Help on picking the right developer

[eugene_perepletchikov]

<p>Hey all</p>

<p>Have just returned from a big trip and have lots of rolls waiting to be processed. My darkroom experience has been limited so far so I have not had the chance to experiment with different developer and film combinations too much.</p>

<p>I have a whole bunch of 120 rolls including Tmax 400, TriX and Hp4/5. Most of the Tri X was rated at 1600, some of the Tmax and Ilford stock was rated one stop slower. Im looking for opinions on the optimal developer for push and pull processing, especially in terms of pushing. Rodinal I hear makes film lose speed, so I suspect that it wont be a good option. I talked to my local pro lab and they told me they exclusively use Tmax, and I have had good results from them.</p>

<p>I am happy to have grain in my image, but am looking for deep blacks and rich tonality. I have liked some results i found on Flikr from Xtol, and some decent results from DDX too.</p>

<p>Looking forward to hearing your responses.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>X-tol for Push HC-110 or D-76 for Pull.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>The Ilford choices for push processing are Microphen and DD-X. They are X-Tol are the most common "speed enhancing" developers, may give you up to 1/2 stop of real additional shadow speed.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Tmax developer can push nice as well. D76 for the rest.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I never could get Tmax developer to work properly for me. It most likely is just me.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Ilford DD-X is excellent. Or Acufine has good results too, Tri-X at 1200 is a common combination......<br>

But, in the vast majority of cases, the box speed or half a stop more, will give you noticeably better results.....Robert</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>There is also always Diafine for an easy push and as mentioned Acufine.</p>

[tim gray]

<p>I use XTOL 1:1 for pushing (and normal development). As mentioned above, lots of people like T-Max and DD-X too. D-76 might not be the *best* for this, but it won't be bad - it's hard to go wrong with it.</p>

<p>Deep blacks really have nothing to do with developers, or film choice for that matter. Depending on your definition of rich tonality, pushing might interfere with achieving it.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Rodinal does not make film lose speed. Most films can be developed at box speed in it. That said, I usually downrate film, but this is purely to accommodate the brightness range of the subject. I've used Rodinal almost exclusively for the last twenty-eight years. As with all developers, it takes some time to get the technique right for what you want.<br>

For pushing I'd recommend Microphen.</p>

[christer_almqvist2]

<p>A few critical comments and questions. You have been warned. Stop reading here if you are faint hearted.</p>

<p>Why use three different 400 films if your "darkroom experience has been limited" and you "Have just returned from a big trip". Testing should be done before one goes on big trips.</p>

<p>"I have liked some results i found on Flikr from Xtol, and some decent results from DDX too." To think that one can judge film developer combinations from Flikr is in my opinion somewhat optimistic. </p>

<p>" my local pro lab and they told me they exclusively use Tmax, and I have had good results from them". OK, but what is good for them (IN WHAT RESPECT?), may not be good for you.</p>

<p>I liked the following comments. (Larry) "It most likely is just me." and (Chris) "it takes some time to get the technique right for what you want."</p>

<p>My advice to you for the future would be to stick to one film (or two if you use different box speeds film like 100 and 400) and one developer. Use the ones that are most easily available to you. Get to know them. Stick to them. At least 28 years.</p>

[jay_de_fehr]

<p>Eugene,</p>

<p>I don't think it matters much which developer you choose, since you don't have much experience with any of them. If you're going to have your film processed at a lab, let them decide which developer to use. If you plan to process the film yourself, use whatever is most convenient, and follow the manufacturer's instructions. Good luck!</p>

[eugene_perepletchikov]

<p>Thanks to everyone for their responses. I will make my final decision next week when I have a bit more time, meanwhile any more suggestions would be much appreciated.</p>

<p>I concede I should have stuck to just one film for the 400 speed, although i really did break it up into sections of the trip. One whole country was shot on Tri x at 1600 as it was low light and i wanted a gritty punchy look. This means I can still runs some experiments with some test rolls now to confirm developing times etc. Unfortunately there was no time for tests earlier.</p>

<p>I already have some Rodinal, so I will probably shoot of a test roll and then develop in Rodinal and a few other developers for comparison.</p>

<p>Keep the suggestions coming</p>

<p>Many thanks</p>

<p> </p>

[austin_luse]

<p>Honestly, I get great results from d76. its cheap, easy to find, and really is a nice developer. i dont do pushing or pulling typically, so i cant comment on its ability with either. Personally, i stick with the box speeds. it keeps me out of trouble, and all my questions for processing have already been answered by the company. besides that, i like low speed films. <br>

anyways, good luck!<br>

-Austin</p>

[tim gray]

<p>Not trying to criticize, just trying to help.</p>

<p>A lot of new film users want the 'gritty punchy look' and immediately start pushing films and going on about how much they like contrast and deep blacks. I know I did. The thing to keep in mind that with a well exposed negative (i.e. not pushed), getting 'punchy' and contrasty images is still very doable in the printing stage. Just change the contrast of your paper or filter. If you aren't printing traditionally, it's even easier in Photoshop. It's a lot harder to get shadow detail when there isn't any in the negative than it is to print down your shadow detail when it IS in your negative.</p>

