So Many Developers, So Many Choices!

Carl Hall

Carl Hall

Messages
3,817
Name
Carl
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone,

I’ve just used up my first bottle of developer and I’m looking to buy some more. I’ve been using Ilfosol 3 but I want to get something a bit cheaper as I’ll be printing very soon as well as developing film. I’ve had a look at some of the developers available and this is my thinking:

D-76 seems to come up as a recommendation in a lot of places and seems to be a fair bit cheaper than Ilfosol 3 for developing film (Ilfosol 3 diluted to 1+9 costs 93p per 120 roll, whereas D-76 at 1+1 is 53p a roll when bought as a 1L bag, or 39p a roll when bought as a huuuge 3.8L bag). Sounds like it’s a jack of all trades that does nothing particularly well but does everything OK.

ID-11 sounds like it’s virtually identical to D-76 but is twice the price, so that’s out of the running to start with.

HC-110 seems versatile in that you can use different dilutions for different results, but again it’s quite a bit more money (£18.97 per litre, working out at £1.40 a roll at dilution B, or 1+7). edit: Dilution B is actually 1+31 (I quoted dilutions to create stock solution), meaning it works out at 35p a roll, quite cheap in fact.

T-Max is apparently better suited to T-Max films but is good for everything else too. My maths tells me it’ll cost a whopping £1.53 to dev a 120 roll though.

I’m curious about Rodinal as I shoot mainly low to medium speed film (50 to 400). A lot of people say that it’s quite an expensive developer but if I use it at 1+50 for 400 speed HP5 then it works out at 30p a roll which is nearly 25% less than D-76. Am I missing something here? Seen a few Youtube videos on stand developing with Rodinal at 1+100 and it looks pretty good (cheaper, too!). I can’t seem to find much information out about its suitability for printing though.

I’m leaning towards D-76 I think, because I’m bound to balls up a lot of printing and I don’t want to waste buckets of money along with paper and chemicals lol. I have no idea how much is needed to develop prints or how many prints can be made with one batch of developer though. edit: film developers are different to paper developes, stupid me! I don’t really have a strong opinion on grain either way, so I’m currently sat on the fence between the fine grain and high acutance developers.

Based on my requirements, is D-76 a good option or have I missed something out that would be better?

Thanks!

Carl

----------

Now edited to correct all the mistakes I made...
 
Last edited:
I can't understand anybody saying Rodinal's expensive, it's great value and in my experience it lasts for ages as well.
 
one litre of id 11 ( just under six quid ) will develope up to 20 rolls of 6x6 or 30 35mm either 30p or 20p a roll and dont forget these developers are for film not paper .
 
Carl Hall said:
Hi everyone,



HC-110 seems versatile in that you can use different dilutions for different results, but again it’s quite a bit more money (£18.97 per litre, working out at £1.40 a roll at dilution B, or 1+7).

Carl
Click to expand...

Dilution B is 1+31. That's about 19p per roll of 35mm. And it lasts more or less for ever. You just have to make sure you have the U.S. version and not the Euro. version.

A.G. Photographic sell the U.S. version.

It's what I use.
 
Last edited:
Carl Hall said:
T-Max is apparently better suited to T-Max films but is good for everything else too. My maths tells me it’ll cost a whopping £1.53 to dev a 120 roll though.
Click to expand...

Although the AG Photographic website suggests otherwise, I don't think that T-Max developer is actually formulated specifically with the T-Max films in mind. I could be wrong, but I think that they're just simply sharing the T-Max brand name. As I understand it, XTOL is the developer that is Kodak's ideal pairing for the T-Max films. Take that with a grain of salt, as I picked that up somewhere on the interwebs a while back.

I'm more certain, however, that T-Max developer is Kodak's closest equivalent to Ilford DD-X, which is best suited to maximising shadow detail in high speed films. While these two developers are certainly more costly per roll to develop, I think that they're worth it if you shoot any faster films (e.g., 400 ISO or faster), as they'll pull more from the shadows in dimly lit situations. Saving a pound in development doesn't do any good if you've had to sacrifice the very details you were hoping to capture in the first place.

I use Ilford LC29 for films up to ISO 400 and DD-X for films ISO 400 and up.
 
Last edited:
I also use LC29. Not sure how cost effective it is as tbh I'm not bothered... richer than Croesus I am.... :banana::D

I just find it gives a very smooth finished product, well it does when I don't b*lls it up.

