Which developer for 4x5 B&W sheet film [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

jnantz

3-Jul-2014, 09:44

sprint film developer is made nearby to massachusetts in rhode island. it is also
similar to d76, but different. it is a liquid base ( you mix it 1:9 ) and i've never had
trouble with blocked highlights like i might with other developers. there's also a slew of them
( developers ) you buy the chemistry for and mix yourself as needed, d23 being pretty simple ( 2 or 3 ingredients besides water )
depending on which one you use .. i'm fond of coffee based developers, you can buy the ingredients locally and use them for other things if you aren't processing film.

have fun
john

dasBlute

3-Jul-2014, 11:06

Have used a lot of D76 and then pyrocat-hd... now I'm using XTOL and loving it, especially with Kodak films... Kodak will be around.

Jim Noel

3-Jul-2014, 11:24

xtol is a lot more likely to become extinct than d-76 which is in public domain and made by various companies under other names.

Pete Watkins

3-Jul-2014, 11:37

I use D-76H with constant agitation but I'm about to give Ansco 17 a try. Nothing wrong with D-76H just searching for the golden bullet!
Pete.

Lenny Eiger

3-Jul-2014, 11:49

If you want a great developer for scanning, the best I've found are Xtol and Pyro, IMO.

D-76 has too much solvent action, there isn't any reason to break up the image like that. The other obvious choices like ID-11 or HC-110 are similar. Rodinal is generally a disaster...

Lenny

Leigh

3-Jul-2014, 11:56

There are several good compensating developers that help avoid blocked-up highlights.

My favorites are:
Rodinal (the real one is back in production), usable at dilutions of 1:25 to 1:100. Yields beautiful results.
Diafine (two-bath, does not care about time or temperature).

Diafine is particularly good for tray development because of its tolerance of temperature changes and no critical timing. It's a two-bath developer, but uses no pre-soak, so the number of steps is unchanged.

Those two are my favorites, and most often used. There's also Ilford DD-X, which is like Microdol-X.

- Leigh

Peter De Smidt

3-Jul-2014, 13:07

I use either Xtol or Pyrocat. If you don't develop that often, Pyrocat in glycol will stay good for years.

BetterSense

3-Jul-2014, 13:13

To a first approximation, all B&W film developers are the same. Use whatever you like. Right now I'm using Rodinal because liquids are more convenient for me at the moment.

Leigh

3-Jul-2014, 13:16

To a first approximation, all B&W film developers are the same.
That is certainly not true of shelf life.

As I should have mentioned in my earlier post...
Both Rodinal concentrate and Diafine working solutions last indefinitely.
Rodinal is a one-shot, while Diafine requires replenishment by adding a small amount of fresh after each run.

Shelf life of other developers varies all over the place, from hours to years.
That characteristic should be investigated for any candidate developer if it matters to you.

- Leigh

Regular Rod

4-Jul-2014, 00:40

Getting back into developing film after many years out of the darkroom. I'll be scanning the film, so only developing film, not making prints in the darkroom.
I'm asking because although I see that D-76 and HC-110 are still available, I assume it is only surplus stock that is being sold. I want a developer which I can standardize on and have a reasonable chance of getting 10 years from now. Thanks!

You could make your own developers from the raw ingredients and so protect yourself permanently from the vagaries of the market.

Here's one of my favourites: http://freepdfhosting.com/aa330a94ce.pdf

Here on page 2 is how I use it: http://freepdfhosting.com/3e906fe75d.pdf

RR

Rollinhofuji

4-Jul-2014, 02:39

I'm totally happy with XTOL - easy to mix (I buy a 5l tank of distillated water and mix it right in the tank), long shelf life when stored in completely filled 1l bottles, use it 1:1 ( a friend prefers 1:3 for even better sharpness).

jbenedict

4-Jul-2014, 07:54

The cool thing about 4x5 is you can develop exposures individually. For each shot you set up, you can make two exposures and develop each differently- time, temp,developer. To start out, I would use the suggestions of others in regards to developer, film speed and time/temp. This should get you some good exposures. Read about different developers try a few that seem interesting to you. You can compare something that works with another combination.

