Neutrino
After a bit of trial and error, Kodak X-TOL has become my go-to film developer. It really is extremely fine-grained and also makes good use of the film’s sensitivity.
€
What I’m looking for now are two or three alternative developers that meet the following criteria:
€
1.) Another all-round developer, which, however, may emphasise the grain slightly more than X-TOL, has excellent acutance and works very evenly. The film’s nominal sensitivity should be achieved. The concentrate or stock solution should have a long shelf life – at least one year. By ‘emphasising the grain slightly more’, however, I do not mean a Rodinal-style desert of grit. That’s too extreme for me! However, I can live with a sharp but still quite fine grain and find this very advantageous for certain subjects. What can you recommend, bearing in mind the points mentioned above?
€
2.) An extreme fine-grain developer that works even finer than X-TOL. I’m happy to accept a loss of one stop or even more. The image shouldn’t be washed out, but if it isn’t quite as crisp, that wouldn’t be a problem. Shelf life isn’t that important either. Naturally, I immediately think of Perceptol, CG512 and HRX. But are they actually finer than X-TOL? I’ve often read that Perceptol doesn’t achieve much more than X-TOL. I’ve seen comparison images of the much-hyped new HRX from Spur, where I actually didn’t notice any difference at all compared to an ID-11. So is there anything else out there, or is X-TOL actually the best you can get?
€
3.) A good push-pull developer. I’m considering the Spur Ultraspeed Vario for this. Has anyone had any experience with it?
€
€
I’d be particularly grateful if anyone here could help me who also uses or has previously used X-TOL and has a comparison with other developers that meets the criteria above. It’s just that I can best imagine a comparison based on X-TOL. Nevertheless, I’m of course also grateful for any comments and tips from non-X-TOL users!
grommi
Rodinal – a real nightmare? Have you ever tried it at 16–18 °C? And Xtol is also an excellent push developer. You can control it beautifully with the dilution. If you don’t mind spending a bit more, Emofin is an excellent push developer that I can recommend from personal experience.
€
But in my opinion, you don’t need anything else apart from Xtol and Rodinal. Unless, of course, you fancy mixing your own: Caffenol-C, Parodinal, Mytol, Beutler, D23 .....
bernhardmangelsgmxde
As someone who’s returned to Xtol with some regret: just stick with it!
You can of course give Rodinal a go – it’s a classic if you really want something different. Another all-rounder (and one of the classics) would be D76; in my experience, a year is no problem for the stock solution (nor has it been for Xtol so far, prepared in deionised water and stored in full-capacity apothecary bottles). I’ve heard from several sources that Rodinal produces fine grain at 16°C... but not in my case. APX 400 (Leverkusen) turned out with quite high granularity for me.
piu58
> APX 400 (Leverkusen) turned out quite granular for me using this method.
€
Rodinal does not forgive overdevelopment. If you try too hard to achieve the speed you have in mind, you will be punished with grain.
€
There are very few films with which Rodinal, when used correctly, does not work well. The problem is usually the separation of the highlights, which cannot be controlled.
€
Richard Henry (
http://www.amazon.de/Controls-Black-And-White-Photography-Richard-Henry/dp/0240517881?) has compared Rodinal with other developers. Within the limits of measurement accuracy, the granularity is not higher. However, the grain is more visible due to the high sharpness.
michael-kielgmxnet
Re 1): The following might be suitable:
Moersch efd: produces a nice sharp image with moderate grain and makes good use of the film’s sensitivity.
Rollei RHS: a good all-round balanced developer, moderate grain
?
Re 2): From my own experience, I can only recommend Atomal. However, I cannot say whether it produces even finer grain than Xtol.
Wolf_XL
...I’d ditch the Rollei RHS in a heartbeat – it’s extremely sensitive to water quality and is generally quite fussy...
€
That aside – what you’re planning won’t work.
€
Developer X doesn’t produce the same grain size and acutance with every film, nor does Developer Y make full use of the rated sensitivity with every film, and Developer Z won’t be able to push every film to the same extent either...
Gast
Hello,
I’d stick with Xtol too.
It’s easy to control via dilution. Undiluted, it produces a very fine grain; at a ratio of 1+3, it offers high sharpness.
