What film developer is your favorite and why ?

[steveyork]

You may want to peruse my notes I kept while I worked on this - link below.

The benefits - when done right are several:

• Full box speed to hold shadow detail
• Highlight protection
• Better overall acutance (with the right developers)
• More pronounced edge effects (some dev-film combinastions)
• Mid tone contrast expansion (this is the real win)

It is not for every situation, but when it it appropriate, it's a great tool to have in your bag of tricks.


I kept notes on my multi-year exploration of this. They can be found here:

tundra/Stand-Development

gitbucket.tundraware.com

It's the better midtones that drew me to older, single coated lenses, but then you have to protect the highlights better in developing. That single coating on those old lenses not as effective in highlight protection. Don't you run the risk of blowing the highlights with stand because of the potential of overdevelopment?

 

[Coldkennels]

Don't you run the risk of blowing the highlights with stand because of the potential of overdevelopment?

The theory states "you can't blow the highlights because the developer in contact with those areas will develop to exhaustion and not over-develop". As a result, you used to get people online claiming that it was literally impossible to blow the highlights with stand developing.

In my experiments, I found you very much can. And if the temperature climbed up during the hour the developer was sat there (say, for instance, you were developing in the height of summer), it was even more likely to happen.

 

[38Deardorff]

It's the better midtones that drew me to older, single coated lenses, but then you have to protect the highlights better in developing. With those older lenses you need more care in highlight protection. Don't you run the risk of blowing the highlights with stand because of the potential of overdevelopment?

Steve, i've never had blown highlights with PMK or Pyrocat

 

[Ororaro]

Stand, semi-stand development is the worst practice.
Does nothing, it actually only hinders over what could have been.

Last time I tried washing my hands by leaving stale soap on them, without rubbing it off, for 30 minutes, didn’t leave my hands clean.
Same principle goes for development.

You want your hands clean, and you want your film well developed? Stir, shake and be energetic. That’s how it’s done.

 

[chuckroast]

It's the better midtones that drew me to older, single coated lenses, but then you have to protect the highlights better in developing. That single coating on those old lenses not as effective in highlight protection. Don't you run the risk of blowing the highlights with stand because of the potential of overdevelopment?

So a couple of reference points. First, semistand/EMA are done with much higher dilution (i.e. weaker) developer which is inherently less active. Secondly, you're agitating almost not at all.

Why does this matter? The shadows develop quite slowly. That's why you want to leave the film in solution for a looooong time - to get full shadow speed. But highlights develop rapidly and then the developer there exhausts more-or-less immediately. That means semistand/EMA will inherently protect highlights. They won't overdevelop because - without agitation - they stop developing very quickly.

But this brings new problems to be conquered.

First, when you don't agitate very much, development byproducts begin to build up on the film and can lead to streaks - the dreaded "bromide drag". Hence, my recommendations in the prior post about taking great care with film suspension above the bottom of the tank and maintaining minimal contact with the suspension system.

Secondly, you have to find the right triplet of developer, dilution, and time to optimize for full shadow development completion and reigning in overly aggressive highlight development. Time gives you the shadows and the mid tone contrast expansion, and the dilution keeps the highlights in bounds. The other consideration is that if you get too dilute, you can make it up - up to a point - with longer times, but you may be increasing acutance beyond what is appropriate for smaller formats and thus really making the grain show up.

Finally, the more you dilute, the more developer volume you need to use to ensure that when you do agitate, there's enough active developer present to do the job.

I have generally found that Pyrocat-HD at 1.5:1:250 for 30min with one starting agitation for 1 min and another at 16min to be a good starting point for normal SBRs. I've also gotten good results at 1.5:1:300 for 40-45 min (EDIT: using EMA). D-23 mixed 1+9 with 0.5 g/l sodium hydroxide also works well for 30 min semistand.

Some examples ...

I mentioned this image upthread:



There was bright, direct sunlight hitting the bark from scene left, but the overall scene had a few dark areas but really boring local contrast in the mid tones. The really interesting textures at the center of the image had very little tonal separation. So I used Pyrocat-HD diluted 1.5:1:300 and did EMA for an hour. This gave me great acuity, razor sharp edge effects, and really nice mid tone separation. Most importantly it held the highlights where the sun was hitting the subject directly. The negative is dense, but certainly not unprintable. In fairness, this was 2x3 Efke PL100M sheet film that is known to be a good semistand/EMA candidate.


