Convenience is such an imprecise word. For some this means not having to make up developers from scratch. For others it means using standard recommendations and following them. For others it means mixing stuff straight out of the bottle as per always. For others it means not having to think about stuff and just getting on with it.
For me, testing is of great importance to pin down all the variables and then the 'convenience' is not having to do this again until a particular combination of technique, film, developer, processing and paper are no longer available.
For a developer, I would never choose convenience over results but I would also never choose a developer that, to get repeatable results, was so difficult to use that it would be a pain in the proverbial backside.
For the past 10 years my personal solution has been Delta 400 with an EI of 200 developed in two-bath developer. It is 'convenient' because I know exactly what results I will achieve before I press the shutter. It is 'inconvenient' because you have to mix it yourself from raw chemicals.
Each to their own but, for me, 'convenience' is not the question but rather predictable consistency.
I agree, but I seem to remember reading some time ago that there is some slight difference and if not, did Ilford copy kodak or vice versa? Also, I would imagine D76 is more popular, why?
Originally Posted by hdeyong
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
How does the the subject matter influence these decisions? I ask because I am ignorant of any developer other than DD-X and T-Max. I'm new to this and my decision has always been based on what is in stock locally.
Originally Posted by Chris Lange
Last edited by pbromaghin; 08-03-2012 at 04:24 PM. Click to view previous post history.
D76 seems to have been around for ever, so I don't know who was first. I think Ilford substitutes one of the ingredients for something that does the same job, maybe to get around some patent situation. From everything I've heard, and from my own results, they seem to be identical in how the film turns out.
D76 is usually a lot cheaper, for some reason.
I choose film developers based on how the negatives look, and pretty much nothing else.
Based on my testing, I chose Rodinal as my standard developer more than 50 years ago, and see no reason to change.
NB - I do use Diafine for tray development, and find its results are comparable to Rodinal.
“Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.” - Plato
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I switched from ID11 to HC-110 because it's more convenient. I had to play around with times and such to get it looking how I wanted it to and that was inconvenient, I suppose, but once nailed, it's nailed.
Yes and no, I mix a number of developers in bulk, currently the ANSCO version of D 76, when I plan on many rolls or sheets. But there are time when I dont have fresh developers and I have only a roll or 2 so I use HC 110, DDX, or Edwal FG 7. I would not say that a pyro developer is superior, problems with staining, too gainy for 35mm for my taste, but there are times that I need a compensating developer. One size does not fit all, and at times convienene wins.
Originally Posted by Andre Noble
In the beginning I used Arista Premium products from Freestyle because it was inexpensive. I am now working almost exclusively with Rodinal for 3 reasons.
1. I buy in bulk and Rodinal lasts for a very, very, very, very long time. Arista Premium will begin to lose potency after a year.
2. I can find a Rodinal recipe for just about every film I use. This was not true for Arista Premium.
3. Rodinal is pretty flexible and I can change the dilution and the times as I need.
Now I'm pretty sure that there are other developers out there that are just as good, maybe even better, but I am just now getting to the point where I understand what Rodinal will do. I really do not want to start that whole process over again when I am beginning to learn what I am actually doing.
i primarily use 1 developer
caffenolc + a shot glass of ansco 130.
it is the only developer i have used in the last 6 years
and before that for 6+ years it was dilute ansco 130.
the developer gives me film i am used to and it is easy to make.
it processes all the film i use with ease, color and black /white
works with prints, and my film prints ez and scans ez, i couldn't ask for anything better.
i am not chasing magic bullets like most people.
For convenience and quality, I would go with D-23 and Ansco 130.
D-23 is easy to mix (two chemicals), is similar in quality to D-76, but does not suffer from activity changes, and is long lasting.
Ansco 130 can be used for both film and paper, with great results for both, and is long lasting..