What b & w developers to you prefer, and why?

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Robert,

I've always found Ilfosol to be a middle-of-the road dev, not especially remarkable in any direction. It's OK but... Well, I see nothing special in it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ellisson]

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.

Also prefer DDX for ease of use, reproducibility and excellent results with my favorite films, HP5+, FP4+, Acros 100, which I generally rate at the box speeds for my shooting and developing.

 

[stevierose]

Thanks Roger. I mostly use an incident reading, so 320 for DDX 7.5 minutes at 24?

Warm regards to Frances

Cheers

Steve

 

[Bill Clark]

There are a gadzillion ideas on how to develop film. Like you, I still use, D-76/ID-11. But I also use Rodinal by Adox and do stand development

My recommendation is get down one developer with results you like and from there try out different stuff, dilutions, temp, and so on.

That’s the fun part of photography for me, experimenting with all the variables.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thanks Roger. I mostly use an incident reading, so 320 for DDX 7.5 minutes at 24?

Warm regards to Frances

Cheers

Steve

Dear Steve,

You're welcome -- and Frances sends her best too. Yes, that should be a good starting point, and I doubt you'll need to change it by more than about 30 seconds; 45 at the most.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . My recommendation is get down one developer with results you like and from there try out different stuff, dilutions, temp, and so on.

That’s the fun part of photography for me, experimenting with all the variables.

Dear Bill,

Yes: it's very important to find one that you like. From what I can see, some people choose a developer at random, or on the recommendation of another, and then persist even if it doesn't ever give them good results.

But I'd rather get all the variables under adequate control, and then not look for more precision than exists in the system. Once you have the dilution weighed off, and a standard temperature, you really shouldn't have to play too much with development times unless you are dealing with individual sheets (basic sensitometry *******ized* as the Zone System) or with whole rolls shot under unusual conditions.

Cheers,

R.

 

[rbiemer]

Just about a year ago, I started shooting 4x5 film and have been processing at home.
For me, that has meant HP5 and HC-110.
There may well be "better" combinations but I've been pleased with my negatives and don't really feel like there's any need to add another variable to my process.
At some point, I will probably try some other film(s) and then I may consider a different developer.
For now, though, this combination is giving me good and consistent results. Which lets me work on making good photos and allows me to not worry about my developing routine.
Rob

 

[webOSUser]

Generally HC110 with a little R09. I like the long lifespan of the concentrates and that I can use them to develop almost anything B&W.

Steve W.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I'm a big fan of single shot developers as concentrates as well. Pyrocat is 5ml of solution A & 5ml of soultion B to 500ml of water. The Pyrocat HD in glycol lasts more than a year and is avaialable in kits that will make 50 litres. Great results & pennies a roll. Staining developers are my go to & have made my printing life easier.

 

[KenR]

Hc110

Hc110

HC110 is versatile and lasts forever. My problem with most other developers is that they don't last very long, and I either find this out late at night when I want to develop film, or with Xtol when the results were very suboptimal because the developer had run out of steam.

 

[robert blu]

Dear Robert,

I've always found Ilfosol to be a middle-of-the road dev, not especially remarkable in any direction. It's OK but... Well, I see nothing special in it.

Cheers,

R.

Right, nothing special but easy to use ! Probably because I develop to scan and post process later and this gives me the possibility to play a little with contrast and other parameters I didn't see a limit in using it.

Now because after using almost exclusively the M10 last year I feel the "need" of the discipline to shoot a few B&W films following your suggestions I'll give a try to DDX

robert

 

[Rob-F]

I seem to be perfectly happy with D-76 1:1 for conventional emulsions like Tri-X and Plus-X (yes I still have some) and I'm using it now with Double-X as well. For tabular grain (meaning the Ilford Delta emulsions), I like what I get with DD-X. And I'm taking a greater interest in playing with T-Max developer. I'm thinking that perhaps it's not just for pushing anymore. The DD-X and T-Max are both good for pushing, but I seldom push film. I keep a bottle of Rodinal on the shelf, in case of a national emergency, but I don't use it. 🙄

 

[miha]

DDX is fine, a bit grainy but at 25€ a bottle one has to be really passionate about to say the least.

 

[Rob-F]

DDX is fine, a bit grainy but at 25€ a bottle one has to be really passionate about to say the least.

Yes, truer words were never spoken (or typed)!

 

[dourbalistar]

I don't know about "best", but I've been using LegacyPro L110 from Freestyle for the past few years. It's a clone of Kodak HC-110, so the formulation and results may not be exactly the same. However, I like it because it's economical, available in a smaller 1 pint bottle, and very easy to mix.

So far, I've been pretty happy with the results, and you can see examples in posts I've shared to the forum, as well as tagged on my Flickr. Compared to many members here, I'm admittedly a relative beginner. I've not used HC-110 myself, so if anybody can clearly tell the difference between LegacyPro L110 and HC-110, or sees anything deficient in my results, I'd be glad to hear the feedback and criticism!

 

[Rayt]

Rodinal for slow film up to 100 ISO, and HC110 for everything else.

 

[Russell W. Barnes]

I started out on DD-X and Ilford FP4 and HP5. FP4 was reasonable but FP5 tended to be a bit too grainy for my liking so I moved to ID-11 two-sherbert mixture and what an improvement! Agitation for both as per Ilford's: four times in ten secs initially then four times in the first ten secs each subsequent minute.

I like ID-11 on Agfa APX100 and Tri-X (pushed and box speed) too. I used ID-11 on Fomapan and it seems OK. But Fomapan isn't Ilford and there's a considerable difference in grain which I can't ascribe to any particular developer just yet.

I've been shooting Ilford Delta 400 on the Mess-Baldix and I went back to DD-X. Much better on Delta 400 than on HP5. I've just done a 35mm roll of Delta 100 in ID-11 and it looks good too.

I bought a bottle of Rodinal to try last week, and I'll shoot some more Agfa APX100 to see what it's like. I'll do the roll of Fomapan 100 I'm part-through in my Praktica MTL3 with the Rodinal too.

There're an awful lot of permutations out there!

 

[Schlapp]

Rodinal and PQ. Yes PQ for films sometimes - works fine for me

 

[leicapixie]

I used various developers in my processing..
Kodak D-23 (mixed from mainly Kodak chemicals), lIfosol,
Acufine (when money was no object),Kodak D-76 preferring Ilford ID-11(when i wanted clean chemicals), Rodinal original, Rodinal with Sodium Sulphite, Blazinol (re-worked Rodinal) and now for last 10 years HC-110.

Nowadays it's one or at most 2 rolls to develop!
A long stretch from Fashion and Publicity shoots where 20 rolls a day was normal. D-23 Split, in two solutions that was a great choice.

I feel Consistency more important than trying out every developer!

 

[Pentode]

D-76 1:1 is my base line developer. I use it for Everything faster than ISO 100 and I like it very much with Tri-X, Foma 100 and Orwo films. I recently acquired some Double-X and I’ll be using it for that as well.

I also have a fair amount of expired film on hand and I’ll sometimes use HC-110 instead of D-76 because it’s good at keeping fog to a minimum.

With slower films I like Rodinal’s tonality although I’ve never tried stand developing. For me, ISO 100 is the tipping point where I might use D-76 or Rodinal, depending upon what look I’m after. I normally default to D-76.

I also like Rodinal for cross-processing C-41 film in B&W chemistry. I’ve gotten interesting results doing this.