Does it handle pushing well too? :
http://www.joerg-bergs.de/kodak-xtol-praxisbericht-in-dritter-auflage/
€
Re 1.)? – That reads like the description of SPUR SD2525:
http://spur-photo.com/spur-qualitaetsentwickler/
€
Personally, I always seem to come back to Kodak D-76 (or Ilford ID-11).
With a slightly coarser grain compared to Xtol, it develops all films reliably in a 1+1 dilution.
€
Regards
Wolfgang
€
€
Regards
Wolfgang
piu58
> I’d get rid of the Rollei RHS in a heartbeat
I’m happy to use it (RHS DC); it works well. I haven’t had any issues with water quality or shelf life.
I use it as a single-use developer.
HenningH
Requirement 1 sounds very much like Neofin, too.
Wolf_XL
... I’m happy to believe you – unfortunately, my experience with the developer has been rather mixed. With some films, the RHS produced absolutely flawless results – with others, however, it did not. A Rollei Superpan 200, for example, I was unable to get developed to even remotely satisfactory standards in the RHS – despite corresponding with Mr Schröder. Because of this experience, I simply cannot recommend the RHS in general...
piu58
> I’ve got Rollei Superpan 200, for example … but I couldn’t get it developed to anywhere near a satisfactory standard at RHS
?
With an exposure at 100 ASA, RHS-DC 1+15, 6 minutes.
Quinquaginta
Hello Neutrino,
?
Re 1):
There is one developer that meets your requirements almost 100%: ADOX FX-39.
?
Re 2):
You haven’t mentioned whether you use XTOL as a stock solution or in dilution. With XTOL, this does make a difference in terms of fine grain and sharpness.
If you use it as a stock solution, you’ll see only minimal differences in a direct comparison with other very fine-grained developers such as Atomal, RLS and HRX.
The main difference, however, may be that with some developers, in addition to very fine grain, you also get very good edge sharpness. And that is then better than with XTOL stock solution or 1+1, 1+2.
Candidates for this include, for example, CG512/RLS and HRX. That said, I would recommend HRX due to its slightly better sensitivity utilisation and longer shelf life with most films.
And one important aspect should not be overlooked:
What kind of characteristic curve do you want?
Film developer combinations can differ quite significantly in this respect.
And these differences are often more relevant in practice than differences in grain and sharpness.
However, as this also depends on individual processing (temperature, agitation rhythm, can type), you’ll need to test it out for yourself.
?
Best regards,
Henning
Quinquaginta
?
Hello Uwe,
?
I must, however, quite clearly disagree with Mr Henry on this point. The granularity is higher with Rodinal than with most other standard developers.
Over the last few decades, I have worked with over 30 different black-and-white film developers.
I have systematically tested most of them and run them through comparative tests, including Rodinal, of course (which I also use for certain applications in my daily practice).
You are doing neither Rodinal nor its (potential) users any favours by attributing properties to Rodinal that it definitely does not possess.
And fine grain is certainly not its strong point when compared with other standard developers such as D76, ID11, XTOL, Ultrafin, ADX-II, DD-X, HRX, Promicrol etc.
The advantages of Rodinal/Adonal are
- very easy to use
- very good shelf life
- very good subjective impression of sharpness at small and medium enlargement scales
- can be adjusted quite well to film and contrast ratios during dilution
- very inexpensive
- suitable for stand development with certain films.
A brief explanation regarding the impression of sharpness: objectively speaking, due to its coarser grain, Rodinal actually has poorer acutance than developers such as HRX, ADX-II or CG512, which are designed for fine grain and high sharpness.
With Rodinal, the edges are more ‘washed out’ and uneven. Objectively out of focus.
This is visible in very high enlargements in the print, or extremely clearly in comparative shots under the microscope.?
At low to medium enlargement scales in the print, however, Rodinal images appear subjectively beautifully sharp due to the Eberhard effect.
The same applies in principle to Neofin Blaue and Adox FX-39, although these produce a fine grain and have slightly higher sharpness than Rodinal with most films.
?
BG,
Henning
Neutrino
Hello everyone,
Sorry, I haven’t been able to reply until now as I’ve been on holiday for a few days. Thank you very much for all your feedback.
