Why so many developers? Isn't D76 enough? [Archive]

Robert Hughes

2-Feb-2010, 09:36

Drew Wiley

2-Feb-2010, 10:08

My grandmother seasoned her meals with nothing more than salt and did a pretty good
job of making it tasty, but my wife keeps around dozens of different spices, and enjoys using them all. You make your own rules. Although I currently have a "standard"
developer for routine use (PMK), I keep around quite a few specialty ones when things
need spicing up, or the nature of my work changes. My philosophy of the technical end
of both film and print developers is that one little tweak to spice things up might not
make much difference, but if you add up several little tweaks they can cumulatively
make the difference between an OK print and a great one.

BetterSense

2-Feb-2010, 10:17

Yes, D76 will get the job done. IMO, Xtol outdoes it as the "better D76", though. Just a bit more shadow speed and less grain, plus it has more stable activity (IMO) and is easier to replenish. I wouldn't pay for packets of D76 when I could just get Xtol for about the same price.

HC110 is just more convenient, and slightly more different than Xtol. I use it a lot because it's just so easy.

I use D23 mostly. It's easier to mix up and replenish than D76, but works about the same. Maybe a little lower-contrast.

I think you have to step into things like staining developers, two-bath developers, or strange caffiene developers to really see a substantial practical, and not mentally exaggerated, difference in developers.

Armin Seeholzer

2-Feb-2010, 10:24

Yes you only need XTOL just take the best and be happy!!!!

Cheers Armin

Gem Singer

2-Feb-2010, 10:31

It's not merely a matter of the type of developer, or the type of film you are using.

It's the combination of the film and developer you have chosen to work with.

Some developers work best with certain films. Some won't give optimum results with all types of film.

There is also the matter of the kind of agitation you are using. Some developers are formulated for continuous agitation. Some work best with intermittent agitation.

In reality, all developers will develop film. It's just a matter of matching the developer to the film to get the results you are seeking.

Look for "The Film Developing Cookbook", by S.Anchell and B. Troop. It's loaded with info. about matching developers to films.

BTW, if D-76 is giving you pleasing results, why change?

Jeremy Moore

2-Feb-2010, 10:37

Is there some place I can look that gives a clear description of the unique characteristics of different soups (yeah, I know, the Internet...:rolleyes: ), perhaps providing photo examples of their properties?

I don't know how helpful photo examples would be as differences in agitation, dilution, and temperature not to mention the process going from negative to positive all play into the final result. And this is just for one film, change the film and the playing field changes again.

If you're happy with what you're using now, why change? Photography for me is more art than science and there is no 'best' anything--camera, film, developer, etc.

Ken Lee

2-Feb-2010, 11:00

David de Gruyl

2-Feb-2010, 11:32

I use D76 and Rodinal now, but have used Microdol-X and TMax dev in the past. Each developer has its own unique look, even for the same film.

For instance, I would rather used Microdol-X on a portrait of a woman (goodbye fine details - I don't use it anymore, because it loses too much), whereas Rodinal works great on wood grains and rocks. Rodinal is a high acutance developer without the modern niceties of grain reduction while Microdol (and TMax Dev) is on the other end of the spectrum with grain reduction traded for lower acutance. D76 comes in between on both.

I typically choose whichever is more convenient (it takes two minutes to whip up either D76 1:1 or Rodinal 1:100, if the D76 is mixed) and which ever will work with the subject.

So, to answer the original question: because they look different in ways that you can't get back in printing.

As for not seeing any difference: unless Rodinal is one of those strange developers, I can definitely pick out my rodinal negatives from a pile of prints (or scans). Otherwise, there are only subtle differences.

IanG

2-Feb-2010, 11:36

It would be a great project to study all the film/developer combinations. Perhaps someone would like to volunteer :)

With regard to Pyrocat HD developer and a variety of films, Professor King does a fine job - with detailed senistometric illustrations - in his article here (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/pcat.html) on the Unblinking Eye web site. It's articulate and rigorous enough to please the most fastidious among us, I suspect. Meanwhile, if I find something better, I'll switch.

