Comparison of developers (D76, DD-X, Ultrafin Plus) - large/long image warning!

[welly]

I've been having a few problems lately with a film/developer/developing method combination. I've been using Fomapan 100 with D76 and BTZS tubes for the past 3 or so months and have been getting some really bad results. It's been rather disheartening. I've been unsure if it was me, the film or something else. I know in the past I've had no problem developing TMax 100 so have decided to stick with that film for the time being - I like it a lot anyway so it's no hardship. Plus it's very purchasable round here and fairly cheap ($85 for a box of 50 sheets). So, on going back to TMax 100, I wanted to do some testing.

I shot and developed these last night, using manufacturer recommended times. Developers I used were: Kodak D-76, Ilfotec DD-X and Ultrafin Plus. The film was TMax 100 which I shot at 64 ISO and 100 ISO.

This is obviously not a scientific test but wanted to see what, if any, practical differences could be seen using different developers.

I've not really come to any conclusions yet, with the exception of DD-X looking a bit sharper than D-76 (I didn't apply any sharpening to the scans). The DD-X negatives actually looked much thinner than they scanned in - D-76 and Ultrafin Plus negatives were far more "full". That said, DD-X seems to have a better(I'm looking for the word!) range of tones or perhaps a smoother transition between tones than perhaps Ultrafin does (again, this definitely not scientific!) - if you look at the apple and orange in the middle of the scene, to my eyes there are mid-tones in those pieces of fruit that don't appear in the Ultrafin scans.

To be honest, I didn't know what to expect - whether there to be vast and significant differences between the negatives or not. The differences are quite a bit more subtle than I expected though, but perhaps it's the subject matter? I'm not sure if I expected to develop the negatives and say "that's clearly D76" or "that one is DD-X!" - perhaps some of you recognise the subtleties of the different developers more than I can.

If nothing else, what I have got out of this is I think I need to shoot my TMax 100 at 64ISO rather than 100.

I'd welcome any comments or insights if you have any!

D-76


DD-X


Ultrafin Plus

[BarryS]

Your results look like what I'd expect. TMX is best shot at an EI of 50-64 in my experience. You can see how you're losing shadow detail at EI 100 and that's typical. For the most part, differences between popular developers are subtle. Manufacturer's recommended times are only a starting point, so there may even be less of difference than what you observed--especially with regard to density. Unless you develop the film to comparable dmax values in each developer, it's tough to make comparisons.

For 4x5, I think the extra cost of TMX is well worth it. Fomapan films have poor quality control and incredibly bad reciprocity characteristics--either of which could have been giving you problems.

[Corran]

Is Ultrafine Plus the T-Max Developer substitute?

[Mark Barendt]

If you are looking for a magic bullet here, it doesn't exist, DD-X is my favorite but a lot of that is purely about convenience, D76 is no slouch.

With D76 add a bit more exposure and the shadow detail will fall in line.

[Lenny Eiger]

I don't want to be critical or mean, but I don't see that you have identified any difference. I am not blind, but what I see here is simply a little bit more or less shadow detail and a little bit more or less contrast.

Shadow detail is controlled by the exposure. You could certainly expose any of the films a little less or a little longer. You could certainly develop a little longer in any of the developers to increase the contrast. The difference in the D-76 test is that the ISO is developed quite a bit longer. I would guess you had some agitation difference or a little variation in temperature.

You were looking for "practical differences". I would suggest this is not enough of a criteria to test. Perhaps you know what you are looking for, you just aren't communicating it fully to us.

It doesn't have to be technical... I wanted to know whether Delta and TMax and TMY2 could be as smooth and delicious as a 25 speed traditional, film. I got one of those glass balls from the photosecession and placed it in still life scene, made lots of exposures, developed them at various times until they all matched and looked at the results. I did see that all the films could reproduce a very delicate lighting setup, smooth from end to end.

Since I am scanning the film, I want as much tightly packed grain as I can get. This may or may not be important to you... A much larger zoom would tell us more about the difference in the developers. In addition, perfectly matched contrast ranges would tell us about the spread of tones in the midtones, if there is any difference.

I would suggest you add Delta and Acros to your choices when you are ready, they are both fine films. I also like Xtol these days, much better than the choices you made... but that's just me...