Andy
 
A litre of working solution of T-Max developer (that's 1+4, so 200mL of dev) can be reused to develop 12 rolls of film. After the first 4, there's 1 minute added as time compensation, and after the first 8, there's 2 minutes added as time compensation.

I tend to use 500mL of working solution for 4 films, before discarding. It has always worked out!

D76 is the benchmark that all films have to work well under, so you'll definitely have no problems with it.

HC-110 is a superb developer but quite expensive.

I wouldn't use Rodinal with ISO400 film personally, I think the aforementioned developers offer much better results with ISO400 film. The most modern developers (T-Max, HC-110 etc.) make a one stop push to ISO800 essentially effortless.

Always remember though: the developer, no matter how expensive and even if it is only one-use, will almost always be cheaper than the roll of film you are developing.
 
Last edited:
freecom2 said:
HC-110 is a superb developer but quite expensive.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure it is. At solution B, as I said above, it works out at about 19p a roll.

Add to that the certainty it will last long enough to use it all and it I reckon it works out relatively cheap.

What are you comparing it too out of interest?

If there's a developer that's just as good and real world cheaper, I'm all ears.
 
Last edited:
simon ess said:
I'm not so sure it is. At solution B, as I said above, it works out at about 19p a roll.

Add to that the certainty it will last long enough to use it all and it I reckon it works out relatively cheap.

What are you comparing it too out of interest?

If there's a developer that's just as good and real world cheaper, I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

You certainly seem to be right. I think my calculations in the past were off a different dilution (possibly C), and also using 120 film measurements. Also, the initial outlay is quite expensive for a litre bottle compared to most other developers, even if it is more economical in the long run.
 
I appreciate we all have to watch the pennies ( or centimes in my case) to a certain degree, but even on a very limited income, the cost of developing at home massively outweighs the cost of sending to labs so in all honesty even at " a whopping £1.53 to dev a 120 roll" its a darned sight cheaper than sending the film away.

Fwiw, my advice would be to choose a developer based on the type of film you are using and results that you hope to acquire along with feedback / advice from other people that have had experience from different chems.

There's little point in choosing a developer or developing method that works out cheaper if the results don't please you.

Reminds me of people running a car that was designed for 4* fuel on 2* because it was cheaper but then complained that the vehicle ran like a bag of kn****ers!
 
Asha said:
There's little point in choosing a developer or developing method that works out cheaper if the results don't please you.
Click to expand...

Very true. I ran a mile from LC29 after souping some T-Max 400 in it, the results were (IMO) awful. Most film developers are relatively economical - as I mentioned earlier, the cost of the film usually vastly outweighs the chemicals you are using anyway.
 
Carl, any chance you could update your useful initial post with what you've learned?
 
Carl Hall said:
Hi everyone,

.... I’m leaning towards D-76 I think, because I’m bound to balls up a lot of printing and I don’t want to waste buckets of money along with paper and chemicals lol. I have no idea how much is needed to develop prints or how many prints can be made with one batch of developer though. .....

Carl
Click to expand...

None of the developers you have mentioned are recommended for printing, you need a paper developer for that.
 
The overiding factor I keep coming back to with film developers and economy is how well it keeps, cos I don't want to chuck five quids worth of it away if I don't soup anything for a while, on the other hand I don't want to spanner any film either.

I mean I know what I want, I want no grain and sh1t sharp.

Rodinal is legendary when it comes to keeping, but its not known for grainless sh1t sharp.

I used to use Ilfosol but a half bottle kept for a few weeks becomes far too risky to use.

I like to shoot scapes with a red filter, that sometimes can take daytime iso 100 film shutter speeds down to a tripod = do not want.
So I'm shooting Delta 400 with a red filter, and to keep the grain to a minimum souping in Xtol.

So I've done two sessions of xtol, one with fp4 first that came out fabulous and one with Delta 400 and a roll of 35mm AGFA apx100, the two sessions were 3 months apart, the Delta came out a bit thin and naff but the AGFA (no filter) is absolutely gorgeous.
I thought that maybe the xtol had gone off a bit, but the AGFA pretty much proved it hadn't, so maybe I've committed some metering faux pax with the red filter and Delta.....I dunno :/

Anyway, I'd like to throw Xtol in to the mix as a superfine and sharp developer that keeps mixed as stock, kept in 250ml glass bottles I add 250ml of water to make 500ml of working solution which just so happens to be the required amount for one soup in a system 4 tank.

