BEST 8x10 b&W Film & Developer for General Landscape Work

[Mike Herring]

I am just starting to shoot black and white 8x10 negatives and I hope some of the experts can give me suggestions. Is Pyrol still highly regarded? Is this difficult to use? What are the benefits and issues of using Pyro?
My favorite subjects are moving water, such as waterfalls, cascades, rivers and surf.
I also love mist and fog.
Good luck and happy shooting,
Mike

[Toyon]

First do you homework. There are many threads on films and devleopers you can find on this website using the search function. They cover discussions of most or all modern films and the benefits and problems with particular developers. Pyro is a toxic developer, favored by many because it adds stain to highlight areas of the negative. Because it is potentially toxic to the user and always bad for the environment, you may want to try more benign developers first, such as Kodak's XTOL. XTOL is good with any current films. For speed purposes alone you may want to try Kodak's revised tmax 400 film for 8x10.

[kev curry]

You might find this interesting...

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/pcat.html

http://www.jackspcs.com/pmk.htm

And theres a ton of stuff here on the forum if you do a search as has already been mentioned.

[Robert Skeoch]

I'm very happy with Delta 100 in ID-11 for my 8x10 landscapes.
-Rob

[Ole Tjugen]

The biggest (to me) drawback to using Pyro and other staining developers is that they tend to print very differently on VC and graded paper.

So I tend to use pyro developers only when I need then - e.g. to control the contrast in waterfall shots and the like.

For anything else, I prefer simple non-staining developers. I got a LOT of Ilfotec HC off ebay at a very low price, and am (fortunately) extremely happy with it.

[Greg Blank]

Because it is potentially toxic to the user and always bad for the environment, .

Sorry, is simply poor information. Pyrogallic acid as a component of Pyro developers being one of the oldest and newest developers is toxic to humans in powder form. If you do not research how to handle the powder and are careless.

However once mixed the developer is akin to "Tea" or other tanic acids. The Pyro gallic acid originally was derived from the "Galls" found on oak trees. In liquid form the spent developer can be flushed down the drain if you have a septic system.
Because it readily oxidizes and returns to rather safe organic state once discarded.

Whereas hydroquinone based developers can not. Some people love Xtol some hate it. I have no real good results with it, YMMV.

If your interested in Pyro you should read Gordon's book!

[Toyon]

"Pyro" refers to developers made bothwith Pyrogallol and Pyrocatechol. There are enough questions about the carcinogenicity of both developers to warrant caution in use and to limit their introduction to the water supply.


Sorry, is simply poor information. Pyrogallic acid as a component of Pyro developers being one of the oldest and newest developers is toxic to humans in powder form. If you do not research how to handle the powder and are careless.

However once mixed the developer is akin to "Tea" or other tanic acids. The Pyro gallic acid originally was derived from the "Galls" found on oak trees. In liquid form the spent developer can be flushed down the drain if you have a septic system.
Because it readily oxidizes and returns to rather safe organic state once discarded.

Whereas hydroquinone based developers can not. Some people love Xtol some hate it. I have no real good results with it, YMMV.

If your interested in Pyro you should read Gordon's book!

[Andrew O'Neill]

No one here has the definitive answer to this question for you. Grab a film and developer and see if it is right for you.

[Gem Singer]

I suggest that you get hold of a copy of "The Film Developing Cookbook", by S. Anchell and Bill Troop.

It will tell you everything you want to know about choosing the proper film, as well as the proper developer to use with it.

[Drew Wiley]

I think anyone who handles ANY kind of darkroom chemical without gloves is stupid. Pyro is no different. Yes, sodium sulfite gets added to salad at fast food joints, while
pyro is distinctly toxic; but more or less, if you don't get poisoned you can acquire
allergic sensitivity to developers. Incidentally, about the worst thing you can dump
down the drain are "eco-friendly" surfactants like Simple Green, which kill not only
fish fry but just about all the little bugs they feed on (not by poisioning but by
preventing suspended oxygen from being retained on the gills). The amount of pyro
and selenium we might discard as casual photographers is vastly less than that
disposed of by hospitals (yes, pyro is used to tan medical and not just photo gelatin). (Information from a close friend of mine in the EPA, who once monitored
this stuff.) End of lecture. But you should get the drift. I'm a huge fan of pyroGALLOL.

[Bruce Watson]

I am just starting to shoot black and white 8x10 negatives and I hope some of the experts can give me suggestions. Is Pyro still highly regarded? Is this difficult to use? What are the benefits and issues of using Pyro? My favorite subjects are moving water, such as waterfalls, cascades, rivers and surf. I also love mist and fog. Good luck and happy shooting,
Mike

There is no answer for your question, because no one can define "BEST" for anyone but themselves. So you'll have to figure out what you mean by BEST and act to satisfy your needs.

