Film developers

John wrote

"...split stock ?"


Split Stock? Split Hair. How will I ever keep them all straight?

1, Two-bath developers
2, Divided //
3, Split-stock //
4, A-B //

Did I leave any out? Dan

John wrote

"...split stock ?"


Split Stock? Split Hair. How will I ever keep them all straight?

1, Two-bath developers
2, Divided //
3, Split-stock //
4, A-B //

Did I leave any out? Dan

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:01:09 -0500, wrote:

Somebody else mentioned it, but I'll echo the words again.

Start off with one film and one developer.

IMO, suggesting that someone use one film is not too much
different than telling them to use only one leg. Eventually they'll
get really good at hopping but in the meantime they're going to miss a
lot.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

n Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:53:05 +0100, "Phil Hobgen"
wrote:

Hi,

I am trying to establish for myself a set of 35mm films and developers that
I can work with - so that I can then concentrate on my taking technique and
compare results against a consistent baseline.

I am settling on Ilford PanF/FP4/HP5 as a set of films that will cover all
my needs. I'm hoping these aren't going to disappear, or radically increase
in price any time soon.

From reading on this NG and other sources it would seem that using Ilford's
own chemicals probably isn't sensible based on price and performance. But
what to choose ?

The Ilford chemistries are not cheap, but they do have liquid versions
of most chemistries. Mixing up a batch from liquids and using it one
shot sryle, isn't cheap, but it isn't raking chances with your
negatives either, and offers good and consistant results.

Home brew developers are often cheaper, but then you need all of the
equipment, and to play chemist every time you want to soup a roll, you
also need to be very careful mixing the ingredients, or you will lose
consistancy. When I operated my fume room, from 1978 to 1983 I wanted
consistant results on negatives, but I would fool around on prints, it
worked, until I closed the fume room, because I moved, and didn't have
room anymore.

Personally, based on your shooting style, pick A film, then pick A
developer, and stick with those, you will learn what that film is
capable of, and what that combination will let you get away with,
often it's quite a bit.

W

n Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:53:05 +0100, "Phil Hobgen"
wrote:

Hi,

I am trying to establish for myself a set of 35mm films and developers that
I can work with - so that I can then concentrate on my taking technique and
compare results against a consistent baseline.

I am settling on Ilford PanF/FP4/HP5 as a set of films that will cover all
my needs. I'm hoping these aren't going to disappear, or radically increase
in price any time soon.

From reading on this NG and other sources it would seem that using Ilford's
own chemicals probably isn't sensible based on price and performance. But
what to choose ?

The Ilford chemistries are not cheap, but they do have liquid versions
of most chemistries. Mixing up a batch from liquids and using it one
shot sryle, isn't cheap, but it isn't raking chances with your
negatives either, and offers good and consistant results.

Home brew developers are often cheaper, but then you need all of the
equipment, and to play chemist every time you want to soup a roll, you
also need to be very careful mixing the ingredients, or you will lose
consistancy. When I operated my fume room, from 1978 to 1983 I wanted
consistant results on negatives, but I would fool around on prints, it
worked, until I closed the fume room, because I moved, and didn't have
room anymore.

Personally, based on your shooting style, pick A film, then pick A
developer, and stick with those, you will learn what that film is
capable of, and what that combination will let you get away with,
often it's quite a bit.

W

John wrote:
: On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:01:09 -0500, wrote:

: Somebody else mentioned it, but I'll echo the words again.
:
: Start off with one film and one developer.

: IMO, suggesting that someone use one film is not too much
: different than telling them to use only one leg. Eventually they'll
: get really good at hopping but in the meantime they're going to miss a
: lot.

I hope that you will agree that for someone just starting out using multiple
films and developers can be confusing and frustrating. I've long suggested that
when starting with B&W ( especially if they're learning the zone system at the
time) to stick with one film and developer combination.

With time as you say it's good to try different film/developer combinations.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...
"Phil Hobgen" wrote in message
...

I use Fuji and Ilford films and Paterson developers

Fuji Neopan 400 (EI 320) Paterson Acutol 1+14, 8 minutes @ 68F/20C
Fuji Neopan 1600 (EI 650) Paterson Acutol 1+15, 7,5 minutes @ 68F/20C
Ilford FP4 (EI 160) Paterson Acutol 1+15, 7,5 minutes @ 68F/20C
Ilford Pan-F (EI 50-64) Paterson Acutol 1+21, 9 minutes @ 68F/20C

ooooh, yer a paterson shill. Still shake your film in plastic reels? Nuff
said.