I don't mind that much how much stock developer comes out of a bag of powder mix, as long as I get to use it all before it goes pants :)
 
I have used D76, ID11 and HC 110, I liked them all but have now settled on Ilford LC29, I find I get good and predictable results all the time with this developer, not the cheapest but it is worth the quality it delivers in my view.
 
I'm most happy with Rodinal 1:25 with Tri-X. I also like it with Adox CHS100II but find it a bit curly with this emulsion.

Rodinal and 400 speed might stand against what the internet would have you believe but I find it gives a very 3D effect, amazing sharpness and a little grain which emphasises the film look rather than detracts from it. I've got a fair bit of experience with PanF which I love also but to me super smooth/grainless negs can look like a digital conversion and don't have that 'bite'

I don't want to spam your thread with pics but these pictures I think demonstrate how Tri-X can shine in Rodinal 1:25 (shame my photography doesn't match!)

Cheers
ped

https://www.flickr.com/photos/chiscocks/14948728376/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/chiscocks/14948715096/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/chiscocks/15432167758/

P.s for years before using Rodinal (mainly because it's easier to use with my 200ml quantity Rondinax tank) I used ID11 which I also think is superb, but I think I prefer the disposable nature of Rodinal so I can be sure my dev is clean and fresh. I don't develop very often so ID11 always felt like a bit of a gamble, never had any problems though!
 
joxby said:
So I've done two sessions of xtol, one with fp4 first that came out fabulous and one with Delta 400 and a roll of 35mm AGFA apx100, the two sessions were 3 months apart, the Delta came out a bit thin and naff but the AGFA (no filter) is absolutely gorgeous.
I thought that maybe the xtol had gone off a bit, but the AGFA pretty much proved it hadn't, so maybe I've committed some metering faux pax with the red filter and Delta.....I dunno :/
Click to expand...

I haven't checked Delta to see what it's spectral sensitivity looks like, so I don't know if this is a factor. If you used a TTL meter, they do tend to underexpose when a red filter is used. Just a thought.

I like the sharpness of Rodinal, but especially its convenience and keeping properties. I haven't a problem using it with roll film, but I'd try something else if I were using 35mm and wanted to print above 10x8 as I hate grain.
 
The AGFA is 35mm shot on an F100 so ttl, everything else is 120 and RF metered
Delta 100 is fine on the RF, I've not considered there might be a difference in spectral sensitivity between it and 400 though, I shoot 100 @ iso 50 with a red, and 400 @ iso 200 and the 400 has been a bit washed out and lacking in contrast, under exposed.
It doesn't help that I dunno what factor the red is, but it makes great printing negs on 100 with a one stop factor, not so 400 it seems.
Or is it Xtol, I dunno I haven't used it enough to know what to expect from delta 400 :/
S'about time we got some chemical natter up in this F&C, peeps usually mention what they've used and got good stuff from but failures don't often get discussed unless they are complete HooleySnaps.

HOOLEYSNAP - (definition)

from the Latin ~ Hoolius Snapperatii ~ a right balls up
 
Usually, I'd expect a red filter to have a 3x factor, and metering TTL through a red filter to give one stop underexposure.

Early films (meaning pre 1920's) were generally not very red sensitive; it was the introduction of new dyes that made films red sensitive and panchromatic (all colours) rather than orthochromatic (correct colours). Some modern pan films are extra sensitive at the red end, so have a reduced filter factor with a red filter. As I said, I don't know about Delta. There was a time when films carried 2 speed ratings, one for daylight and one for artificial light to account for the difference in red sensitivity.
 
Thanks for the replies everyone :) It seems I got a few things wrong in my original post (i.e. prices, dilutions and assuming film developers would work for paper. so quite a lot really!) Based on all the replies I think I'm going to get a bottle of Rodinal for when I'm shooting FP4+ or PanF, and then have a more in depth look at LC29 for when I'm using HP5+.

Cheers!

simon ess said:
Dilution B is 1+31. That's about 19p per roll of 35mm. And it lasts more or less for ever. You just have to make sure you have the U.S. version and not the Euro. version.

