Dual development - which one to use first?

[Michael Hiles]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is no so clear to me what your goal is.

 

If fine grain is high on the list, look at Ilford XP2 Super. The grain is very fine, tones a creamy smooth, sharpness is very high, and highlights are very hard to blow out.

 

You can develop in C41 (as designed by Ilford), or you can develop in HC-110 (or equivalent).

 

You should (for any film) determine your personal ISO for your chosen film and developer. You have to test - no alternative. If you don't, you have no control and your understanding won't be based on proven fact. For my purposes XP2 is best at 200ASA - the box says 400. But don't use my experience, or anyone else's. Test.

[Martin B]

Oh, you are right, of course, about timing. 

Regarding speed loss.. Rodinal is losing some speed of film (at least for HP5). If I should make an analogy, I would say that HP5 400 exposed at EI 400 developed in Rodinal 1:50 looks like HP5 exposed EI 800 developed in D76. It looks pushed. Probably, HP5 exposed at EI 200 and developed in Rodinal 1:50 looks like and HP5 400 developed in D76 or Xtol (in terms of shadow details, not grain). So, from this perspective, Rodinal is losing a stop from film speed for me (more or less). 

I noticed also when shooting in low light that I had to overexpose a stop an HP5 (if I knew that I am going to develop in Rodinal) in order to get some shadow details and exposed normally after I bought some Xtol.

I attached 2 pictures to exemplify. You will see that the shadow details is good in Rodinal, but it comes with a stop overexposure. First picture is Xtol, second is Rodinal

 

Ok, got it, thanks! I never went into all this detail and simply played around with the two-step development process that it worked for me. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Martin B]

It is no so clear to me what your goal is.

 

If fine grain is high on the list, look at Ilford XP2 Super. The grain is very fine, tones a creamy smooth, sharpness is very high, and highlights are very hard to blow out.

 

You can develop in C41 (as designed by Ilford), or you can develop in HC-110 (or equivalent).

 

You should (for any film) determine your personal ISO for your chosen film and developer. You have to test - no alternative. If you don't, you have no control and your understanding won't be based on proven fact. For my purposes XP2 is best at 200ASA - the box says 400. But don't use my experience, or anyone else's. Test.

 

This is a very good alternative option which I also tested and made very good experience with XP2 home developed with C-41. Big advantage of XP2 is that it can be used at different ISO on the same film without change in later development. I used one film at ISO 400, 800, 1600 and 3200 - and all frames turned out very good. Low grain is really the big benefit of this film. It is a bit more on the contrasty side, but this can be a benefit, too. I read that XP2 negatives can't be used as easily for darkroom printing as other dedicated B&W films, but I never tried to print from XP2 negatives. 

[Michael Hiles]

Apropos of XP2, it is very forgiving. You will get fairly good negatives even if you under or over expose by 3 stops. As you have found out. But I would say (this is a subtlty) that the film has an inherent and fixed ISO – and you can under or over expose if you so desire, and you might well get a usable negative. But there will be some sort of losses. With XP2 the losses will be fairly modest. But exposure is either correct, or under/over. Any other interpretation is delusional hocus pocus.

 

XP2 prints for me very well and very easily in a wet conventional darkroom. I do it all the time. I think others have similar experience.

 

It also scans very nicely when correctly exposed. My experience is that on my scanner a heavily over exposed (i.e. thick) negative doesn’t scan well. It gives an impression of very grainy and blotchy. Might be my scanner or software – I don’t know or much care. But a normally exposed negative scans beautifully. 

 

Clearly, I am a big fan of XP2. But other alternatives sound promising. If I wanted to try something else (I don’t), I would look at Ilford Delta 400 and 100. And I might look at one of the Spur developers. From what I see and read, this is an impressive combination. This is NOT a recommendation – just my valueless musings.

