Processing film - chemistry/film compatibility

[logan2z]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use Ilford paper when I make darkroom prints and use Ilford's chemistry throughout the process.  My logic for using the same brand of paper and chemistry is that they are presumably optimally compatible.  I'm about to start home processing my film, which is primarily Kodak Tri-X 400, and am wondering if - following the same logic - it would be best to use Kodak chemistry or would Ilford's chemistry be just as good?  I already keep stock of Ilford chemistry for printing so it would be convenient to use the same stuff for film processing, but I will opt for Kodak's film processing chemistry if there's any possibility of compatibility issues with Ilford.

[pico]

Brand name consistency is good if it works for you. There is nothing at all wrong wrong with Ilford, Go forward and enjoy.

[Advertisement]

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

[Tom R]

Logic might suggest that Kodak's chemistry is best with Kodak films, and so forth. But ultimately this is NOT a logically determined process---it is not amenable to strict algorithm, or shouldn't be (unless your work requires scientific accuracy and reproducibility).

 

Perform some experiments, if you're so inclined. Keep good (detailed) notes. Be brutally honest about the results. Don't expect the selection of chemistry alone (all things being equal) to make or break the final image. 

[david strachan]

As discussed above, different chemistry works with various films just as well.

Obviously the brand name fims are going to suggest their chemistry.

 

I used to use

Kodak D-76 powder for a long time...for my Ilford FP4...that was fine. Now i use Iford ID-11, because it's ready to go.

 

It's just as good.

 

But it all depends, as usual. Most of it is in the development technique, and wanting more or less contrast.

 

 

...

[250swb]

Brand loyalty works, but it isn't necessarily the optimum combination which is why you should experiment. For example, D76 or ID11 are excellent developers, but originally formulated for heavy use and longevity, they are the Transit van of developers. A developer with a different chemical combination may have a lower lifespan but offer even better results. There are some developers such as Rodinal that last for decades in the bottle, and it works well with nearly every film, but not all people like the grain. There are some developers that are better for taming high contrast, some better for a full tonal range with slow film, and they are all independent formulas or from independent manufacturers. 

 

To achieve the look you want you need to make a decision at each stage, and one of the most crucial is the film and developer combination. So if you like the grainy look go with a fast film and a developer such as Rodinal, if you like the full smooth tonal range of a very slow film try a Pyro formula, but once you've loaded the film you should already have anticipated the end result. If a manufacturer can't support your vision with an appropriate developer it may simply be the economy of making it and not that it isn't appropriate.

[adan]

On 10/7/2018 at 1:47 AM, 250swb said:

There are some developers such as Rodinal that last for decades in the bottle, and it works well with nearly every film, but not all people like the grain.

Now that's an interesting comment, because way back (c.1970) when I was getting started, Rodinal was known as a developer with very poor keeping qualities, at least once opened. To the extent that 1) it came with a rubber stopper beneath the screw-on cap (brown-glass bottle era), and 2) photographers "in the know" would track down a physician's hypodermic needle to puncture the thin top of the rubber stopper and draw out concentrate as needed, thereby minimizing the intrusion of fresh air that would oxidize the developer. (Trying to get hypodermics during the peak of the "War on Drugs" would get one funny looks, of course).

Rodinal contains no sulfites (as do the middle of the road formulas), which, because sulfites are "grain solvents," allows it to produce its large-but-sharp grain. But sulfites are also anti-oxidants (as in dried fruits, salad bars and wine), and without them, Rodinal went sour faster.

Anyway, I have mixed and matched developers from one maker with films from another maker over the same 45 years, and never had problems. The biggest issue is finding officially-sanctioned times for, say, Kodak film in Ilford developers. Ilford themselves give (or gave) times for their films in Kodak, Agfa, and Acufine developers - so Ilford obviously does not see a problem with mixing and matching, and expects that is what photographers might do.

Films each have a character, and developers each have a character, and using any particular combination will result in sort of an "overlay" of the two characters. Tri-X in Rodinal will still look "Tri-X-y", but with the grain and sharpness of Rodinal added in. But I happily shot, say, HP5 and Tri-X side by side and ran them through D-76 side by side, and got compatible pictures. And printed them both on Agfa Brovira or Kodak PolyContrast, or IlfoBrom, all run through Kodak Dektol.