Good luck,

Lenny

[Mark Barendt]

I would actually suggest that tMax, Delta, or Acros in D76, XTol, or DD-X combined with some practice will work just fine for most subject matter.

All these can get you where you need to go. The wild card s you.

[Tim Povlick]

Hi Wely,

Thanks for you efforts and sharing results. The ISO-64 D76 did impressive results. I assume this was near reality as to what the eye was seeing. The ISO 64 & DDX also did well. Did you use D76 out of the yellow envelopes or roll your own? I've read mixing D76 from scratch one can get better results as there are not the sequestering agents present in stock chems to condition the variety of water that could be used.

Agree with Lenny about Delta 100 test, love to see that comparison.


Best Regards,

Tim

[welly]

I don't want to be critical or mean, but I don't see that you have identified any difference. I am not blind, but what I see here is simply a little bit more or less shadow detail and a little bit more or less contrast.

Shadow detail is controlled by the exposure. You could certainly expose any of the films a little less or a little longer. You could certainly develop a little longer in any of the developers to increase the contrast. The difference in the D-76 test is that the ISO is developed quite a bit longer. I would guess you had some agitation difference or a little variation in temperature.

You were looking for "practical differences". I would suggest this is not enough of a criteria to test. Perhaps you know what you are looking for, you just aren't communicating it fully to us.

It doesn't have to be technical... I wanted to know whether Delta and TMax and TMY2 could be as smooth and delicious as a 25 speed traditional, film. I got one of those glass balls from the photosecession and placed it in still life scene, made lots of exposures, developed them at various times until they all matched and looked at the results. I did see that all the films could reproduce a very delicate lighting setup, smooth from end to end.

Since I am scanning the film, I want as much tightly packed grain as I can get. This may or may not be important to you... A much larger zoom would tell us more about the difference in the developers. In addition, perfectly matched contrast ranges would tell us about the spread of tones in the midtones, if there is any difference.

I would suggest you add Delta and Acros to your choices when you are ready, they are both fine films. I also like Xtol these days, much better than the choices you made... but that's just me...

Good luck,

Lenny

Hi Lenny,

You're totally correct, that is pretty much what I'm seeing too - more/less contrast and shadow detail. To be honest, I'm not sure what I was expecting, if anything. Well, I was expecting something but what, I have no idea to be honest! I was waiting to be surprised more than anything. When they came out I thought, "they look exactly how I expected/hoped them to look when I took the photo", which is something I guess and perhaps what I should be aiming to achieve.

If nothing else, I now know/feel I should be shooting TMax at ISO 64 and any of those developers will get me pretty much to where I want to be. And I've got six negatives of my fruit bowl.

[welly]

Hi Wely,

Thanks for you efforts and sharing results. The ISO-64 D76 did impressive results. I assume this was near reality as to what the eye was seeing. The ISO 64 & DDX also did well. Did you use D76 out of the yellow envelopes or roll your own? I've read mixing D76 from scratch one can get better results as there are not the sequestering agents present in stock chems to condition the variety of water that could be used.

Agree with Lenny about Delta 100 test, love to see that comparison.


Best Regards,

Tim

Hi Tim,

All the ISO 64 results are pretty much exactly how I saw it so I've got that out of this test at least! I used D76 out of the pack. I've attached some 100% crops of the scans I made (all at 800 dpi) of the ISO 64 exposed shots.

D76


DD-X


Ultrafin


Again, not scientific so there was plenty of room for error but the DD-X plus looks a reasonably bit sharper to me. I'm pretty much happy with all of them though. I'll probably end up picking the most economical option for my developer of choice from this point onwards!

Cheers

[Ian Greenhalgh]

One thing you might want to try with TMAX 100 is to rate it at 50 and develop in Microdol-X or Perceptol diluted 1:3, cut times by 20%. I find this gives me a very wide tonal range with increased shadow and highlight detail and tiny grain. I still prefer Agfa APX100 and Ilford FP4+ to TMAX 100 as I find TMAX, while having less grain, has less creamy tonality.

Fomapan 100 is excellent imho, I have used it with D76 and the combo worked well, what was the problem you were having?