[bruscwillis]

The thing is I have roll of 100 feet of HP5 and I am trying to fit this film in more environments. After I will finish this roll, I will certainly try XP2 or Delta 400. For the moment I am trying to get nice images in a flat light situation, like an overcast. Most of the days the sky is cloudy here and HP5 with Xtol is giving flat images. Rodinal is producing contrast but with a muddy grain. So I was looking for a mixed recipe with Xtol and Rodinal to get the benefit of both developers. Martin provided very interesting result with this recipe and I would like to try it. I know that there are many films on fotoimpex or macodirect that will suit better for different situations. Also there are many developers like DDX, Tmax, HC-110 or Diafine or you name it, that will give brilliant results in specific situations. Unfortunately, I can't buy everything available on the market I already have 3 developers at home and half of the roll waiting to be exposed.

So I am trying to get the best out from this HP5 which is not a bad film until now. For start, I will use dual developer recipe from Martin to see how it goes.

Edited April 5, 2018 by bruscwillis

[pico]

Rodinal is producing contrast but with a muddy grain.

 

We might have a language difference. For my taste, Rodinal produces grainy, but sharp images. Is your film by any chance expired?

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We might have a language difference. For my taste, Rodinal produces grainy, but sharp images. Is your film by any chance expired?

I also see sharp and clear grain with Rodinal with many films, muddy grain is something else. But, HP5 can surely produce muddy grain, for instance with HC110.

I can only agree with adan earlier who said that HP5 is notorious for ugly grain. It’s a beautiful film though for the larger formats.

So “if you can’t beat them join them” and look for the developer that creates the nicest grain and don’t seek to avoid grain with that film.

Edited April 5, 2018 by otto.f

[Martin B]

The thing is I have roll of 100 feet of HP5 and I am trying to fit this film in more environments. After I will finish this roll, I will certainly try XP2 or Delta 400. For the moment I am trying to get nice images in a flat light situation, like an overcast. Most of the days the sky is cloudy here and HP5 with Xtol is giving flat images. Rodinal is producing contrast but with a muddy grain. So I was looking for a mixed recipe with Xtol and Rodinal to get the benefit of both developers. Martin provided very interesting result with this recipe and I will like to try it. I know that there are many films on fotoimpex or macodirect that will suit better for different situations. Also there are many developers like DDX, Tmax, HC-110 or Diafine or you name it, that will give brilliant results in specific situations. Unfortunately, I can't buy everything available on the market I already have 3 developers at home and half of the roll waiting to be exposed.

So I am trying to get the best out from this HP5 which is not a bad film until now. For start, I will use dual developer recipe from Martin to see how it goes.

 

Great, please share your results here and your experience! Looking forward seeing the outcome!

[bruscwillis]

Hi, 

 

I am coming with results. 

Rodinal 1:100 2/3 dev time & Xtol stock 1/3 dev time - supersharp, no speed lost, good contrast

Xtol 2/3 dev time & Rodinal 1:100 1/3 dev time - not that sharp, very good contrast, full speed

Rodinal 1:100 - 16 minutes - sharp, one stop lost, high contrast

Xtol stock - 9 minutes - not  sharp, full speed, reveals most of the details.

 

All images are scanned as DNG, inverted in Photshop with a straight curve in Camera Raw. No sharpening applied, no edit. I placed inside the images some crop in 100% of some details and the histogram from Camera Raw. You can see clearly how XTOL stock manages to reveal the biggest area. Also we can see how Rodinal 1:100 only is losing one stop. 

For me, both combos Xtol + Rodinal and Rodinal + Xtol are interesting. Rodinal 1:100 followed by Xtol it's fucking sharp and grain it's not that ugly like in Rodinal only. XTOL followed by Rodinal it's still sharp (but it needs sharpening) and it has a very nice contrast.

 

I am attaching photos one by one, due to the limitations of this forum server.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  

 

[bruscwillis]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[bruscwillis]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[bruscwillis]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[pico]

Sincere congratulations. Your work and research using sequential and different developers is the very first I have seen, ever. Frankly I'm flummoxed. A simple text only recipe could be amazing!

[Martin B]

Hi, 

 

I am coming with results. 

Rodinal 1:100 2/3 dev time & Xtol stock 1/3 dev time - supersharp, no speed lost, good contrast

Xtol 2/3 dev time & Rodinal 1:100 1/3 dev time - not that sharp, very good contrast, full speed

Rodinal 1:100 - 16 minutes - sharp, one stop lost, high contrast

Xtol stock - 9 minutes - not  sharp, full speed, reveals most of the details.

