What film developer is your favorite and why ?

[rover]

XTOL is really nice. Especially for scanned negatives. Flat dense negs with wide latitude give the most freedom in LR. Also, grain reduction is a plus (with grainy films), and it's nicer for your watershed/planet.

XTOL has been my go to also for the past year or so due to its ability to develop most stocks very well. As I work off my stored rolls of film and transition to TMax and TriX which I prefer I will go back mixing in some HC110 with a dash of Rodinal on some rolls while still using XTOL too.

 

[Pioneer]

I do agree that HC110 and Rodinal are handy to have around as they keep for a very long time and work with a lot of different films. Rodinal is especially useful as an excellent home brew substitute called PaRodinal can be mixed up using some Tylenol, Sodium Sulfite and Lye (Sodium Hydroxide. Like Rodinal it seems to last in the concentrated form for a very long time and acts just like Rodinal, which is a medium active developer which is useful for developing lots of different emulsions using the same dilutions and times used by Rodinal. Like Caffenol, the ingredients can usually be found locally.

 

[Godfrey]

The problem is that if you stick strictly to the manufacturer's recommendations, unless you're only photographing a limited kind of scene, sooner or later you will either blow out highlights or lose shadow detail. That's because you need different development schemes for different subject brightness ranges in the scene. When there is a very big range of light from dark to brightest (long SBR), you have to decrease development in the highlights. When you have a limited range of light from dark to brightest (short SBR), you want in increase development to spread the tones of the scene more widely across what the negative can reproduce.

The whole reason things like Zone System exist is to control the range of light in the scene and "place" it properly on the negative. That way you capture as much as you can on the negative and decide how to use it in the printing process.

For years, I followed manufacturer's recommendations carefully and got a lot of "meh" negatives. The shadows were thin and highlights got blocked. When I took the time to dive into Zone System and learn about development controls, it was quantum leap in negative quality and printability.

Just for fun, try this with a roll of film you don't care a bunch about (because I cannot guarantee this will give you good results).

1. Set your light meter to 1/2 the box speed for your film. So, for ASA 400 film, set it for 200, for example.
2. Shoot a normal range of light - some stuff in the shadows and some bright highlights.
3. Develop the film 20% less than recommended for your developer/temp combo, agitating as usual

See how you like the results when you print.

(This assumes you have a decent light meter and a reasonable thermometer and timer ... if not, all bets are off 😉

I did zone system 30-40 years ago, when all we had was film and darkroom. It's no longer necessary for what I do, at all. I've long since learned my films and proper exposure, my film processing, and my scanning/digital image processing.

I never said I followed "manufacturer's recommendations" at all. That was someone else. I haven't looked at a manufacturer data sheet for decades. I have my own schema for processing negatives that I developed over the past 50 some years, tuned to my needs for scanning and image processing. And I adjust it per what I see as needs of a given scene. The goal, as I said earlier, is a good average negative with all values expressed. That's exactly what works best for scanning and image processing. Nothing else works as well. With that, I can make any rendering style I want in the digital domain.

For truly pathological scenes, I don't bother with film at all ... it has too many constraints ... and the Leica M10-M/Hasselblad 907x have more sensitivity and dynamic range to work with than ANY film.

My goal is to make photographs, not celebrate processing technique.

G

 

[John Bragg]

As I said previously, I really like Ilfosol 3 and use it regularly, however it always helps to have a spare and with HC-110 in sparse supply, I have been trying Ilfotec HC of which I have an abundance. Not quite dialled in, but nearly. I plan to try 1:49 dilution tomorrow as I can then do 2 films in one tank as opposed to one at 1:63.

Untitled_253016GB by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr

 

[chuckroast]

I did zone system 30-40 years ago, when all we had was film and darkroom. It's no longer necessary for what I do, at all. I've long since learned my films and proper exposure, my film processing, and my scanning/digital image processing.

I never said I followed "manufacturer's recommendations" at all. That was someone else. I haven't looked at a manufacturer data sheet for decades. I have my own schema for processing negatives that I developed over the past 50 some years, tuned to my needs for scanning and image processing. And I adjust it per what I see as needs of a given scene. The goal, as I said earlier, is a good average negative with all values expressed. That's exactly what works best for scanning and image processing. Nothing else works as well. With that, I can make any rendering style I want in the digital domain.

For truly pathological scenes, I don't bother with film at all ... it has too many constraints ... and the Leica M10-M/Hasselblad 907x have more sensitivity and dynamic range to work with than ANY film.

My goal is to make photographs, not celebrate processing technique.

G

Sorry for the misattribution, my bad.

As to the dynamic range of higher end digital.

Hasselblad: "Colour Definition 16-bit; Dynamic range up to 14 stops."
Leica: "The Leica M10 achieves a dynamic range score of 13.24 EV at its base ISO of 100, according to DxOMark testing."

For the record, the Nikon D-750 which is roughly 1/5 the prices of the Leica has slightly better dynamic range and the same bit depth. I love my Leica film machines, but paying 5x for more pixels and otherwise similar performance isn't something that would much appeal to me.

