Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Best value would be to use Diafine and slower film, say ilford fp4+ at 250. This film is also cheaper than tri-x i guess. I get quite good result with this, compared to tri-x at 400.
Difficult to manipulate the development, though - no push, pull, etc in diafine.
Difficult to manipulate the development, though - no push, pull, etc in diafine.
jolefler
Established
It does do that!
It does do that!
12 oz usually won't last me more than 6 mo., though.
Jo
It does do that!
12 oz usually won't last me more than 6 mo., though.
Jo
vieri
Leica Ambassador
Definitely Diafine. Cheap to begin with, you could reuse it forever, it gives great results on all non-T grained films, with several added bonuses: speed increase, compensating development, not too high contrast. You also save money on the stop bath, not needed with Diafine 
However, it's not great with T-type films, nor when you deal with low contrast scenes - but in that case you can rate film at lower ISO and get contrast higher up again if so you wish.
Overall a winner IMHO
Ilford Pan F rated at 80, MP, Leica 1.4/75
Tri-X rated at 1000 ~, MP, Leica 2/90
Ilford FP4 rated at 200, MP, Leica 2/35
Plus-X rated at 200, MP, Leica 1.4/75
Tri-X rated at 1000 ~, MP, Leica 2/35
I have some more tests in Fujifilm Neopan 100 SS coming up too, negatives look very very good, but I haven't scanned them yet.
However, it's not great with T-type films, nor when you deal with low contrast scenes - but in that case you can rate film at lower ISO and get contrast higher up again if so you wish.Overall a winner IMHO
Ilford Pan F rated at 80, MP, Leica 1.4/75
Tri-X rated at 1000 ~, MP, Leica 2/90
Ilford FP4 rated at 200, MP, Leica 2/35
Plus-X rated at 200, MP, Leica 1.4/75
Tri-X rated at 1000 ~, MP, Leica 2/35
I have some more tests in Fujifilm Neopan 100 SS coming up too, negatives look very very good, but I haven't scanned them yet.
Last edited:
David Goldfarb
Well-known
I just made a test of paRodinal, which is about 1/6 the cost of Rodinal, which is already fairly cheap, and the result I got was astonishingly good. I posted a link to the formula and a scan of my test neg here--
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=806385&postcount=25
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=806385&postcount=25
Joao
Negativistic forever
Since July 2007 I've been using only paRodinal 1+50 for my ISO 100 negatives (FOMA, ERA) and so far I am quite happy with it. It lasts forever, I don't see any reason to change in the near future. Some pictures here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joaofreitas/
Regards
Joao
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joaofreitas/
Regards
Joao
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I don't have the great experience to go along with this statement, but that never stopped me before....
A few bucks for chemicals from photographer's formulary and a $24 digital scale have bought me enough Barry's 2 bath developer to last a very, very long time. Certainly just a few pennies a roll.
A few bucks for chemicals from photographer's formulary and a $24 digital scale have bought me enough Barry's 2 bath developer to last a very, very long time. Certainly just a few pennies a roll.
R
rich815
Guest
Well, sure. By why do it at all if you don't get the tonality/contrast/look you want? That's my point. And for B&W that's such a subjective but important part of the whole reason you shoot B&W. Like film, I think developer is very cheap when you look at the big picture.
eli griggs
Well-known
For prints, Ansco 130 is a great deal; beautiful blacks/range of shades to rival Amidol and an almost unreal longevity in both stock solution and in the tray.
It can also be used for negatives, though I prefer HC-110, parodinal and D-76.
With the exception of the HC-110, all are easy to compound yourself.
Eli
It can also be used for negatives, though I prefer HC-110, parodinal and D-76.
With the exception of the HC-110, all are easy to compound yourself.
Eli
Yammerman
Well-known
I use Ilfotec HC which think is Ilford's 110. I dilute 1:64 and it lasts for ages. The longer I use the better it's getting as I evolve my own timings.
Can't do one film, lens or camera but one developer I have nailed.
Can't do one film, lens or camera but one developer I have nailed.
David Goldfarb
Well-known
Joao really makes the case that there's no correlation between cost and quality with a shot like this--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joaofreitas/2429384718/
That's cheap Chinese film in a Soviet camera souped in Tylenol and Drano (and really good light).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joaofreitas/2429384718/
That's cheap Chinese film in a Soviet camera souped in Tylenol and Drano (and really good light).
Last edited:
pesphoto
Veteran
Well, you may be right, but I also need to closely watch my little wallet....
David, thanks. I''ll have to look at the flickr link when Im at home. Blocked here at work.
Thanks for all the ideas everyone!