My experience is the MQ developers don't work as well for this. So I avoid this with D-76, DK-50 and the like. But it can be made to work as well. For example:




This Fompan 200 4x5 semistand processed in DK-50 1+3 for an hour. Again the negative is dense, but quite printable. I find the overall contrast to be a bit of overkill and the highlights edging right up to being blocked. In retrospect, I should have used less time and/or greater dilution to keep the contrast dialed down a little. That said, the print (these are both print scans) show great edge effects and mid tone contrast.

 

[chuckroast]

The theory states "you can't blow the highlights because the developer in contact with those areas will develop to exhaustion and not over-develop". As a result, you used to get people online claiming that it was literally impossible to blow the highlights with stand developing.

In my experiments, I found you very much can. And if the temperature climbed up during the hour the developer was sat there (say, for instance, you were developing in the height of summer), it was even more likely to happen.

It's possible, but if that's happening, one needs to use greater dilutions which exhaust much more rapidly. But then, you have to extend the development time accordingly.

I use a temp driven compensating development timer of my own design (link below) to have the timer account for varying dev temps. It's conceptually patterned after the old Zone VI timer that did this (which I also own), but where the Zone VI is entirely analog, mine is digital:

tundra/devtimer

gitbucket.tundraware.com

 

[Ororaro]

The whole negative develops at the same rate.

 

[chuckroast]

The whole negative develops at the same rate.

You'd be well served to read David Kachel's monograph "How Film Works".

 

[Freakscene]

So many ways to develop.

 

[38Deardorff]

So a couple of reference points. First, semistand/EMA are done with much higher dilution (i.e. weaker) developer which is inherently less active. Secondly, you're agitating almost not at all.

Why does this matter? The shadows develop quite slowly. That's why you want to leave the film in solution for a looooong time - to get full shadow speed. But highlights develop rapidly and then the developer there exhausts more-or-less immediately. That means semistand/EMA will inherently protect highlights. They won't overdevelop because - without agitation - they stop developing very quickly.

But this brings new problems to be conquered.

First, when you don't agitate very much, development byproducts begin to build up on the film and can lead to streaks - the dreaded "bromide drag". Hence, my recommendations in the prior post about taking great care with film suspension above the bottom of the tank and maintaining minimal contact with the suspension system.

Secondly, you have to find the right triplet of developer, dilution, and time to optimize for full shadow development completion and reigning in overly aggressive highlight development. Time gives you the shadows and the mid tone contrast expansion, and the dilution keeps the highlights in bounds. The other consideration is that if you get too dilute, you can make it up - up to a point - with longer times, but you may be increasing acutance beyond what is appropriate for smaller formats and thus really making the grain show up.

Finally, the more you dilute, the more developer volume you need to use to ensure that when you do agitate, there's enough active developer present to do the job.

I have generally found that Pyrocat-HD at 1.5:1:250 for 30min with one starting agitation for 1 min and another at 16min to be a good starting point for normal SBRs. I've also gotten good results at 1.5:1:300 for 40-45 min. D-23 mixed 1+9 with 0.5 g/l sodium hydroxide also works well for 30 min semistand.

Some examples ...

I mentioned this image upthread:

View attachment 4891147

There was bright, direct sunlight hitting the bark from scene left, but the overall scene had a few dark areas but really boring local contrast in the mid tones. The really interesting textures at the center of the image had very little tonal separation. So I used Pyrocat-HD diluted 1.5:1:300 and did EMA for an hour. This gave me great acuity, razor sharp edge effects, and really nice mid tone separation. Most importantly it held the highlights where the sun was hitting the subject directly. The negative is dense, but certainly not unprintable. In fairness, this was 2x3 Efke PL100M sheet film that is known to be a good semistand/EMA candidate.


My experience is the MQ developers don't work as well for this. So I avoid this with D-76, DK-50 and the like. But it can be made to work as well. For example:


View attachment 4891146

This Fompan 200 4x5 semistand processed in DK-50 1+3 for an hour. Again the negative is dense, but quite printable. I find the overall contrast to be a bit of overkill and the highlights edging right up to being blocked. In retrospect, I should have used less time and/or greater dilution to keep the contrast dialed down a little. That said, the print (these are both print scans) show great edge effects and mid tone contrast.

