Hello there.

I was just going to run out and get some D-76 but I've heard some mixed reviews for FP4 and HP5. How is something like XTOL? or another? Please let me know what you've had good luck with. Thanks Gabe

-- Gabe Sachs (EGABE@IX.NETCOM.COM), March 07, 1998

Answers

There really is no 'best' developer for theser films, or any other. I've found the differences between popular general purpose developers to be very subtle, at least for 'normal' photography, not pushing to higher film speed.

FWIW, Ilford has a table in their film data sheets that recomends a developers based on if you're trying to get best overall quality, finest grain, sharpest image, maximum film speed, cheapest developing, and so on. It's too much to type in here, but start at www.ilford.com and search on down for film product information, and you'll find a PDF file of film data which contains this table.

Also FWIW, I use Xtol 1:3 to develop HP5+ in 35mm, 120, and 4x5 formats. It works well for me esposing at ei 200. 18 minutes in small tanks, 12.25 minutes for 4x5 sheets in spinning tubes. The smallest quantity of solution I ever use is 450ml at working strength.

-- mike rosenlof (mrosenlof@qualcomm.com), March 08, 1998.

according to what I've heard or read D76 is the same stuff as Ilford ID-11. The good thing about the Ilford soup is that it's cheaper. I tried it out and it works a treat, i.e. it'tolerates my clumsiness.

-- Hans van der Est (jjvdest@wxs.nl), March 10, 1998.

best developer for FP-4+, HP-5+, Tri-X

Actually, there is a Best Developer for the films you listed. As long as you are not trying to 'push' it above its real speed. The real speed is 0.1 (density units) above (the inherent) base + fog. The true speeds for your films, according to my tests are: FP-4+, 64; HP-5+, 200; Tri-X (not 'Pro')260. The BEST developer is PMK (Pyro-Metol-Kodalk.) This is Gordon Hutchings' formula and is published both in his 'Book of Pyro' and the indespensible 'Darkroom Cookbook' by Steven Anchell. PMK is available from Photographers Formulary (http://www.montana.com/formulary/) Some larger camera stores stock the kit also. If you have even a basic knowledge of chemistry, you can mix it yourself form stock chemicals available at any chemical supply house. Try it and you'll never use D-76 again!

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), March 16, 1998.

Err, the "best" developer?

Michael wrote:

The BEST developer is PMK (Pyro-Metol-Kodalk.)

Would you care to characterize, in reasonably objective terms, why PMK is the "best" developer? There are many different developers, and they all offer different combinations of visible grain, perceived sharpness, film speed, tonality and ease-of-use (as well as other parameters). Given that each person may have a different notion of what is "good", the idea of a single best developer strikes me as somewhat specious.

Personally, my "general purpose" developer is dilute Xtol. Have a look at the Kodak datasheet for Xtol (J-107, search at http://www.kodak.com/) for the features of this soup, I've found the datasheet claims are essentially true.

Dana K6JQ Dana@Source.Net

-- Dana Myers K6JQ (Dana@Source.Net), March 21, 1998.

Re: Err, the "best" developer?

To be considered the 'best' a developer should produce negatives with the following characteristics: 1. High acutance, ie. apparant sharpness. This is the result of 'edge effect' or Mackie lines. 2. Low apparant grain. When grain appears, it should be smoothly distributed, not clumped. It should not look like someone spilled pepper onto the print. 3. The highlight areas must not be blocked up, but should be able to be 'printed through.' 4. Contrast gradation should be smooth and linear. There should not be sudden jumps of density between skin tones, for example. Negatives developed in PMK exhibit every one of these qualities. They are easy to print, resulting in a 'fine print' without a lot of burning and dodging. My experience with Xtol is limited to printing clients' negatives processed by commercial labs. While much better than D-76, it is a long way from PMK. If you are curious, try it; it's inexpensive and easy to use.

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), March 21, 1998.