BW Film Developers for Jobo & Film Scanning Workflow

[C Hatter Photo]

Interested in thoughts or experience with film developers for a workflow using Jobo system and scanning negatives for ink jet print output. Predominantly working with sheet film and will be running expert drums on a CPP3.

I worked with HC-110 and tray development for years when producing prints in the darkroom. After years of not having a darkroom setup I'm jumping back in with the Jobo setup. TMX and TMY are films of choice and looking to optimize negative for high resolution scanning on Imacon scanner.

Research so far has me considering testing Xtol, HC-110, Ilfotec HC or mixing my own formula. Also considering testing some Pyro developers.

I know we all have our favorite go to developers so looking for input on some to test, specifically with the film to scan workflow.

Much thanks in advance.

-Chipper

[Alan9940]

First, HC-110 and Ilfotec HC are pretty much interchangeable. Therefore, pick either one and test. Personally, I've been running a CPP-2 and Expert Drums for nearly 30 years and have used many different formulas, including pyro developers. If you use a pyro-based developer, make sure you spin the drum on its lowest RPM to minimize aerial oxidation. For PMK, I mix twice the amount I need and change mid-development time. Many folks who use PMK in a Jobo don't do this, but it has always worked well for me.

Bottom line and IMO, you really can't go wrong with any standard and/or typical film developer formula out there. Oh, I forgot the scanning part of the question... I use the same development times, regardless if I'm scanning or printing in the wet darkroom. Again, some controversy in that statement, but it works for me.

[C Hatter Photo]

Thanks Alan.

[Bormental]

I've been using Ilfotec HC for 4x5 in a JOBO and have no complaints.

[Bormental]

I've been using Ilfotec HC for 4x5 in a JOBO and have no complaints.
https://i.imgur.com/e6pmJTA.jpeg

[Bruce Watson]

TMX and TMY are films of choice and looking to optimize negative for high resolution scanning on Imacon scanner.

...

I know we all have our favorite go to developers so looking for input on some to test, specifically with the film to scan workflow.

Short answer: XTOL or clone. HC-110 is too active to easily control with continuous agitation.

Longer answer: It's not so much the developer. The point of any film workflow is minimizing the density range of the negative to the point that you can easily print it (however you print it) and no more. So once again, it's: "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" time. No, I'm not kidding.

I did exactly what you're asking about 20 years ago, more or less. Both Tri-X and TMY in 5x4, XTOL 1:3, Jobo CPP2, 3010 tank. Scanning with a ColorGetter 3Pro drum scanner. Wrote about it lots in this forum. Search and you'll find.

Bottom line is that optimizing for scanning is about finding how little highlight density you can scan and still get an easily printable file. Typically that's about a stop less than developing for darkroom printing, so in Zone System speak, N-1 development. At least that's a starting point. You'll have to run the experiments yourself to find out the exact sweet spot for your workflow, your equipment, etc. You knew that, but you didn't want to actually do that work. I wasn't any different. It's not fun, but it has to be done. Sigh...

Good luck with it. It's worth the effort -- you do it right you can spend a lot less time in Photoshop after scanning. And make better looking prints. And that's a good thing. ;-)

[Alan9940]

I've used HC-110 in my CPP2 successfully for nearly 30 years. I'm sure I'm in the minority but, personally I never cared for XTOL.

[paulbarden]

Short answer: XTOL or clone. HC-110 is too active to easily control with continuous agitation.

Agreed. A highly active developer + continuous agitation will introduce a lot of contrast, which will be difficult at times to deal with. Xtol (or equivalent) will work nicely. If you go with a Pyro developer, note that many people have reported uneven development, streaks, and premature developer exhaustion (due to rapid oxidation) when used in Jobo tubes. I use PMK only in trays and small tanks (for 120), which do not have the same problems.

[Alan9940]

Agreed. A highly active developer + continuous agitation will introduce a lot of contrast, which will be difficult at times to deal with. Xtol (or equivalent) will work nicely. If you go with a Pyro developer, note that many people have reported uneven development, streaks, and premature developer exhaustion (due to rapid oxidation) when used in Jobo tubes. I use PMK only in trays and small tanks (for 120), which do not have the same problems.

HC-110 is easily controllable in any Jobo tank, if you use higher dilutions; dil H, for example. The issue here is ensuring that enough concentrate is present to properly development whatever sq in of film in the tank. Therefore, higher quantities of working solution is required which can put a bit of strain on the motor. I've never had any issues running my Jobo with higher dilution of HC-110, but someday it was probably get tired.

Regarding the use of pyro developers, specifically in Jobo Expert Drums, I've run PMK, Pyrocat-HD, and 510-Pyro without issues.

[Bruce Watson]

HC-110 is easily controllable in any Jobo tank, if you use higher dilutions; dil H, for example. The issue here is ensuring that enough concentrate is present to properly development whatever sq in of film in the tank. Therefore, higher quantities of working solution is required which can put a bit of strain on the motor.

I'm glad it works for you. I wish it would have worked for me, but it didn't. So I lost 35 years of experience with HC-110 and started over again with XTOL. PITA, but it really wasn't that bad.

When I was trying to get HC-110 to work, I was using dilution H, a full liter of solution for a 3010 tank. Just enough HC-110 stock for 10 sheets of 5x4 film. And yeah, the motor didn't like it, even though Jobo said it was OK. I had the motor speed down to about 30 rpm too, which helped both the motor and to slow development.

That said, even with dilution H I was still getting short development times. Less than five minutes, so I was always tempting uneven development. This did not work for me, and if I needed even less development, I could not get it from HC-110 and my Jobo system.

I switched to XTOL 1:3 and found my development times went up to around 7:30 (for the same highlight density). Much better. Completely even development. Never had a problem with XTOL. Plus more real film speed (shadow detail). So I found XTOL to have a number of advantages over HC-110 in my workflow and with my equipment. I don't expect that everyone, or anyone, will get similar results. We are all individuals, who work differently and have different equipment, needs, and expectations. So... YMMV as always.

And I should point out that Silvia Zawadzki and Dick Dickerson (the Kodak research chemists who created XTOL) designed XTOL for use in rotary development. I believe they told me that they used JOBO CPP2s in their lab. But I could be wrong about that; it's been decades and my memory isn't what it once was.