Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Film vs. Developer, Etc?  (Read 839 times)

ajz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
Film vs. Developer, Etc?
« on: March 20, 2018, 05:26:07 PM »

Some time ago, I think in 2014, Michael R and I met in Buffalo and were planning on shooting B&W. I had my M6 and Rollei and some Tmax400, and Ilford Delta 100 & 400. Well, unfortunately we never did the shoot. But, Michael talked about using a developer not known to me one he found somewhere - not D-76 nor Microdol, not one of the more popular ones. Would anyone know of what it might have been? I still plan to unlimbering the M6 and Rollei and developing some B&W film. Any thoughts on developers would be appreciated since i have been out of the wet loop for quite a while!!!

I know there has been posting about film scanning, but would appreciate any suggestions as the best way to have the 35mm and the 2 1/4 negs. scanned. I typically print at 300 minimum or usually 360 ppi. Flat bed or drum? Grater Cleveland seems to have limited options.

comments welcomed.,

ajsail
Logged

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2833
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Film vs. Developer, Etc?
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2018, 05:34:45 PM »

Some time ago, I think in 2014, Michael R and I met in Buffalo and were planning on shooting B&W. I had my M6 and Rollei and some Tmax400, and Ilford Delta 100 & 400. Well, unfortunately we never did the shoot. But, Michael talked about using a developer not known to me one he found somewhere - not D-76 nor Microdol, not one of the more popular ones. Would anyone know of what it might have been? I still plan to unlimbering the M6 and Rollei and developing some B&W film. Any thoughts on developers would be appreciated since i have been out of the wet loop for quite a while!!!

comments welcomed.,

ajsail

Kodak HC-110 I bet.
Logged
Peter
"I am not young enough to know everything" - Oscar Wilde

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3055
Re: Film vs. Developer, Etc?
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2018, 12:03:35 AM »

Or…I wonder if it was one of Geoffrey Crawley's FX developers. Acutol for instance. Or Aculux, which Crawley didn't create but which was also made & sold by Paterson.

-Dave-
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18533
Re: Film vs. Developer, Etc?
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2018, 05:29:18 AM »

Or…I wonder if it was one of Geoffrey Crawley's FX developers. Acutol for instance. Or Aculux, which Crawley didn't create but which was also made & sold by Paterson.

-Dave-


FWIW, as an amateur I played around with several develpers, but as a pro I never moved away from D76 diluted 1+1 with water.

The advice is simple: get to know one developer well and your pictures, in the sense of technical quality, will look better than they ever can if you jump from one developer fad to the next.

The most important thing you can do for yourself with the process of film development is to ensure that you manage an almost perfect continuity of process; in other words, be able to repeat the steps in exactly the same way every time. I believe that even processing a film on its own, in the same soup, is not the same as developing two or three rolls of the same films at once in a larger tank. I am sure that the agitation is, in practice, rather different regarding the contrast that you end up enjoying - or not.

Don't forget that the selling of developers was also a commercial venture, with all the marketing bullshit that the various companies could afford.

Rob

JeanMichel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 419
Re: Film vs. Developer, Etc?
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2018, 01:30:35 PM »

I agree with Rob. It is hard to improve on D-76 for general purpose developing. I used that for years before moving to Ilford stuff, mainly because it was more convenient and available where I am. I gave away all my darkroom equipment, including my chemistry formulary recently. I would suggest that the OP simply use something like D-76, prone of the Ilford developers such as ID-11 or Ilfolsol
Logged

donbga

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Re: Film vs. Developer, Etc?
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2018, 02:21:01 PM »

I agree with Rob. It is hard to improve on D-76 for general purpose developing. I used that for years before moving to Ilford stuff, mainly because it was more convenient and available where I am. I gave away all my darkroom equipment, including my chemistry formulary recently. I would suggest that the OP simply use something like D-76, prone of the Ilford developers such as ID-11 or Ilfolsol

Ilford produces Ilfotec DD-X film developer. This is an easy to use developer and produces full film speed of PROPERLY exposed and DEVELOPED film. A friend of mine just recently sent me a shot of his new Harley processed in DDX and it looks amazing with TMAX 400 II. The late Barry Thorton wrote the now famous treatise, Edge of Darkness, Edge of Darkness, along with Elements: The Making of Fine Monochrome Prints, Elements: The Making of Fine Monochrome Prints.

I have used many developers over the years with many different B&W emulsions and sizes. Today IMO, there are so many excellent film developer combinations available I would recommend to the beginner (whether scanning or old timey printing) to pick a developer that is tried and true. I started out with HC-110 and old Tri-X. Today I use TMAX developer and TMAX-RS for sheet film, all processed in a Jobo rotary processor.

However, a simple Patterson roll film can made of plastic with easy load nylon reels (or what ever they are made of) will suffice. D-76 has always been the breakfast of champions, and works beautifully with Tri-X and HP5. Glycine/amidol based developers that you mix yourself give awesome results with Pan F plus. Thus we are back to the Ilfotec DD-X developer that have similar qualities of the G/A developer.

For really really easy scanable results shoot Ilford's XP2 that is easily processed in C-41 at your finisher. Expose at ISO of 200 and get wonderful creamy highligts and mid-tones with beefy shadows.

Speaking of shadows that is one of the differentiations with a difference that analog B&W has over digital B&W many users don't realize. Digital shadows can get easily crushed together whereas a good robust film toe keeps on giving if exposed and developed properly and printed properly, either digitally or in the old timey darkroom.
 
Good luck and have fun, failure is always an option to learn from so don't be afraid of making mistakes.

Don Bryant 

PS Even though I shoot digital I still have and use my darkroom.
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3055
Re: Film vs. Developer, Etc?
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2018, 02:56:51 PM »

HP5+ and DD-X are what I use nowadays when I go for b&w film. (Got some Acros 100 too when rumors started popping up that Fuji planned to discontinue it.) Shot loads of XP-2 Super in the '90s but haven't used it since. In the '80s & '90s I used mainly one developer: Rodinal. Love the grain!

-Dave-
Logged

donbga

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Re: Film vs. Developer, Etc?
« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2018, 05:04:55 PM »

HP5+ and DD-X are what I use nowadays when I go for b&w film. (Got some Acros 100 too when rumors started popping up that Fuji planned to discontinue it.) Shot loads of XP-2 Super in the '90s but haven't used it since. In the '80s & '90s I used mainly one developer: Rodinal. Love the grain!

-Dave-

I knew someone would bring up the R word. I purchased a bottle in 1969 with a rubber stopper and a hypodermic needle. It lasted a long time in a stoppered bottle. HC-110 is uber flexible and long lasting in the bottle even when it changes color. TMAX developer is much the same as long as oxidation doesn't occur in the bottle. What we need these days are easy to use products which are bio-degradable and relatively green.

XP2 fits that bill perfectly, iMO and is easy peazy.


Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3055
Re: Film vs. Developer, Etc?
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2018, 08:11:23 PM »

What we need these days are easy to use products which are bio-degradable and relatively green.

XP2 fits that bill perfectly, iMO and is easy peazy.

Yeah. I stopped using Rodinal after it ate through the pipe beneath my basement sink. Well, for a time I poured spent developer directly into a sewer vent in the basement floor…but then I considered what the same stuff that wrecked the pipe was likely doing further down the line.

-Dave-
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up