€
My current secondary developer, as per requirement 1), has been and still is Adox ADX. Its shelf life is excellent. I’ve had a bottle of it sitting around for about two years now, open and without a protective gas seal; it’s still about half full and still develops perfectly. The grain and sharpness are pretty much as I’d like them to be. However, I’m having major issues with it when using one of my favourite films, the T-MAX 400. The edges of the film (whether 120 or 135) turn brown and sometimes strange ‘bubbles’ appear. The centre of the film is perfectly fine, but about 10% at the top and bottom of the frame are affected. Logically, this is also visible on the positives. This has never happened to me with any other developer. I can rule out all other potential causes, such as insufficient fixing time with the T-MAX films. It must be down to the developer. The ADX is, after all, closely related to the SD2525 from Spur. Its description includes a warning about the gelatin turning brown, though that’s in relation to Tri-X. Could it be something similar with the ADX? Does anyone recognise this issue? Apparently there’s a new version of the ADX out now. Has this issue perhaps been fixed in that version?
€
A quick note on Rodinal: although I’ve never tried it myself, I simply have a certain aversion to Rodinal. Surely this is partly due to the many sample images with extreme grain that I’ve seen online, but it may also be that an additional factor is that everyone uses it and, in my opinion, it’s touted too much as a miracle cure. Be that as it may, even if it works more smoothly at lower temperatures, we’re unlikely to become friends. If I were to buy the developer, the self-fulfilling prophecy would surely kick in and it would turn out to be a complete failure
€
Quinquaginta,
With X-TOL, I’ve always worked at a 1:1 dilution so far. According to Kodak, the granularity should be a little finer with Stock, but the sensitivity utilisation is slightly worse. So as I understand it now, there isn’t much more to be gained in terms of fine grain, and together with X-TOL, HRX and CG512 represent pretty much the optimum? However, are you now suggesting that acutance might be better than with X-TOL, given roughly the same grain? I hope I’ve understood that correctly.
€
I deliberately didn’t write anything about the characteristic curve because, to be honest, I don’t really know much about it yet. I understand what it means in theory, but I probably wouldn’t be able to spot any differences on a negative or positive. At best, I can only express in layman’s terms what I would prefer: the mid-tones should rise quite linearly and the highlights should be gently curved. I wouldn’t be too keen on a sudden clipping of the highlights, as you get with a digital camera.
€
I’ve also been considering the FX39. It sounds very interesting, at least. If it clumps less than Rodinal, I think it’s a real winner for me. Have you had any experience with it yourself?
€
€
Is RHS even still available? I can’t find it on Maco anymore. Or is that now called Supergrain? What can you actually say about this Champion Promicrol? Quite a few people use it. At least in the description, it sounds similar to the FX39.
piu58
> I must, however, quite clearly disagree with Mr Henry. The granularity is higher with Rodinal than with most other standard developers.
?
?
Before you contradict him: have you read that? He measured it, he didn’t just make a visual assessment.
?
Rodinal tends to produce heavy grain when overdeveloped, more so than other developers. This may be based on personal experience. Especially if you want to get more speed out of the combination than it actually offers.
Quinquaginta
Quinquaginta,
With X-TOL, I’ve always used a 1:1 dilution so far. According to Kodak, the granularity is supposed to be a little finer with Stock, and the sensitivity utilisation slightly lower. So, as I understand it now, there isn’t much more to be gained in terms of fine grain, and together with X-TOL, HRX and CG512 represent pretty much the optimum? However, are you now suggesting that acutance might be better with X-TOL, given that the grain is roughly the same? I hope I’ve understood that correctly.
€
I deliberately didn’t write anything about the characteristic curve because, to be honest, I don’t really know much about it yet. I understand what it means in theory, but I probably wouldn’t be able to spot any differences on a negative or positive. At best, I can only express in layman’s terms what I would prefer: the mid-tones should rise quite linearly and the highlights should be gently curved. I wouldn’t be too keen on a sudden clipping of the highlights, as you get with a digital camera.
€
I’ve already considered the FX39 as well. It sounds very interesting, at least. If it clumps less than Rodinal, I think that would be a real winner for me. Have you had any experience with it yourself?
€
€
Hello Neutrino,
€
Yes, the acutance is slightly better with HRX + Co. than with XTOL 1+1.
Since you place a lot of importance on fine grain: 85–95% of the grain in the final result is determined by the film chosen, with the rest coming from the developer and the processing technique. So you can achieve much more with this parameter through your choice of film than through your choice of developer.
€
Charistic curve: The progression you describe/desire is typical of a so-called ‘balancing developer’.
The Adox FX-39, for example, produces exactly this curve with most films.
And yes, I have personal experience with the developer.
