B&W Developers... waddya know???

ChrisR

ChrisR

I'm a well known grump...
Messages
11,251
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been developing my own black and white films for a couple of years, but I've only used Ilfosol 3 so far. It was what was on offer in the shop where I bought my first set of chemicals, and when the first bottle was finishing I simply bought some more. Now that bottle is also finishing, and I need to decide whether to just stick with what I know, or venture into trying something new.

I mostly use Tri-X but in the past year I have used Delta 100 and 400, FP4+ and Acros 100. I also have a roll of Pan-F.

A lot of people use Rodinal or equivalent, with stand or semi-stand developing, but that's not an option for me since I use a Rondinax daylight tank to overcome manual difficulties with my right hand.

I'm not even sure I understand what the criteria should be. So far there is obviously usability (so one-shot from liquid has a real advantage), toxicity and smell factor, storability, life before going off (and indication of going off) and so on. I've also seen reference to contrast (-iness), tendency to enhance or decrease grain, "sharpness" and "acutance", which I don't understand. Also, "tonal range". Any more?

There's a blog written by a guy called Richard Pickup, who may be a photography lecturer, and who has articles on this sort of topic. He also has a "pebble project" (see gallery); he has built a standardised scene with a bunch of pebbles glued to a board and he photographs these with various films and processes them with different developers. To be honest, I can't see that much of a difference! You can easily find plenty of other people saying this, that or the other developer is the bees knees (ID-11 seems to be a favourite with some folk), but, well, you are the folks I know best, and I can more easily ask for clarification!

So, I'd welcome some discussion on the characteristics of various black and white developers, with what you think their advantages and disadvantages are, in respect of these and any other important criteria.
 
Kodak HC-110 might be worth considering if you want long shelf life of the concentrate - it's known for it, and is reputed to last years. It's quite concentrated and syrupy, and small amounts are better measured using a syringe (decant into a small bottle so that the syringe can reach). It's also very linear with regard to changing the dilution and adjusting the time - ie, mix it up at half strength and double the developing time. Lots of info here...

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

A couple of things in particular to note...

Use at least 6ml of concentrate to be sure it doesn't exhaust during development. Make up more fluid if necessary. Dilution B (1+31) is fine for one 35mm roll at around 300ml, but the bigger dilutions can get close for smaller quantities of working solution.

There's the 'US concentrate' and the 'European concentrate'. The latter is weaker and I believe comes in 600ml bottles. If I remember correctly, the US concentrate works out cheaper and comes in 1L bottles.

Mixing up stock solution (1+4, I think) isn't very common - it has reduced shelf life and doesn't seem to offer anything other than probably being a bit easier to mix into working solution (less viscous, so just pour into a graduate like normal). I just keep a 100ml medicine bottle topped up with concentrate and use a syringe, and it's never been any real hassle. My bottle/syringe combination can do about 5 dev tankfulls before I need to top up.
 
ID11 or D76 are very much 'standard' developers.

Rodinol works very well. There is no need to use either stand or semi-stand development with Rodinol. I use it with standard agitation (four inversions every minute) which will not work with your Rondinax tank but you can compensate for the continuous agitation by reducing the development time. Rodinol gives more grain than the likes of ID11/D76 which I personally like. In recent years, I have only used ID11 and Rodinol.

You can forget acutance effects with your set-up as they rely on reduced agitation. Graininess and contrast can be manipulated by varying the dilution. Increasing development time will increase contrast (and vice versa).
 
Last edited:
I'm all about grain, and not having any.
I'm not down with any of the one shots really, I've used Ilfosol, LC29, Rodinal, FD10, I've got some HC110 right now which I've used, bought mainly for emergencies.
I'd only use one of those if I didn't have what I actually want to use, and it was an emergency..lol
So from a limiting grain perspective...Xtol, Perceptol, ID11/D76, all powders, which isn't gonna mesh well with a low volume one roll tank, but what can ya do.

Actually, what about D76, can't that be bought in 2ltr mixes or something

Either way, you won't see me breaking out all my dev gear for 2 rolls of 35, if I can't use 5L of dev, it aint happnin...:D
 
Thanks folks, for the comments so far.

