[Unsane]

Hello All,

I would like to pick your brains and ask for any recommendations when it comes to choice of developer?
I'm just starting out in processing Film at home (I've had some experience in college previously) and am not sure on which developer to order. I've narrowed it down to to Tetenal Paranol S (Rodinal clone) or ILFOTEC HC (HC-110 clone) and was wondering what would likely be the better choice.

I'm after something that will keep well (both seem to have long shelf lives) and that I can use at high-dilutions for longer film development (more room for timing error). My college uses the Ilfotec HC, so that would seem a logical choice, but I can get the Tetanol at a lower starting out cost (I don't really need 1L of dev to start). Any experiences with either developer or info on what they are better suited for would be most appreciated.

Cheers, Unsane
P.S. I'm likely to be using fast film (ISO400), but something that can get decent results with slower film would be nice.

EDIT: I'm in the UK, if that has any bearing on price etc.

[robthebloke]

I'd start out with the same developer your college uses. It'll be easier in the short term (and reduce the chance of losing your first couple of rolls due to slightly off developing times with a different dev).

Branch out to different developers once you've got the process working alright at home.

[ChrisPlatt]

I have no experience with the clones you've narrowed it down to.
FWIW Rodinal generally will yield results a bit grainier than HC110.

Chris

[Unsane]

Thanks for the responses guys. It looks like I will be going against common sense on this one (as usual) as I've become rather enamoured of the results that can be got souping Tri-X in Rodinal. Fortunately Paranol S comes in small bottles, so if I really screw things up I can always buy some HC and do it that way!

I have no experience with the clones you've narrowed it down to.
FWIW Rodinal generally will yield results a bit grainier than HC110.
Chris

That's what I'd heard as well. I like grain so that's the main reason I'm now leaning towards Rodinal.

[ChrisPlatt]

That's what I'd heard as well. I like grain so that's the main reason I'm now leaning towards Rodinal.

Grain is good. Many photographers love the "Rodinal look"; some use nothing else.

Later you can add a bottle of the HC110 clone, for times you want a little less grain.
HC110 is a very versatile developer and has its own avid following too.

Both Rodinal and HC110 have remarkable keeping properties, a main reason they're all I use now.

Chris

[fs999]

I use Caffenol since over a year. No chemicals anymore !
The results are better than Rodinal and most developers.

You have different recipes for different purposes. Check Caffenol.org, Caffenol blog and the Caffenol Cookbook.

There is also an interesting group on Facebook.

[Unsane]

I've heard about Caffenol before, but haven't really looked at it. I'll have to check that out, thanks for the links.
Chem's are now ordered, I went with the Rodinal clone and am very much looking forward to souping in my own home.

Cheers Guys,

[peterjcb]

I have an interest in this thread also. I miss shooting film with my Nikon F2 so I'm going to dip my toe into the water again...
I ordered some Arista Premium developer ( it's supposed to be very similar to D76 which I used to use ( I also used a lot of Microdol-X but apparently it's not made anymore). I bought a few rolls of 400TX ( aka Tri-X )
The Cafenol thing intrigues me so I'll look into that also eventually.

The only other thing I'll be missing is being able to have a contact sheet of the negatives to look at and I don't have a film scanner either....
What does everyone suggest about viewing negatives other than buying a scanner right now?

[LesDMess]

The only other thing I'll be missing is being able to have a contact sheet of the negatives to look at and I don't have a film scanner either....
What does everyone suggest about viewing negatives other than buying a scanner right now?

If you have a macro setup for your DSLR capable of capturing the frame then that can get you started.

[AquaDome]

I'm interested to see how your Paranol prints come out.
I've just received some HC-110 to try out, so I'm getting things in order.

[gord lucas]

Either will suit your purpose. Many folks (myself included) use HC110 as a one shot, mixing various dilutions from the syrup itself. I use it exclusively for HP5+, at 1:63 for 12-14 minutes. A marriage made in Heaven. The syrup itself lasts for years. For Pictorial use, this combination is hard to beat. Here's an example, taken in 1984 with a Nikon F3 and a Nikkor 85mm f2 lens. HC110 would be my choice for pictorial use, even over D76. At this dilution it has very smooth graduation and high acutance. This is a scanned 5x7 print on Luminos paper, Y surface. Real vintage stuff!





I use a lot of Rodinal, too, mostly at either 1:25 (FP4, TMax 100) for pictorial and portrait use in low contrast situations: (Exakta RTL, Auto Aragon 100mm f2.8 lens, 1/20th at f4, FP4 in Rodinal 1:25), scanned 8x10 print on Ilford Galerie





or 1:50 (Fomapan 400, Tri-X). I use these ASA 400 films with Rodinal when I want maximum impact: (Konica Autoreflex, 50mm f3.5 Hexanon macro, 1/125th at f5.6, Tri-X in Rodinal at 1:50, scanned 5x7 print on Arista 5x7 Grade 3. This is a lumber kiln in Prince George, BC






Remember that different developers have different effects on different films. Then impact of Rodinal and Tri-X is exceptional. In Rodinal, HP5 is not nearly as pronounced.

In addition to these two develpers, I also use Xtol, especially with T grain films, and D76, which I like with FP4 for landscapes in medium format.

[akptc]

Good info here: Digitaltruth Photo - Photographic Chemical Formulas and Technical Data

[gord lucas]

I have an interest in this thread also. I miss shooting film with my Nikon F2 so I'm going to dip my toe into the water again...
I ordered some Arista Premium developer ( it's supposed to be very similar to D76 which I used to use ( I also used a lot of Microdol-X but apparently it's not made anymore). I bought a few rolls of 400TX ( aka Tri-X )
The Cafenol thing intrigues me so I'll look into that also eventually.

The only other thing I'll be missing is being able to have a contact sheet of the negatives to look at and I don't have a film scanner either....
What does everyone suggest about viewing negatives other than buying a scanner right now?

Arista Premium is good developer and acts and looks just like D76. It'll work for you. Ilford Perceptol is very similar to Microdol X and is readily available. IMHO Kodak Xtol is better than the lot of them for most purposes, and is cheaper in use, to boot. It's like D7 on steroids. Try it next time. Take the 5 litre it mixes, and put them in 5 - one litre bottles. It can be used over again (1 litre stock solution will do about 8 films safely), and in 1:1 to 1:3 dilutions it acts as an acutance developer and is just great, especially with TMax films.

I'd get yourself some negative sleeves, and a used Paterson contact print frame if you wanted to view the negatives. and especially if you plan eventually to do some printing. The Paterson frame is also mighty fine for making 4x5 or 5x7 contact prints off of large format negatives.

Because I have 2 enlargers and love printing, I opted to avoid film scanners when I got back into film. I like darkroom work too much. However, if you go the negative scanning route, there are lots of guys here who can give you solid advice.

[Unsane]

@gord lucas: That last shot is beautiful, I seem to remember you mentioning in another thread you enlarged it traditionally and then printed it? I just had a session on fibre based printing today and it's the first time I've been in the darkroom for months; I'm now all enthusiastic again! As an additional bonus my chemicals arrived earlier this week and two rolls of Tri-X this evening. Next week is going to be fun methinks.

[stevebrot]

ILFOTEC HC (HC-110 clone)

Why not just use HC-110? HC-110 is my personal choice and works well for my style of shooting where I often use highly dilute developer. It keeps well and the cost per roll is quite reasonable.


Steve