Have you found exotic developers worth it for 8x10?

[sperdynamite]

I'm going to be processing my 8x10 in a Jobo expert drum, and I'm going to be establishing my system for consistency with a densitometer, the whole works. So I'll be settling on a developer of choice for sheet film. I spent a lot of time playing around with developers before, but that essay on Magic Bullets in the splash page really rings true in my mind. I'll also only be contact printing the 8x10s or scanning them for enlargements.

Have you found it worth it to use more exotic formulas like Pyrocat? Or is it somewhat of an exercise in gilding the lily when it comes to a format that is already delivering the goods through sheer size? Especially as now there are a lot of great developer choices that are off the shelf. Even FX-39 is back. D76 creates grainless HP5 negatives. I've even thought about using Anco 130 as it will be my paper developer of choice.

When it comes to using film in my Rolleiflex cameras and enlarging them, I'm sure I'll enjoy using an acutance developer. But when it comes to 8x10, stop me if I'm 'magic bullet chasing.'

[Eric Woodbury]

For me, it was a lot of fun using the exotic developers, but I use XTOL for 95% of my work. It's non-toxic, easy. If I need N+4, I will use Wimberley's pyro formula. And I have a pyro amidol formula I use for a few things, but XTOL is fine.

My films are HP5, FP4 mostly, with some Tech Pan and Ilford Ortho thrown in for good luck.

Have fun.

[John Kasaian]

I like Ansco 130 because of it's longevity (thanks, john nanian!)
I mostly use "plain vanilla" D-76 and have used TMAX RS back when I shot TMY. And a brief fling with HC-110
Regrettably, due to some health issues, Pyro isn't on the menu for me, but I'm happy with Ansco 130 and D-76

[Andrew O'Neill]

Pyrocat-HD

[Vaughn]

Depends on the what one wants the final image to look like. For me the answer is yes, even tho the word 'exotic' does not really apply, IMO.

[Mark Sampson]

You didn't say what film you expect to use, or your subject matter. Knowing that would help.
But XTOL, perhaps diluted 1:1, should work quite well for a number of different films and subjects.

Full disclosure: I shoot 4x5 outdoors, and my favorite combination nowadays is Iford FP4+ and Pyrocat-HD. Won't necessarily be yours.

[Vaughn]

... my favorite combination nowadays is Iford FP4+ and Pyrocat-HD. Won't necessarily be yours.

Same here in formats up to 11x14, for the way I make platinum/palladium prints and carbon prints (going for negs with a bit more contrast than average). But I also find FP4+ in Ilford Universal PQ Developer to be excellent for those processes (also very easy to mix/use).

You also might find that the best neg for contact printing may not be the best negative for scanning. My best negatives for carbon printing give scanners fits (DR of 2.8+). Might be a bit of an extreme case...but it does seem that the best negatives for scanning might be a bit flat relative to the best neg for contact printing.

My platinum printing and carbon printing require different density ranges for their negatives. I will occasionally expose two negatives and develop one for each process. Since my carbon printing flips the image, compositionally this does not always work.

[Peter De Smidt]

Assuming you develop to the same contrast, difference betweens contact prints made with different developers are going to be very small. Grain isn't going to matter. Speed will matter a bit. Some developers cut film speed in half, some give a boost..... With 8x10, I prefer to use a speed-increasing developer like Xtol. But other issues, such as longevity, ease of mixing/using, suitability for a Jobo....are all going to matter more. I use DS-10, and Xtol-ike developer formulated by Ryuji Suzuki. It's supposed to be more robust than Xtol. I really don't know. I make a stock solution of everything but the Dimezone-S, the latter is in a stock solution in polypropylene glycol. I have 5 liter dispensers with floating lids for the base. To develop, measure out the needed stock from the big tank and put in a bottle in the Jobo to temper. Once everything is to temp, I use a pipette to measure the Dimezone-S solution into the developer....develop....This gives me the benefits of Xtol without the limited storage time. It been fine for me, but I haven't run exhaustive tests. I use it mainly because it's easy to store, gives good film speed, and I have enough of the base chemicals to use it for a long time.

[Jim Galli]

Nothing exotic about PyrocatHD. Least expensive and most consistent. Thousands (quite literally) of 8X10 negs. The developer is never the problem. The photographer usually IS. Have fun chasing all of the "non" magic bullets.

[sperdynamite]

I'm planning on doing pretty straight forward silver prints, likely on Ilford paper. Plus scans, but the silver prints would be the priority. It seems like I would be fine using D76 with my 8x10, and can explore Pyrocat with my 6x6 images. I'm more likely to just do inversion processing with my roll film personal work so I can do fun stuff like reduce agitation and increase adjacency effects.

[Luis-F-S]

My developer of choice is HC-110. Not very exotic, but it works and I've used it for some 25 years. I develop either in drums on 1 gal tanks, HC-110 works fine with either. Every time I try something else, I go back to HC-110. If it was good enough for Fred Picker and Oliver Gagliani, it's good enough for me. L

[Pere Casals]

But when it comes to 8x10, stop me if I'm 'magic bullet chasing.'

There is a magic bullet:

196088

This is understanding well practical sensitometry and what impact it has in your images.

After that film, developers and papers are not magic bullets anymore, they become technical and aesthetic resources.

At all it's not necessary to dominate sensitometry to craft impressive images, but today Ps edition allows hybrid and digital works to be very well crafted, while a pure optic workflow is as demanding as always.

If you are to scan then developers are way less relevant for 8x10, you just ensure having film exposed enough, and later you get fun by bending curves in Ps ...and digital sharpening works the acutance.