Personally, I use Tri-X 320 in 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 and roll film HC110 @ 1:15 from stock, 7 min @ 68F, ASA/ISO 160. This is for my N development. I have only done a little bit with HP5 but the process looked fine when I have.

I also like D-23. A lot. A simple developer, can be used as a compensating developer (or like a compensating developer. There was quite the dust up over D-23 here a month or so ago), easy to mix and use. It must be mixed from raw chemicals and "straight" D-23 only uses two ingredients. There are some variants which use two or maybe three ingredients. Here's a page that talks about D-23, how it works and compares it with two other popular developers. It also has some suggestions for development times, temperatures and film speed. http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/DD-23/dd-23.html

Leigh

4-Jul-2014, 10:44

Speaking of times and temperatures...

The Massive Development Chart is an excellent on-line reference that covers almost any combination:
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=ERA&Developer=&mdc=Search

- Leigh

Heroique

4-Jul-2014, 12:53

I'll be scanning the film, not making prints in the darkroom.

I’m a tray developer, and I also love Rodinal. And HC-110.

But if it's T-Max 100 film, exposed well, then it's T-Max rs developer for me – not just for Epson 4990 scanning work, but for Omega D-2v darkroom work, too. Overall, this is also my favorite film + developer combination.

Sometimes, it's the match that makes the magic!

Leigh

4-Jul-2014, 14:48

Sometimes, it's the match that makes the magic!
True.

For me, it's Acros in Rodinal 1:50 with minimal agitation.

Absolutely beautiful, and you can't blow the highlights.

- Leigh

Patrick13

4-Jul-2014, 15:47

Chiming in from the low shooting volume, tiny darkroom group I'm enjoying HP5+ and pyrocat HD in a drum. Six months in the glycol version doesn't feel any different from when I first opened the bottle, but keep in mind that I'm very unscientific about these things. It seems very forgiving, though when I forget my basics I do have to fight to get as contrasty end result as I sometimes want :rolleyes:

The only bad thing I could say about pyrocat is that reading negatives like I used to be able to do in high school is impossible, I really do need test prints to get a feel for how well I gauged the exposure.

sanking

4-Jul-2014, 17:22

If you are a newcomer to large format photography and hope to be working with film 10-15 years from now I would recommend spending a little time learning the language of film developers, which is not brand names or specific formulas like D76, Pyrocat, Xtol, PMK, Diafine, etc. but the qualities of different reducers (metol, hydroquinone, pyrogallol, pyrogallol) and how to control the energy with an appropriate accelerator (borax, sulfite, carbonate, etc.). If you understand this language you will always be able to find the necessary chemicals, mix your own developers, and use the proper dilution to achieve a desired result.

It is highly likely that in 10-15 years one will have to mix their own developers as the number and variety of different formulas will almost certainly be much reduced from what is currently available.

Sandy

Sal Santamaura

4-Jul-2014, 17:51

...It is highly likely that in 10-15 years one will have to mix their own developers as the number and variety of different formulas will almost certainly be much reduced from what is currently available...Here's a recent post describing how I handled that for XTOL:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?113408-Xtol-torn-packaging&p=1136542&viewfull=1#post1136542

Flauvius

4-Jul-2014, 18:51

The nice thing about pre-mixed Pyrocat in glycol is that it does not leave dried white specks, and as is the case with D-23, throughout your darkroom.

The problem with D-23 is the sodium sulfite goes into solution, and then into the environment, when the water in which the sodium sulfite is dissolved evaporates.

soboyle

5-Jul-2014, 15:59

Lots to think about. Thanks for the confusion ;-)
I'm looking at Ilford products, the Delta 100 film, and the Ilfosol developer.
Any reason not to go this route considering I will be scanning the film?
Haven't seen the Ilford products mentioned here too many times.
I used to use HC-110 back in the 35mm film days, and was considering that, but B&H doesn't ship it, but does ship other developers.

Leigh

5-Jul-2014, 19:05

You can certainly use whatever combination of film and developer you please.

If there was one "best", there would be no others available for purchase.

