B&W Developer.

soupdragon

soupdragon

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,644
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
Having invested in ten rolls of Ilford delta 400 I could use the help of the experienced B&W processing types.
Some questions.

Is it best to use an Ilford developer, will any developer work, or is there a universally preferred option?

Does anyone use stop bath or do you just go straight to fixing?

Is there such a thing as one shot chemistry for dev and fix?

Do I need a stabilising solution as is used in E6?
 
It doesn't have to be Ilford Developer but several of us use Ilford DDX for "best" as it is not cheap. I have used HC-110 and Rodinal for Delta and they are fine but DDX is gives better results IMHO.

I always use stop bath. AFAIK there is no one-shot. Stabiliser includes a wetting agent and for B&W a wetting agent such as Kodak Photoflo or Ilfotol in the final rinse is a good idea to reduce water spots after drying
 
Quite a lot of people use water as a stop bath. I've not heard of anyone going straight from dev to fix.

As Chris said, most developers will work fine with Ilford films. Delta is a T grain film which can respond differently to different developers. My advice would be to read the datasheet that comes with it and pick the one Ilford recommend.

Messing with different film & developer to find something that suits has been part of the film journey for me. My go-to these days is HP5 partnered with DD-X. Put HP5 in Rodinal and it looks awful. (All very much IMO of course)
 
sirch said:
It doesn't have to be Ilford Developer but several of us use Ilford DDX for "best" as it is not cheap. I have used HC-110 and Rodinal for Delta and they are fine but DDX is gives better results IMHO.

I always use stop bath. AFAIK there is no one-shot. Stabiliser includes a wetting agent and for B&W a wetting agent such as Kodak Photoflo or Ilfotol in the final rinse is a good idea to reduce water spots after drying
Click to expand...
Thanks, Ilford DDX is the one for me then.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Yes. Monobath chemistry has been around for a hundred years, at least. Cinestill do one at the moment: https://www.firstcall-photographic....onobath-developer-fixer-liquid-1-litre/p12969.

In the past, they've been derided by some but nothing beats them for cutting short your process time!
Click to expand...
The reason I was wondering about one shot processing is that chemicals don't last very long when mixed. I tend to shoot C41 and E6 randomly and adding B&W to the mix means I could have a lot of chemistry on the go.
That said, E6 seems to be by far the worst regarding shelf life.
 
Harlequin565 said:
Quite a lot of people use water as a stop bath. I've not heard of anyone going straight from dev to fix.

As Chris said, most developers will work fine with Ilford films. Delta is a T grain film which can respond differently to different developers. My advice would be to read the datasheet that comes with it and pick the one Ilford recommend.

Messing with different film & developer to find something that suits has been part of the film journey for me. My go-to these days is HP5 partnered with DD-X. Put HP5 in Rodinal and it looks awful. (All very much IMO of course)
Click to expand...
I was reading that E6 stabiliser can be used with all types of film.
This appeals to me as my chromes never have water marks. I live in a hard water area and you can almost see the chalk coming out of the tap.
 
You can use any developer. The fact that one manufacturer makes more than one developer provides a broad hint that developers come in different types. As a broad classification, developers can

give a higher effective film speed
give less grain
give greater apparent sharpness

No developer gives all three; it's always a trade off.

I use a stop bath. It's not an invariable rule, but most developers (and, I think, all common ones) only work in alkaline solution. Acidic developers exist, but are rare. Fixers on the other hand are almost invariably acidic these days, and their effectiveness depends on the pH (acidity) being maintained within certain limits. It follows that alkaline carry over from the developer has negative (pun intended) effects on the fixer. For this reason alone, I think an acid stop bath is a good idea. As a side note, the acidity almost terminates the development process rapidly, although a water bath will reduce it before it hits the fixer.

Some films can form bubbles in the emulsion with the alkaline/acid switch, but I think this is only reasonably possible with a very small number.

As to monobaths, yes they exist; but they are not without their own problems. If they were perfect, they would have swept the board! Grant Haist formerly of Kodak covers monobaths both in vol 2 of his great Modern Photographic Processing and in his shorter Monobath Manual. From memory, in the latter, he remarked that the efficacy of a monobath could be highly dependent on the particular film, and that variations in monobath composition were needed to tailor them to specific films. Not a one size (or process) fits all, in fact. I await correction if I've misinterpreted/misquoted/misunderstood. I just looked and couldn't find my copy. The treatment of monobaths in Modern Photographic Processing being in vol 2, mainly devoted to colour, isn't a section I've read. Just in passing, Dr Haist did develop and experiment with monobaths as part of his work at Kodak (I assume - he wrote papers on them).

Edit to add: I've never used a monobath. I've been more concerned with choosing the type of developer I wanted to use based on its effects (as given above) to want to try a more universal solution (again, pun intended).
 
Last edited:
On drying marks, try a final rinse in deionised water (cheapest source usually a car spares place) with wetting agent.
 
