Heirarchy of Kodak Film Developer Recomendations

[William D. Lester]

Is it true that Kodak lists it's film developer times in order of

suitability for each particular film from the top of the list down?

[m0002a]

No. The criteria that determines developer suitability for a particular film varies from photographer to photographer.

[andrew_hull]

Bill:

 

I do believe that the Companies publish what they think are the best developers. Mark-obviously this depends on taste, but you and I both know that there are developers and films that MOST people would agree work or don't work well together. Bill- Try Kodak, maybe they will answer your e-mail. They answered mine regarding Xtol.

[m0002a]

Companies publish times for their own developers first, regardless of whether they are the �most suitable" (whatever that means).

 

The speed that one gets a response from Kodak support has nothing to do with the accuracy of the information they provide. Support people will usually give the response that is least likely to cause the customer to call back with additional questions. They will usually recommend the solution that is easiest for the customer to use (and is their own product), and not the one that potentially yields the best results.

 

The choice of developer and its interaction with a specific film is a subject about which reasonable people disagree (and do so vigorously). Without those differences in opinion, this forum would not exist.

[andrew_hull]

The original question was if Kodak puts their developers in hierarchical order, I suggested that one could ask Kodak. I realize developers and films are an issue of personal taste. I would also posit, however, that their are certain general standards that one might suggest to give someone a starting point without simply deconstructing their question as "there are no answers, you must search yourself for them" An example might be someone asking about pushing a high speed film, Delta 3200 for example. While I am sure that there are people out there that do it, and with aplomb, I would not suggest Rodinal as the first developer of choice. This is of course, unless that is the look which one is after. I concur that the dialogue about developers and films is very intriguing, and educational for this poster, but I think there can be generally accepted suitable pairing that might, and are very often suggested on this board. Anything can and does work with anything, but that doesn't answer the gentleman's question.

[m0002a]

Andrew, I never said that there are no answers. But the question involved the �order of suitability� and not just �suitability.�

 

I would say that if a film manufacturer or a competitor developer manufacturer publishes a development time for a film, then it is suitable. But the question of �most suitable� is extremely subjective and depends on a number of factors including convenience (liquid vs. powder), keeping properties, sharpness desired, grain desired, ability to replenish, toxicity, packaging size, etc. </p>

 

Kodak lists TMAX developer first in the development charts for TIMAX films. Many people believe that among Kodak developers, XTOL is the best for TMAX films, and of course there are many other opinions. </p>

 

I personally think you are naïve about �asking Kodak.� You are not really asking Kodak, but are asking one customer support person who receives your email. They may or may not give you the correct answer or the �best� answer. There is probably just as much difference of opinion about which developer is best within Kodak as there is here on this forum.</p>

 

But even if Kodak had a definitive consensus opinion about what is the best developer (other than to just appease a newbie with a stock answer), we know that they would only recommend their own products. </p>

 

Yes, one can probably eliminate Rodinal as a good choice for pushing Delta 3200 (but wait, many people who have posted on this forum were specifically <b>looking for</b> sharp and very grainy negatives!), there are still a large number of developers left to choose from.

[lex_jenkins]

It's a fair question because Ilford does specify which developers are preferable for certain films under specific situations.

 

Kodak *might* have such data but who the heck could find it on their labyrinthine website?

[sergio_caetano1]

Bill,

 

Even if Kodak list is hierarchical, these developers are not the best. Try D23 diluted, D23+borax, Willi Beutler and you will see by yourself.

[andrew_hull]

Final comment...

I was NOT suggesting he ask Kodak for a suggestion, only to ask Kodak to answer his question as to if the developers are listed in hierarchical order.

[barry_kenstler]

It's a good question and I personally don't have your answer, but it does remind of something I heard from Dick Dickerson a few years ago. Dick is retired from Kodak and was no small fish in the B&W products area. He was at Kodak when the TMax developers were released. He said the choice of the name TMax for the developer was a marketing decision, and that the TMax developers were not specifically formulated for Tmax films. I often see people claiming that Tmax developer is specifically designed for Tmax film. The liquid is a fine, speed-enhancing, long-scale developer, but if anything, it tends to exascerbate the highlight contrast issues some people have with TMY (my opinion).