The trick is to tightly control every aspect of exposure and development so you can learn exactly what your chosen method yields, and how that yield varies with changes in the process.

Once you're comfortable with that information for the given combination, you can decide whether to try a different combination or continue to use the one you chose.

- Leigh

soboyle

6-Jul-2014, 04:58

Ken Lee

6-Jul-2014, 05:44

The more people you ask, the more opinions you'll get.

Very few will back up their recommendation with even a single sample photograph.

Even fewer people will share sensitometric data or side-by-side comparison shots to show how various film/developer combinations differ with respect to tonality, grain, perceived sharpness, etc.

If you want to see some tests which really show how different films behave (with one developer), have a look at Sandy King's article on Pyrocat HD (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/pcat.html). You'll see that some films don't respond well to changes in development time, and are probably not good choices if we want to control contrast. To that end I'd suggest that choice of film may as important as choice of developer.

Unless we need to make very large prints, grain is a non-issue with Large Format. For scanning and digital printing where unsharp mask can be applied, acutance and 'local contrast' or 'edge effects' are also mainly irrelevant considerations. When scanning, remember that we can't burn-in dense parts of the negative as we can when making darkroom prints: therefore we need to keep the contrast of the negative within the range of the scanner. You might find this article on scanning (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/scanning.php) helpful.

You might find this article on D-23 (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/D-23.php) helpful. It's not the greatest developer (if one exists) but it's very easy to mix fresh every time and gives results that in my testing are basically the same as I get with Pyrocat HD, HC-110, D-76 etc. The article shows some sample images too :rolleyes:

If I didn't use D-23 I'd probably bo back to either HC-110 or Pyrocat HD in Glycol because of their convenience and virtually infinite shelf-life.

Bruce Barlow

6-Jul-2014, 07:10

Even fewer people will share sensitometric data or side-by-side comparison shots to show how various film/developer combinations differ with respect to tonality, grain, perceived sharpness, etc.

Because it's one-in-a-million who do side-by-side comparisons. I did it for papers and paper developers long ago. Notice how I haven't repeated it? Papers were interesting, paper developers on the same paper were much harder to discern, as were different paper development times. I'm imagining doing films and developers and it makes me want to go take a nap.

Even that gallant lad Steve Simmons said "Don't be a member of the Film of the Month Club." He's right. The inimitable Fred Picker told me it took him years to understand the subtleties of Tri-X with HC-110. Those two opinions are good enough for me. I'll go try to learn how to make the most out of my chosen film and developer. Maybe I'll stay awake.

The results of the long-ago paper tests are in the archive on the website below.

StoneNYC

6-Jul-2014, 08:35

Well I wrote out this whole thing and then it got deleted somehow but basically what I said was...

Ilford ilfotec HC is the same as Kodak HC-110 but they removed a chemical that was unnecessary, and by removing that chemical it was able to be shipped as normal, so if you want to still use the same thing you used back in the day, the Ilford version is just fine.

Personally I use Rodinal for Delta films, which you can buy (and will ship) from Freestyle's website http://www.freestylephoto.biz and they will also ship Kodak HC-110 I believe.

They are slightly higher priced than B&H so I tend to only buy some rare films there as well as the developers I use and leave the rest of the stuff for B&H.

The only developer that Kodak has discontinued producing lately is their line of commercial E-6 developers.

Good luck!

John Kasaian

6-Jul-2014, 10:04

Getting back into developing film after many years out of the darkroom. I'll be scanning the film, so only developing film, not making prints in the darkroom.
I'm asking because although I see that D-76 and HC-110 are still available, I assume it is only surplus stock that is being sold. I want a developer which I can standardize on and have a reasonable chance of getting 10 years from now. Thanks!
D-76 is still available freshly manufactured, both by Kodak and others. If that is what you you "know" then use it with confidence.

Lenny Eiger

6-Jul-2014, 19:41

Lenny
You mentioned that ID-11 is similar, do you mean similar to xtol (good for scanning) or similar to D-76? Thanks

Its similar to D-76. Xtol and Pyro are so much better for scanning. Rodinal is a total waste of time, IMO. Especially if one has gone to the trouble of buying a film with really tight grains, then why make a mess of it...?