HC110 does look interesting. @Nomad Z what did you mean by "Use at least 6ml of concentrate to be sure it doesn't exhaust during development"? There were also some odd comments in the page you pointed to about not doing dev times of less than 5 minutes (so go to the H half concentration if that was a risk). Do you get US or European versions of HC110 in the UK?

@john.margetts which version of Rodinal do you use? R09? I read somewhere that some modern versions can go off very quickly. Which makes the R09 soft pack that @srichards pointed to quite interesting. Comments on that were good. The comment on the D74 version was encouraging on grain but not on shadow detail, suggesting that Acros needed shooting at 50!

BTW @john.margetts with the Rondinax I reduce Massive Dev Chart times by 85% 15% (EDIT ie to 85% of the published times); for Ilfosol 3 it seems to work, although I'm not confident I'm getting all the contrast I could (at least at the scan stage).

@joxby I have always liked the results from Peak (and lately Filmdev) who both use XTOL. Can it be made up and used as a one-shot?
 
Last edited:
1. You reduce Massive Dev Chart times by 85% or to 85%?
2. You can make it up and use it as one shot but it doesn't keep very well, at the volumes your deving, you'd probably only get through 1 of 5 liters of the stuff before the risk of failure becomes too high....I dunno, it doesn't go a funny colour or anything when its off, you'd have to clip test every time you used it after a certain amount of time.
I wait till I have 10 or 20 films to dev, and use the whole packet of Xtol, whatevers left of the 5 liters it makes, I chuck, I've messed enough rolls of film up with naff chems.
3. I'm starting a donation thread to buy you a proper tank so you can stop faffin about with that Rodunax thing....:D
 
There is nothing wrong with a Rondinax, it just requires adaptation. Reducing development time by 85% seems a bit excessive but then I cannot see your negatives. If contrast is lacking, I would increase development time as increased contrast is the main result of doing that. If that causes too much density, you could try turning the Rondinax wheel more slowly as well as increasing the development time.
 
How about, in the interest of Fusty Crusty Science, and for the greater good, trying a staining developer...:banana:
 
There's nothing I can really add to what's been said. To all intents and purposes, I've only used two developers over the 58 years or so I've been developing: Unitol, a proprietary developer with no published formula and no longer made, and Agfa Rodinal. Both have/had the same two properties that I value above all others (being lazy); liquid for ease of making up, and one shot, so no messing about with replenishers or adjusted developing times. The big caveat I'd add is that if I were using 35mm, I wouldn't touch Rodinal, as the grain would bother me. With medium and large format, it's not a problem. Note also that I specified the Agfa variant of Rodinal - I stocked up when it because clear that it would go, and the Agfa version has good keeping properties. Having said that, I expect that the next film will reveal that it's finally gone off!

Acutance effects are caused by adjacency effects; a highlight area will have more silver to develop, and will exhaust the developer more quickly than a shadow area. In the absence of any agitation, fresher developer will diffuse in across the boundary from the shadow to the highlight, slowing development; and the reverse effect from highlight to shadow will promote shadow density at the boundary. The final effect is the same as unsharp mask in Photoshop - an increase in contrast around the edges. Continuous agitation will prevent this.

Developers generally are classed as fine grain (often with a loss of film speed), acutance (as above), speed increasing (more grain usually). It's all a trade off, with D76/ID11 being usually reckoned as the best overall balance. I've never used either due to an aversion to powders.

The main differences I've experienced have been increased grain (but extra sharpness) with Rodinal. The one developer I used that really did produce a very visible difference in the prints was Acutol (an acutance developer no longer available) where the stonework on the walls of a church looked almost three dimensional in the print.

I suspect that using larger negatives does make it much harder for me to spot differences, as the degree of enlargement is so much smaller than with 35mm.
 
ChrisR said:
Thanks folks, for the comments so far.

HC110 does look interesting. @Nomad Z what did you mean by "Use at least 6ml of concentrate to be sure it doesn't exhaust during development"? There were also some odd comments in the page you pointed to about not doing dev times of less than 5 minutes (so go to the H half concentration if that was a risk). Do you get US or European versions of HC110 in the UK?
Click to expand...