CR, thanks for the detail on your work flow. Just out of interest, have you ever tried divided Pyrocat? ......& how would it compare? Thanks

 

[chuckroast]

CR, thanks for the detail on your work flow. Just out of interest, have you ever tried divided Pyrocat? ......& how would it compare? Thanks

I tried it once or twice with not great results. That's because I did not get into it deeply enough to get it right. Water bath is another alternative that could be considered. So could Kachel's SLIMT for big SBR subjects.

The difficulty lies in the fact that most of literature about stand, divided, water bath and so on was written when films were rather different than they are today. As just one example, Crawley added homeopathic amounts if iodine to FX-1 which today is probably entirely unnecessary with modern emulsions.

So any exploration of these advanced development techniques thus require a far amount of diligence (time, money, frustration , swearing ...) to get them dialed in.

In my current orbit, I therefore bias towards the following defaults:

• Normal SBRs with good tonal separation : PMK Pyro, normal dilution and time
  
  
• Short SBRs and/or poor mid tone separation: Pyrocat-HDC or augmented high dilution D-23 semistand or EMA for 30-60 min
  
  
• Processing very old (4+ decades) film: Pyrocat-HDC semistand or EMA for 30-60 min
  
  
• HP5+ , all formats: Always and only PMK - everthing else with this film looks icky to me
  
  
• Quick and dirty shooting (e.g., camera testing): D-76 1+1, D-23 1+1, DK-50 1+1, or HC110B depending on format and what already mixed up

 

[steveyork]

So a couple of reference points. First, semistand/EMA are done with much higher dilution (i.e. weaker) developer which is inherently less active. Secondly, you're agitating almost not at all.

Why does this matter? The shadows develop quite slowly. That's why you want to leave the film in solution for a looooong time - to get full shadow speed. But highlights develop rapidly and then the developer there exhausts more-or-less immediately. That means semistand/EMA will inherently protect highlights. They won't overdevelop because - without agitation - they stop developing very quickly.

But this brings new problems to be conquered.

First, when you don't agitate very much, development byproducts begin to build up on the film and can lead to streaks - the dreaded "bromide drag". Hence, my recommendations in the prior post about taking great care with film suspension above the bottom of the tank and maintaining minimal contact with the suspension system.

Secondly, you have to find the right triplet of developer, dilution, and time to optimize for full shadow development completion and reigning in overly aggressive highlight development. Time gives you the shadows and the mid tone contrast expansion, and the dilution keeps the highlights in bounds. The other consideration is that if you get too dilute, you can make it up - up to a point - with longer times, but you may be increasing acutance beyond what is appropriate for smaller formats and thus really making the grain show up.

Finally, the more you dilute, the more developer volume you need to use to ensure that when you do agitate, there's enough active developer present to do the job.

I have generally found that Pyrocat-HD at 1.5:1:250 for 30min with one starting agitation for 1 min and another at 16min to be a good starting point for normal SBRs. I've also gotten good results at 1.5:1:300 for 40-45 min. D-23 mixed 1+9 with 0.5 g/l sodium hydroxide also works well for 30 min semistand.

Some examples ...

I mentioned this image upthread:

View attachment 4891147

There was bright, direct sunlight hitting the bark from scene left, but the overall scene had a few dark areas but really boring local contrast in the mid tones. The really interesting textures at the center of the image had very little tonal separation. So I used Pyrocat-HD diluted 1.5:1:300 and did EMA for an hour. This gave me great acuity, razor sharp edge effects, and really nice mid tone separation. Most importantly it held the highlights where the sun was hitting the subject directly. The negative is dense, but certainly not unprintable. In fairness, this was 2x3 Efke PL100M sheet film that is known to be a good semistand/EMA candidate.


My experience is the MQ developers don't work as well for this. So I avoid this with D-76, DK-50 and the like. But it can be made to work as well. For example:


View attachment 4891146

This Fompan 200 4x5 semistand processed in DK-50 1+3 for an hour. Again the negative is dense, but quite printable. I find the overall contrast to be a bit of overkill and the highlights edging right up to being blocked. In retrospect, I should have used less time and/or greater dilution to keep the contrast dialed down a little. That said, the print (these are both print scans) show great edge effects and mid tone contrast.