There are a lot of folks who use Pyro here. I'd say learn how to use it, get your times down and enjoy.....

Developing should be easy, and work for you rather than against.

Lenny

StoneNYC

6-Jul-2014, 20:33

Its similar to D-76. Xtol and Pyro are so much better for scanning. Rodinal is a total waste of time, IMO. Especially if one has gone to the trouble of buying a film with really tight grains, then why make a mess of it...?

There are a lot of folks who use Pyro here. I'd say learn how to use it, get your times down and enjoy.....

Developing should be easy, and work for you rather than against.

Lenny

I don't think anyone should start using pyro until they understand the higher safety precautions they need to take as to not end up with Parkinson's or any other neurological disease years later.

Sorry, just my opinion. But I think people throw around "oh use pyro it's great!" Without ever letting new people know of the possible dangers of mishandling.

Also, I've never heard anyone say Rodinal is a waste of time, and we all like a different look, but nothing is a waste of time if it gives you what you want. If you can't get good sharp, fine grained results from Rodinal with a fine t-grained emulsion, you haven't learned how to use it yet.

But if you are used to HC-110 there's no reason not to just use that (or the ilford version) since you're already familiar with it...

BradS

6-Jul-2014, 20:41

I keep coming back to D76(1+1) and D23. Frankly, if you cannot make a decent print from a negative developed in D76(1+1), it isn't the fault of the developer.

Leigh

6-Jul-2014, 20:42

Rodinal is a total waste of time, IMO.
Especially if one has gone to the trouble of buying a film with really tight grains, then why make a mess of it...?
Interesting thoughts, given that Rodinal is only recommended for slow (tight-grained) film.

I've used it for perhaps 50 years and never had an issue with image quality. In fact I think it's superb.

Of course, I make real prints on paper, rather than scanning negatives. Different requirements.

If you can't get good sharp, fine grained results from Rodinal with a fine t-grained emulsion, you haven't learned how to use it yet.
Hear, Hear!

- Leigh

jnantz

7-Jul-2014, 04:35

I don't think anyone should start using pyro until they understand the higher safety precautions they need to take as to not end up with Parkinson's or any other neurological disease years later.

Sorry, just my opinion. But I think people throw around "oh use pyro it's great!" Without ever letting new people know of the possible dangers of mishandling.

most of the photographic chemicals can be dangerous if mishandled.
the jury is still out whether or not pyro is linked to parkinson's ...
adn whether it is or isn't i have no plans on using IT or rodinal ...

Lenny Eiger

7-Jul-2014, 14:03

I don't think anyone should start using pyro until they understand the higher safety precautions they need to take as to not end up with Parkinson's or any other neurological disease years later.

Pyro is not dangerous in liquid form. The danger in using Pyro comes from inhaling the powder while measuring it out on the scale. If you buy it in liquid form (from Photographer's Formulary, Bostick & Sullivan, other places, etc.) then you can use it quite safely. Of course, I wouldn't suggest drinking any developer...

There is a huge difference between "fine-grained" and "densely packed grain". One would imagine that fine grain is optimal, but it isn't. Fine grained is almost a misnomer (certainly a clever, if obnoxious, marketing ploy). If there are a set number of grains that one starts out with on the film, then finer grains means less of them, as some have been washed away or made smaller, and consequently, a more grainy print. It's densely packed that gets you the smoothness that some people like, including myself.

The OP specifically stated that he was interested in scanning. The best scans come from negatives with grains packed tightly together. D-76, HC-110 and ID-11, all of which have been suggested, are solvent-type developers, which have agents that dissolve the edges of grains so that they are finer (but further apart). It isn't that a good scan can't be made, but if we are talking about doing the work to get a developer balanced for one's own processes, then one might as well choose something that's optimal and get it to work vs something will will produce mediocre results. Then when more experience has occurred and one goes for optimal one will already be there vs having to do it all over again...