A.G. Photographic sell the U.S. version.

It's what I use.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes, my bad. I was looking at the wrong table which was for dilution to create a stock solution.

skysh4rk said:
Although the AG Photographic website suggests otherwise, I don't think that T-Max developer is actually formulated specifically with the T-Max films in mind. I could be wrong, but I think that they're just simply sharing the T-Max brand name. As I understand it, XTOL is the developer that is Kodak's ideal pairing for the T-Max films. Take that with a grain of salt, as I picked that up somewhere on the interwebs a while back.

I'm more certain, however, that T-Max developer is Kodak's closest equivalent to Ilford DD-X, which is best suited to maximising shadow detail in high speed films. While these two developers are certainly more costly per roll to develop, I think that they're worth it if you shoot any faster films (e.g., 400 ISO or faster), as they'll pull more from the shadows in dimly lit situations. Saving a pound in development doesn't do any good if you've had to sacrifice the very details you were hoping to capture in the first place.

I use Ilford LC29 for films up to ISO 400 and DD-X for films ISO 400 and up.
Click to expand...

Andysnap said:
I also use LC29. Not sure how cost effective it is as tbh I'm not bothered... richer than Croesus I am.... :banana::D

I just find it gives a very smooth finished product, well it does when I don't b*lls it up.

Andy
Click to expand...

Thanks guys, I hadn't heard of LC29 before so I will have a read about it now :)

freecom2 said:
A litre of working solution of T-Max developer (that's 1+4, so 200mL of dev) can be reused to develop 12 rolls of film. After the first 4, there's 1 minute added as time compensation, and after the first 8, there's 2 minutes added as time compensation.

I tend to use 500mL of working solution for 4 films, before discarding. It has always worked out!

D76 is the benchmark that all films have to work well under, so you'll definitely have no problems with it.

HC-110 is a superb developer but quite expensive.

I wouldn't use Rodinal with ISO400 film personally, I think the aforementioned developers offer much better results with ISO400 film. The most modern developers (T-Max, HC-110 etc.) make a one stop push to ISO800 essentially effortless.

Always remember though: the developer, no matter how expensive and even if it is only one-use, will almost always be cheaper than the roll of film you are developing.
Click to expand...

So far I've only used one shot developers but I'm open to the idea of using one which can be reused again with a few added minutes in time. Is there any reduction in quality when reusing it or does it still provide great results?

Asha said:
I appreciate we all have to watch the pennies ( or centimes in my case) to a certain degree, but even on a very limited income, the cost of developing at home massively outweighs the cost of sending to labs so in all honesty even at " a whopping £1.53 to dev a 120 roll" its a darned sight cheaper than sending the film away.

Fwiw, my advice would be to choose a developer based on the type of film you are using and results that you hope to acquire along with feedback / advice from other people that have had experience from different chems.

There's little point in choosing a developer or developing method that works out cheaper if the results don't please you.

Reminds me of people running a car that was designed for 4* fuel on 2* because it was cheaper but then complained that the vehicle ran like a bag of kn****ers!
Click to expand...

Asha I'm not trying to find the cheapest developer at all, I'm simply trying to find the one which best suits my requirements. At the moment the three things that are important to me are quality, price and ease of use, which is why I have stuck to one shot developers (ease of use) which are from the major brands (quality). I don't want to spend more money on a developer if I can get a cheaper one that gives me results that I'm happy with. If price was the only thing I cared about I would have just bought the cheapest one I could find without bothering to create this thread.

ChrisR said:
Carl, any chance you could update your useful initial post with what you've learned?
Click to expand...

Ok Chris, I'll edit the post and amend the prices and other bits that I got wrong... lol. I'm wondering if creating dedicated sticky thread with details, rough prices and comments about the main developers would be a good idea? Obviously would have to be done by someone that knows a lot about different developers though, which puts me out of the running haha.

dmb said:
None of the developers you have mentioned are recommended for printing, you need a paper developer for that.
Click to expand...

Every day is a school day it seems. I read somewhere about Rodinal being used for prints as well as film, so in my simple head I just assumed that it was the same thing for all developers. Now I know that there are actually specific paper developers it seems that there are much fewer to pick from which makes things simpler. I think I'm going to go for the Ilford multigrade paper developer. Am I right in saying that film stops and fixers can be used on paper too?
 
