Return to B&W, some advice needed

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

After almost 15 years, I am planning on doing a large portrait project in black and white with my 5x7, some enlarged and some contact printed, using both natural light and 5500K fluorescent lights. In preparation, I have bought a Jobo 3006 drum to use with a motor base from my Cibachrome days. I plan on using Ilford HP5 (cost and speed), but am unsure which developer to use.

Due to toxicity I can't use Pyro based developers. For this reason I am leaning towards Xtol, but am a bit concerned about its failures. Are these still a concern? Other suggestions for a developer for use with HP5 and rotary tube are appreciated.

[Gem Singer]

Hi Jason,

For rotary development of Ilford HP-5+, I would use Ilford ID-11, at the 1+1 dilution.

Microphen, and (my favorite) DD-X, are great developers for HP-5+, but not when using rotary (continuous) agitation, in my experience.

[Bruce Watson]

I develop 4x5 Tri-X with XTOL 1:3 using a Jobo CPP2 and Expert 3010 drum. Consistently excellent results. I've never had any kind of problem from XTOL let alone a failure. It's pretty sharp, and produces reasonably fine grain as well. And, if you are worried about toxicity, XTOL is about as safe as you can get. YMMV, but I think if you run some tests, you'll end up liking what XTOL has to offer.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Eugene why don't you like DD-X for HP-5 in a rotary processor? I was going to test this combo out and I want to know what problems you have had.

[tim atherton]

"Microphen, and (my favorite) DD-X, are great developers for HP-5+, but not when using rotary (continuous) agitation, in my experience."

I've found it to be much nicer for rotary processing at a 1:9 dilution (though normal dilution wasn't exactly "horendous")

[tim atherton]

That's for DD-X

[Hans Berkhout]

I have seen results from DD-X, ID-11, etc and tonality wise they are excellent. Personally I like FG-7 because it gives me plenty of speed, besides the great tonality. It may come down to ready availability in your area.

[Bruce Watson]

Jason,

My understanding is that both Microphen and DD-X are HQ developers. That is, they are phenidone and hydroquinone based developers. The hydroquinone makes them more toxic than XTOL.

If XTOL bothers you, but you still want the low toxicity of an ascorbate developer like XTOL, you could always go with Patterson's FX-50:

http://www.patersonphotographic.com/chemistry/fx50testreport.pdf

Then again, you could always try "the standard by which all other developers are judged." [Anchell and Troop, "The Film Developing Cookbook," 1998, Focal Press, p39] That "standard" is D-76, undiluted or 1:1. I'd go with 1:1 for rotary processing.

[Bruce Watson]

Jason,

I forgot this resource that you might want to look at:

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol/

This will tell you more about XTOL, its history, and alternatives you might consider than you would ever really want to know. Covington is nothing is not through.

[David Mark]

I use DD-X for my rotary processing (BTZS tubes) of HP5+, and like the combination very much. My dilution is 1:6.

I don't think you will have any problem with XTOL, though. Most of the failures seem to have been related to the long-since discontinued one liter packages.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've never ever had any problems with HP5+ in XTOL even when the 1 litre packages were around. HP5+ responds very well in this developer with lots of development latitude, very nice tonalities, and sharp fine grain. Stock solution also keeps very well. It works well straight from the bottle, 1+1, 1+2 and 1+3. Just watch your volumes when diluting the stock. I always make sure I have a minimum of 100ml of stock. I rotary process 4x5 and 8x10 in BTZS tubes. For the past the past 6 months I've been using Pyrocat-HD. HP5+ is lovely in this conconction! Especially stand development! And heaps cheaper!

[Jon_2416]

I love HC110 @ 1:45 for HP5+ in my Unicolor drum. Stuff lasts for ever in the concentrate form--I use it single shot.

See here:

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/index.html

And to do a little editing on Hogarth's comment:

"Covington is nothing if not thorough."

[steve simmons]

Due to toxicity I can't use Pyro based developers.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Pyro developers are not as toxic as some of the scare mongers would have you believe. If you buy the PMK in A and B solutions the poweders are already mixed. If you are doing rollfilm in tanks, FP4+ is wonderful in PMK, you need not come in any contact with the solution. If you tray process sheet film as I do wear rubber gloves. I've done it for 26 years.

steve simmons

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I appreciate all the advice given so far.

As for why I won't use pyro, I live in New York, and my apartment is small. My darkroom also does double duty as a bathroom (although some seem to think believe that it is the otherway around). My concern with pyro is not for myself, but for my child, who spends much more time near the ground (close to the ineveitable spills) than I. If I had a dedicated darkroom, then I would probably try pyro, however at the moment it would be pretty irresponsible of me.

I have a lot of practice with chemical safety. I am a daguerreotypist, and work with mercury, iodine, and other noxious, corrosive, and stupifying chemicals. I do so in a separate studio, with a fume hood, but alas, no running water. A real danger with many chemicals, especially mercury, is spills. The same goes with pyro. A spill, even a splash will dry and turn back to powder, easily inhaled or (for children) eaten.

[Philippe Gauthier]

Another vote vote HC-110, dilution B, 6 minutes. I recently switched from Rodinal and I don't regret it. This combo is often recommended in 35mm format to minimize grain. I have no experience with the other products. Many people also use DD-X or ID-11 and seem to be satisfied.

If you're an infrequent user, you'll probably pefer HC-110; it will keep up to five years if you don't dilute it (use it straight, without making a "stock" solution first). If space is limited, the small bottle rather than the "stock" gallon is probably a good practical argument, too.