Massive Development Chart

[MartinCrabtree]

Is the info here reliable enough to use w/o question? I'll soon return to the darkroom after literally decades. It'll come back after a few screw ups but I'd like to keep the mistakes my own. What say ye?

Thanks.

[bsdunek]

I've used the chart when I had no other information, and so far, it's worked well. Not to say the times many need some 'tweeking', but they have worked for the few times I've needed it.
I do always try to get the developer manufacturers data if I can, but sometimes there is no other published film/developer information. Try it on a non-important roll if there is a concern.

[R.Gould]

I've used the MDC without problems. it is a lot from makers suggested times, and should be taken aa a starting point, but it has always been fine for me, the one exception being Fotospseed FD10 developer which I tried for a while, but even Fotospeeds times did not work for me,
Richard

[TheFlyingCamera]

I don't think I've ever gotten bad results from the MDC - as noted, it may need adjustment for your personal uses (filtered vs unfiltered water, hard vs soft water, other chemical impurities, temperature requirements, etc). But in my experience if you use their time/temp/agitation schemes, you'll get workable negatives, even good ones.

[BMbikerider]

There is another site which I use called Digitaltruth.com Contrary to what it says there is no sign of anything digital about it.

[wilfbiffherb]

same site

[Jeff Kubach]

I only used MDC a few times and seems to work so far.

Jeff

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Yes it's reliable, but for serious photographers, they're only a place to start. You'll have to come up with your own times. As for me, those dev times are a little flat for my diffusion color head so I end up usually printing on grade 3. I think these times might work if you're using a condenser head enlarger or scan your negs. I don't assume that all development times will work for all situations.

[RidingWaves]

Well, you'll be f@$# if you use the Rodinal numbers, which are a direct repeat of the AGFA tech sheets, and the comprehensive AGFA data sheets state the times are for a Gamma of .65 rather than the Kodak standard of .56 so you'll get blasted overdeveloped negs. Which is my beef with MDC, they just say numbers and don't give anything behind it.
There is so much good info is on the web, you can access just about anything if you try, info that took many talented photo engineers best efforts to make sure that things work the way they are supposed to, why not make the ever so slightly extra effort to access the Correct info rather than just trust a number aggregator. But hey, its your film....

[MartinCrabtree]

Well trusting the MDC or trusting the "good info on the web" is pretty much the same for an amateur like me. I have to start somewhere and it appears the MDC will give me that start. Thanks.