You might find The Darkroom Cookbook useful.
 
simon ess said:
I'm not so sure it is. At solution B, as I said above, it works out at about 19p a roll.

Add to that the certainty it will last long enough to use it all and it I reckon it works out relatively cheap.

What are you comparing it too out of interest?

If there's a developer that's just as good and real world cheaper, I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

I'm shocked at the extragance ( I would use a smiley at this point but hate the stock forum ones)

I use dilution H but with regard to 6ml minium per film the longer developing times are usefull and at 20/(1000/6) = something like 12p a roll its fairly cheap also just this year stopped using the out of date bottle I brought from Jesops five years ago ... out of date as in it was already a reddish colour when purchased.
 
I buy Ilford ID11 in 5 litre packs. A quick check online - I can see it on sale with free postage for £14.28. I find it much, much cheaper to buy 5 litres than 1 litre. So how many films can I develop with 5 litres of ID11?

Based on the requirements of a Paterson System 4 tank:
  • Using pure stock, 10 x 120 films at £1.48 per film
  • Using 1:1 dilution with water, 20 x 120 films at 71p per film
  • Using 1:3 dilution with water, 40 x 120 films at 36p per film
  • Using pure stock, 17 x 35mm films at 84p per film.
  • Using 1:1 dilution with water, 34 x 35mm films at 42p per film
  • Using 1:3 dilution with water, 68 x 35mm films at 21p per film.

Dilution isn't recommended for all films, but personally it works for me, mainly 1:3, although yes, it extends developing times. Still, I enjoy the process, and therefore my time is free. I'd roughly guess that with five litres of ID11, and a mixture of 120 and 35mm films, that I get to process around 25 - 40 films per batch.
 
XA2inmypocket said:
I buy Ilford ID11 in 5 litre packs. A quick check online - I can see it on sale with free postage for £14.28. I find it much, much cheaper to buy 5 litres than 1 litre.
Click to expand...

I never really understood why anyone bought Ilford ID11. It is the exact same as Kodak D76, except D76 is much cheaper.

For instance, at AG Photographic:
Powder for 5L of ID11 is £10.48 (£2.10 a litre)
Powder for 3.8L of D76 is £5.07 (£1.33 a litre)

(to be honest, if I wanted the faff of a powder developer, I'd probably use XTOL!)
 
freecom2 said:
I never really understood why anyone bought Ilford ID11. It is the exact same as Kodak D76, except D76 is much cheaper.

For instance, at AG Photographic:
Powder for 5L of ID11 is £10.48 (£2.10 a litre)
Powder for 3.8L of D76 is £5.07 (£1.33 a litre)

(to be honest, if I wanted the faff of a powder developer, I'd probably use XTOL!)
Click to expand...

The source that I found online for ID11 was four quid cheaper than AG, once UK delivery was accounted for. However, I'm willing to conceed that overall, the Kodak product will be cheaper - but per film, not by that many pennies. In my defence, I'm going to hide behind the flag. :ty: As a UK worker and tax payer, I'd still rather support the British product if its just pennies involved. Anyway, the Ilford fits nicely in a squeezy 5 litre drum that use to hold car wash. There's your answer as to why someone might prefer spending a little more.
 
XA2inmypocket said:
As a UK worker and tax payer, I'd still rather support the British product if its just pennies involved. Anyway, the Ilford fits nicely in a squeezy 5 litre drum that use to hold car wash. There's your answer as to why someone might prefer spending a little more.
Click to expand...

As part of Kodak's bankruptcy settlements, the UK Kodak Pension Plan purchased the Personalized Imaging and Document Imaging businesses from Eastman Kodak, resulting in the new British-owned and operated company, Kodak Alaris.

Kodak Alaris, based in Hemel Hempstead, have now assumed global responsibility for photographic film and, I believe, the chemicals for developing those films and use the Kodak name under licence.
 
skysh4rk said:
Kodak Alaris, based in Hemel Hempstead, have now assumed global responsibility for photographic film and, I believe, the chemicals for developing those films and use the Kodak name under licence.
Click to expand...
Didn't know that, I know the old Kodak building is now flats but figured they'd gone with Kodak Eastman. The new premisies are barely more than a mile from the mother-in-laws house!
 
One of the best tricks of the trade and it's gratis, if you over-agitate that can cause increased grain on the developing film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top