If you expect to get densely packed grains from Rodinal, you will fail. It isn't made to do that. It's made to articulate the grains by being seriously over-activated. It is a particular look, just like when some people ground out the neg carriers to show black around the edge of an image. It's spoken about like its an old standard but it's really a special purpose developer, and as such, is often counter to what most people state they want in a print. If someone loves it for all the right reasons I will take no issue, that's a personal aesthetic decision that should be respected. However if you want a print that's smooth as silk vs some other quality, then Rodinal is not for you. Period.

Lenny

Regular Rod

7-Jul-2014, 14:29

Pyro is not dangerous in liquid form. The danger in using Pyro comes from inhaling the powder while measuring it out on the scale. If you buy it in liquid form (from Photographer's Formulary, Bostick & Sullivan, other places, etc.) then you can use it quite safely. Of course, I wouldn't suggest drinking any developer...

There is a huge difference between "fine-grained" and "densely packed grain". One would imagine that fine grain is optimal, but it isn't. Fine grained is almost a misnomer (certainly a clever, if obnoxious, marketing ploy). If there are a set number of grains that one starts out with on the film, then finer grains means less of them, as some have been washed away or made smaller, and consequently, a more grainy print. It's densely packed that gets you the smoothness that some people like, including myself.

The OP specifically stated that he was interested in scanning. The best scans come from negatives with grains packed tightly together. D-76, HC-110 and ID-11, all of which have been suggested, are solvent-type developers, which have agents that dissolve the edges of grains so that they are finer (but further apart). It isn't that a good scan can't be made, but if we are talking about doing the work to get a developer balanced for one's own processes, then one might as well choose something that's optimal and get it to work vs something will will produce mediocre results. Then when more experience has occurred and one goes for optimal one will already be there vs having to do it all over again...
If you expect to get densely packed grains from Rodinal, you will fail. It isn't made to do that. It's made to articulate the grains by being seriously over-activated. It is a particular look, just like when some people ground out the neg carriers to show black around the edge of an image. It's spoken about like its an old standard but it's really a special purpose developer, and as such, is often counter to what most people state they want in a print. If someone loves it for all the right reasons I will take no issue, that's a personal aesthetic decision that should be respected. However if you want a print that's smooth as silk vs some other quality, then Rodinal is not for you. Period.

Lenny

I couldn't agree more!

Spot on!

RR

Leigh

7-Jul-2014, 14:38

It's spoken about like its an old standard but it's really a special purpose developer, and as such, is often counter to what most people state they want in a print.
Perhaps "old" has a different definition in your lexicon than in mine.

Rodinal has been around for over 100 years, and used by me for about 50 years.

I guess that's not "old".

AFAIK it's "special purpose" only in that it's recommended just for slow fine-grain films, not for fast films.
It does given an enhanced edge effect, which I like, but others may not.

- Leigh

Ken Lee

7-Jul-2014, 14:50

There are 2 agents commonly referred to as Pyro: Pyrogallol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrogallol) and Pyrocatechin or Catechol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechol).

They are not the same, they appear in different forumulas and their toxicities are different. Catechol is a common ingredient in hair dyes, colors and tints (http://www.cosmeticsinfo.org/ingredient/pyrocatechol).

StoneNYC

7-Jul-2014, 15:45

If you're on APUG see this article...

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=128309

If not, essentially, when I switched from hand processing to rotary processing I had a lot of issues with my grain showing differently than I was used to, and so I did extensive tests to figure out a new combination of film and developer that would work very well, specifically in order to have a fine-grained image, I also scan like the OP will.

My final choice was Delta100 and Rodinal 1:50

Tmax100 was a second best (or similar) but costs much more, and I prefer the look from the Delta.

Here are two results from the Delta100 in Rodinal test... The whole image and a crop to show the "grain" of a 4x5 sheet image.

117906
117907
117908
117909

I can't see how this is poor grain from Rodinal... But that's just my opinion of course.

Good luck OP!

Drew Wiley

7-Jul-2014, 16:03

HC-110 seems plenty easy to get in Kodak label. Nothing was discontinued except a certain bottle size. It's not something easily formulated yourself, and that's an understatement. 76 and its clones are also readily available. D-23 seems to have more solvent action that either of the aforementioned developers. I don't know that
it's all that big a deal in large format, where controlling tonality is really the higher priority. I'm pretty much a pyro addict myself.