Regarding the minimum amount of concentrate, my understanding is that the available chemical in the liquid can become exhausted if it's too dilute, presumably leading to underdevelopment. It's notable that Kodak don't cover this in the table of dilutions and development times in the datasheet, but the larger dilutions all list much larger quantities of working solution (presumably proper lab-sized vats of the stuff). Making up a larger quantity of working solution means that, with agitation, you're more likely to keep putting active developer onto the film. I'm pretty sure this would apply to any developer (I can't think of a reason why not).

The thing about short dev times is, I believe, related to the fact that HC-110 is quite an active developer - fast acting. That may or may not be fine, but there's a risk of poor development if your agitation regime isn't consistent, or maybe over/under development if your timings are less than ideal. For example, the CombiPlan 5x4 tank is slow to fill and empty, such that the time to do those stages could be a significant part of a short dev time. By using a more dilute working solution to extend dev time, the proportion of the cycle that's taken up with filling and emptying is reduced, thus mitigating whatever potential issue there might be with a shorter dev time. Same idea with agitation - longer time means more agitation cycles, so the effect of any errors is reduced.

The full strength stuff is certainly available in the UK. I don't recall seeing the European version here, but it is possible. So far as I'm aware, the 1L bottles are only the full strength (may also be available in 500ml, while the EU stuff is 600ml).

As I see it, the main plusses for HC-110 are: shelf life of concentrate, versatility due to the range of possible dilutions and linear relationship with dev times, and economy.

I just did some 5x4 negs in HC-110 that's dated 2009 and they look nice and punchy. I used dilution L (1+49) for 9 minutes, agitate for first minute, then 10 secs each minute thereafter). That's concentrate that's 8 years old in a bottle which was about 2/3rds full, with no effort made to exclude air (hadn't used it for ages, and I needed to clean out oxidised crap from the top of the bottle when I restarted the developing lark). I used to do Tri-X in this dilution as well (same time and agitation), and always had good results. (Dilution L is my own, chosen for easy mental arithmetic when mixing - divide the required quantity of working solution by 100 and double the result. Called it L because that's the Roman numeral for 50 - 1+49 = 50 parts in total.) Dilution L also happens to add up to exactly 6ml of concentrate for a 300ml batch of working solution. At 6ml a pop for 35mm, a 1L bottle will do 158 rolls, costing approximately 16 pennies per roll if you pay 25 quid for a bottle.
 
Last edited:
Just one comment at the mo... yes, I was an idiot, times reduced by 15% to 85% of published times. I have attempted to correct the earlier post in a way that doesn't make the subsequent comments look out of place!
 
Not much to add to what others have said, but for my 2p with I settled on Ilford LC29 for most of my processing, when I returned to home developing a few years ago after a long break. I have in the past used D76/ID11, HC110, Paterson Acutol and Aculux, (in the really distant past. All had pros and cons. I like LC29 because it's a one shot and I like to use and then dispose. Given all the variables involved in making an image I thought standardising my general developer and using a one shot removed one of the many variables. After using it for a few years I have found its is a good general-purpose developer, although not so good for pushing. I should say I mainly use Tri-X, HP5, Shanghai GP3, Fomapan 100 and FP4. When I rate HP5 or Tri-X at twice box speed or more I use Ilford DD-X. This has been my "pushing' developer for 2-3 years. So just two chems in my darkroom kit!
 
Last edited:
As a curve ball, just for fun the answers above are probably better, I started using a catchecol staining developer a couple of years ago. I bought this primarily as a strong compensating developer for my night scenes but its proven more than capable for everything I throw at it. The one I use is called Obsidian Aqua and needs to be brewed from raw chemicals and does not like constant agitation so its out for you but Pyrocat is similar and mixed in glycol and not water so it doesn't oxidise the same way and should work with roational developing.
 
steveo_mcg said:
As a curve ball, just for fun the answers above are probably better, I started using a catchecol staining developer a couple of years ago. I bought this primarily as a strong compensating developer for my night scenes but its proven more than capable for everything I throw at it. The one I use is called Obsidian Aqua and needs to be brewed from raw chemicals and does not like constant agitation so its out for you but Pyrocat is similar and mixed in glycol and not water so it doesn't oxidise the same way and should work with roational developing.
Click to expand...
That sounds a bit too 'Harry Potter' for me. :)

I like one shot stuff, nice and simple - like me.
 
desf said:
That sounds a bit too 'Harry Potter' for me. :)

I like one shot stuff, nice and simple - like me.
Click to expand...

tbf I made up the last batch 2.5 years ago and since then its just a matter of drawing 2ml of solution and 15ml of b, its a simple one shot once mixed.
 