 

All images are scanned as DNG, inverted in Photshop with a straight curve in Camera Raw. No sharpening applied, no edit. I placed inside the images some crop in 100% of some details and the histogram from Camera Raw. You can see clearly how XTOL stock manages to reveal the biggest area. Also we can see how Rodinal 1:100 only is losing one stop. 

For me, both combos Xtol + Rodinal and Rodinal + Xtol are interesting. Rodinal 1:100 followed by Xtol it's fucking sharp and grain it's not that ugly like in Rodinal only. XTOL followed by Rodinal it's still sharp (but it needs sharpening) and it has a very nice contrast.

 

I am attaching photos one by one, due to the limitations of this forum server.

 

Rodinal+Xtol.jpg  

 

Ok, I am a bit confused what you did here since the recipe only gives approx. ratios and not clear development times in minutes. I believe the first one with the best results is similar to what I described above only that you used Xtol stock solution and not diluted? Can you clarify, please? I believe it confirms what I posted earlier. 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Martin B

[bruscwillis]

Hi, 

 

For each development I used of course minutes and seconds. But I specified the ratios because it's more easier for everyone to understand the influence of each developer. XTOL 2/3 dev time suggest that 2/3 of the frame is developed by XTOL and the rest is made by Rodinal. Thinking in ratios it's easier to evaluate the curves and the sharpness.

I used XTOL stock because I have a bottle of 1 liter already prepared and it was already used for few roll films. I didn't want to mix it with water to make Xtol 1+1 or 1+2 and toss it after experiments, because I wanted also to see how your recipe will work with stock solution.

So the developement times for each sequence are the following:

 

1. Xtol stock & Rodinal 1:100

XTOL stock : 5 minutes 40 seconds followed by  Rodinal 1/100 : 5 minutes 20 seconds

 

2. Rodinal 1/100 & Xtol stock

Rodinal 1/100 : 10 minutes 30 seconds followed by XTOL stock : 2 minutes 50 seconds

 

3 . XTOL stock : 8 minutes 30 seconds

 

4. Rodinal 1/100 : 16 minutes.

 

After 4 developments of 3 frames strips (I measured the film in a changing bag, cut series of 3 frames and put them in small black canisters) I can say this :

a) The recipe for Rodinal 1/100 followed by Xtol gives best sharpness while holding the film speed. It's compressing a bit the dynamic range, not that much as Rodinal 1/100 straight, but it surely does. Grain has the best look in this recipe.

b ) XTOL stock is the king of dynamic range, but it's not sharp.

c) XTOL followed by Rodinal it's very close the XTOL stock sharpnnes ( a little more sharp maybe), and develops a lot of dynamic range (less than Xtol stock).

d) Rodinal 1:100 it is ... what it is. Never a good choice for HP5. At least not for me (but it's sharp as claimed and is steeling a stop).

 

So thanks Martin for your recipe! I will try also Rodinal 1:100 1/2 dev. time followed by Xtol 1/2 dev. time. That translates into Rodinal 8 minutes & Xtol 4 minutes 30 seconds. 

Edited April 8, 2018 by bruscwillis

[Martin B]

Hi, 

 

For each development I used of course minutes and seconds. But I specified the ratios because it's more easier for everyone to understand the influence of each developer. XTOL 2/3 dev time suggest that 2/3 of the frame is developed by XTOL and the rest is made by Rodinal. Thinking in ratios it's easier to evaluate the curves and the sharpness.

I used XTOL stock because I have a bottle of 1 liter already prepared and it was already used for few roll films. I didn't want to mix it with water to make Xtol 1+1 or 1+2 and toss it after experiments, because I wanted also to see how your recipe will work with stock solution.

