What kind of developer do you guys (and some girls) use?

S

siverta

Member
Local time
2:36 AM
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
39
I am lazy, and prefer HC-110 because it is easy to mix, it is cheap and it is fast. Hate standing MORE than 6 minutes waiting for another 5 minutes in the fix.

I only use Tri-X 400 because I want to be consistent, and get the results I expect.
6 minutes in HC-110 (B) and AGEFIX (1+5) in 5 minutes.

Sivert
 
hmm been wanting to try Tri X with HC110, currently using Rodinal with Tri-X in 12min @ 20C (68F)

The other developer i use to use was TMAX with TMAX 400 and 100.
 
Rodinal is now my primary developer (mostly at 1:50). Gives excellent results with APX 100, Delta 100 and Efke 25.

Jim Bielecki
 
I've used Rodinal a lot with the more traditional films like HP5, It last for a long time as well. I like the sharpness and the clear grain.

Although more expensive I prefer using TMAX dev for the more modern T grain films like Delta and TMAX100/400 though. For me I think I get better graduation over the tones, certainly when using 120 roll film.
 
The same film in different developes may exhibit more speed, but coarser grain (Microphen); finer grain but less speed (Perceptol); greater sharpness but usually coarser grain at the rated speed (Paterson FX39); and low speed and huge grain (Rodinal when used with the wrong film). The true ISO speeds for an ISO 400 film can vary from 200 or below to 650 or above.

There are also 'magic' combinations such as Foma 200 in FX39, HP5 in DD-X, etc., but these tend to be very personal. I do not see how anyone can say that developers aren't critical.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)
 
Diafine has been my staple with Plus X and Tri X. I use D-76 with other films I shoot and I have some DD-X to process a few rolls of Delta 3200 sitting on the shelf.
 
with my 50mm, i've been shooting tri-x in diafine. with my 28mm, tri-x in d76 1:1. same conditions outside, i just want the dof.
 
At the moment I'm experimenting with Tetenal Neofin Blue and APX 100, Tetenal Ultrafin plus and ID-11 for HP5 and Tura 400. It became pretty hard to get developer here so I'm trying what is left.
 
After experimenting with a lot of developers, ended up going back to Xtol 1+1. Simple, cheap, good. Nothing more to it.
 
Rodinal, HC110 and Diafine for APX100, FP4+, HP5+ & Tri-X. APX & FP4+ in Rodinal @ 1:50, iso100 for the pleasing b&w look. HP5+ in HC110 dilution B, ususally iso 400, but the occasional push to 800. Tri-X & Diafine, iso 1250-1600.

Rodinal & HC110 both keep very well, cheap and in small bottles too. I've mixed ID11 & Microphen, and both are good dev's, but dislike the room it takes up, and the trouble of powders. Ilfosol S was okay, but too expensive and poor shelf life.

Diafine, I now have 8 gals of the stuff, but it's cheap, fast and very good with Tri-X (only film tried so far). As soon as I get around to figuring out what EI to use with APX, FP4+ & HP5+, I'll likely be using it more.

disclaimer: I don't have a "critical eye", I value convenience, I scan and do wet prints.
 
Lear said:
After experimenting with a lot of developers, ended up going back to Xtol 1+1. Simple, cheap, good. Nothing more to it.
Click to expand...
The same. I use Fuji Neopan film which is currently getting developed in a lab with XTOL because all the Neopans look fantastic in it. Soon I'm going to develop myself and I'll be using XTOL. It ain't broke so I'm not fixing it. :)

 
Rodinal, Ilfosol, and have been waiting to try the Sprint. I really like Rodinal because it keeps so well and is easy to mix.
 
I use Diafine for everything. Generally at box EI or thereabouts. The convieniance of it is a major plus and since I scan, the negs come out just right for that.

William
 
Roger Hicks said:
The same film in different developes may exhibit more speed, but coarser grain (Microphen); finer grain but less speed (Perceptol); greater sharpness but usually coarser grain at the rated speed (Paterson FX39); and low speed and huge grain (Rodinal when used with the wrong film). The true ISO speeds for an ISO 400 film can vary from 200 or below to 650 or above.

There are also 'magic' combinations such as Foma 200 in FX39, HP5 in DD-X, etc., but these tend to be very personal. I do not see how anyone can say that developers aren't critical.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)
Click to expand...
Roger: I learned that true film speed is based on densitometry of a Zone I exposure. I can't remember the values, but an empirical test can be done using test negatives and properly exposed and processed contact sheets/prints. This method is based on the assumption that proper exposure for shadow value is the the criterium for film speed.

My understanding was that using this method, a developer made little or no difference in true film speed. So are you saying something quite different? Or do you have different criteria for what constitute true film speed?

I don't want to hijack this thread, so if it needs to be moved (or has been discussed elsewhere,) I'm open to that.

I also want to state that I don't consider my perspective, even though it has worked very well for me, as gospel. I'm always open to new ideas, and perhaps my previous understanding was not complete.

Trius
 
i have standardized on D-76 1:1 dilution for all my b/w roll film and 35mm processing, except on rare occaisions I will use Rodinal. For sheet b/w film, I tend to use D-76 straight, no dilution. I use Kodak Rapid Fix w/Hardener for fixing all film.
 
Yes Roger. My standard brew is Rodinal. Konica IR750 + Rodinal 1+50 5mins, another magic combination. But Rodinal + Ilford SFX Nooooooooooooooo!! Grain like golfballs, OK if you like that sort of thing!!
What is FX39 like with Foma 100??? :angel:
 
Dear Trius,

ISO speeds are based on a given shadow density (0.10 above fb+f) at a given contrast (approximately 0,62), and the ISO speeds I gave above are based on those criteria.

It is widely believed, and widely reported even in print, that developers don't affect true film speed much. This is a flat error. They do. The figures I gave came from Ilford and I have confirmed with others (Kodak, Geoffrey Crawley and many more) that similar considerations apply to all films and all developers. Indeed, if you read the Fomapan 200 spec sheets you'll see that they quote the ISO speeds in different developers (and it only approaches ISO 200 in things like Microphen).

Incidentally, film speed is nothing whastsoever to do with Zone 1 or any other aspect of the Zone System, which is a (rather limited) subset of sensitometry. This is a rigorous science which goes back to Hurter and Driffield's seminal paper in 1890, well over half a centiry before the Zone System. A lot of Zone devotees seem to think that the Zone System is the basis of sensitometry, where in fact the exact opposite is true.

Take a look at 'Film Speeds' in the Photo School on www.rogerandfrances.com for more detailed information, or read Chapter 6 of 'Perfect Exposure' (David & Charles/Sterling -- again you'll find details on the site)

Cheers,

Roger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom