vanner Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 <p>Bought some HP5+, which I 've never developed before. Favorite developer for HP5+ ? Prefer powder over liquid. I like D76 for my TX400, but I'm wondering how people feel about D76 vs. others for HP5+. Thanks. Steve</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_karnopp1 Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 <p>I love Diafine two bath developer for HP5+. It gives an extra stop of speed (ISO = 800) in roll film<br> and ISO = 640 for sheet film. The stuff seems to last forever as well. And if you wish to mix films in this developer, you can.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 <p>Some of the best results I've seen came from HP5+ at EI 250 in ID-11 (equivalent to D76) at 1+1. If you're satisfied with D76 there's no need to change. It's still one of the best all purpose developers.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowell_huff1 Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 <p>STEVE:<br> We make both liquid and powder developers. I am curious about your statement that you prefer powder to liquid developers, WHY? Liquid formulas are much more sophisticated and technically more capable than powders, especially with modern emulsions.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanner Posted July 29, 2009 Author Share Posted July 29, 2009 <p>Lex - Thanks. Ill give it a go in D76.<br> Lowell - good question, and forcing me to really think about it. I have stayed away from Ilford's liquids because they are designed as one-shot developers. I don't want to measure and dilute every time I use my developer. Would prefer to mix two liters or so of working solution and be done with diluting in my work flow. I have not used HC110 for the simple reason that everytime I look at it, I feel like the issue of mutiple dilutions, stock A, B C and on and on breaks my "keep it simple rule." Furthermore, I suppose that I like the small size, light weight of packets of powder. I hope that helps. PS not very familiar with the Clayton line, but Ill take a look. Steve</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowell_huff1 Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 <p>One of the best features about liquids is that you can alloquat the amount of chemistry that you need to do the job; whereas with powders it is necessary to mix the entire volumn of the package.<br> I do agree with you that single part develoeprs are more simple and easier to use than multiple part developers. send me an email and i will return a product description and comparison chart. <a href="mailto:askus@claytonchem.com">askus@claytonchem.com</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_appleyard Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 <p>Doesn't a powdered dev turn into a liquid the moment you add water?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowell_huff1 Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 <p>Yes Jim powders do go into solution when added to water. The question was why do you prefer powder to liquid?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_albertson1 Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 <p>D-76 works fine, and the developing times you use for Tri-X are a good starting point for figuring out times for HP-5+. That said, I now use Xtol for 90% of my development of this film. It's easier to mix (room temperature water instead of 104 degree water), and I can mix up 5 liters at a time. Microphen at 1:1 is really good for pushing the film to EI 800 or 1600.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_502260 Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 <p>Microphen is a phenidone based powder developer. Even if you dilute it 1:1 it's still pretty expensive to use. Clayton F60 is also a phenidone based developer but it comes in liquid concentrate form. It is used mostly 1:9. The results are similar to those of Microphen but the cost per roll is much lower. HC-110 is also a phenidone based developer and it has even better keeping qualities than F60. The difference is that the dilution is much greater with HC-110 and the concentrate is somewhat thick. If I am using a stainless steel tank/reel set I will need 8 oz. of working solution. That's close to 250ml if I round up. I pour 225ml of water into my measuring cup at the temperature I am shooting for. I then add 25ml of F60. This gives me my 1:9 dilution and changes the temperature very little.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_tapscott Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 <p>Lowell, even the liquid concentrates sold by Clayton and other manufacturers need to be made up from the raw constituents required just the same as powder developers. The main difference is that the customer buys a ready mixed stock or concentrate. Developers sold as powders are usually made from simpler formulas than the liquids and are usually used more quickly due to the lower dilutions required.<br> Some liquid developers do have a decent shelf life (not all of them) and low volume film-users might find that they have a lot of unused developer concentrate left over when the developer is past it`s use by date with the liquids.<br> Please explain why you think that liquid developers out perform those sold in dry powder form? There may be differences in economy, but I am interested in your statement that liquid developers work better. I am sure there are some here who will disagree.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanner Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 <p>Chuck - Are you using Xtol over D76 because you have noticed a quality difference., or are you simply choosing the easier mixing procedure of Xtol over D76?