how do different developers affect film?

Hi,

 

I've been shooting tmax 100 for awhile, developing in tmax

developer...i've been happy with it but am thinking about what else it

can do, or just trying other films...i'm often reading peoples remarks

that go something like "this film looks great in microphen," or "tmax

looks great in rodinal"..."try pan-f+ in D76"...my question is simply,

what does this mean? how do the different developers affect the film?

is it just contrast? richness of tone? subtlety of detail? i'm just

having trouble picturing what a film "looking great" looks like...if

someone could help me understand i'd appreciate it..

 

thanks

 

brad

There are whole books on the subject. The best I think is probably Anchell and Troop's <i>The Darkroom Cookbook.</i>

<p>

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0240804236&itm=1

<p>

This will answer your questions and a lot more.

Brad, it's pretty much up to you to decide what "looking great" is.

 

But if you are happy with your tmax, start poking around with other films and

developers, it's a real thrill to see something different come out of the can.

Rodinal and D-76 are good ones to start with. Relatively cheap, and great

shelf life.

 

Also, if you are getting good results with what you're doing, your procedures

are good, which will make it all the more entertaining to try other materials.

 

Not being a very original thinker myself, my favorite combos are just slight

variations from others sources (digitaltruth, here). Somebody swears by D-76

and Pan F+? Give it a try. Like it, but want more contrast? Agitate a little

more, etc. Have fun.

And second Bruce recommendation on the cookbook. You will get your

money's worth.

Hi Brad,

 

For maximum sharpness with high resolution thin emulsion films, always use high res developers such as Rodinal from 1:25 up to 1:100 depending on the nature of the film, and D76 (ID11) 1:1. This would include TMX, D100, Fuji Neopan 100 Acro, Pan F+, the old APX25 Panatomic X,and APX100. Some users like UFG, Acufine, and D76 all full strength, however There is some slight loss in critical sharpness because they are silver solvent fine grain developers.

 

With medium speed films like Plus X Pan, D76, D76 1:1, Acufine, UFG, and Microphen all work well although they are slightly different. I'm not a fan of FP4+ which is in the same speed group. for me, it just isn't sharp enough and it is way too grainy (although I loved the original Ilford FP4).

 

High speed films (400ASA or so), I like fine grain developers if they don't lose film speed. D76 full strength, UFG, Acufine, Microphen, F60.

 

Ilford 3200 works best in full strength D76, increase the developing times by one stop greater than the shooting speed using developing data from Ilford. I don't care much for P3200, or Neopan 1600. TMax developer will give you a bit more emulsion speed but I don't like the quality of the grain and sharpness (don't tell Kodak, they like it).

 

Lynn

Good question.

 

Among the main factors affected by a developer are:

 

1. Grain.

 

2. Apparent sharpness.

 

3. Effective film speed.

 

4. Tonal characteristics and contrast.

 

Most common developers fit into one of two categories - acutance or solvent types. Acutance developers like Rodinal and Neofin Red and Blue enhance apparent sharpness but can also increase grain. Solvent developers like D-76/ID-11 and, at the extreme, Microdol-X and Perceptol, minimize grain but in some cases can produce softer looking photos.

 

The trick is to match the developer to the film and to the desired results. Rodinal may be perfect for Tri-X in some circumstances; Microdol-X or Perceptol might be better in others. There is no single best combination, altho' there are some pretty awful combinations, IMO! For example, many of us here are big fans of Diafine, especially with Tri-X. But, at least in my experiments, it's unappealing with T-Max 100 and 400. The negatives are murky.

 

The nominal ISO speed for a film is based on, you guessed it, manufacturers' tests according to ISO standards. If we vary from the ISO standard methodology, true film speed can be significantly affected. This is actually a good thing, altho' we need to be aware of it. For example, Tri-X is a 400 film by ISO standards. But in a fine grain solvent developer like Microdol-X or Perceptol the speed would be closer to 200. In a speed enhancing developer like Microphen, DDX or Acufine, it would be closer to 500, maybe a wee bit higher.

 

But there are trade-offs. A speed enhancing developer sounds like a wonderful asset for all occasions, but it's not necessarily so.

 

For example, I like T-Max 100 for the unique look. Nothing else quite resembles T-Max. While I can achieve a comparable look with other films using filters during printing, dodging and burning and toning and bleaching, etc., T-Max 100 delivers that look without any gymnastics. But it's a cranky film that demands very careful exposure and development. I wrestled with it at EI 50, 64, 80 and 100 in ID-11, Rodinal, Ilfosol-S, HC-110, Diafine and possibly one or two others. Rodinal and Diafine were actually able to produce grain in TMX, which is a nifty trick for an ultra-fine grain film, but not what I wanted. What I wanted was an easier way to get consistent negatives.

 

I finally tried Microphen, one of my favorites for push processing. It might have been a move of desperation, or it might have been an accident, I don't quite recall. Oh, wait, yes I do recall: I was testing the effects of development on old film that had been exposed long ago but never developed. I thought I was working on a roll of 20 year old Tri-X (the container was unmarked). It turned out to be seven year old TMX. No matter, the results were terrific, even tho' I overdeveloped the film by about double! And grain was still very reasonable. Since then I've settled on Microphen as my standard developer for TMX at 100. It's solved the problems, making minor exposure errors less critical as well as being much more forgiving of variations during development. Pure serendipity.