Hardly "[more] dynamic range to work with than ANY film" I have made film handle that on any number of occasions.

The difference, I think is how it does so. The digishooters will hold that range, typically only at their lower ISOs and maintain a pretty straightline relationship. Film will have a more S shaped response curve with tone compression taking place to hold 14 stops.

And they just look different. Not better- not worse, just different. I like silver prints and how film maps to them. I find digital kind of sterile to look at. But that's a matter of taste, not some truth of the universe.

It's sort of academic anyway, because no monitor can properly render 14 stops, and no reflective surface - silver or inkjet - can hold much beyond 5 stops. Massive SBR capture is mostly to give us choices what we map onto the final output medium.

The one thing I cannot abide in the digital world - and it's no fault of the technology - is people who insist on garish levels of HDR and oversaturation to try and give fairly ordinary images more pop. It's like being in a bad hallucination (I would imagine, as I've never been in a good or bad one ... 😉

 

[Benjamin Marks]

The great thing about photography is that no one is forcing anyone to use any particular soup. The last 10 years or so of my philm based photography I settled on a Vitamin C/Phenidone homebrew (Patrick Gainer's) that cost pennies to mix and gave Neopan 400 a look I liked. I also used XTol. And I tell you what: I know that digital is superior in a variety of technical ways, but on the gallery walls, I am drawn to silver halide photography like a moth to flame. I think it has something to do with when photography started to matter to me. Silver emulsions were, by far, thbe most accessable and popular (read: affordable) medium. Like a lot of you, I was more interested in the final result than any particular magic soup.

P.S. While I find this thread fascinating to read through, I think of something that Ctien once said about his space shuttle launch dye transfer prints: "No one cares how hard you worked to get the shot." This truism extends to the darkroom too. The photo has to move someone. If you developed the film in coffee and suspended bat guano it just won't matter to anyone. It's how they feel when they see the picture. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Godfrey]

Sorry for the misattribution, my bad.

As to the dynamic range of higher end digital.

Hasselblad: "Colour Definition 16-bit; Dynamic range up to 14 stops."
Leica: "The Leica M10 achieves a dynamic range score of 13.24 EV at its base ISO of 100, according to DxOMark testing."

For the record, the Nikon D-750 which is roughly 1/5 the prices of the Leica has slightly better dynamic range and the same bit depth. I love my Leica film machines, but paying 5x for more pixels and otherwise similar performance isn't something that would much appeal to me.

Hardly "[more] dynamic range to work with than ANY film" I have made film handle that on any number of occasions.

The difference, I think is how it does so. The digishooters will hold that range, typically only at their lower ISOs and maintain a pretty straightline relationship. Film will have a more S shaped response curve with tone compression taking place to hold 14 stops.

And they just look different. Not better- not worse, just different. I like silver prints and how film maps to them. I find digital kind of sterile to look at. But that's a matter of taste, not some truth of the universe.

It's sort of academic anyway, because no monitor can properly render 14 stops, and no reflective surface - silver or inkjet - can hold much beyond 5 stops. Massive SBR capture is mostly to give us choices what we map onto the final output medium.

The one thing I cannot abide in the digital world - and it's no fault of the technology - is people who insist on garish levels of HDR and oversaturation to try and give fairly ordinary images more pop. It's like being in a bad hallucination (I would imagine, as I've never been in a good or bad one ... 😉

@chuckroast: Having owned and worked with all of this equipment, and film, we're just going to disagree. I believe what I see with my own eyes and with my own equipment, I'm not reading specs out of a book. There's no point in debating it.

Enough said. Believe whatever you want to, enjoy making photographs that satisfy you. I will do likewise.

G

 

[Bingley]

Tmax400 in Perceptol.

Yes. This^^^. I've followed Erik's use of Perceptol at a 1+2 dilution for TMax 400, rated at iso 200. Produces great results. Otherwise, these days I'm using Ilfotec DDX and getting very good results from it. Developed a roll of Delta 400 in DDX a few days ago and the results have been impressive to me. Here are a couple of examples:

Cottonwood by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

American River Parkway by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

I should add that the photos above reflect my preference for very fine grain for landscape photography. For street, I like more conspicuous grain, but still favor TMax 400 @ iso 200.

 

[Bingley]

Diafine.

I used to use Plus-X at EI400 in it and that was heavenly but since it's gone, it's HP5+ at EI800 now.

I still have some Plus X in the 'fridge. I parcel it out very sparingly bc there is no more. Back before it was discontinued, I rated it at iso 320 and developed in Diafine, and it sang.

 

[Bingley]

The reason i don't bother with any of that stuff anymore is because all i need is a good, average neg that has all the information in it. All of my negs are scanned post the processing, and all the rendering is done in digital image processing. Those scans are my archived originals; i often don't bother even to save the negs as once i have good scans, i never touch them again.

Film and processing constitute one way to record and present the image data, that's all. A clean, average neg is the best original to scan.