There is a discussion on fixing (and washing) somewhere in the "Zero to hero" thread on large format photography,
 
soupdragon said:
The reason I was wondering about one shot processing is that chemicals don't last very long when mixed.
Click to expand...
Sorry I misunderstood what you meant by one-shot, most B&W devs are single use or are used as single use. Stop bath keeps well and fixer keeps fairly well in a bottle with the air excluded. Fixer can be readily tested with a piece of film leader before use if in doubt
 
My experience below applies to Delta 400 in 120 only - I do not have experience with the stuff in 35mm. Make of that what you will. I find Delta 400 in 120 extraordinary FWIW.

soupdragon said:
Is it best to use an Ilford developer, will any developer work, or is there a universally preferred option?
Click to expand...
I have never developed Delta 400 in Ilford developers. I have never owned or used Ilford developers. No particular reason for that, I just mostly have other stuff around the house. Delta 400 looks excellent in a number of developers. One I like that is cheap and easy to source is Rodinal, normally agitated (not stand), in 1:50 dilution. Gorgeous.

soupdragon said:
Does anyone use stop bath or do you just go straight to fixing?
Click to expand...
I always use stop bath. I see no reason not to. Stop bath is cheap and has a purpose. My fixer never gets in contact with developer. I reuse my stop and fixer solution for ~ 10 rolls without any issues
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
Edit to add: I've never used a monobath.
Click to expand...
Having used a couple of different monobaths in the 1960s and early 1970s, I agree with your claim that they react differently with different films. In my experience, Tri-X and Plus-X responded well to the monobaths that were around then (I've long forgotten the names) while HP4 and FP3 didn't.

So: you do need to experiment before using them for something important.
 
soupdragon said:
The reason I was wondering about one shot processing is that chemicals don't last very long when mixed. I tend to shoot C41 and E6 randomly and adding B&W to the mix means I could have a lot of chemistry on the go.
Click to expand...
Well HC-110 might be the B&W developer for you, as it lasts for years! Often used in quite extreme dilutions (perhaps the most common, Dilution B is 1+31, and the others are even weaker), so though it is expensive to buy it is usually cheaper per film!

And yes, de-ionised water and a wetting agent for the final wash is pretty darn good at avoiding drying marks.
 
My apologies to all who responded.
I did not realise how little I knew about B&W processing.
From what I can glean!

Use a stop bath.
Pre mixed dev and fix last a fair amount of time.
The type of developer is personal choice.
De-ionised/mineralised water will help prevent calcite patches.
E6 stabiliser????

Thanks everyone.
 
I've never used E6 stabiliser (when I started developing, we were in E3 days). Just developer, stop, fix, wash (six changes of water originally). My negatives from the 1960s are still as they originally dried, so it's worked for me so far. There is a reason for stabiliser with the E6 process, but none for black and white.

May I fervently recommend Anchell and Troop's Film Developing Cookbook? Even if you never intend to make your own developer from raw chemicals, or even stray far outside the common half dozen developers popular here, it will give you the information to weigh one developer against another, and know the trade offs and balances that go into it.

If you're really keen, Grant Haist's Modern Photographic Processing is wonderful. ANY book that illustrates what film grain looks like by using a negative of a kitten and showing successively larger enlargements is worth browsing for the kitten... More seriously, despite having a BSc in chemistry, I learned some chemistry from it.
 
soupdragon said:
Having invested in ten rolls of Ilford delta 400 I could use the help of the experienced B&W processing types.
Some questions.

Is it best to use an Ilford developer, will any developer work, or is there a universally preferred option?

Does anyone use stop bath or do you just go straight to fixing?

Is there such a thing as one shot chemistry for dev and fix?

Do I need a stabilising solution as is used in E6?
Click to expand...
We can only say you what works for us, there is no right or wrong, just preference, so I'll just add my thing to the list.
I don't like grain very much so I use Xtol for everything, which since the demise of 1st gen acros, is pretty much Delta/Pan F.
Xtol works great for me on Delta 400, keeps the speed smooths the grain and its very convenient after preparation.
Water is my stop.
There is a 1 bath dev/fix, but it ain't Xtol so for me its not an option, I am also skeptical about the value of its advantages tbh.
I don't shoot print film and I ship E6 processing out, so that's that.
 
soupdragon said:
Use a stop bath.
Pre mixed dev and fix last a fair amount of time.
Click to expand...
Welllll, it depends on the type of developer you use. I am a bit old-fashioned, I really like Kodak D-76 (similar to Ilford ID-11) because it works with everything (I mostly shoot Ilford/Harman films). But it's a pain to mix. Once mixed I divide it up into quart and pint bottles. Once a bottle is opened and exposed to air, the clock is ticking, but bottles that are full up should last a while. And if it gets too old... a packet of mix costs US$10 (Legacy L-76, the generic version, is $7) so it's no big deal to throw it away.

That said HC-110 does have a shelf life of forever and it's easy to mix as you just add the liquid concentrate to distilled water. I don't like it for all films -- the developing time for HP5 IMHO is a little too short, and if I use a greater dilution to expand the time I think the negs are too flat. My plan was to switch from D-76 to HC-110 but now I always keep D-76 around. I'll switch back if I can ever use up the bottle of HC-110, which at the rate I'm going will take years!
soupdragon said:
The type of developer is personal choice.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly.