 

OTOH, Microphen was a major disappointment with normally exposed HP5+. Grain was so visible it could be seen in 8"x8" prints from my 6x6cm negatives. That was quite a surprise. This doesn't occur with Tri-X and T-Max 400. Just an odd combination.

 

Finally, tonal characteristics and contrast. This is possibly the most controversial aspect of the influence of developers on film. Well, maybe not controversial ... b&w film development isn't exactly international politics or boxing. But it's a subject of some contention.

 

Some developers are said to have a compensating effect, that is, they allow shadow detail to develop while moderating the development of highlights. True? I don't know. Some folks who have done more research than I say nope.

 

What does seem apparent, tho', is the effect on midtones, gamma and separation of tones. Developers seem to have a significant effect here and this may be what gives the appearance of a compensating effect. I see distinctly different results when Tri-X is developed in ID-11 or HC-110 (looks pretty similar to me), Diafine (usually at 1200 or so), and Rodinal diluted 1+200 or 1+300 for stand development (usually around two hours with no agitation after the initial 30-60 seconds).

 

So, regardless of what's really going on here, only the apparent effects interest me since that's what determines the look of the final print. But I don't want to perpetuate a myth since this is an issue over which there is some disagreement.

 

And that's just for starters ... you can find a lot more info in several good books.

Brad, Lex has given you an excellent answer. The problem is that the whole thing is a science but is reduced to Alchemy by amateurs (myself included). There are so many variables - film type, developer type, exposure measurement method, dilution of developer, temperature of developer, time for development, scanning vs darkroom, printing methods. So my systematic experiements on finding for example the best developer for delta 100 only really tell me for shooting 6x6, to a gamma of 0.6, to scan (on my scanner) then process in my particular workflow and print on my printer/ink/paper combination.

 

In otherwords, "this film looks great in Microphen" is interesting and may be a starting point for you to experiment, but is only a start. Good luck and have fun. Oh, and one tip. Only change film or developer one at a time. eg find the best developer for Tri-X before moving on to other films

thanks everyone...i've learned a lot reading your posts...not the least of which is that discussions about this type of thing have an awful lot of x's and 0's in them...

 

anyway i appreciate it...i think i'll stick with tmax for awhile and maybe try some d-76 and microphen to start and see what happens...i have a feeling getting through all this could take awhile...

 

i'll pick up the darkroom cookbook for sure. thanks again...

Brad, I know this is almost OT, but consider taking the 'road not intended'. I think it is

worthwhile checking out first all films of 100/125 iso. In your tmax developer. You'll

experience quite a broad palette of most often distinct qualities. - A bit like getting to

know several foreign languages.

Then you might start doing your TMX in, say, Rodinal (grainier) or Xtol (rather less grainy)

and start playing with dilutions. - Maybe the equivalent of reading news out of two

different English newspapers and then comparing the style of writing on the front page

with the essays further on....

Then Rodinal with all 100ISOs, then Xtol with all of them.

and on and on.

I BELIEVE the heavenly endpoint would be that you would know, for every particular

project and beforehand, which format/film/developer/dilution/agitation-combination was

the esthetically most appropriate (for you). (it's too late here for correct English, sorry!)

 

Daunting, at the least....

Brad

 

Lex gave a good explanation. The Film Developing Cookbook is a must read to provide detailed answers to your questions. It's helpful to fully know how conventional films such as FP-4 or Tri-X developed in a standard developer such as D-76/ID-11 enlarge before trying tabular film or fine grain/acutance developers.

 

Our goal is to get an image on paper. Therefore the importance to develop a film for a contrast to properly fit the paper contrast. Some folks may say brand X fiber paper looks terrible but their problem may be negatives that don't match the paper contrast curve. So many variables and so much fun.

Hey Lex, long time since I posted here...but I am sure glad to see you still do.

 

Microphen only worked with neopan 1600 for me, and then I was suprised by the short development times. Film came out "ok" with blocked up shadows and some blown highlights, but I'm picky and don't generally shoot anything over 320 these days.

I always found <a href="http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hmpi/Misc/Bascom/bascom.htm"><u>this article</u></a> quite interesting about the ideal developer for Tmax 100.

I agree with that author's observations about TMX in D-76 (actually, I used ID-11). I got some excellent results with that combination, using the 1+1 dilution. Virtually no grain, good sharpness and that unique TMX tonality.

 

The problem was that TMX was still very sensitive to minor variations in development. During the summer it was difficult to keep my darkroom cooler than 85F.

 

I switched to Microphen because it produced comparable results but is less fussy about minor variations in time, temperate and agitation. It also gives a true speed of 100, while TMX in ID-11 seemed better at 80.

daunting to say the least is right...to build on PC's analogy, this feels a little like heading out to read every newspaper in every language in the world and trying to decide who the best editorial columnist is.

 

thanks again..

 

Brad