However, there is something you should perhaps consider. Reciprocity failure characteristics. Reciprocity varies from film to film rather markedly, and isn't really effect by developer or processing at all.

Why this matters is that with 10x8 film, one tends to use very small taking apertures. This means long exposures, even with high speed films. And this means the danger of having some of your image in reciprocity failure while the rest is not.

For example: Say you want to hold shadow detail on the underside of that wet bolder in the middle of the stream. You figure it's a four or eight second exposure at f/64. With some films you'll be fine (the Tmaxes, Acros). Some films (Tri-X, HP5+, FP4+) you'll have to increase exposure to hold the shadows (amount of increase from reciprocity failure tables, doing the math, your own experimental results, etc.) which will increase your highlight density unless you compensate for it by decreasing development accordingly. And some films (old school Eastern European films like Ekfe) you're just going to lose that shadow detail completely without heroic efforts.

So the question becomes, how do you want to deal with reciprocity failure? Because it's not just going to go away on its own.

This is one of the many reasons I'm shooting TMY-2 now. In 5x4 however. I'm not shooting 10x8 (yet?). And for the record I'm processing my TMY-2 in XTOL at 1:3. Not that you should. It depends on what you want. As the man said, there are many paths to the waterfall...

[John Bowen]

8x10 means SLOW lenses, typically f9 or slower. 8x10 means longer lenses which means LESS depth of field. You require a reasonably fast shutter speed to have water that looks more like water than cotton candy.

To ME 8x10 means FAST film, Tri-x, Tmax 400 or HP-5. I prefer Tmax 400 because of it's excellent reciprocity characteristics, speed, and near straignt line curve. I also prefer my Tmax 400 developed in Pyrocat HD. BUT, I contact print on Azo and I require the contrast in the negative that will allow me to print on Canadian Grade 2 Azo, which is actually very close to a grade 1 of other papers.

So, what is BEST for me may not be BEST for you at all....

Yes, Pyro can be hazardous if mishandled. I might suggest you purchase your inital Pyrocat developer pre-mixed from Photographer's formulary or Bostick & Sullivan.

Welcome to 8x10....you're gonna love it!

[Ed Pierce]

Another vote for tmax 400 for the 8x10. Developing in tmax rs in tubes is easy and works well for me.

[CG]

"Pyro" refers to developers made both with Pyrogallol and Pyrocatechol. ...

Not my understanding. The Darkroom Cookbook 3rd Edition chapter on chemicals mention for Pyro says: "Pyro (see Pyrogallol)" and it does not direct one to catechol / Pyrocatechol.

In their listings, the synonyms for Pyrogallol include "Pyro", whereas the synonyms listed for Catechol do not include "Pyro".

Perhaps I am wrong, but it has been my understanding that "Pyro" refers only to Pyrogallic acid / Pyrogallol. The names do tend to be confusing.

[Gem Singer]

Pyrogallol = "Pyro"

Pyrocatechol = "Catechol"


According to "The Film Developing Cookbook", by Anchell and Troop.

[Scott-S]

I think a lot of people (Including myself) stuggle way to much with choice of film and developer. There are so many things that affect the print. Film, Developer, Paper, Paper Developer, Exposure etc. You can go crazy with the infinite choices. I just started 8x10 and trying to understand the movements. My first box was Tmax 400 (reliable but at $5 a sheet too expensive). My second box was Adox Ort 25. (I've yet to shoot a sheet without any issues). I think my next box will be Arista 100 or 200 because its $2 a sheet. I think because I am learning this is the best choice. I use Clayton F76+, its a liquid version of D-76 I believe. Remember, a good photographer is what makes a good photographic, technincal mastery only adds to an already good photograph

[Toyon]

Pyrocatechol = Catechol.

[Armin Seeholzer]

For me there is only XTOL but for you?
I don't know!

Cheers Armin

[Mike Herring]

Thanks for the wealth of information you guys have provided.
I am going out with the 8x10 and photographing the beautiful waterfalls in Hacklebarney State Park, NJ this weekend.
I still have to build a case for the Sinar P 8x10 but that is another issue!

Wishing you all great light,
Mike

[Andrew O'Neill]

Best for me is HP5+ and Pyrocat-HD.

[Ron Marshall]

TMY + XTOL = Bliss

[Ken Lee]

People often ask this question on this forum. Most of the time, they get a wide range of responses, with little more than "anecdotal" evidence to recommend them. "I like this" "I love that". But rarely do we read why.