_________________________


...but if you want to make optic prints then start with 4x5, you'll waste 1/4 of the film, or you will make x4 more tests for the same cost, 4x5 allows developing sheets individually, so it's a good size for adjusting your process. When you have a sound workflow then move to 5x7 or 8x10.

with 4x5 you can easily get an enlarger to make sound optic enlargements.

8x10 is great, but you should consider if it has drawbacks and that 4x5 can be way better to learn or to adjust your workflow.


_________________________


Grain is irrelevant for 8x10... and acutance is another war.


Acutance developer vs Acutance development

Please note that you have different factors.

An Acutance Developer is tipically one with less solvent action, say Rodinal, but solvent action can be modulated with dilution, and also even stock Xtol (with controlled agitation) can be well sharper than Rodinal.

Then we have edge effects, bromide diffusion/production in the development is what makes the effect, rather than developer exhaustion/diffusion, so controlling agitation may be a main concern for big optic enlargement factors, with the rotary you lose control over agitation and highlight control, rotary is amazing, but it also has painful drawbacks in process control.

Anyway 8x10 is often enlarged with lower factors... acutance do not come much from grain or edge effects, but we have other resources like IQ, scene illumination and USM masking in the optic enlargement.


_________________________


I'm still in my learning process, I find BTZS book, 4x5 format and tray development a good set of tools to learn/adjust the thing.

[angusparker]

Rodinal for its longevity and cost. It’s just so easy and no one is worrying about grain at 8x10. XTOL if you develop regularly. I mix the 5L pack and pour into wine bottles and vacuum the air out with those pump plastic corks.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm not sure what "exotic" means. Once some new developer catches on, then it's something routine. Maybe developing film in steer manure would be classified as exotic.

[Will Frostmill]

Exotic? Caffenol, I guess. Pros: it's a staining developer like Pyro, and the ingredients are household substances, so it's fairly safe.

Not so exotic:
D-23 Pros: cheap to make from scratch, some say doesn't block up highlights as much as D76. Cons: might not be appropriate for TMAX films, some people are allergic or become allergic to Metol, one of the two ingredients.
Xtol Pros: also pretty safe, people like it for scanning as well as printing. Cons: need to use distilled water & avoid trace contaminants in your glassware.
HC-110: really shelf stable liquid, easy to mix to working solution. Lots of zone system examples with this stuff. Cons: contains Hydroquinone, I think, which makes it not as harmless as Xtol or Caffenol.

[esearing]

a variant of Pyrocat HD is Pyrcat M and it looks about the same. No Phenidone failure or mixing issues. Nice gradations with FP4, HP5, and Delta 100 in 4x5. I tried Ansco 130 1:10 10Minutes for HP5 and it was a bit contrasty and lacking in shadows compared to what I am used to, so you could explore other dilutions if you like using a single developer for everything. Testing is part of the fun but you might want to get a 4x5 back for that.

[Michael Kadillak]

I use whatever developer and go through the necessary hoops I need to (order chemistry, mix it myself and wear breathing masks and gloves) in order to gives me the look on the print that I am after. Tried the conventional developers (D76, HC110, Xtol, T Max, DDX) and the produced images looked acceptable but visually I felt that something important was missing. Give me Pyrocat HD and its marvelous options as well a pyro and i am good to go. Modern emulsions still respond marvelously to these options. Exotic in this literary context is a point of perspective, nothing more.

[Mark Sawyer]

Plain ol' HC110 does everything I could expect. I suppose I could dress the bottles up in sexy doll-size lingerie, like an "exotic" dancer and see if it made any difference...

[Michael Kadillak]

Plain ol' HC110 does everything I could expect. I suppose I could dress the bottles up in sexy doll-size lingerie, like an "exotic" dancer and see if it made any difference...

If it meets your expectations, then stock up on HC110 and stay the course. in this situation there is no right or wrong. There is only what limitations or satisfaction criteria we place on ourselves. At the end of the day the resultant print is all that matters.

[Mark Sawyer]

If it meets your expectations, then stock up on HC110 and stay the course. in this situation there is no right or wrong. There is only what limitations or satisfaction criteria we place on ourselves. At the end of the day the resultant print is all that matters.

Good advice, and it's what I've done. I went through that early phase of this developer vs. that developer, and found that while there were differences, they were all pretty good. HC110 has the added convenience of very long shelf life and easy-to-mix liquid concentrate form, so I stocked up long ago. :)

But wet plate still tempts me with different developer variations... :(

[LabRat]

I suggest testing developers with small format films, even with just a snip or full rolls, as the higher enlargement ratios will reveal greater information during enlargement of what is happening on your film...

Find image characteristics that you like, and then try your sheet film...

I also make my developers from scratch, and the series of tests and developers made a huge jump in the quality of my negs... But it started from 35mm snip tests...

Steve K

[Pere Casals]

I suggest testing developers with small format films

Yes... this allows easy wide bracketing and later developing different test rolls at different N, so we have a matrix of results made cheap and fast.

Let me add:

Another source of information is https://filmdev.org/ , hundreds of film/developer/processing combinations. There is scanning/edition in the middle, so information is not raw enough, anyway it's a very good preliminary information that may help to pick what we are to evaluate.

[Michael Kadillak]

I suggest testing developers with small format films, even with just a snip or full rolls, as the higher enlargement ratios will reveal greater information during enlargement of what is happening on your film...

Find image characteristics that you like, and then try your sheet film...

I also make my developers from scratch, and the series of tests and developers made a huge jump in the quality of my negs... But it started from 35mm snip tests...

Steve K

Understand completely where you are coming from Steve K. The peace of mind of ensuring an optimal outcome from a series of input variables however cumbersome or challenging it may turn out to be keeps some people up at night and is a complete non issue for others. It is one of the great things about this country in the sense that we can choose whatever course of action we feel most comfortable with. Thankfully we still have many quality analog materials to work with. Life is good.