OK, so just thinking about the economy aspect of what's been suggested above... happened to have Firstcall's web site open, so these prices are simply taken from there. I use 200 ml of developer in the Rondinax...

Firstcall R09 softpack: 500 ml for £10.39, looks like usually 1+24 or more, so 60+ films = 17p per film

HC110: 1l for £34.99, dilution B would give ~150 films (allowing for some wastage) = 23p per film

Ilfosol 3: 500 ml for £8.59, I use 1+9 so 24 films = 34p per film (benchmark)

LC 29: 500 ml for £21.29, looks like usually 1+19 so 50 films = 43p per film

ID11: powder for 1l £5.99, looks like it's about 1+1 mostly, so only 10 films = 60p per film (cheaper with the 5l pack, but then there's a humungous bottle to store)

... and just for fun...

XTOL: powder for 5l £13,69, looks like 1+1, so 50 films if one-shot = 27p per film

Interesting! I'm probably ruling the R09 out for now because of grain, but might buy some when my Lab-box arrives and I can do some stand development.

So HC110 looks good price-wise, but at 150 films you've got to make a solid commitment... just approacing the end of my second bottle of Ilfosol after a couple of years, so maybe 25 films a year, I'd still be using the HC110 in 6 years! Ilfosol 3 works out quite competitive, but LC 29 isn't that much dearer.

EDIT: assessed dilutions looking at Massive Dev Chart for Tri-X 400 at 400.
 
It would take me about 2 or 3 years to get through 60 films. Would that soft pack survive that long?
 
ChrisR said:
OK, so just thinking about the economy aspect of what's been suggested above... happened to have Firstcall's web site open, so these prices are simply taken from there. I use 200 ml of developer in the Rondinax...
Click to expand...

I happen to use the Firstcall product here http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/firstcall-rhs-d74-dc-film-developer-500ml-softpack/p5527, or actually the Rollei equivalent here http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/rollei-rhs-d74-dc-film-developer-1-litre/p3319 but the main lesson I gather from your price comparison is that the price range runs from very cheap to cheap .... I always say my main photography expense is petrol and it's not worth selecting a developer based on price. Like you Chris, I looked at the pebble scene comparisons and struggled to see a difference in the image characteristics from one developer to another; so in my view developer choice is best based on convenience and shelf life, and also doesn't matter too much.

Edit - my main photography expenses are petrol, parking, and tea and scones - some might substitute beer for the tea and scones.
 
Last edited:
@ChrisR
I could post you a pack of D76 if you want to try it? Makes a litre.

It went out of date in June last year but has been stored in a cool dark place. Should be fine I reckon.
 
desf said:
@ChrisR
I could post you a pack of D76 if you want to try it? Makes a litre.

It went out of date in June last year but has been stored in a cool dark place. Should be fine I reckon.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the offer, Des... I won't take you up on it for the moment, as I'm still inclined to go with a liquid.

Just been reading Ilford various data and guidance sheets, and I see they recommend using LC29 at 1+29 rather than 1+19, which wold reduce the per film cost above to 28p. Although I agree the cost differences are barely relevant.
 
ChrisR said:
Thanks for the offer, Des... I won't take you up on it for the moment, as I'm still inclined to go with a liquid.
Click to expand...

Sure, I understand. I found the making up of the solution from a powder an extra step that wasn't worth the bother. It does make storage a bit easier I suppose.
 
