and my mood. i like the one shot concept because I found myself throwing away a lot of developer that had gotten too old.
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
Pardon, but for what film? That is the more important question!
D76 works well for a lot of films, I daresay it is about as universal a developer as there is, but for a specific film there may be a developer that is much better.
D76 works well for a lot of films, I daresay it is about as universal a developer as there is, but for a specific film there may be a developer that is much better.
kiemchacsu
Well-known
This +++
In my case only hc110. Rodinal is good for low speed film but not my taste for 400 iso film. Hc110 is more versatile i think.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In my case only hc110. Rodinal is good for low speed film but not my taste for 400 iso film. Hc110 is more versatile i think.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mackinaw
Think Different
Mainly Xtol, because it's septic tank friendly (and a full speed developer). Sometimes Rodinal, and D-76, for when I shoot Ferrania P30.
Jim B.
Jim B.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
XTOL for a bit of extra speed, low toxicity, and very fine grain.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Along with someone above, Ko.Fe is right.
Over the years I have found at least in my case that matching a film with a developer is not as important as finding your preferred EI , development time and very importantly the best agitation scheme for each film you use.
Jamespics
Newbie
Rodinal - for the same reasons as everyone else. DD-X because I think it lifts my shadows a bit. But it is expensive.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Perceptol 1+2 @ 23 degrees C. Finest grain possible AFAIK for 400-2TMY, the only film I use.
Erik.
Erik.
mcfingon
Western Australia
It would be interesting to compare Xtol (my favourite) and Perceptol on a 400 film Erik. I seldom use 400 but have some Delta 400 in stock, so if I can get some Perceptol I'll try both developers. My reasons for liking Xtol are much the same as above (fine grain, sharpness, speed, eco-friendliness), but I would add two related advantages:
Very high consistency (pH doesn't seem to change over time)
Very good keeping quality of stock solution
John Mc
Roger Hicks
Veteran
DDX. Lasts for years and gives an extra 2/3 stop of speed. Like quick'n'easy Microphen. Perceptol is good if you don't mine losing 1/3 to 2/3 stop.
I used to develop HP5 Plus in both, rating it at EI 250 and 500 respectively. The former is close to the ISO in that dev; the latter, about 1/3 stop below ISO. Then I decided it was too much trouble and standardized on DD-X.
Always found Rodinal slow and grainy. Great for LF; OK for MF; totally unsuitable for 35mm.
Cheers,
R.
I used to develop HP5 Plus in both, rating it at EI 250 and 500 respectively. The former is close to the ISO in that dev; the latter, about 1/3 stop below ISO. Then I decided it was too much trouble and standardized on DD-X.
Always found Rodinal slow and grainy. Great for LF; OK for MF; totally unsuitable for 35mm.
Cheers,
R.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I use DD-X on several films, decanting into glass and topping off with some Bloxygen when I open a new jug or draw from a partial bottle has eliminated the partial bottle shelf life problems I did have with it. All the Ilford films do beautifully in it. I use Rodinal on my slow stuff, Rollei Ortho and RPX25, and on ADOX 100 films, and to push HP5+ to 800 (not supposed to work I know, but testing can turn up some unexpected treasures). Perceptol and D96 for the motion picture films from ORWO and Double-X. I also like the current version of Studionol, RO9 Spezial for HP5+ at 400. It is my standard. And HC-110 is always on hand for sheet film, HP5 or FP4. Again, lots of testing over the years has given me great control over 810 negs with that. I much prefer liquids, but have not found anything in liquid form that can match Perceptol, and am resigned to mixing up D96 as well for the same reason.
Dogman
Veteran
Haven't done any film is several years but before I switched to digital, I had over 30 years of film shooting, processing and printing. I mostly used highly diluted developers. Shooting Tri-X, I used Rodinal in sodium sulfite or FG7. I also used Rodinal/sulfite with HP5 and PanF but switched to D76 1:1 when I couldn't get Rodinal locally. All of them gave good results.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
All of the above tends to illustrate than anyone else's experience is of very limited use...
Which is logical, as otherwise there wouldn't be as many developers. I used to like D19, which I compounded myself from raw chemicals. I still have the analytical balance and many of the chemicals.
Cheers,
R.
Which is logical, as otherwise there wouldn't be as many developers. I used to like D19, which I compounded myself from raw chemicals. I still have the analytical balance and many of the chemicals.
Cheers,
R.
stevierose
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Hi Roger
Sorry for being a bit slow but I didn’t completely follow your post. You develop HP5+ in DDX with an EI of 500? What time/temp do you use? Do you use a similar increase in EI for other Ilford films?
Thanks
Steve Rosenblum
Sorry for being a bit slow but I didn’t completely follow your post. You develop HP5+ in DDX with an EI of 500? What time/temp do you use? Do you use a similar increase in EI for other Ilford films?
Thanks
Steve Rosenblum
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Steve,
7 -1/2 minutes at 24. You might want to vary that by up to +/- 30 seconds.
The time-temperature recommendations on Ilford films are effectively for EIs, not ISO speeds, so the recommended 7 minutes for 400 and 8 minutes for 800 represent a slight pull and a (very) slight push, respectively.
And of course a lot depends on your metering technique/ personal preferences. With an incident light meter I'd drop the EI to 320; with spot metering for the shadows, using a shadow index, 500 is fine.
Yes, similar arguments apply for all Ilford (and indeed other) films in DD-X.
Cheers,
R.
robert blu
quiet photographer
I am not developing much in these days but it seems me I'm the only one using Ilfosol 3 ...
robert
PS: after reading Roger's post I think I'll try DDX
robert
PS: after reading Roger's post I think I'll try DDX