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowell_huff1 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 <p>Keith your question is mine turned back on me. I will answer. Please keep in mind, I am a scientist not an artist With un named exceptions, powder formulas were developed with the "science" and emulsions of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century(< 1920). Again with un named exceptions, most liquid formulas have been designed with the "science", understanding, and emulsions of at least fifty or more years later. As emulsions, capablilities, desired results, and processing requirements have evolved; the ancient powder formulas have not! I have never said that powder formulas were not effective or didn't work; just that they are not comparable when image quality and maximising the potential of the photographic substrate is the ideal. Liquids are much more consistant from a manufacturing standpoint and when mixed into a working strength solution, there is no "pile" of un dissolved products in the bottom of the vessel. Liquids do not require hot water to go into solution. You mention "shelf life". How is this relevant to this processing question? What processing is performed on the shelf?<br> The real issue is, as you say, powder formulas are simple and liquid formulas are more sophisticated to provide the maximum amount of information that is available in the image. I can support this statement with science as recorded in any number of the books written by the icons of photographic processing chemistry. There is another reason that I prefer liquids to powders and it is self interest. We make more profit manufacturing liquids than we do manufacturing powders!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank.schifano Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 <p>Well, I've got to agree with Lex. I think that D-76 is almost at the top of the heap for general purpose developers today. It is utterly dependable, and very economical. I can't totally agree with Lowell's statement about D-76 being an obsolete formula, since just about any general purpose B&W film on the market today will deliver excellent negatives when developed in D-76. XTOL is another excellent general purpose developer that can be substituted for D-76. I'd consider it somewhat better than D-76 for equivalent applications simply because it will deliver slightly more film speed and slightly less grain. The differences are not likely to be noticed under most conditions, and are apparent only to a trained eye evaluating the results of a test carried out under strictly controlled conditions.</p> <p>I like powdered developers for the economy and shelf life. Water is heavy and liquid developers are mostly water. Shipping charges are calculated by weight and volume. Seems to me that you can get a whole lot more developer for your money simply by using the water that comes from the tap instead of having it shipped not once, but perhaps 2 or three times before it gets to the consumer. On shelf life: powders have a very long shelf life compared to liquids. The exceptions of course are HC-110 and Rodinal. As long as the package is sealed and intact, the shelf life of powdered developers ismeasured in years. Once mixed with water, the clock starts ticking. With liquid developers, you may know how long the developer has been on your shelf, but the clock started ticking from the moment the product was bottled at the factory. Considering the low turnover rate these things have in some places, that doesn't sound like a winning bet to me.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_appleyard Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 <p>I have yet to see anyone tell me the difference in 8x10's (or whatever size) prints made from D-76, HC-110, FG-7, D-23, etc., etc. It ain't gonna happen.<br> HP-5 can be done in many, many devs. Pick a general purpose dev. It'll do a good job.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowell_huff1 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 <p>Jim, the difference is very simple to see. Better quality film developers produce those better quality negs. Better quality negs produce better quality prints.<br> Frank, I didn't say that D76 was obsolete, I said it was ancient. Without getting into a one legged ass kicking contest, I do wish to "harpoon" the "Great White Whale" that powders cost less. Kodak D 76, to make 1 gallon list price $6.95. Using Clayton F 60 1 qt, to make 2.5 gallons list price $3.73 per gallon. So for those who are math challanged, $6.95x 2.5= $17.38. $17.38-$3.73= $13.65. I hope you are using Sparklets water for the difference. As far as the statement of shelf life, I repeat myself, what processing is done on the shelf? For the cost difference ($13.65), you could make one gallon of developer and throw the rest away and still be ahead of the game.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanner Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share Posted July 31, 2009 <p>Lowell, I'm not math challenged by any means, but I've been looking at your post for about ten minutes now and I just can't follow your math. You multiplied D-76's $6.95 per gallon by 2.5 in order to prove that 2.5 gallons of D-76 costs $17.38 which is fine. Next, you compare the $17.38, the price of 2.5 gallons of D-76, to $3.73, as if 2.5 gallons of working F60 costs $3.73 . But you wrote "list price 3.73 PER GALLON. not 3.73 PER 2.5 GALLONS. Do you see your inconsistency? I just can't follow you.<br> Here's my version. I looked up F60 and it seems to me that the concentrate sells for about $20 a gallon. At a 1+4 , a gallon of stock makes 5 gallons of working solution. That means that the working solution costs $4 per gallon. So, D-76 is 6.95 per gallon, and F60 is $4 per gallon. Price difference, then, is $3 per gallon. <br> Your post is aggressive, about the "mathematically challenged . . " So that I can sleep, pleae explain where my version of the math is wrong? I may have well misinterpreted or miscalculated something.<br> By the way, this is just fun conversation now, and clearly we've gone way off subject of quality of developers for HP5+, but that's part of the fun!<br> Thanks. Steve</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowell_huff1 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 <p>STEVE YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT MY MATH. I DID GET CARRIED AWAY. Too much coffee this morning.<br>F60 Developer dilutes 1+9 for one shot solution. 1 qt at list price costs $9.37, diluted to make one gallon, (9.37/ 2.5)= $3.73. Not as great but still a substantial difference.