After purchasing it pre-mixed from Photographer's Formulary for several years, I now mix my own, making things even more affordable.

As for an example, here's a shot from just the other day: 5x7 FP4+, Pyrocat HD. Plus 1 development.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/tulips-01-2010.jpg

Ken, I'd volunteer if you provide the film, but I'd need rather a lot :D

My database of developers already has over 600 and there's heaps more to add, I've not even looked at what's maybe in the two Steve Anchell books, that I haven't already got.

Luckily many are so similar it's more a case of looking at the more unusual, and digging up some lost in the mists of time, Like a 1927 EK Research Laboratory Fine Grain developer, that's remarkably similar to Grant Haist's H76, published as a Fine Grainstill films developer when D76 was first being recommended for Motion picture films.

Ian

Drew Wiley

2-Feb-2010, 12:16

Lovely tulip Ken, but it's that slight twist of the leaf in front that I especially like.

tgtaylor

2-Feb-2010, 12:21

Beautiful image Ken! Upon awaking this morning I put away several rolls of 120 and 135 C-41 films (Ektar and Fuji 160C) that I shot on recent photo walks and processed last night. They looked beautiful as I hung them up to dry and just as good when I took them down this morning. I left the house thinking how great color film is. But your image brought back how good B&W film is if executed correctly. It's great having both!

For a number of years I used D-76 exclusively then switched to Xtol which IMO is a "better" developer. However several months ago I used D-76 to develop Rollie and Ilford IR film because Xtol wasn't among the recommended developers in Rollie tech sheet. I also processed some regular B&W with is (Tmax and Acros) and was very impressed with D-76 at 1:1. Not as good as Xtol at 1:1 but you couldn't go wrong using only D-76.

It's good to experiment and I'm going to be trying new developers.

Jack Dahlgren

2-Feb-2010, 12:27

OK, experts, step right up here and explain something to me. I've been using D76 developer exclusively since I started - of course, because it's the stuff they used at film school. But so many threads speak of Xtol, pyro, HC110, dual developers, etc...

When I started out, the recommendation was to stick with one chemical and learn how to use it. OK, I think I've got D76 down. What next?

Is there some place I can look that gives a clear description of the unique characteristics of different soups (yeah, I know, the Internet...:rolleyes: ), perhaps providing photo examples of their properties?

I think that in many cases the differences are subtle and there are two many different permutations of films/developers/photographer expertise/subject matter to give an easy and definitive answer.

I like xtol because it is easy, not nearly as toxic as some others and fairly cheap. It gives me more speed and finer grain than d76. I can't speak for anything else.

Bruce Watson

2-Feb-2010, 12:31

Is there some place I can look that gives a clear description of the unique characteristics of different soups (yeah, I know, the Internet...:rolleyes: )...

Film Developing Cookbook. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/186416-REG/Focal_Press_9780240802770__Book_The_Film_Developing.html)

IanG

2-Feb-2010, 13:21

Steve Anchell's more recent book "The Darkroom Cookbook (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/585995-REG/Focal_Press_9780240810553_Book_The_Darkroom_Cookbook_.html)" 3rd Edition is far more authoritative and accurate, and also up to date (released last year).

There are sections by Sandy King, and others on developers like Pyrocat etc, and Steve's explanations are well written & easy to grasp if you're new to the subject.

Ian

welly

2-Feb-2010, 13:37

JR Steel

2-Feb-2010, 14:01

I'm having to use what I can get my hands on, which appears to be solely Ilford LC29. Not sure what the deal is for importing chemicals into New Zealand is, something I'll have to explore. Still, I'm pretty happy with LC29, it works nicely for the shots I've been taking. I probably need to experiment with it a little more though, at the moment I'm sticking to the guidelines :) If film wasn't so expensive here, I'd be at it all the time!