Lenny Eiger

8-Jul-2014, 09:35

I can't see how this is poor grain from Rodinal... But that's just my opinion of course.

Good luck OP!

There is plenty to see here. If this is exactly what you want, great. However, the leaf image in particular shows a lot of contrast. It's gritty, and has what I would call, without really being able to see it, a gritty effect that looks like Rodinal.

I don't print that contrasty, I want a smoother look. For what I am after, you are overdeveloping... These are very personal choices but your examples do show what I was referencing. If you want to see less grain, try some Xtol 1:1 in your Jobo (if you haven't already).

Also, the Epson scanners will blur the grain so you may not see it as much as you would from a high optical rez scan.

Lenny

StoneNYC

8-Jul-2014, 10:13

There is plenty to see here. If this is exactly what you want, great. However, the leaf image in particular shows a lot of contrast. It's gritty, and has what I would call, without really being able to see it, a gritty effect that looks like Rodinal.

I don't print that contrasty, I want a smoother look. For what I am after, you are overdeveloping... These are very personal choices but your examples do show what I was referencing. If you want to see less grain, try some Xtol 1:1 in your Jobo (if you haven't already).

Also, the Epson scanners will blur the grain so you may not see it as much as you would from a high optical rez scan.

Lenny

Well, the contrast is irrelevant since that's my style, and has nothing to do with the grain itself.

That said the capture if the leaf is smaller than a 35mm frame.... You'll never see that in an actual print, even at 20x24....

Also that leaf image had 4 ND filters equalling 9 stops.

I don't do powders ...

To each their own of coarse, and you have to understand, I have my own very strict set of parameters, and very much have found happiness with this set up, again it's all very professional I agree with you there. I get this point the OP has the facts and will have to do their own experimentation.

Leigh

8-Jul-2014, 11:46

Also, the Epson scanners will blur the grain so you may not see it as much as you would from a high optical rez scan.
And if you use a scanning electron microscope you can resolve the actual outline of every single grain.

So what?

This whole argument is just a pile of oats after it's been through the horse.

Photography is an art form. If you like the results of your process, use it. If you don't, change it.

- Leigh

sanking

8-Jul-2014, 12:01

In my opinion the best general purpose developers, weighing sharpness, grain, and the ability to scan well, are Xtol and one of the contemporary Pyro (Pyrogallol or pyrocatechol) based developers like PMK or Pyrocat-HD. All three are available in powder or liquid kits from a number of sources. Chances are that Xtol will be around a long time, and you will always be able to mix your own PMK or Pyrocat-HD since the formulas can be found on many sites.

I agree with Drew Wiley that in large format B&W work control of tonalities is usually more important than absolute image quality. But in the end the range of tonalities can be controlled just as well with the best general purpose formulas as with the worst ones. So why start with a handicap since you may eventually want to pull all of the image quality from your negative for a very large print, or in cropping part of the negative. It may take a fair amount of magnification to see the difference between the best developers and the worst, but if you push the size enough, in either optical printing or in scanning with a high-end flatbed or with a drum scanner, the difference will eventually reveal itself quite clearly.

Meanwhile, regardless of what film and developer you use, exposing and developing good negatives takes practice.

Sandy

Lenny Eiger

8-Jul-2014, 16:11

If you like the results of your process, use it. If you don't, change it.

I can easily agree with this. Everyone wants something different. They should all be happy. Everyone can print at whatever contrast range they want to.

However, when someone asks what's the best way, the easiest way, or the quickest, then these conversations come into play. If someone wants to scan I'm not going to recommend Rodinal or one of the older solvent-type developers. I've done the tests... recently; and I have a lot of my old film developed in all kinds of things, from D-23 to Pyro, D-76, Microphen, and a few others I've used over the years. As Sandy has noted, there are some really good "contemporary" choices; and his results match what I found as well. How great...