<p>That's not to say that there isn't a time and place for pushing. Tri-X at 1600 can look great if your technique is good. If it's kinda sloppy, that 1600 exposure that you think you gave might have been 3200 (or worse) and you might not be happy with what you end up with. Been there, done that.</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>This does not have to be complicated. For the Tri-X that you shot at EI 1600, I recommend getting some Diafine and going with that. Tri-X in Diafine is dead easy and damned near foolproof. Temperature is not critical as long as you keep it somewhere in between 70F and 80F. Diafine is a two bath developer, so 3 to 4 minutes in bath A and 3 or 4 minutes in bath B will do the trick. It's your best shot at getting as much shadow detail as possible from those films, and it won't blow your highlights all to hell and back in the process. For the rest, D-76 or XTOL will do the job. I prefer XTOL, but you might want to start out with D-76 simply because just about every film manufacturer will have development time data for their films in D-76. If it's not there, use the numbers for Ilford's ID-11 developer which is exactly the same thing. Most of the time, better than 99% of the time, the manufacturer's recommendations will get you very good results.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Frank I find that the new Tri-X only gives about 1200 at the most in Diafine. It loses Shadows bad at 160 not like the older film. I now shoot it at 1000 or maybe I am just losing my sense of highlights/Shadows in my old age. I prefer Acufine these days with Tri-X at 1600.</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>I agree with you Larry. Shadows are thin with Tri-X and Diafine at EI 1600, but I don't think that's anything new. Shadows were always thin with that combination if the lighting is contrasty. I also don't think that either of us is losing our sense of highlights and shadows. Rather, I think we've both become more critical in our advancing years.</p>

<p>When you get down to it, an EI of 1600 for Tri-X is a two stop under exposure. Under those conditions, something's going to get left out of the party. With Diafine, you can get away with that much if the lighting is fairly even. Under lighting conditions of higher contrast, you've got to make the same choice you always have to make, namely, to keep the shadows or not and expose accordingly. Still, it works as well as can be expected and maybe even a bit better. I haven't used Acufine since the early '70s, so I'm hardly in a position to say that it's better or worse than Diafine in that regard. I do seem to recall though that I was doing OK at EI 1000 and not much more. But one thing is certain, either Diafine or Acufine will beat the pants off just about anything else in the Tri-X speed race. Rodinal won't do it. D-76 or XTOL won't do it so well either.</p>

[ron_baker6]

<p>I agree with Frank. You decide to keep or loose a shadow. In other words when you click that shutter you have a picture in your mind of what you want to convey in your image taking into consideration the lighting you have at hand. What film to use, the type of developer, and print paper to use. All these have a profound effect on your final product. So depending on what you want to achieve you can probably visit http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/chemistry/bwFilmProcessing/selecting.jhtml?pq-path=14053. But this would entail a lot of experimentation on your part. Acufine is good if you shot a contrasty scene but want to extract those middle tones and want to keep the whole image cool and keep those highlights in check but at the same time maintaining a 3 dimensional effect.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>You made the image without having an idea of what developer you wanted to use? </p>

<p>Sometimes, if you think of it in the future, you can stand before the subject and begin to imagine how you want the final image to look. Part of this would involve guessing some approximations of image characteristics lent by developing. I won't tell you that every image is made this way; but, if you can think the image through some, then choosing developers, by characteristic, has a little more method to the madness. </p>

[larrydressler]

<p>John Exactly what I think but then again I have been doing it much longer than the OP. I remember when I thought that all developers were the same and it was just film that was different. 40 years later I got a little smarter on that 40 year road. :)</p>

[bruce_erickson1]

<p>Larry: You wrote that you could not get tmax developer to work properly. What exactly happened? I use it all the time and like it but maybe I ought to try some other developer.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Just not the tones and contrast I liked. And the grain was not what I preferred. For the price I feel HC-110 gives me what I want with no problem.</p>

[eugene_perepletchikov]

<p>Hey all</p>

<p>Just an update that I have decided to purchase a number of developers to run some comparison tests. I have Xtol, DD-X and T Max to play with. I was keen to try the Diafine but apparently it is near impossible to find in Australia Thanks for everyones input, I will post some results when i get the chance.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I am so sorry you did not get any HC-110. And you can get Diafine it in Australia... PM me we may be able to get you some as it last years.....</p>

[w._keith_griffith]

<p>Hey,,, get an extra roll or two or more of each of the films you shot, and do some tests with your light meter and camera that you used. If you come out under exposed,,, at least you've got the chance to push things a bit, or even pull development,,, (which I doubt).<br>

Everybodys mileage is going to vary on this comment. Just pick a developer. 110, 76, xtol,,, I really don't care, just pick one. Mix up a bunch,,, and shoot some test rolls, get your developing times and temps straightened out before you start souping your trip shots.<br>

Then,,, before you do something like this again,,, shoot some test rolls based on the above tests. bracket your exposures and develope at what was normal above and see if things are still working ok for you. If you need a bit more contrast,,, up the dev time. See one of the charts, or just pick 15%, try that and shoot a test roll with bracketed shots and see what you like. If you supprise the heck out of me and actually have some overexposed shots that are way to contrasty, well,,, cut back on the development and test again.<br>

Hummm,,,, test and bracket. I'll bet of all my haywire ideas, few good photographers, of which I'm really not, will argue with that.</p>