Okay so I'm late at this party but having been a photographer for a long number of years I'm pretty sure these comparisons you're doing are the first I've really seen done "properly" and extensively (the agitation speed / duration one's are top notch). Finally someone is answering those questions that forums oh so love to fiercely debate (often wrongly). Good on you sir, spending your own time and money to discover this stuff out for yourself but then also letting us all in on the results.
Hey Azriel, I've been a hardcore Rodinal user until I switched to Kodak XTol this is where I noticed the difference. But since Xtol is a powder and its shelf life is not so long I now use HC110 which looks kinda same to me but lives much longer on the shelf. Of course I do have a bottle of Rodinal just in case. Thanks for the vid!
Been watching these as I'm getting back into developing film. You've inspired me to think about film development tests and put them down on a spreadsheet. Different films, different developers, different dilutions. It's gonna be crazy. So thanks!
Do not go crazy. Stick with one developing method until you master it. This comparation presented here only shows, that every darkroom is a separate "kitchen". In opinion of many the look of negative from HC110 and DD-X is very different, not similar. I prefer smooth tones given by HC110.
I would love to see a video comparing different dilutions of developers like Rodinal and HC-110. I'm a fan of dilution H for HC-110, but it would be great to see what kind of difference is actually being made between something like dilution B versus H.
I really love that idea Aaron and it's on my shortlist. I'd considered it before and after seeing how flat my negative looked compared to rodinal I want to see if I can get more contrast from my hc-110.
Thank you Marcos, I don't know why either but I'm glad it did :P I've made a lot of vids, let me know if you're looking for something and I can recommend it ;)
As a rodinal user, I am extremely intrigued at the differences in performance between these developers. DD-X is just wow imo. It's a shame it's really expensive where I live compared to rodinal.
I've been using DDX for years and love it. I would suggest one thing though, I store ALL of my developers (DDX, Rodinal, Tetenal C41 and E6) in booze flasks, HDPE, chemical safe... you can squeeze out all the air and cap it off. I've done this for over 5 years and have DDX that lasts over 2 years this way. I know many used soda bottles and such but these pack up nicely and work very well.
@@AzrielKnight Any of these types will work.... www.amazon.com/CRUISE-RUNNERS-Alcohol-Runner-Smuggle/dp/B016XAVZNQ/ref=sxin_2_ac_d_pm?keywords=booze+cruise+flask&pd_rd_i=B016XAVZNQ&pd_rd_r=e6fd88dd-6796-4c0a-97da-1373b8dffc3a&pd_rd_w=oG0ez&pd_rd_wg=UAuGL&pf_rd_p=be5d8dec-444e-4770-91df-1e16a8c46da8&pf_rd_r=G9BEXS5W18BSEEPSB05Z&qid=1562081414&s=gateway
He underdeveloped the DDX negatives, which came out thin. Should have used Ilford's recommendation for time instead the the Massive Development chart (MDC). Here's the problem with the MDC. It's publisher accepts data from just about anyone. It does not verify the accuracy of such input. (if you dig deep enough, they says so in the fine print., but how many RU-vidrs are big readers.) The MDC has many such errors. So, if Film or Developer makers provides time/temp data, use it. If you have no other data resource, use the MDC, but do a test roll first which is disposable. The MDC is often referred to and recommended n YT and elsewhere, but that is often based on the convenience of access through a smartphone app and a program which imports the data and acts as a timer. In other words, it provides playtime with your phone. If that's your highest criterion for development data, have at it.
this was an awesome comparison, thanks for doing this video! I started shooting on DDX only and recently added Rodinal to the mix. DDX pushes amazingly well, it's fine grain and because it's a fast developer it bumps up the base ISO, so Tri-X 400 developed at "400" is more like 640, so pushing to 1600 and more is a breeze. I am amazed at how good my HP5 shots at 3200iso look. Rodinal I have found, like you, is much punchier. If I'm shooting at box speed I'll generally use rodinal but for some contrasty films like Fomapan I dont think I'll use it again. It's too much contrast and the highlights block up very easily.
Another wonderful experiment! I use ilfosol 3 and have some hc110 on its way to me. Im curious to see the difference between the two. Ill have to see if I can get my hands on some Rodinal as well to give it a shot. Thanks again for sharing dude! Im really diggin these experiments and vids! You remind me so much of my cousin Chris. Ironically he moved to Canada a few years back.
