- Joined
- Aug 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,723
Whats your favourite developer for sheet film ?
-
Thank You For Visiting... Please Click Here and sign up to contribute and reply to posts and download the resources.
Your favourite Developer For Sheet Film
- Thread starter Ian-Barber
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2016
- Messages
- 387
Rodinal.
For many years I used a proprietary developer whose formula was not published (Johnson's Unitol, if anyone is interested). When it was taken off the market I was suddenly forced to make a change. At that point, I decided to insure against a repeat performance by selecting a developer whose formula was known, so that I could carry on if the worst happened.
My criteria had little to do with performance and everything to do with convenience. I had had limited experience with developers in those days, and solely with 35mm film. The only developer I tried that gave a noticeably different negative to my eyes was Acutol (an acutance developer, as the name suggests). The first film I processed with it was a revelation, and I still recall the way it rendered the stone of my village's church. The downside was that grain was larger, and I have always disliked grain. The only thing in black and white photography that I hate more than grain is the advice/hints so often given in magazines about grain being a possitive advantage, and something to be sought after and greatly prized in black and white (often together with a soot and whitewash contrast). But I digress.
The result was that I could see advantages to acutance developers, especially if grain wasn't going to be an issue. My second level of desirable features after a published formula was convenience - I wanted a liquid rather a power - and a good shelf life. Acutol didn't have a good shelf life. Rodinal fitted the bill, and I settled on it. It works well with 120 too, in my experience. I've never put a 35mm film through it though.
For many years I used a proprietary developer whose formula was not published (Johnson's Unitol, if anyone is interested). When it was taken off the market I was suddenly forced to make a change. At that point, I decided to insure against a repeat performance by selecting a developer whose formula was known, so that I could carry on if the worst happened.
My criteria had little to do with performance and everything to do with convenience. I had had limited experience with developers in those days, and solely with 35mm film. The only developer I tried that gave a noticeably different negative to my eyes was Acutol (an acutance developer, as the name suggests). The first film I processed with it was a revelation, and I still recall the way it rendered the stone of my village's church. The downside was that grain was larger, and I have always disliked grain. The only thing in black and white photography that I hate more than grain is the advice/hints so often given in magazines about grain being a possitive advantage, and something to be sought after and greatly prized in black and white (often together with a soot and whitewash contrast). But I digress.
The result was that I could see advantages to acutance developers, especially if grain wasn't going to be an issue. My second level of desirable features after a published formula was convenience - I wanted a liquid rather a power - and a good shelf life. Acutol didn't have a good shelf life. Rodinal fitted the bill, and I settled on it. It works well with 120 too, in my experience. I've never put a 35mm film through it though.
Now that's an interesting question... 
Of course, the answer is: it depends!
Depends of what film I'm shooting and what process I intend for the final results. For example, if I'm shooting 8x10 Tri-X I like HC-110B or HC-110H depending on ambient temp and/or if I'm running the Jobo, for Delta 100 I really enjoy the results from Clayton F76+; these combinations would primarily be for silver printing. If I plan to print pt/pd I'll usually reach for HP5+ or FP4+ souped in Pyrocat-HD 2:2:100. I've got a few other combinations I use, but the aforementioned are the primary candidates most of the time.
Of course, the answer is: it depends!Depends of what film I'm shooting and what process I intend for the final results. For example, if I'm shooting 8x10 Tri-X I like HC-110B or HC-110H depending on ambient temp and/or if I'm running the Jobo, for Delta 100 I really enjoy the results from Clayton F76+; these combinations would primarily be for silver printing. If I plan to print pt/pd I'll usually reach for HP5+ or FP4+ souped in Pyrocat-HD 2:2:100. I've got a few other combinations I use, but the aforementioned are the primary candidates most of the time.
Years ago, I 'invested' in a case of HC110. Not long after my 'investment, I 'found' that Sandy King's Pyrocat HD formula gave me 'nicer' negatives as well as being to be a LOT less expensive (made from 'scratch) and much more versatile (my unopened HC110 has all turned kind of brown but is still useable). The Pyrocat HD gives me negatives that will print readily and easily on 'commercial' BW paper.... while providing a negative capable of printing on a variety of the archaic non-silver print processes... VDB, Salt Prints, Cyanotypes. I'm hoping to get a film scanner (soon I hope) that will allow me to enlarge some 4x5 negatives onto 8.5 x 11 inch Pictorico to make 8x10 digital negatives from 4x5 film. All going well... I'm going to 'go back in time' and have another go making Carbon and Carbon Transfer prints. I invite you to check out Sandy's website.... http://sandykingphotography.com/
Ken
Ken