Seriously, it is silver and it is chemicals - it is magic , but don't make it too "precious."

My 1999 Ilford Product data guide (stained, ripped and abused) - giving times for their films in "other people's" chemicals:

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!

[Chuck Albertson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I used to develop Tri-X and HP5+ in the same tank of D-76, but since the latest version of TX was introduced (I think after they switched production to the same machines used to coat the T-Max films) the developing times have diverged and I now develop them separately. Haven't had any problems with Rodinal going sour, though. I don't use it as much as I used to, but I'm currently working through a bottle of the stuff I opened in June 2012 (I wrote the date on it with a Sharpie) and it still performs like a champ. the color changes from a pale wheat color to dark brown over time, but it hasn't affected developing times. I also recall getting the hairy eyeball from the pharmacist when buying a syringe (no needle!) to measure the 10 or 20cc you need for a small tank.

 

[adan]

BTW - here is an electronic .pdf of that Ilford Data Guide, as of 2002. In case anyone wants to stick a copy on a tablet for darkroom use.

I've kept my hard-copy around even though I use mostly Kodak HC-110 and TMax 400 these days - just for the time/temperature conversion table on p. 53.

http://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/ilford.pdf

[Martin B]

I don't see any advantage of sticking to one brand when it comes to either film development or printing. I have always mixed up film brands with Kodak developers (D-76, Xtol for film and Dektol for prints) or Rodinal without ever seeing issues. Stopper solution is even easier since you can simply use some diluted vinegar essence (I did this a few times when I ran out of other stopper solution) or even just water which itself is a bit sour. One thing I came across with stopper solutions is that some (for example from Ilford) are colored which I personally dislike. I don't do a water wash between stopper and fixer, so cross-contamination with the stopper dye getting into the fixer solution is an issue. I always use Kodak fixer solution. 

[adan]

The coloring in stop baths is a pH indicator (typically bromocresol purple) - it will change from orange-yellow to purple if the stop-bath acidity drops too low to be effective anymore.

Not required for function, of course. Just "confidence-building." But won't damage the fixer, and will wash out of the film/paper along with everything else by the time processing is finished.

If you are worried about "carry-over," well, the whole point of the indicator is that you are carrying over a lot of alkali from the developer into the stop bath in the first place (in the case of Rodinal, Sodium Hydroxide (lye) - vicious stuff!), which is why the acidity in the stop eventually gets neutralized.

[Martin B]

42 minutes ago, adan said:

The coloring in stop baths is a pH indicator (typically bromocresol purple) - it will change from orange-yellow to purple if the stop-bath acidity drops too low to be effective anymore.

Not required for function, of course. Just "confidence-building." But won't damage the fixer, and will wash out of the film/paper along with everything else by the time processing is finished.

If you are worried about "carry-over," well, the whole point of the indicator is that you are carrying over a lot of alkali from the developer into the stop bath in the first place (in the case of Rodinal, Sodium Hydroxide (lye) - vicious stuff!), which is why the acidity in the stop eventually gets neutralized.

Thanks - I knew it is a pH indicator, but for film I am never reusing the stop bath and just slop it out of the tank before adding the fixer. I simply don't like my fixer to be yellowed ;). For prints, I am reusing my stop bath - it might then have something carried over from the Dektol developer, but so far I didn't see any harm caused by this. 

[Pyrogallol]

I normally use FP4 in Rodinal. I have used PMK pyro for large format sheets and now sometimes use Moersch Tanol which gives a softer grain than  Rodinal in 35mm and is good for high contrast subjects and shadow detail. Over the years I have used ID11, D76, Microphen and various others. Back in the 70’s I even tried Diafine? Which you could develop overnight?

I use stop bath for films and keep using it until the indicator goes blue or it looks a bit worn out. I just rinse prints in water. I have recently tried alkaline fixer for pyro type developers as it has been recommended, but have not seen any difference from normal acid fixer.