Why so many developers? Isn't D76 enough?

[Drew Wiley]

It's not just about controlling high-contrast scenes. Why do you think pyro was beloved by old-time protrait photographers? You can wonderfully expand the midtones
and highlights without blowing something off the map. For the same reason, pyro is
wonderful for low-contrast landscape work. You can really make the tonal scale glow in the print. Then, as Sandy mentioned, you have distinct acutance advantages.
I still use tweaks of conventional developers for lab usage like masking, separation negatives, liths, and so forth. But for general shooting, gave up on them a long time back.

[Lenny Eiger]

There are a number of factors. The first is - what do I want the negative to be able to accomplish. There are huge differences in what is best for different printing techniques. To give an example, Drew mentions in the post just before this one - that you can expand the midtones without blowing out the highlights with Pyro. This is true... however, I have a drum scanner and it can handle that range. In fact, I want a neg that you couldn't print in a darkroom. For a darkroom print, his observation is spot on.

There are three-four strategies being discussed here, from a chemical standpoint. The first is whether or not to use a staining developer. They can be wonderful... I used them for many years. I am currently using a Jobo and haven't found one yet that makes sense to me. That's not to say I am not open to being convinced by Sandy - we will do that test.

The other thing is that D-76 is a solvent type developer. Basically Metol and Hydroquinone, it also has lots of sodium sulfite that dissolves silver grain clumps. "Fine-grained" developer actually means the opposite. When you dissolve the edges of grains you get smaller grains - but they are farther apart. This means you may want to keep a lid on how far you enlarge something. (Depending on taste.)

Metol and Hydroquinone together work very well. Some like using a softer smoother approach with something like D-23, which is just Metol, and sodium sulfite.

Other developers, including Rodinal, are based on Phenidone instead of Metol. Some include Hydroquinone, some don't. Phenidone has the effect of making the edges of grain clumps dark, giving the effect of sharpness, or sharper grains. They still articulate, sometimes considerably, and those that don't like to see grain won't like this. It's also very active, having some extremely alkaline agents. It gets diluted and everything works well for some folks.

Xtol is based on orange juice, with a little Phenidone thrown in. (Actually a derivative of Phenidone). The grain is held together very nicely. However, it doesn't compensate in the same ways as many of the other more traditional developers. I did get it to match the target top-end density numbers I wanted, however, and when I did I got a great neg. I would say that in style the Pyro is closer to Xtol than it is to MQ (Metol Hydroquinone) or PQ (Phenidone-Hydroquinone) type developers.

I think you have to first determine what you are going to print with, and what kind of negative is the ultimate for that. Include your printing style. Then look at the style of developer which matches.

I hope this helps...

Lenny

[Mark Sawyer]

However, as I mentioned in another thread recently, the late Phil Davis did a true scientific demonstration at one of his workshops I attended showing the effect of different film developers on the final print. I don't remember the details of how he did it but basically he eliminated all the variables except the film developer and then made prints (possibly someone else saw this demo in another Phil Davis workshop and can supply the details of his methodology that I've forgotten). The differences among the prints was very surprising, much greater than anyone at the workshop expected. In fact as he said, the effect of using different film developers on the final print was greater than the effect of using different films.

I'll add to this that if Phil and I had identically-exposed sheets of the same type of film and identical developers, my processing would undoubtedly give a very different negative than his use of the very same materials. And he'd prefer his negative for printing, and I'd prefer mine, just as it should be!

[Ken Lee]

"Other developers, including Rodinal, are based on Phenidone instead of Metol. Some include Hydroquinone, some don't. Phenidone has the effect of making the edges of grain clumps dark, giving the effect of sharpness, or sharper grains."

Having just mixed up some fresh Pyrocat HD and recall that the recipe, calls for Phenidone.

[Louie Powell]

They make Fords and Chevys so that consumers have a choice. That fundamental principle applies to film developers.

I drive a Subaru and use HC110.

[Armin Seeholzer]

I drive a Subaru and use HC110.

So why not switch to a RR and use XTOL and never luck back;--))))

[Brian Ellis]

I'll add to this that if Phil and I had identically-exposed sheets of the same type of film and identical developers, my processing would undoubtedly give a very different negative than his use of the very same materials. And he'd prefer his negative for printing, and I'd prefer mine, just as it should be!

Actually Phil was just demonstrating the effect of different film developers on the look of the print. IIRC he made about six different prints from identically exposed negatives that were processed with six different developers. He was just trying to show how different film developers produced different print results, without trying to show that any one was better than any other.

[Mark Sawyer]

...He was just trying to show how different film developers produced different print results, without trying to show that any one was better than any other.

And I'd agree with him. I was just pointing out that the same developer will give different results in different hands, even when the other variables are the same.