Makes me consider how fortunate we photographers who live in the States are for the breadth of choices at reasonable cost we have. But then you have such a distinctive and sublime landscape. JR

Drew Wiley

2-Feb-2010, 14:10

I guess I should venture out into the hornet's nest - since everyone has their favorite
developers, but I do believe if you're trying to stretch your wings and go from a conventional developer to a high-performance one, you'll get the most bang for the buck if you use a staining developer. Printing is sooooo much easier! There are two
basic scools to this which are quite well refined, with plenty of how-to information.
Based of Pyrogallol, you've got Gordon Hutchings PMK approach, and based on Pyrocat
you've got Sandy Kings various tweaks. Each category has a strong following, and
either variety is very rewarding and capable of producing more easily printable negatives. The exact method you develop your negs is sometimes the deciding factor
(drums vs tray etc), as well as your favorite film per se, and whether you enlarge or
contact print. But these various "pyro" developers are well worth the learning curve.
I'll never go back to D76 for general subject matter.

Lachlan 717

2-Feb-2010, 21:25

Makes me consider how fortunate we photographers who live in the States are for the breadth of choices at reasonable cost we have. But then you have such a distinctive and sublime landscape. JR

And you don't fear getting shot there whilst using a light meter...

Athiril

3-Feb-2010, 04:33

I agree, we have Xtol, why are there threads on D76 for? Just throw it in the bin!

:)

Anyway I use pretty much just Xtol and Rodinal and sometimes together! and random concotions I mix up from raw chemicals.

Rodinal works amazing with table salt, esp as a colour neg first developer before colour processing.

Armin Seeholzer

3-Feb-2010, 05:05

I like xtol because it is easy, not nearly as toxic as some others and fairly cheap. It gives me more speed and finer grain than d76. I can't speak for anything else.

I just sign this to, Armin

csant

3-Feb-2010, 05:21

Rodinal works amazing with table salt, esp as a colour neg first developer before colour processing.

Any more details on this, please?

Athiril

3-Feb-2010, 06:41

Rodinal 1+25, +5g of table salt (non-iodised!) per 300ml (16.7g per litre) of 1+25 working solution, 24c, 8-9min, plenty of agitation.

(NB: Do NOT use this as a first developer for colour reversal processing, Rodinal is a weak colour developer and you will get black or solarised slides 1+25 is too strong for reversal)

Then fix, followed by colour bleach, then re-expose to light, then colour develop, I use Kodak E6 Colour Developer, you can also use C41 developer, wash steps in between everything of course.

(NB: You can also use C41 developer as a colour developer in the reversal process, the colours seem good on E6 films, but a bit wacky or very blue on C41 as a slide, conversely E6 CD gives very nice colours on C41 film as either reversal or neg).

Best results from this are generally at Box ISO speed + 1/3 faster.

It gives very good box speed results, but if you shoot it slower than box speed, it gives very shitty results. And pretty good box speed +2 stops faster results, reasonable +3 results.

Ie: Some expired germam supermarket 200 ISO film was great 200, pretty good at 400 and 800, reasonable at 1600, and kinda dodgy at both 3200 and 100.

Brian Ellis

3-Feb-2010, 07:51

I'm like you, I used D76 almost exclusively for about 15 years. I tried PMK, did extensive testing comparing identical photographs developed in D76 and PMK and found no difference in the prints. I used Rodinal a few times, it was o.k. I think that's about the extent of my experimentation, good old D76 always seemed to work fine with HP5+ and TMax 100 film.

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.

So when I say I used D76 exclusively for a long time I'm not knocking those who use different developers for different films or subjects, I just didn't think it was necessary for what I do. Or maybe it was necessary but I didn't think the effect was sufficiently important to justify the difficulty of doing the serious testing along the lines of what Phil Davis did.

ki6mf

3-Feb-2010, 16:28

Second what GeM singer said at the end of his post "BTW, if D-76 is giving you pleasing results"

At New England School of Photography we tested many film developer combination's and came to the conclusion once you learn how to manipulate contrast by altering developing development times and using various combination's of dilution you will come out with a very similar image regardless of materials used.

I know other developers do great things. I think its more important to learn the craft than move to different combination's of film and chemistry. By all means change when it suits your vision.