Some photographers here still use Tri-X and HC-110, because that's what Ansel used decades ago, and seeing no dramatic improvements over it in newer combinations, they'd rather not mess with a good thing. Others have experimented with a bewildering array of films and developers, and have even invented new formulas. So what is one to do ?

Find someone whose photography you admire - or whose sensitometric research you respect - and then try their favorite combination. If you can find good theory and practice in the same person, that would be even better for you.

[CG]

There is no "best" Each film and developer pairing has some individual character and each photographer has some intent for a given photograph. One of the advantages of sheet film is that one is less locked in to only one film and development combination from shot to shot. To reduce that to just one may be a good learning tool - get to know one's materials - but as an absolute, it is too limiting for me.

Not to mention that the question might better have been stated "What film / film developer, paper / paper developer combination is best?". To which I would have answered that there is, still, no one best combination, only a myriad of useful aesthetic options.

[Bruce Barlow]

It doesn't matter. Differences between films and developers are so subtle that you'll be hard-pressed to see differences, especially in 8x10. Don't believe me? then take two different films, make identical pictures (meaning you know the proper ISO for each), develop them PROPERLY (meaning you know the right development time for each one), and print them. Take a look. No fair choosing because you were too lazy to do the tests first and the film doesn't do what the manufacturer says it does.

After I did something similar with twelve (count 'em, 12) papers and 12 paper developers I tested Tri-X (the incumbernt), FP4, HP5, and Bergger 200. I tested them in HC-110 (the incumbent) and Gordon Hutchings' PMK pyro. It meant doing ISO tests for each, in each developer, development time tests for each, in each developer, and then making identical pictures for each and printing them. Results? Extremely subtle differences, and not worth changing incumbents based on what I saw, and didn't see. And I hate handling film in gloves in complete dark, so for that convenience reason (not esthetic reason) I don't use PMK for LF negs (I do, form time to time, use it for roll film, but mostly to use up my supply before it dies - an economic reason).

For me, speed counts in 8x10. I want as much as possible. Tri-X tests at ISO 320 for me. HP5 tests at 200 and Bergger tests at 100. T-Max (recently testing in 4x5) tests at 400. Cool.

I am moving to HP5 for 8x10 (sadly) because Kodak jacked the prices on 8x10 Tri-X and TMAX so much and, worse, only offer them in 10-sheet boxes. Ilford offers 25-sheets, which is still not as nice as 50, but far better than 10. I miss that extra almost-stop of speed. If Kodak gets smart again (and what are the odds of that?) and packages 8x10 in bigger boxes, I'll probably go back to Tri-X. Old habits die hard.

I've also replaced the incumbent developer out of anger that Kodak has discontinued the big bottles of HC-110. Clayton F76 Plus is, as I understand it, an updated D76-type formula. Convenient, and it soesn't suppress low values on Tri-X the way HC-110seems to, so negs have a little more sparkle. Good enough to keep, although the HC-110 shadows were never a problem. Buying gallon bottles, however, gets shipping charges almost as expensive as the stuff itself. Oh well.

But notice that my changes are driven by market reasons, rather than esthetic. The differences aren't noticeable enough for me to worry about. Far more worrisome is figuring out where to point the camera.

Go forth and picturize. The best combination is that which you use lots of, and enjoy using.

All best,

[Diane Maher]

Did the OP shoot film in smaller formats? If so, and if that film is available in 8x10, then why not stay with the film/developer he is already familiar with?

My other question would be, how are you going to print your resulting negative, i.e. via a darkroom process, or some other, alternative process? Some film and developer combinations are seen to be better for some of the alt-processes.

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

For me: Fuji Acros 8x10 ( that I import from Japan Exposures - ex Megaperls) and divided D23 (borax in the second bath).
Before that, TriX and divided D23.

Hélcio

[Toyon]

TMY + XTOL = Bliss

Hi Ron, what time and concentration are you using for this combination?

[Ron Marshall]

Hi Ron, what time and concentration are you using for this combination?

XTOL 1:1, 9 1/4 minutes @ 68 degrees for N development in a Jobo Expert drum.

[Nathan Potter]

Mike, for 8 X 10 negs you might find that a divided developer is handy. I used Diafine for technical work where I did not want to worry so much about the subject brightness range. In that application the extremities of the sensitometric curve are more linear, preserving detail. The gamma may be lower than what you are used to but that is nice for scanning purposes. OTOH you will likely need a condenser enlarger for silver printing. A big advantage is that you can expose the film at rated speed or even double rated speed and obtain very high quality long tonal range negatives. A D76 developer version can be made also. Another big advantage is that since the developer and accelerator are mixed and kept separate, shelf life is forever - well at least a year I've found. So if you are an intermittant processer like me that's a big advantage.