"John" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:01:09 -0500, wrote:

Somebody else mentioned it, but I'll echo the words again.

Start off with one film and one developer.

IMO, suggesting that someone use one film is not too much
different than telling them to use only one leg. Eventually they'll
get really good at hopping but in the meantime they're going to miss a
lot.

That's not up to your usual wit. I suggest a vacation, warm beer.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:29:12 -0500, John
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:53:05 +0100, "Phil Hobgen"
wrote:

I am trying to establish for myself a set of 35mm films and developers that
I can work with - so that I can then concentrate on my taking technique and
compare results against a consistent baseline.

I am settling on Ilford PanF/FP4/HP5 as a set of films that will cover all
my needs. I'm hoping these aren't going to disappear, or radically increase
in price any time soon.

Given Ilford's current states of affairs, I wouldn't count on
either. In fact I see that their prices here in America have risen a
good deal since my last purchase. Of course Galerie is still worth it.

From reading on this NG and other sources it would seem that using Ilford's
own chemicals probably isn't sensible based on price and performance. But
what to choose ?

Ilford's developers are fine to use. Microphen is a good
speed-enhancing developer comparable to T-Max RS. ID-11 is virtually
identical as D-76.

If you have to buy, at first, these are fine. Heck even Scarpitti's
recommendation of Paterson developers will work. Pay the tarriff or
home brew.

That said, I still recommend purchasing your own chemicals and
mixing your developers from published formulas.

Yep

I am tempted to try Prescysol from
http://www.monochromephotography.com/developer.htm but I haven't found any
independent reference to it - does anyone have experience of using it?

Since it's a UK item I doubt any in the US have tried it and I
haven't heard about it until this post. Sounds like a PMK/Windisch
variant.

WINDISCH CATECHOL DEVELOPER

SOLUTION A
Distilled Water (195°F) 750ml
Sodium sulfite 80.0g
Catechol 12.5g
Water to make 1.0Ll

SOLUTION B
Distilled water 750ml
Sodium Metaborate 100.0g
Water to make 1.0Ll

PMK DEVELOPER

SOLUTION A
Distilled Water (195°F) 750ml
Metol 10.0g
Sodium Bisulfite 20.0g
Pyrogallol 100.0g
EDTA (optional) 5.0g
Water to make 1.0L

SOLUTION B
Distilled water 1400ml
Sodium Metaborate 600.0g
water to make 2.0L

I suspect it's abit more complex than the above formulae. Still it
would seem to be something with Pyrocatechin, given the Brown stain
and the selective hardening of the highlights.


From what I read (in my relative ignorance), a two bath developer approach
seems very attractive.

Do you mean two-bath or split stock ? The developer you
reference is a split stock not a two bath formula. A split-stock
combines the ingredients from a stock solution which is usually
diluted (1:5:100 for this variant) whereas a split stock has the

^^^^^^^^
I think you meant "two bath" here.

developing agent in the "A" bath and the alkali in the "B" bath.

Divided D-76

Solution A

Metol 2g
Sodium Sulfite 100g
Hydroquinone 5g
Pot. bromide 1g
Water to make 1.0L

Solution B

Borax 50g
Water to make 1.0L

Even this formula is not a true divided developer as there will be
some development in the A bath, Most of the problems with what people
call divided development occur with procedures using such a formula.
When Kodak was researching using divided development for motion
pictures, they added a load of Pure Cane Sugar to the A bath to
prevent ANY development from ocurring prior to the B bath. Contrast
was controlled in their procedure by changing the alkalinity of the B
bath and varying the time of immersion. It worked, but it took a lot
of effort on the part of the lab. Effort costs money, so, back to the
tried and true and cheap; single bath development.

But why then aren't they more popular?

Two-bath formulas have a nasty habit of compressing the tonal
scale.

True, but that's what some folks want.

Some of the two bath formulae I used were quite adaptable in varying
the results. Diafine was tweakable by changing the B bath to one with
Metaborate or even TSP ( Tri Poly Phosphate) to get contrast control
and different curve effects. The same could be done with a variant of
D-76, where the A bath has been acidified with Bisulfite, to stop
early development of the highlights. In this case, adding more
developing agent to the A bath can also affect highlights and density.
But that's for later, when the OP has a bit more experience using the
conventional approach.

Are equally
good or better results achievable in a single bath developer, if so what
would be a good choice?

I am now recommending D-76H for general usage with medium and
large format films and D-23 for 35mm. If you're buying
over-the-counter formulas then I would suggest Microphen and
Perceptol.