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_502260 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 <p>There are a few other issues which Lowell did not mention. Some liquid concentrates have better keeping qualities than powder developers which have been mixed with water. My own experience with F60 shows that if you divide a quart into four 8 oz. glass bottles, the full bottles last longer than the concentrate would in a partially used brown plastic original bottle. D-76 is a good general purpose developer and if it is bought in gallon quantities it is reasonably priced. D-76 is a metol-hydroquinone developer. It will normally produce negatives with somewhat less grain and normal speed. Microphen, DD-X, X-tol, Acufine, UFG and FG-7 are all phenidone based developers. These developers will give a little more speed than a metol-hydroquinone developer and will also give somewhat higher sharpness and a little more grain. Compared to any of these, F60 is more economical and with the exception of DD-X, easier to mix up and use. HP-5+ is a traditional film. If you use 35mm stock and develop it in D-23, it will have a lower contrast and finer grain look than the same film in Microphen. Even in an 8X10 you will see the difference. If I think back over the time I have been taking pictures, there has probably been more improvement in film than in developers. The current version of Tri-X is much better than what we had 35 years ago. <br> The three most popular developer types today are metol-hydroquinone, phenidone and Rodinal types. In Microphen there is the phenidone-hydroquinone combination. In X-tol there is the phenidone-ascorbic acid combination. Phenidone and Rodinal type developers have been around for a long time but produce more grainy negatives. As films have become finer grained they can benefit from the speed and sharpness of phenidone based developers without suffering so much from extra grain. Even fine grain films like TMX can show some grain with Rodinal but there are people who like that look.<br> If you are shooting with any format larger than 35mm and making prints not much larger than 11X14 then you can use any developer which gives the tones and contrast you like without worrying so much about grain. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank.schifano Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 <p>The math still doesn't add up if you don't have a local supplier. Figure in the UPS or other carrier's charges and the "bargain" doesn't look like a bargain any more.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_tapscott Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 <p>Lowell asked: <strong>"As far as the statement of shelf life, I repeat myself, what processing is done on the shelf?"</strong><br> Lowell, no processing is done on the shelf AFAIK :-), but a lot of developer concentrates which are quite highly diluted may go off before a low-volume film user is able to finish off using the contents of the developer storage container. This may lead some people to continue using a concentrate that is going off, thus leading to unsatisfactory results if they are not aware of a use by date (hence shelf life). <br> Developers which are sold in dry powder form are either used at stock strength, or more commonly, are moderately diluted to 1+1 or to 1+3 maximum beiing typical. The low-volume film user is more likely to finish off using a powder form developer much more quickly than a high dilution liquid concentrate. As I said, some liquid developers have good keeping properties, but not all of them. Ilfosol-S which has now been replaced by Ilfosol 3 and Paterson FX-50 were notorious for going off soon after the bottles were opened. The high volume film user would probably benefit from using a liquid developer in terms of economy. My reply in the thread is not any critism of Clayton or any other developer manufacturer for that matter, but simply asking you to explain your statement from what you said in your first post.<br> "<strong>In what way do liquid developers actually out perform those developers which are sold in powder-form?"</strong></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_albertson1 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>Steven, that's correct. I think I get a better quality neg (grain and sharpness) in Xtol than in D-76. But the difference isn't stark, they're both great developers.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pc_b Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 <p>Steve, what do you want? Big or small grain, sharp or smooth grain, steep contrast or rather flat negative? Will you expose at like 400ASA or under or over? Will you scan or do wet prints (to which size)? Why (i.e., what for) did you change from Tri-X to HP5+?<br> Answer these questions yourself first, then you will be able to ask a question you can get a real answer to around here. Or did the above replies help you at all?<br> Have fun, cheers, Pete</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowell_huff1 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 <p>Hello Frank First, I am having FUN with this discussion.<br> Second, I was comparing the list price of each item. Not the various UPS prices. Because of our volume, we get a very good discount from UPS that others might not get. My point is one would have to buy two, maybe three packs, of powder to make the two and half gallons that one quart of liquid makes.<br> Hello Kieth As far as the differences in formulas, powder to liquid, there are many chemicals (P.E.D.s) that are only in liquid form which eliminates them from the powders. The chemical science (P.E.D.s) used to make liquid formulas allows us to enhance the amount information that each emulsion has available. This can be described as greater latitude, higher accutance, lower levels of fog, sharper images, higher or lower contrast, the ability to replenish the working solution without changing the level of activity, or the flexibility to meet processing requirements. Certainly, some of these (P.E.D.s) are powder and can be included in powder formulas; but then those formulas are no longer what they were. To recap, I think I have answered the question, liquid formulas DO out perform powder formulas in the issues that are critical to improved imaging.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wmwhee Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 <p>I develop hp5 in d76 1:1 with good results.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now