G

I agree. With Lightroom and Photoshop, one can do pretty much anything that used to be done in the darkroom, but in far less time. And, to paraphrase Ansel Adams, the negative is the score, and the digitized image is the performance.

 

[wlewisiii]

I agree. With Lightroom and Photoshop, one can do pretty much anything that used to be done in the darkroom, but in far less time. And, to paraphrase Ansel Adams, the negative is the score, and the digitized image is the performance.

Truth. That's why I still love Diafine. It provides the best negs for scanning that I've found. Any film, dead simple.

 

[Harry the K]

Rodinal.
- works well with almost any film
- temperaturewise easy to mix
- shelf life longer than my own
- happy with results, especially with Tri-X and Rollei 80s (no scanning, darkroom only)

 

[p.giannakis]

Maybe it's the right thread to post this question: Does anyone have any experience with the shelf life of the new HC110?

 

[mrtoml]

I still have some Plus X in the 'fridge. I parcel it out very sparingly bc there is no more. Back before it was discontinued, I rated it at iso 320 and developed in Diafine, and it sang.

I used to use Diafine a lot. Has anyone tried the Bellini liquid Diafine:

BelliniFoto DF2 Duo-Step B&W Film Developer a Liquid Version of Diafine - Nik & Trick Photo Services

BelliniFoto DF2 Duo-Step, a liquid Diafine, is brought to you via the genius of BelliniFoto and the innovation of Nik & Trick

ntphotoworks.com

 

[wlewisiii]

I used to use Diafine a lot. Has anyone tried the Bellini liquid Diafine:

BelliniFoto DF2 Duo-Step B&W Film Developer a Liquid Version of Diafine - Nik & Trick Photo Services

BelliniFoto DF2 Duo-Step, a liquid Diafine, is brought to you via the genius of BelliniFoto and the innovation of Nik & Trick

ntphotoworks.com

Heard of it but the batch I bought ~ 2014 is still good so no need to get any of that version.

 

[chuckroast]

Yes. This^^^. I've followed Erik's use of Perceptol at a 1+2 dilution for TMax 400, rated at iso 200. Produces great results. Otherwise, these days I'm using Ilfotec DDX and getting very good results from it. Developed a roll of Delta 400 in DDX a few days ago and the results have been impressive to me. Here are a couple of examples:

Cottonwood by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

American River Parkway by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

I should add that the photos above reflect my preference for very fine grain for landscape photography. For street, I like more conspicuous grain, but still favor TMax 400 @ iso 200.

Those are lovely. What was camera/lens/film format for these?

 

[chuckroast]

I still have some Plus X in the 'fridge. I parcel it out very sparingly bc there is no more. Back before it was discontinued, I rated it at iso 320 and developed in Diafine, and it sang.

Have you tried Double X?

 

[chuckroast]

The great thing about photography is that no one is forcing anyone to use any particular soup. The last 10 years or so of my philm based photography I settled on a Vitamin C/Phenidone homebrew (Patrick Gainer's) that cost pennies to mix and gave Neopan 400 a look I liked. I also used XTol. And I tell you what: I know that digital is superior in a variety of technical ways, but on the gallery walls, I am drawn to silver halide photography like a moth to flame. I think it has something to do with when photography started to matter to me. Silver emulsions were, by far, thbe most accessable and popular (read: affordable) medium. Like a lot of you, I was more interested in the final result than any particular magic soup.

P.S. While I find this thread fascinating to read through, I think of something that Ctien once said about his space shuttle launch dye transfer prints: "No one cares how hard you worked to get the shot." This truism extends to the darkroom too. The photo has to move someone. If you developed the film in coffee and suspended bat guano it just won't matter to anyone. It's how they feel when they see the picture. Just my opinion, of course.

All art exists within the boundaries of a triangle: Vision, Technique, Spirit/Worldview

While we isolate these for purposes of discussion, as we have here, it's absolutely the case that final product must have components of all three to be really great.

 

[agentlossing]

All art exists within the boundaries of a triangle: Vision, Technique, Spirit/Worldview

While we isolate these for purposes of discussion, as we have here, it's absolutely the case that final product must have components of all three to be really great.

Hmm, how would you explain vision as different from spirit/worldview? It kind of seems to me like vision might effectively split into worldview and technique equally (but maybe I'm just more prone to dichotomies than trichotomies).

 

[chuckroast]

Hmm, how would you explain vision as different from spirit/worldview? It kind of seems to me like vision might effectively split into worldview and technique equally (but maybe I'm just more prone to dichotomies than trichotomies).

Spirit/Worldview is more about how your personal sense of life, values, religiosity (or not), and so on influence how you work. It is fundamental in deciding just what you want to say.

Vision is how you imagine a scene, how you make choices about composition, perspective, and image structure. It is about how you will express your worldview.

Technique is pretty much just about tooling and mechanics.

I find this triangle valuable because so many people work on technique and developing a vision, but they don't much ponder their own worldview. But that worldview has profound influence on how your vision will be realized.