Good advice for starting out. I might add that using D-23 might be
the best solution as there would be a big cost saving and it is a very
forgiving developer. Look on the web for teaspoon equivalent
formulations, and save on a scale, if you don't already have one.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

Robert Vervoordt, MFA

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:29:12 -0500, John
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:53:05 +0100, "Phil Hobgen"
wrote:

I am trying to establish for myself a set of 35mm films and developers that
I can work with - so that I can then concentrate on my taking technique and
compare results against a consistent baseline.

I am settling on Ilford PanF/FP4/HP5 as a set of films that will cover all
my needs. I'm hoping these aren't going to disappear, or radically increase
in price any time soon.

Given Ilford's current states of affairs, I wouldn't count on
either. In fact I see that their prices here in America have risen a
good deal since my last purchase. Of course Galerie is still worth it.

From reading on this NG and other sources it would seem that using Ilford's
own chemicals probably isn't sensible based on price and performance. But
what to choose ?

Ilford's developers are fine to use. Microphen is a good
speed-enhancing developer comparable to T-Max RS. ID-11 is virtually
identical as D-76.

If you have to buy, at first, these are fine. Heck even Scarpitti's
recommendation of Paterson developers will work. Pay the tarriff or
home brew.

That said, I still recommend purchasing your own chemicals and
mixing your developers from published formulas.

Yep

I am tempted to try Prescysol from
http://www.monochromephotography.com/developer.htm but I haven't found any
independent reference to it - does anyone have experience of using it?

Since it's a UK item I doubt any in the US have tried it and I
haven't heard about it until this post. Sounds like a PMK/Windisch
variant.

WINDISCH CATECHOL DEVELOPER

SOLUTION A
Distilled Water (195°F) 750ml
Sodium sulfite 80.0g
Catechol 12.5g
Water to make 1.0Ll

SOLUTION B
Distilled water 750ml
Sodium Metaborate 100.0g
Water to make 1.0Ll

PMK DEVELOPER

SOLUTION A
Distilled Water (195°F) 750ml
Metol 10.0g
Sodium Bisulfite 20.0g
Pyrogallol 100.0g
EDTA (optional) 5.0g
Water to make 1.0L

SOLUTION B
Distilled water 1400ml
Sodium Metaborate 600.0g
water to make 2.0L

I suspect it's abit more complex than the above formulae. Still it
would seem to be something with Pyrocatechin, given the Brown stain
and the selective hardening of the highlights.


From what I read (in my relative ignorance), a two bath developer approach
seems very attractive.

Do you mean two-bath or split stock ? The developer you
reference is a split stock not a two bath formula. A split-stock
combines the ingredients from a stock solution which is usually
diluted (1:5:100 for this variant) whereas a split stock has the

^^^^^^^^
I think you meant "two bath" here.

developing agent in the "A" bath and the alkali in the "B" bath.

Divided D-76

Solution A

Metol 2g
Sodium Sulfite 100g
Hydroquinone 5g
Pot. bromide 1g
Water to make 1.0L

Solution B

Borax 50g
Water to make 1.0L

Even this formula is not a true divided developer as there will be
some development in the A bath, Most of the problems with what people
call divided development occur with procedures using such a formula.
When Kodak was researching using divided development for motion
pictures, they added a load of Pure Cane Sugar to the A bath to
prevent ANY development from ocurring prior to the B bath. Contrast
was controlled in their procedure by changing the alkalinity of the B
bath and varying the time of immersion. It worked, but it took a lot
of effort on the part of the lab. Effort costs money, so, back to the
tried and true and cheap; single bath development.

But why then aren't they more popular?

Two-bath formulas have a nasty habit of compressing the tonal
scale.

True, but that's what some folks want.

Some of the two bath formulae I used were quite adaptable in varying
the results. Diafine was tweakable by changing the B bath to one with
Metaborate or even TSP ( Tri Poly Phosphate) to get contrast control
and different curve effects. The same could be done with a variant of
D-76, where the A bath has been acidified with Bisulfite, to stop
early development of the highlights. In this case, adding more
developing agent to the A bath can also affect highlights and density.
But that's for later, when the OP has a bit more experience using the
conventional approach.

Are equally
good or better results achievable in a single bath developer, if so what
would be a good choice?

I am now recommending D-76H for general usage with medium and
large format films and D-23 for 35mm. If you're buying
over-the-counter formulas then I would suggest Microphen and
Perceptol.

Good advice for starting out. I might add that using D-23 might be
the best solution as there would be a big cost saving and it is a very
forgiving developer. Look on the web for teaspoon equivalent
formulations, and save on a scale, if you don't already have one.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

Robert Vervoordt, MFA