I don't shoot T-grain films much (I like grain!) so I don't know what the recommendations are for Delta. I do know that Kodak used to recommend T-Max developer with their T-grain (T-max) film but I've developed it in D-76 and it's just fine.

Not to confuse matters more but BTW people have been rave, rave, raving about Adox XT-3 which apparently their version of Kodak XTOL. I just bought a packet (of XT3; never tried XTOL) but haven't gotten around to using it. Rodinal is popular too, so I guess those are the Kodak biggies: D-76 (and the Ilford equiv., ID11), HC-110 (Ilfotec HC), Rodinal, XTol. Not sure if anyone considers T-Max one of the majors...
soupdragon said:
De-ionised/mineralised water will help prevent calcite patches.
Click to expand...
I always use distilled water for everything except washing (I live in California where we get hard-ish water). And I use Kodak Photo-Flo for the final rinse to prevent spots. It's cheap and it usually works. A lot of people recommend squeegeeing negatives; I don't but I do sometimes get water spots that I can later wipe off.
soupdragon said:
E6 stabiliser????
Click to expand...
That's a new one on me. Mostly I develop the way I learned in the 90s -- developer, stop bath (Kodak Indicator), fixer (Ilford Rapid Fixer -- I like its quick low-water wash regimen, and we don't need hardening fixers anymore), Photo Flo, then dry.
soupdragon said:
Thanks everyone.
Click to expand...
 
Excellent info and welcome to the forum.
 
soupdragon said:
Having invested in ten rolls of Ilford delta 400 I could use the help of the experienced B&W processing types.
Some questions.

Is it best to use an Ilford developer, will any developer work, or is there a universally preferred option?

Does anyone use stop bath or do you just go straight to fixing?

Is there such a thing as one shot chemistry for dev and fix?

Do I need a stabilising solution as is used in E6?
Click to expand...
If you wish to cut out a step, why not remove the capturing the photographs step which takes longer than the developing, stop bath or fixing. :)
 
StephenM said:
I've never used E6 stabiliser (when I started developing, we were in E3 days). Just developer, stop, fix, wash (six changes of water originally). My negatives from the 1960s are still as they originally dried, so it's worked for me so far. There is a reason for stabiliser with the E6 process, but none for black and white.
Click to expand...

I'll backtrack slightly on that. There can be advantages to using a selenium toner on negatives (as well as prints) to improve long term stability. I have never done this, though. The reason lies in the chemical changes that are usually responsible for negatives deteriorating.
 
Autonerd said:
Rodinal is popular too, so I guess those are the Kodak biggies: D-76 (and the Ilford equiv., ID11), HC-110 (Ilfotec HC), Rodinal, XTol.
Click to expand...

Just to add to your excellent post - Rodinal is not a Kodak product. The trademark for the Rodinal name is currently owned by Adox, which manufactures it as 'Rodinal' or 'Adonal' (same stuff, but Adonal comes in smaller bottles).

According to unverified info available online, this Adox Rodinal should correspond to the most recent Agfa Rodinal recipe, so closest to the Agfa product sold just before the company ceased activity. Other 'Rodinal clones' do exist but can't be called Rodinal: these are usually sold as 'R09' by several companies such as Compard and Foma. Again according to the web, Foma's Rodinal (known as Fomadon R09) uses an older Rodinal recipe, apparently the 'original' recipe.

I have experience with both Adox Rodinal and Fomadon R09 and found that in my setup Fomadon R09 is slightly less energetic (which I prefer in most cases).

(..or perhaps I misunderstood the above quoted post, in which case apologies.)
 
Last edited:
trypdal said:
(..or perhaps I misunderstood the above quoted post, in which case apologies.)
Click to expand...
Nope, I added the word "Kodak" after the fact (not thinking about Rodinal) after remembering that there are probably a lot of Ilford users here! My error.

And thank you all for the welcome messages.

Aaron
 
Autonerd said:
Welllll, it depends on the type of developer you use. I am a bit old-fashioned, I really like Kodak D-76 (similar to Ilford ID-11) because it works with everything (I mostly shoot Ilford/Harman films). But it's a pain to mix. Once mixed I divide it up into quart and pint bottles. Once a bottle is opened and exposed to air, the clock is ticking, but bottles that are full up should last a while. And if it gets too old... a packet of mix costs US$10 (Legacy L-76, the generic version, is $7) so it's no big deal to throw it away.
Click to expand...
Yep, I use the same method, mix up 10l of Xtol and decant to 40 250ml glass bottles to the brim.
1 bottle + 250ml water per film, a 1 to 1 mix.
Come souping time, there is very little fannying about with measures and mixing, I've not had any Xtol go off but I haven't used any older than 6 months, so the jury is out on longevity.
Xtol is not the choice of a grain lover though..:)
 
HC-110 (bought 2018), Ilfostop (2015) and Ilford Rapid Fixer (not sure if it's the bottle I bought in 2015... investigation suggests that bottle went off in around 2018, and I'm on my second litre bottle, not bought online), plus Photo-flo (2016). The latter (which solved my water-mark problem, along with using de-ionised water with the Photo-flo in the final wash) is down about 15% on the 470 ml bottle!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top