B&W film developer considerations

[craig_supplee]

I want to get back into developing the B&W film I occasionally shoot in a few

classic cameras I have. The last time I did this several years ago, all I used

was D76 and Kodak Plus-X and Tri-X. Is there a good reference site for the

different developers, and the effects they give on the film, and for that

matter, info on the "look" you get with different B&W films. Thanks.

[brucecahn]

Tri-X 320 speed and D-76 is a great combination. Am currently doing all important work in Pyro developer. It is a considerable improvement over D-76 or any conventional developer.

[michael_kwiatkowski]

I don't know of a site with the complete information you are seeking. There is a good book

on developers that is easy to reference and read. It is called the "film developing cookbook"

put out by focal press. It has explanations on different developers and their effects on film

from D-76 to PMK Pyro. It is a nice book to have around your darkroom.

[larrydressler]

You can read the archives here we have had a lot of discussion on that subject here.

 

Personaly I love D-76 Diafine Acufine and Rodinal depending on the film format and camera. Not to mention the effect I want in the final picture and the lighting.

[trooper]

You might consider sticking with the D76 as you are accustomed to it. Many people try a number of things and end up back with the D76. A liquid alternative with a very similar look is FG7. If you have very sporadic usage, you might look into some of the concentrates like HC-110 and Rodinal as they are more stable for long term storage. I use mostly homebrews these days as I enjoy it and have had excellent results with the various versions of PyroCat. It mixes (typically) at 1:100 and the MC version should have super shelf life. If you will be scanning negatives, I've found that the PyroCat negatives behave better in my scanner as the stain mask seems to control some of the grain artifacts and the edge effects add some accutance.

[drjedsmith]

How does Pyro compare to a fine grain developer like Xtol?<BR><BR>

Last year I had wanted to try some of the new Patterson X50 type developer but then couldn't get any because they were going out of business or restructuring, etc.<BR><BR>

I did try some perceptol and it seemed marginally finer than Xtol...but really close. I would recommend either of those if you want big enlargements - they have a very slight edge over D76 in making fine grain negs. But D76 is still the standard...it's easy to use and has good overall tonality.<BR><BR>

By the way, you may try posting this in the B&W forum -- there are a lot of good posts there about this, and some really knowledgable people. /begin rant (I personally think they should call this the "Color" film forum because we have a B&W forum)/end rant. :-)<BR>

Jed

[craig_supplee]

Thanks to everyone for the input. Since I will be doing B&W sporadically, at least at first, a liquid w/ staying power would be nice. I did get a little confused as to which forum to post to, this one seemed right as it has "processing" in the title.

[Barry Dale]

Craig,

Here is some comparisons on film.

http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/film/black-and-white-film/PLS_3119crx.aspx

Barry

[craig_shearman1]

I vote for Tri-X and D-76. Have experimented with other things but over 30 years this is the combination I have used for 95 percent of everything I've ever shot in B&W.

[brucecahn]

Jedediah: Pyro negatives get some of their density from staining, so theoretically the pyro negatives have smaller grain. But since I only do contact prints from large format I have not verified this. What is really nice about pyro is that with a suitable film, such as Bergger or Tri-X, there is an almost relief quality to the image. The picture just looks better. Also it is the only really good developer for making negs for platinum printing. The same negative may be used for silver or platinum. Just don't make it too thick.

[keith_lubow]

The best idea for now would be to stick like glue to ONE developer, and learn it inside and out. That way, you can get whatever effect you want from it. Try to pick one that is cheap, readily available, not likely to change for some time, and versatile.

 

I like HC-110 and D-76. They both fit the description above. I have done my film testing with HC-110 Dilution B on sheet film, D-76 straight for 35, and D-76 1:1 for medium format, and have never found any want for another developer, except perhaps soon I will try to switch to an Ilford equivalent of HC-110, as I would like to switch entirely to Ilford chemistry just to show my support for what they are doing.

 

Most developers can be endlessly tinkered with to provide whatever effect you want. Some even make cocktails.

 

Keith

[craig_supplee]

Keith,

 

I think you are right about sticking to one developer until I get to know its strengths and weaknesses. What is your reasoning behind using D-76 straight for 35, and 1:1 for medium format. I have both formats I will be shooting. Thanks.

[keith_lubow]

I use it straight on 35mm so the development times are shorter (helps keep grain down), and also so I can reuse it and get 10 rolls per liter. I am usually not developing any more extremely than a controlled -1 or +1 development with 35mm like I am with 120 and sheet film, so I don't need to worry about development times getting too short. I haven't even tested for +1 and -1 with 35; I just use the times from 120 film. I am going to push the heck out of some 35mm film, I usually develop one stop less than I think I should, and use selenium to simulate another one stop push of the midtones and highlights, but without the grain of increased development. With 120 and sheet film, I am not worried about grain, as I think is gives texture at that point.

 

Keith

[siddharth_rao]

Check out the developers listed on http://www.printmypics.net