As Gem said if your are pleased with the results......

Drew Wiley

3-Feb-2010, 17:05

Selective image stain allows you to control the way highlights versus shadows print in a manner in which no simple change in dilution or time variable will. There are some
people who work all their life with a single film/developer combination, or at least as long as it stays on the market, and get wonderful results. But there is no myth to the
hype of pyro. The results are definite, over and over again. If not, you're either doing
something wrong or printing a class of negatives which don't need this kind of help.
More likely, you just don't realize how much tricky fussing around during the printing
phase can in fact be controlled at the developing step. I am reminded of this every
time I reach for an old negative that was processed in a conventional developer -
it's just more work, or sometimes I even have to resort to an unsharp silver mask to
get all the detail where I want it. And don't go telling me PS is the answer. That's ten
times more work for conspicuously lower final print quality, unless you just want a
digital neg for an alternative process. I do keep D76 on hand, as well as HC-110, and
about half a dozen other developers. But for my general work, I haven't found any
worthy substitute for the popular pyro options. And there are a lot of highly experienced folks out there who share this opinion. Not a silver bullet, but damn close!

Andre Noble

3-Feb-2010, 18:56

Negatives developed in a pyro developer such as Wimberley's WD2D+ are much easier to print, and show beautiful, refined gradation in the highlights whereas the same negative developed in D76 is a bear to print, and has clipped highlights in the print.

However, traditional developers such as Rodinal work very well with negatives shot on oversast day or very low contrast such as indoor incandescent lighting (I would imagine).

So every photographer should make use of these two basic types of B&W developers:

D76/Xtol/Rodinal (overcast day, indoor high speed film) and PMK/Pyrocat/WD2D+ (outdoor in full sunlight, studio lighting)

jnantz

3-Feb-2010, 19:02

maybe there are so many developers because
as they say " variety is the spice of life" ?

N Dhananjay

3-Feb-2010, 20:27

Truth be told, I suspect many developers evolved out of the necessity to serve smaller formats. The tradeoffs between speed, grain, acutance, contrast, H-D curve shape etc can be fairly severe on small formats being enlarged considerably and so you have a huge range of developers walking that radeoff line at different points. Larger formats forgive quite a few sins and developer choice is perhaps less crucial. In other words, I think it is substantially true in large formats that you get 90% of the distance in the learning phase by sticking to one developer and learning how to get process under control and how to tweak various controls. However, even in larger formats, developer choice can make a visible difference, especially with curve shape and acutance effects. Cheers, DJ

welly

3-Feb-2010, 23:30

Does anyone have any experience with/thoughts about Foma Fomadon LQN? Just found out my local photography shop supplies this as well as LC29.

sanking

4-Feb-2010, 07:14

Anyone who seriously believes that there is no difference in developers (and how they are used) should have a look at the images and technical information posted by Alex Wei in another thread on this forum. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=52913&page=14

Andrew used a relatively simple developer and method that resulted in capture of an extremely long subject brightness range. It is not that this result could not be repeated with another developer, but that doing so would normally require extensive pre-testing of the film, and careful notation of the subject brightness range of the film to determine development. Yet in this case Andrew used a remarkably simple method that only required accurate initial exposure and a simple two-bath method of development. I have seen 8-10 page articles describing procedures for dealing with very high contrast scenes that are very complicated to test and execute and don't work nearly so well as this simple two-bath method with Pyrocat. And another advantage with Pyrocat is that you get very high acutance with this method, as high if not higher than I have seen with minimal agitation methods of development.

Sandy King

Drew Wiley

4-Feb-2010, 10:25

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

4-Feb-2010, 13:53

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

4-Feb-2010, 16:55

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

4-Feb-2010, 17:18

"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 (http://www.photoformulary.com/uploads/01-5080.pdf), calls for Phenidone.

Louie Powell

4-Feb-2010, 17:27

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

4-Feb-2010, 17:57

I drive a Subaru and use HC110.

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

Brian Ellis

4-Feb-2010, 18:24

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.