When I did minimal agitation with 35mm film, I get bromide streaks. Arista developing tanks and reels (plastic), and usually Rodinal at 1:100 for 60 min or so. So, based on what you're saying, maybe Nikkor stainless tank and reels, and maybe an empty reel at the bottom? Then agitation at beginning and midpoint?

 

[38Deardorff]

I tried it once or twice with not great results. That's because I did not get into it deeply enough to get it right. Water bath is another alternative that could be considered. So could Kachel's SLIMT for big SBR subjects.

The difficulty lies in the fact that most of literature about stand, divided, water bath and so on was written when films were rather different than they are today. As just one example, Crawley added homeopathic amounts if iodine to FX-1 which today is probably entirely unnecessary with modern emulsions.

So any exploration of these advanced development techniques thus require a far amount of diligence (time, money, frustration , swearing ...) to get them dialed in.

In my current orbit, I therefore bias towards the following defaults:

• Normal SBRs with good tonal separation PMK Pyro, normal dilution and time
  
  
• Short SBRs and/or poor mid tone separation Pyrocat-HDC or augmented high dilution D-23 semistand or EMA for 30-60 min
  
  
• Processing very old (4+ decades) film Pyrocat-HDC semistand or EMA for 30-60 min
  
  
• HP5+ , all formats Always and only PMK - everthing else with this film looks icky to me
  
  
• Quick and dirty shooting (e.g., camera testing) D-76 1+1, D-23 1+1, DK-50 1+1, or HC110B depending on format and what already mixed up

CR, i've only tried divided pyrocat by Sandy King's info.....which was published in this century.....after the development of pyrocat 😉

 

[chuckroast]

CR, i've only tried divided pyrocat by Sandy King's info.....which was published in this century.....after the development of pyrocat 😉

I would love to see a pointer to his info if you happen to have it. How did it work out and under what conditions was it useful?

 

[chuckroast]

When I did minimal agitation with 35mm film, I get bromide streaks. Arista developing tanks and reels (plastic), and usually Rodinal at 1:100 for 60 min or so. So, based on what you're saying, maybe Nikkor stainless tank and reels, and maybe an empty reel at the bottom? Then agitation at beginning and midpoint?

Don't use an empty reel as a support. My testing shows that doing this still traps developer at the bottom of the upper reel.

I found that inverting a small funnel at the bottom of the tank and then placing the loaded Nikkor reel's center onto the funnel's narrow end raises the reel over the bottom of the tank with essentially no opportunity for trapping. You can also use a rubber stopper of similar diameter and height in the center of the reel.

 

[chuckroast]

View attachment 4891211
So many ways to develop.

OK that's not fair 😉 Film? Developer? Dilution? Time? Agitation method? (It's a beautiful image so ... location?)

 

[38Deardorff]

I would love to see a pointer to his info if you happen to have it. How did it work out and under what conditions was it useful?

CR I didn't use it enough to figure out where it would be of advantage.... I pretty quickly went back to straight PMK & Pyrocat....
see Sandy's post #2

Divided Pyrocat-HD

Sandy King has graciously provided us with information to develop film with Pyrocat-HD using the divided development technique. I have started working with divided Pryocat-HD and I am happy and excited with my initial results. Here is the procedure that I am using with for divided...

www.photrio.com

 

[Freakscene]

OK that's not fair 😉 Film? Developer? Dilution? Time? Agitation method? (It's a beautiful image so ... location?)

It’s 135 Neopan 400 with a medium yellow filter in (old) Xtol 1+3. I always used normal Kodak agitation and adjusted density by modifying time and temperature, because I am very sensitive to unevenness. This is at 24C for 12 minutes.

That is the Церковь Спаса на Крови (Church of the Savior on Spilled Blood) in St Petersburg, Russia.

 

[MarkWalberg]

It’s 135 Neopan 400 with a medium yellow filter in (old) Xtol 1+3. I always used normal Kodak agitation and adjusted density by modifying time and temperature, because I am very sensitive to unevenness. This is at 24C for 12 minutes.

That is the Церковь Спаса на Крови (Church of the Savior on Spilled Blood) in St Petersburg, Russia.i

I really like that one. Amazing that is 135. Seems like a picture that begs larger format.

 

[Freakscene]

I really like that one. Amazing that is 135. Seems like a picture that begs larger format.

I have some shots of it on 6x8cm with the same film. The fine detail is better, but surprisingly, the tonality is very similar. Happens occasionally.