I've never been satisfied by any of my results with Rodinal at 1+25... I've found it has a tendency to blow highlights and exaggerate grain a bit more than I'd like (even when enlarging). 1+50 gives me much more pleasing results, and is even better on the wallet ;)
Hi (not reading the comments like everyone else on RU-vid ;) ) Thank you so much for this. I´m standing here shopping HC-110 on Ebay and thought "Hey wait.." As a conclusion on seeing this clinical research I think I will buy Kodak HC-110 because I use Kodak film at the moment (Yes Tr-X 400). Other than that I liked the 110 best because of the grading in that reflector,. a light area. Thanks again!
great video. I use Rodinal Stand Dev for anything under 100. Any 400 film I use XTOL, an love a1+1 look. I have used HC-110 but the syrup is a PITA. I have a huge bottle of it sitting on the shelf. It's like trying to mix pancake syrup. I have never used most ilford stuff but I am currently switching to their film. I do like Tri-x but the darks are too dense for me. HP5+ is some amazing film and you can push almost as well as Tri-x to like 12,800 and beyond.
Great video! I'd recommend trying out DD-X with a tabular grain film like any Delta/T-Max/Acros. I kind of assumed that the name stands for "Delta Developer" since I think Ilford advertises it as giving the best speed and finest grain with the Delta line and in general they seem like they're supposed to be paired. Like another comment mentioned, DD-X is also very high speed - the base time for Delta 400 is actually EI 500 and there is no Ilford-published time for EI 400 with that film - so if you shoot at box speed and dev as recommended you get 1/3 stop speed increase by default. The economy is not that bad either, especially since if you experiment or find times online you can dilute to 1+4 or 1+9. After going through a whole bottle, my favorite B&W film has become a tie between Acros (at 100 or 200) and Delta 400 (at 1600) in DD-X. Finally, I suspect a lot of the similarity between HC110 and DD-X is because (I think) they are both hydroquinone based. HC110 is probably much more concentrated and of course has different secondary ingredients. The primary ingredient for Rodinal is p-aminophenol or something.
Well I'm on my second bottle now, each bottle was open about 3 months before finishing and there were no issues. I keep it pretty air tight by only poking 2 small holes on the foil to pour easily, then make sure the cap is tight after. Stored at a controlled room temp/20C.
Nice comparison video for these developers, thank you! Rodianl is generating a nice and fast contrast negative, but it has a more visible grain, going for a print in darkroom would be really visible on a large print. Ddx and hc110 are smoother for grain and contrast, probably more usable. I wonder where you could get more out of this developer when considering a darkroom print! Rodinale 1+50 or stand dev 1+100 for instance. A lower contrast negative would for sure require more work with contrast-filters, dodge and burning, but it offers more possibilities to achive a requested (desiderd) print, while a faster contrast negative would reduce the chances to modify the contrast during the printing process. The comparison should be both with a condensed head ight and diffused head light enlarger, that would be really interesting. BTW, I'd like if you take some time to test a print on paper rather than doing a scan. Cheers^^
At the time of this experiment I didn't do a paper test because I felt it would introduce other elements. I wanted the test to be "pure" but I have done other comparisons and used paper.
Ro9 lower res higher contrast the ddx and 110 are close the 110 looks to have a little more contrast slightly higher res more grain structure and the ddx looks to have a wider tone range smoother grain structure. My choice would be the ddx for scanning and digital processing purposes for that particular film but they all have merit there are so many options and combinations. I tend to stick with two developers for fast and slow films. imo ilfosol 3 and fp4 pair nicely d76/id11/ddx for 400 speeds ive not got to grips with r09 yet.
What you didn't take into consideration is that DDX gives a speed increase over Rodinal and HC 110. So your negatives are not the same. You used 1/30 at f5.6 for all three developers. What this means is the Rodinal and HC 100 negatives have been developed correctly, whereas the DDX negatives are about 2/3 of a stop over exposed for the given development time. To get a more accurate comparison you need to shoot the DDX film at 640.
Another great Video! Thanks. I wonder one thing about this experiment. Dev chart vs Box. Using what ddx reccommends I would guess you would get closer to what the Rodinal looked like. That extra two minutes would up the contrast a bit i would think.
