sprint vs. clayton

[brandon_mckenney1]

I am going to be switching over to new chemicals instead of Kodak. I

was wondering what people recommended. I am debating between either

Sprint or Clayton. Any opinions?? I shoot mostly Tri-X so far.

Sometimes T-Max or Ilfords.. Any input is welcome!

[randall ellis]

I have never used either but I have heard good things about Clayton and the rep is often online on this site. I will forgo developer suggestions since those are covered daily in far too many posts, but Photographers Formulary fixer (TF-4) works well for me with Ilford, Kodak, and Efke films. As for a washing agent, all of them seem to work well.

 

- Randy

[rowland_mowrey]

Please read my thread (comparison) of Clayton, Kodak and Formulary fixes on another forum here. Also read comments here about Clayton developers. There are a few that might help you.

 

Ron Mowrey

[al_divenuti]

Though I'm, frankly, scratching my head over why people are in a rush to dump Kodak I'll chime in...

 

I think Sprint QuickSilver is bloody *awful* stuff. I base that opinion on two aspects of its performance - a shelf-life of no more than a couple months and a pre-disposition for turning all non-Ilford and non-Kodak papers a cyanotic shade of blue. It does absolute violence to Forte Polygrade V - so much so that you'd swear it had been toned in Berg Iron Blue Toner.

 

I can't vouch for the Clayton developers first-hand. But it's worth noting that their so-called Cold Tone developer was tested by Bruce Barlow for a piece in "View Camera" and found to produce some of the warmest tones among the developers he tested. Perhaps that says enough; it does for me.

 

Do keep in mind that Sprint and Clayton are privately-held companies they could go belly-up with nary a warning or whimper. If you're going to dump Kodak I'd recommend going with Ilford or AgfaPhoto - at least they tell you (or warn you) where you stand.

[al_divenuti]

Consider also the Photographer's Formulary. One advantage is that there wares are usually closely (if not identical) based on published formulas. That could come in handy if the pre-packaged product suddenly becomes unavailable.

[rustys pics]

I have been using a lot of Clayton F-76+ film developer, and have really been impressed.

You can use a variety of dilutions and virtually any film I or my students have thrown at it

have come out well-even Kodak and MACO infrared.

As for Ilford & AGFA being more "stable", well, I'm switching to F-76+ because Ilford's DD-X

is nearly impossible to find.

I'm disgusted with Kodak too, but will use Tri-X, HIE and Plus-X until the last roll of film rides

off into the sunset from Rochester.....

[jim_malone]

Dear Brandon:

 

I use mostly Sprint for Fuji and Ilford film and have been pretty happy with it. I've also evaluated Clayton F76+ and was quite impressed with it on Efke 25 and 100 films. I've never been very happy with Sprint for T-Max films, (I use T-Max developer) but maybe that's just me.

 

My local shop carries Sprint and gives me a good price on it, otherwise I'd probably use more of the Clayton chemistry.

 

The suggestion about Photographer's Formulary is a good one.

 

Good luck

[rustys pics]

Jim, what are your times for F-76+ and Efke? Can't find much info on those except for JOBO

processing on digital truth. That's great for the 2% of people with a JOBO.....

[jim_malone]

Russ:

 

Actually, I contributed the times for the Jobo on Digitaltruth. As a starting point, I'd take those times and decrease them by about 10% for hand processing.

 

When I was working up the starting times, I found that as little as 10 seconds made a discernable difference in film development for Efke. so, you'll probably just have to play around.

 

Also, I like the F76+ at a 1+19 dilution a little better - but that's just me.