So the developement times for each sequence are the following:

 

1. Xtol stock & Rodinal 1:100

XTOL stock : 5 minutes 40 seconds followed by  Rodinal 1/100 : 5 minutes 20 seconds

 

2. Rodinal 1/100 & Xtol stock

Rodinal 1/100 : 10 minutes 30 seconds followed by XTOL stock : 2 minutes 50 seconds

 

3 . XTOL stock : 8 minutes 30 seconds

 

4. Rodinal 1/100 : 16 minutes.

 

After 4 developments of 3 frames strips (I measured the film in a changing bag, cut series of 3 frames and put them in small black canisters) I can say this :

a) The recipe for Rodinal 1/100 followed by Xtol gives best sharpness while holding the film speed. It's compressing a bit the dynamic range, not that much as Rodinal 1/100 straight, but it surely does. Grain has the best look in this recipe.

b ) XTOL stock is the king of dynamic range, but it's not sharp.

c) XTOL followed by Rodinal it's very close the XTOL stock sharpnnes ( a little more sharp maybe), and develops a lot of dynamic range (less than Xtol stock).

d) Rodinal 1:100 it is ... what it is. Never a good choice for HP5. At least not for me (but it's sharp as claimed and is steeling a stop).

 

So thanks Martin for your recipe! I will try also Rodinal 1:100 1/2 dev. time followed by Xtol 1/2 dev. time. That translates into Rodinal 8 minutes & Xtol 4 minutes 30 seconds. 

 

Yes, I agree, this pretty much fits to my own experience. I only use Xtol (1:2) when developing 4x5" film sheets which still are then sharp enough. For small size 35 mm film I avoid doing development with Xtol only due to some lack of sharpness. Glad you were able to confirm my dual development approach!

[bruscwillis]

I am glad that I managed to finish this experiment too! It took a while until i prepared all the strips and development times. The only thing for Rodinal followed by Xtol is the compression of dynamic range. Actually, I never saw the curves for the same shot, same light, same exposure, developed in Xtol and Rodinal. It seems that XTOL stock solution it really does a great job regarding dynamic range. 

I checked the DNG scans with Raw DIgger and XTOL stock frame is having 2 stops more of dynamic range recorded/developed than the Rodinal+Xtol. The last one in terms of dynamic range is Rodinal 1:100 which is showing 2.5 stops of dynamic range. Xtol stock gives 5~6 stops, Xtol + Rodinal gives almost 5 and Rodinal + Xtol around 3.5 stops.

[bruscwillis]

Also Martin, have you ever tried a fifty-fifty dual development? Half of the recommended time for Rodinal 1:100 and then half of the recommended time for Xtol ? I wonder if the dynamic is going to increase a bit...

Edited April 9, 2018 by bruscwillis

[Martin B]

Also Martin, have you ever tried a fifty-fifty dual development? Half of the recommended time for Rodinal 1:100 and then half of the recommended time for Xtol ? I wonder if the dynamic is going to increase a bit...

 

So far I never tried this. Reason is that I wanted to make sure that the micro contrast develops well in Rodinal. The last step with Xtol is just to remove part of the formed grain accumulation by Rodinal. This in the end gives the best compromise of sharpness with low grain. There still might be a debit in regard to DR where Xtol itself shines. It is just a juggling between sharpness, DR, and grain formation. I suspect by reducing the development time with Rodinal and increasing the one with Xtol (50:50), you will likely see a slight improvement in DR but with some loss in micro contrast/sharpness. In the majority of my B&W photos I prefer to see good sharpness with low grain and rather compromise a bit in DR. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ornello]

On 4/5/2016 at 1:40 PM, Martin B said:

Hello all,

 

I am currently exploring ways to decrease grain size and to increase sharpness in the film development process. I read about it online, and it seems that many prefer a dual development. The opinions differ a lot when it comes down to which developer should be used first - and I don't mean mixing two developers but instead using them separately with (or without) wash after the first development cycle ended.

 

My question is which developer should be used first? For example Rodinal and then Xtol or vice-versa? I understand that Rodinal can increase the grain size but also improves edge contrast whereas Xtol leads to smaller grain accumulation. I also read that others use Xtol first followed by D76.

 

Which method and order is better and why? Which kind of concentration should be used for each developer? Any advice how long and under which amount of agitation? I am currently using HP5+ 400 B&W film (35 mm format). Of course photos as examples would be great to demonstrate effects and differences in dual developments.

 

Thanks,

Martin

Use Ilford Delta 400, D-76 or ID-11 developer. You will be amazed! Do NOT scan! Print in wet darkroom. Grain will be all but invisible!