BTW I remember a writeup in VC magazine recently by Sandy King on divided developing - maybe someone knows the issue. Of course formulas are given in Anchells book also.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[John Kasaian]

This probably isn't the answer you're looking for, but here goes:
My best film/developer combo is the one I'm currently working with.

Discovering new processes and materials are part of the fun, but when it comes down to results I think it is more important to take the time to know your particular materials and what you can achieve with them.
I've seen stunning landscapes made with Efke & PMK as well as Tri-X & HC-110. I've seen beautiful landscapes shot on FP-4+ and souped in any number of developers. There is fabulous stuff being shot on Tmax. There are also some splendid examples of work done on Fomapan and Rodinal.

What do all these photographs have in common? They were all shot by photographers who knew how to make the most of thier materials.

You might want to pick a promising film/developer combination (possibly the same materials already used by a photographer whose landscape you admire) and work with them for at least ten months or a year.

Then maybe you can tell us which is the "best." :)

[Drew Wiley]

My way of looking at things is that a single tweak of improvement changing film or
developer, paper brand, or an enlarger lens, etc, might not amount to a great deal; but a series of cumulative improvements can add up to a significant overall difference in quality. So I'm constant experimenting. There are other people who stick with a single film and developer combination pretty much their whole life, or as long as these specific products are on the market, and they manage to do exquisite work because they are so familiar with their medium. That's the great thing about photography: you
make the rules and set your own standards. How you go about learning can be as
complicated or as simple as you prefer. I have some strong opinions about which
films, developers, and papers I personally like or dislike; but someone with exactly the
opposite opinion might do superb work because of how they do things, or what effect
they want in the photograph. What a boring world it would be if we all did things the
same way, or made all our work look the same!

[jim kitchen]

Dear Ron,

Your "Normal" time is one minute and fifteen seconds less than my "N-1" development time, using the same film, developer combination, and processor, et al...

I guess we could talk about our different development approach, to prepare a piece of black and white film to scan, but this issue was discussed in several other previous posts. I certainly understand why we have a difference, but I am amazed at what the difference happens to be. :)

jim k

[Ron Marshall]

Dear Ron,

Your "Normal" time is one minute and fifteen seconds less than my "N-1" development time, using the same film, developer combination, and processor, et al...

I guess we could talk about our different development approach, to prepare a piece of black and white film to scan, but this issue was discussed in several other previous posts. I certainly understand why we have a difference, but I am amazed at what the difference happens to be. :)

jim k

Very interesting. My negs are a bit flat (but not much), optimised for scanning, so I am surprised also.

This only reinforces my strong belief that everyone should do their own testing to establish their own times.

[SAShruby]

Xtol + Tri-X = cool pics
Xtol + FP4 = you will be blown
Xtol + HP5 = perfectly alright.

[David Karp]

I like using Thornton's 2 bath or Diafine with HP5+ for landscapes (4x5 and whole plate). No need to stress over time and, to a certain extent, temperature. Nice negatives every time. Easy to print, because these developers can handle the wide contrast range that is typical of the landscapes I photograph.

[Armin Seeholzer]

There is only one XTOL, the best soup for all B/W films.

Cheers Armin

[Gary L. Quay]

I am just starting to shoot black and white 8x10 negatives and I hope some of the experts can give me suggestions. Is Pyrol still highly regarded? Is this difficult to use? What are the benefits and issues of using Pyro?
My favorite subjects are moving water, such as waterfalls, cascades, rivers and surf.
I also love mist and fog.
Good luck and happy shooting,
Mike

I have a question that may not have been asked yet: Have you been shooting and developing large format film, such as 4x5, or are you making the leap from 35mm or MF straight to 8x10? I ask this question because developing sheet film is somewhat different from roll film, and the characteristics you may be looking for in your negatives are slightly different. Smaller negatives require more contrast, and more sharpness. I routinely push process smaller formats, but never LF. Also, if you are just starting out in LF, going right into pyro developers can be disheartening. I know this from personal experience. Get all of the bugs in your technique, both shooting and developing, worked out before moving to pyro. Find a nice, easy developer and film combo like Ilford HP5 with D76 or ID-11, and branch out as you become more confident in your technique. If you are experienced in the darkroom, and have worked with 4x5 before, you can, of course, ignore everything I said.

[cobalt]

Foma in Acufine.

Plus X in Microdol X.