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
Diafine or Rodinal in my experience. Both last long but both are kinda specialty developers imo that don't play well with all films. D76 is my personal favorite, but it oxidizes if you're not using it, which could get frustrating. HC110 (which I've never used) would probably be the best - plays well with a lot of films, lasts a long time, good at all speeds...
usagisakana
Established
Diafine gave me nothing but trouble, roll after roll of bromide drag, no matter what agitation pattern I tried. I'm going to order some arista developer next time I make an order from freestyle.
rogerchristian
Established
HC-110 or D-76 (my long-time favorite).
Both relatively inexpensive, but considering what you have to go through to shoot the film, angst, creativity, gas, equipment, etc., the cost of developer should not be a major concern. Like a passport, it seems expensive at the time, but you gotta have it, and in comparison it is cheap.
Or, you can let somebody else mess up the film for you, absolve yourself of all responsibility...I say this in jest, of course.
Both relatively inexpensive, but considering what you have to go through to shoot the film, angst, creativity, gas, equipment, etc., the cost of developer should not be a major concern. Like a passport, it seems expensive at the time, but you gotta have it, and in comparison it is cheap.
Or, you can let somebody else mess up the film for you, absolve yourself of all responsibility...I say this in jest, of course.
MarK @ BKA Photo
Newbie
uaagisakana,
Diafine is a bit of an unusual developer. You will find it simple to use, provides a negative with lower contrast (perfect for scanning!), will develop 50+ rolls per quart and has extraordinary shelf life. The bromide drag you experienced is often the result of too much agitation or the use of plastic reels.
Best results are obtained by the use of stainless tank/reels and gentle agitation of three tank inversions, for no more than five seconds, every minute.
You should rate Tri-X at 1250 as this is the sweet spot for that particular film. Tr-x can be shot as low as 400 good result but an even less contrast.
Diafine is a bit of an unusual developer. You will find it simple to use, provides a negative with lower contrast (perfect for scanning!), will develop 50+ rolls per quart and has extraordinary shelf life. The bromide drag you experienced is often the result of too much agitation or the use of plastic reels.
Best results are obtained by the use of stainless tank/reels and gentle agitation of three tank inversions, for no more than five seconds, every minute.
You should rate Tri-X at 1250 as this is the sweet spot for that particular film. Tr-x can be shot as low as 400 good result but an even less contrast.
pesphoto
Veteran
Hi MArk, Checked out your site, where are you guys located?
MarK @ BKA Photo
Newbie
Hi Pesphoto,
BKA is the manufacturer of Diafine and other chemistry and is a wholesaler to the photography industry. Although we are located in the Chicago area, our products are sold through camera stores around the world.
Thanks for your interest!
BKA is the manufacturer of Diafine and other chemistry and is a wholesaler to the photography industry. Although we are located in the Chicago area, our products are sold through camera stores around the world.
Thanks for your interest!
ampguy
Veteran
D76 powder for 1 Gal., 1:1 makes about 50 35mm rolls, so < $0.10 per roll. The other thing I wanted were tables with a wide range of films and temps (up to 79 deg. F), which not all developers have complete data for.
I got some cheap hypo at Freestyle, and found their description a bit odd. It said it was powder to make 1 Gal., but it's really powder to make about 1L stock, then you dilute 1:4 to use. hmm.
I got some cheap hypo at Freestyle, and found their description a bit odd. It said it was powder to make 1 Gal., but it's really powder to make about 1L stock, then you dilute 1:4 to use. hmm.
Last edited:
fidget
Lemon magnet
I've been using ID11(D76) for a while. I find that 5l stock has lasted me for several months and been fine. I also tend to wait until I have a few films to develop and re-use the 1:1 developer to do 3 films. Ilford give times adjustments to apply for re-use (in the same session), so I don't think that this is OTT.
I generally have a mix of 120 and 135 film to do, so will use the same 500ml to dev say, one 120 and two 135 films individually, or if I feel more pressed for time, will use 600ml to do one or two 120s on the same reel and then two 135s in one tank . I do not alter the dev times for this, but would if I were to attempt more film from the same mix (especially test film from new/old cameras, where I could stand a variation in the development).
Re-use in this way can give up to 60 to 90 processings of mixed film at 1:1 from a 5 ltr stock mix. I have not detected any degradation of development of the films to date (but then I may not (yet) have a workflow of high enough quality and consistency to show small variations up).
I generally have a mix of 120 and 135 film to do, so will use the same 500ml to dev say, one 120 and two 135 films individually, or if I feel more pressed for time, will use 600ml to do one or two 120s on the same reel and then two 135s in one tank . I do not alter the dev times for this, but would if I were to attempt more film from the same mix (especially test film from new/old cameras, where I could stand a variation in the development).
Re-use in this way can give up to 60 to 90 processings of mixed film at 1:1 from a 5 ltr stock mix. I have not detected any degradation of development of the films to date (but then I may not (yet) have a workflow of high enough quality and consistency to show small variations up).
Last edited: