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

Deasr John,

Never tried it personally but the results I've seen have been excellent.

Actually I'd say that ANYTHING Ilford in Rodinal was more likely than not to be a disaster in 35mm; not too bad oin 4x5 inch and above (super tonality, still lousy grain but you can't see it at a 3x enlargement).

Cheers,

Roger
 
siverta said:
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
Click to expand...


"I am lazy..."

Ah-Hah! A man after my own heart. ;)

You have come to the right shop my lazy friend. From one sloth to another, go buy yourself a 1 gallon Diafine kit and live happily everafter.

It will last an unbelievably long time (no "one-shot" mixing, just mix it, use it, pour it back into its jug and and forget it 'til next time), gives superb results with the film you like (Tri-X) and is the very definition of consistency.

No watching a stop watch, 6 minutes start to finish, dead simple and not the least bit finicky about either time or temperature.

Tom

PS: Did I mention I LOVE Diafine? :D
 
Last edited:
My main films are HP5+ and Tri-X souped in either Rodinal or ID-11 depending on the look I'm after. As I have a handful of films after a whole day out shooting at a living museum today and I'm also lazy, it will be Rodinal for those as I don't have to spend so much time souping ;)
 
Thanks, Roger. You jogged my memory that .1 is the density I couldn't recall, so we are working from the same base. I realize the Zone system is not synonymous with densitometry. I have worked with both in the past.

The developers I have used in the past are FG-7, Rodinal, HC-110, D76 and some others. With TriX in 35mm & 4x5 some 25 years ago, I found true film speed to be at 200.

Of all those developers, I prefer Rodinal & HC-110, and give the nod to Rodinal.

Trius
 
Dear Trius,

I'd have been surprised if you hadn't known that, from the way you phrased the question; my Zome caveat was aimed at lurkers. Sorry.

And with those criteria of density and contrast, film speeds really do vary that much.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Kodak HC-110 dilution B with Tri-X or HP5

Kodak HC-110 dilution B with Tri-X or HP5

This is my all time favorite developer. The only comment I would make is not to take the manufacturer's developing times as gospel, only use them as a starting point for your own tests. The developing times that Kodak recommends for the new Tri-X films are just wrong in my opinion.
 
I am a bit unusual, in that I use a number of different developers and films based on needs.

FP4+ in Rodinal 1+50
Delta 100 usually in ID-11 1+1, but recently in Paterson FX-39
(I'm still testing this one. I like the sharpness and increased speed, but the grain in 35mm is a bit much).

TXT from 320-3200 in ID-11, Rodinal 1+50, or Microphen
Delta 3200 from 1600-6400 in Microphen.

I try to rotate my films and shooting situations to keep me on my toes.

allan
 
D76 is the first one I was able to get my hands on. Diafine is coming in the mail sometime next week and I'm pretty sure that I'm going to want to switch completely to that. I'm not lazy, but I know that I don't like waiting. :p
 
One way to become "happy" with 7-12 minute dev times is to start using higher dilutions and minimal agitation. You can easily climb into the 20+ minute range. Yes, you get compensation, and better speed with less contrast, but that's a long time to have the film in the dev stage. Add a 2 bath fix stage and it's like 45 minutes or so per tank.

allan
 
I use Rodinal for films up to 125 speed. I also use D-76 (1:1) and Acufine. I have Diafine but have yet to mix it up.

Walker
 
D-76 1:1 for Tri-X and Plus-X Once in a while I'll use HC110 if I'm pushing or if I want grain enhancement (HC110 is much the same as Rodinal in that respect).
 
Rodinal and DDX/Clayton F76 are my main developers

Couple of stints with Diafine here and there.
Have experimented with many developers but settled for those 2
 
The Zone system is a boring, compulsive cult that turns out some of the most mind-numbing salon pictorialist junk ever committed to film.

And yes, I say that developers aren't critical today. The formula-first brigade came up in the 30's, 40's, and 50's, when films were either very slow or very grainy or plagued with untamable contrasts. Multi-coated lenses helped ameliorate what the wizards of Rochester couldn't, and today everything is virtually tack-sharp and smooth-grained. The cheapo film you buy at a dollar store is better than what was available to Erich Salomon or Martin Munkacsi.

So develop it in whatever you want. Try my one-minute-in-Dektol recipe if you doubt. Or keep worrying about your developer if that's what floats your boat.
 
Dear Poptart,

I'd agree completely with your assessment of the zone system, and with the improvements in films, but surely you must accept that if one developer gives ISO 200 and another ISO 650 with the same film -- which no-one who knows the sensitimetry would dispute -- then the choice of developer is hardly a trivial matter?

I'd also suggest that while you are perfectly correct that the majority of developers work well with the majority of films, there are still 'magic' combinations (eg Fomapan 200 in FX39) and complete lemons (slow, grainy Delta 3200 in Rodinal, where DDX or Microphen will give finer grain and more speed with the same film).

Developer choice affects speed, grain, sharpness and (for my money above all) tonality. It is complete nonsense to say that (for example) D-76 is all anyone needs -- everyone has theoir own preferences, and I can think of a dozen developers I happily use or have used, and as you say, 'develop in whatever you want' -- but equally I'd say it is hardly realistic to isuggest that all developers are completely interchangeable.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Poptart said:
The Zone system is a boring, compulsive cult that turns out some of the most mind-numbing salon pictorialist junk ever committed to film.
Click to expand...
At the risk of starting yet another flamewar over the Zone system, I just want to say that what I think you mean to say is not that the Zone system itself turns out "junk", but that many photographers who use it do so. It's just a tool, a lifeless set of ideas that, if used properly and appropriately by a good photographer, can be helpful in technically achieving what the photographer envisioned. OTOH, as you point out, in the hands of someone with little or no creative vision, it can produce technically "correct" photos that are pretty yet lifeless, boring, sillly, or whatever.

Minor White, one of the early developers and proponents of the Zone system as a tool, was hardly a pictorialist. I admire his work a great deal.

Trius
 
Trius,

You are of course absolutely right: for some (though far from all) photographjers,. the Zone System is at best an excellent tool, and at worst, harmless.

Cheers,

Roger
 
I returned to the darkroom 25 years out of high school. Staying with the KISS principle, I decided on HC110. I did go through the zone system testing and came up with HP5 @ 200 with Hc110 dilution b for around 6 minutes. Now if I can graduate from taking snapshots to producing photographs, I'll have gotten somewhere.

Whether one uses the zone system or the 3 P's method ( Point, press, and pray it comes out), it all comes down to a persons vision and their ability to execute. While I may be able to produce a technically ok picture, it doesn't necessarily mean that the photo will have an impact to the viewer. Admittedly, my wife with her autofocus slr has always been able to produce better photos than I have been able to. They may not be as technically well done, but they are visually more striking and pleasing than mine.

I guess it comes down to striking a balance between the technology and the methodology and not get bogged down by the nuances of either. My advice is always to go out and take more pictures.

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