Lenny

Leigh

8-Jul-2014, 16:25

when someone asks what's the best way, the easiest way, or the quickest...
Those questions simply cannot be answered, because the definition of the query terms varies from one person to the next.

Perhaps the least variable term would be "fastest", while "easiest" depends critically on available facilities.

The term "best" has a different meaning for every viewer and every situation.

- Leigh

selmslie

8-Jul-2014, 16:29

... I'll be scanning the film, so only developing film, not making prints in the darkroom. ...
If you are doing medium or large format and scanning, a one-shot developer like Rodinal or HC110 would be ideal. I would not be concerned about their tendency to be a little grainy. You can minimize grain by slightly overexposing (about 2/3 stop) and under-developing (about 15%) using high dilutions (between 1+50 and 1+80). Grain is really not a major issue with large format unless you are also doing 35mm film where softer developers like Xtol and D76 would be better.

Another couple of considerations. There are situations where grain is attractive or where it can enhance an image. An example would be photographs of sand, concrete or brick where the grain nearly disappears into the image.

Also, there are programs that help you moderate or eliminate the appearance of grain. I have taken a very grainy 35mm Tri-X developed in Rodinal and not only removed most of the grain with NeatImage, it also revealed some detail that was otherwise obscured.

jbenedict

8-Jul-2014, 21:51

Remember: The OP is just starting developing. Lots of good facts and valid opinions expressed here but the OP might be a little overwhelmed. Just getting the film and chemicals in and out of the tank (or tray) might be enough to tackle for now.

Do any of you guys ave suggestions where to start? ASA/Time/temp/dilution? Once some film gets developed, all of the other information might be useful.

For Tri-X 320, I use HC-110 diluted 1:15 from stock, 7 min. @ 68F rated at ASA 180 for a 'normal' (N) development. For other factory developers, follow the directions that come with the developer or off the manufacturer's website.

Regular Rod

9-Jul-2014, 01:57

9-Jul-2014, 06:52

It's all there, everything he needs http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?114736-Which-developer-for-4x5-B-amp-W-sheet-film&p=1150451&viewfull=1#post1150451 any photographer can make up the developer from raw ingredients. The first time I developed a film I was just 10 years old and
made up the developer from reagents that in those days we could just go out and buy from the chemist's shop (pharmacy) so I'm sure the OP can start off with this "mix it up yourself from raw" way, which frankly is the best way as he will have complete protection from market vagaries...

;)

RR

Our pharmacies in the US sell cold meds, vitamins, prescription (highly regulated) drugs like heavy duty pain meds and v**gra, a few grocery items, booze, & cigarettes. We used to have a pharmacy in town that had a huge selection of fishing poles and boating accessories. We can order any chemical items online though via B2B websites or ebay, so I'm not worried about the photochemical marketplace for B&W film.

The OP should look online for developers rather than local retail. I like supporting local retailers, but for B&W photography, online is where it's at and the most sensible place for most rural commerce at least.

jnantz

9-Jul-2014, 07:51

its all just opinions ...
all these developers work for film of any format
but what works best ... its upto whoever is deciding.
personally i think coffee works best, it is easy, prints like a dream
scans easily, has beautiful mid tones, and cheap as dirt to make ... but
to someone else who has never used it or didn't have luck with it ( used the wrong ingredients )
or refuses to use it because it is a "low brow" developer
will say it is the worst developer ever made.

does it really matter? nope ... use whatever you want and enjoy yourself ...

Regular Rod

9-Jul-2014, 07:54

Lenny Eiger

9-Jul-2014, 15:36

The term "best" has a different meaning for every viewer and every situation.

- Leigh

Agreed, and I don't care if anyone agrees with my opinion, we're all unique and that's great. However, i am interested in good info being out there. Rodinal is grainy. If someone doesn't care, fine. Solvent type developers don't make things as tight as they dissolve in between the grains. This is actual fact, and not my opinion...

Xtol is tight, Pyro is tight, and maybe other things, like coffee, for all I know. Never tried caffenol. Solvent developers dissolve, thats what they were designed to do. Everyone can decide for themselves how much it matters to them. However, it isn't opinion.

Lenny