As a rule, I only comment on products that I have used and tested myself. If I haven’t used something myself, I keep my mouth shut.
€
Hello Uwe,
€
I have carried out extensive measurements and tests myself. I have a huge number of test results and sample images here. If we meet next time, I’d be happy to bring some along. You’ll see the differences straight away.
€
Best regards,
Henning
piu58
> You’ll see the differences straight away
?
I don’t doubt that, and Henry makes the same point. But it’s not because of the coarser grain, but because of the sharpness of the grain. And this sharp grain also has an aesthetic appeal. To my eyes, visible muddy grain is a flaw, whereas visible grain that looks like scattered sand can enhance the image’s impact (though not with every subject, of course).
?
Grain and Rodinal are overrated. I still have strategic stocks of APX 100, which works very well with Rodinal. The grain isn’t intrusive. Kentmere films also take to this developer well. There may be combinations that are less harmonious.
Quinquaginta
> You’ll see the differences straight away
?
I don’t doubt that, and Henry makes the same point. But it’s not because of the coarser grain, but because of the greater sharpness of the grain. And this sharp grain also has an aesthetic appeal. To my eyes, visible muddy grain is a flaw, whereas visible grain that looks like scattered sand can enhance the image’s impact (though not with every subject, of course).
?
Grain and Rodinal are overrated. I still have strategic stocks of APX 100, which works very well with Rodinal. The grain isn’t intrusive. Kentmere films also take to this developer well. There may be combinations that are less harmonious.
?
Hi Uwe,
?
No, it really is because of the slightly
coarser grain. This can also be measured very clearly in resolution tests, for example, where Rodinal can no longer resolve the finest structures due to the coarser grain.
As for the aesthetic appeal of the sharper grain impression, I fully agree with you. But I’ve already mentioned that above. The subjectively very good impression of sharpness with Rodinal / Adonal at small and medium enlargement scales is also part of its charm.
But of course, everyone must decide for themselves whether they prefer the grain to have a little more sharpness (Adonal, FX-39, ADX-II, HRX, Neofin Blaue etc.) or a little softer feel (Atomal, XTOL Standard, DD-X etc.). Preferences do vary from person to person, after all.
And it also depends on the subject and the desired result: for some subjects, a sharp grain may be more suitable, whilst for others a softer grain might be better.
?
I agree with you on the combination of APX 100 (the original) and Rodinal / Adonal as well. It works well; I’ve still got a few rolls of APX 100 120 in the fridge.....;-).
But that’s also because the original APX was the film with the finest grain structure among those with a classic cubic crystal structure.
Well, anyone who wants to continue using this combination should now opt for Silvermax in 35mm: spectral sensitisation, grain, sharpness and resolution are practically identical. And thanks to Silvermax’s clear base, it’s even more versatile, as it has excellent black-and-white developability.
?
Best regards,
Henning
Neutrino
Hello Quinguaginta,
Thanks again for your comments.
€
The FX 39 is actually starting to sound very interesting to me. However, I’m a bit sceptical about ADOX’s statement, and Paterson’s data sheet also states that this developer should really only be used with films up to ISO 100 or 200. Does it really have a high level of granularity even with flat-grain films like T-MAX 400? As you’re familiar with both Rodinal and the FX 39, how do they compare in that respect?
€
One drawback for me would be that there’s no development time chart, at least not from the manufacturer – or is there something printed on the bottle? I know everyone should test their films, but for a start – and especially if you’re not yet an absolute development pro – pre-set times would be helpful. There’s some information in the old Paterson data sheet. However, I think the T-Max films still list the old specifications, and some newer films like the CHSII aren’t on the list at all, which makes sense. There’s obviously something on digitaltruth, but how reliable is that?
Neutrino
I’ve just seen that the FX 39 has also been tested on
http://www.fotoimport.no/filmtest/filmtmax.html. Unlike Rodinal, the FX 39 is actually quite a bit more finely grainy. I don’t know how Rodinal behaves in stronger dilutions and at lower temperatures, but at least at 1+24 at 20 degrees, as in these tests, the difference is clearly visible. It is also very clear that (as Quinquaginta has already described) Rodinal actually has a significantly lower resolving power than other developers, but produces a sharper impression. I find this particularly evident when comparing Rodinal with Atomal. Atomal appears considerably out of focus, but resolves significantly more detail.
€
The FX 39 is increasingly becoming my favourite.
€