Kevin Allan said:
... the main lesson I gather from your price comparison is that the price range runs from very cheap to cheap .... I always say my main photography expense is petrol and it's not worth selecting a developer based on price. Like you Chris, I looked at the pebble scene comparisons and struggled to see a difference in the image characteristics from one developer to another; so in my view developer choice is best based on convenience and shelf life, and also doesn't matter too much.
Click to expand...

Yes it's interesting that there were few to no comments about the effects of developer choice on image quality, other than the sharpness/acutance/grain issue, and DD-X being particularly suitable for pushing. Has anyone any comment on the effects of their developer choice on things like tonal rendering, whatever that might mean, or perhaps preserving highlights and shadow detail?
 
ChrisR said:
Yes it's interesting that there were few to no comments about the effects of developer choice on image quality, other than the sharpness/acutance/grain issue, and DD-X being particularly suitable for pushing. Has anyone any comment on the effects of their developer choice on things like tonal rendering, whatever that might mean, or perhaps preserving highlights and shadow detail?
Click to expand...

Just that staining developers retain a lot more highlight detail in very extreme contrast situations I've got to the point where I rarely bother metering if I'm using OA I just give it a bit off oomph and trust to latitude and compensation.
 
My experience so far is with Rodinal R09 One Shot (1+50) and Kodak D76 (1+1), both are very easy to use and prepare, the big difference I've noticed so far is about grain. On the same film type, let's say Fomapan 100 (120), R09 results shows more grain and contrast while D76 gives a little bit less contrast but big difference about the reduced grain. I like the D76 results much more than with R09.

Another difference in regards to storage, R09 One Shot comes in liquid form and Kodak D-76 as powder, both need to be prepared by adding water, but I think D-76 will last longer stored as powder in the original envelope than R09 as liquid, even after expiration date.

Once diluted with water, each preparation of the R09 needed for 600cm3 mix (1+50) can be used only one time (some people use it more), and 1 liter of D-76 (1+1) can be used many times.

Hope this helps. :)
 
The very first issue of SIlverprint magazine (which changed its name with the second issue) contained a review of Rodinal. You can find my scans of the article here. There's a comparison with a couple of other developers.
 
I was thinking of doing a poll to see which developers folk on here use. From this thread so far we have these contenders:

(EDIT) Caffenol/ other home brews
Catchecol staining developer (Obsidian Aqua/Pyrocat)
D74
DDX
FD10
HC 110
ID11/D76
Ilfosol 3 (and/or S)
LC 29
(EDIT) Microphen
Perceptol
RO9/Rodinal variants
XTOL

Are there any more that should be on the poll? Other home brews, eg Caffenol?
 
Last edited:
I tried Microphen once but got streaky negs the bottle went off before I had occasion to try again.
 
I tried caffinol once and was amazed by the results. I have been meaning to finess the technique ever since but being retired I just don't get the time.
 
I should perhaps add that I went in to Cameratiks in Edinburgh yesterday with my dodgy Vivitar 28mm lens; the bloke said "let me have a look", took it round the back, and a few minutes later came back with it apparently fixed, all for free. A little something had got displaced, apparently. Anyway on the way out I had a look at the chems and bought another bottle of Ilfosol 3! If they'd had LC 29 I might have tried it. BTW they said they only stock Ilford chems as they can get them direct from the maker; other brands they have to get via wholesalers and they say it adds too much markup onto the price.

My reasoning: (a) I know it, (b) not many of the comments above have suggested anything else for quality rather than convenience or economy reasons, and (c) the other liquids have a greater dilution, which means measuring smaller quantities. Ilfosol 3 at 1+9 means measuring 20 ml for the 200 ml developer for the Rondinax. For greater dilutions, I'd probably have to get a pipette.

Anyway, thanks for all the help so far. I'm thinking of making this into a resource.
 
ChrisR said:
I should perhaps add that I went in to Cameratiks in Edinburgh yesterday with my dodgy Vivitar 28mm lens; the bloke said "let me have a look", took it round the back, and a few minutes later came back with it apparently fixed, all for free. A little something had got displaced, apparently. Anyway on the way out I had a look at the chems and bought another bottle of Ilfosol 3!
Click to expand...

Any chemicals that you can buy without incurring postage charges are going to have a price advantage so it sounds like a good outcome
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top