Rodinal should always add a fair amount of acutance, or the appearance of sharpness, by sharpening the edges. Also, it's very difficult to compare by scanning alone. The real difference shows in prints. There are also film tests you can do that will completely change the look of any of those developers by changing the "black point"(film speed, eg. 300 instead of 400) and the "white point" (arrived at by lengthening or shortening development time).
Thanks for the feedback. I realize my experiment isn't perfect, but I think it's a good starting point and since more people scan their negs than print them it works. Having them in the same scan made a huge difference.
It's true that most people scan their negatives, which brings up the question if there is a way to adapt the film speed and development testing for scanning. Maybe better technicians than I have an answer. Very generally, older cubic grain films tend to be 1/3 to 1/2 slower (ie. 200-300 for HP-5 and Tri-X) while the modern T-grain tend to correspond to box speed. Ii've found most recommended development times inadequate by at least 10-20%. Thanks for doing the comparison ; it saves us the work, lol.
The technique of adjusting shooting film speed and development time to optimize the density range of a negative image to the requirements of a print paper would work just as well to match a negative image to the requirements of a scanner. The process would be much easier if you used a calibrated step wedge to print a film strip and also as a scan subject. Unlike most of the many videos which play around this subject, that would be a unique and worthy subject to a video.
Thanks for the idea. What I was thinking is to use the blank shot that's usually done in a test film and then scan it in order to find the D-max or maximum black point. Adjust the brightness slider scales to get it just to the point of maximum black or D-Max and then apply exactly the same adjustment to Zone I and Zone VIII. Zone 1 for actual film speed and zone 8 for development time.
Hc 110 times seem short to me, and I used to process 1000s of rolls of this stuff by hand. They should never be less dense than rodinal. Rodinal is also a compensating developer and will produce a softer highlight roll off than hc 110 which is not a compensator. Sorry, but the density range difference in the negs and obvious under development of hc110 makes this test a bit of a fail.
My personal fave combination is Fomapan 100 and rodinal (Adonal).You can change the ISO of the film mid roll between iso 50 to 400. Then stand dev in 1/100 rodinal for 2 hours, 30 seconds agitation at start then 3 agitations at every 30 minutes.www.flickr.com/photos/dawilletts/34591891255/in/dateposted/
Different developing times for the same film in the same developer refers to different contrast indices i.e. printing the negatives in either a Condenser or Diffuser enlargers, as we now scan our films we have to do many tests to see what works with our particular scanners. I love these experiments and would like to see an exhaustive test on the new Bergger Pancro 400 film.
Just a general question, I shot film for the first time and I'm surprised how noisy and grainy my pictures are. Is it always like that or does it depend on the developer and scanner used?
Depends on what speed film you used, but if they seem strikingly noisy, I might suspect that your images were underexposed and your scanner has compensated.
Great comparison. I use stand development with rodinal 100/1 would love to know your opinion. It's a lazy mans process. No temp restrictions and an hour or so development time with one agitation at 30 minutes. By the way, can I get your address I have a few things to share. I still like your show. :)
Thanks very much Michael! I should try rodinal stand dev sometime. It's on the mental list ;) My address is Azriel Knight PO Box 75100 Calgary, Alberta T2K 6J8
That Samurai though. Just developed and scanned a color negative out of it. Did it give you blatant out-of-focus performances even in the crisper of daylight as well? Cause it did to me.. (but now I managed to find a way to manual focussing!)
Hi Azriel! You should try making Parodinal, it should act just like rodinal, but you can make it at home. If you wish I could send you the instructions but they can be found quite easily with a bit of googling :) I have used it for a time now myself and I'm really pleased with it.
Azriel Knight it should be pretty close, I don't know if this is the original formula, but you can use the same dilutions and developing times as with rodinal. I use the massive Dev chart app and just select rodinal as developer. This is the formula I use: www.drfrankenfilm.com/diy-rodinal/4575179217
Great video! I would like to see a tutorial on how to copy old antique negatives for safe keeping (negative to negative), since the originals are quite fragile and bound to dissolve and be lost forever (Nitrate/Acetate type) Also I would like to see a comparison between D-76 and HC-110 on slower films (ie. delta 100) taken with an old box camera perhaps a simply antique brownie with 120 film. Kind regards
Thanks for the suggestion Jesper. I've never done a transfer before but I am eager to compare D-76 to HC-110 but am more likely to do it on Tri-x with a shutter accurate camera.
Can you give me your opinion on scanners? What scanner do you use? what are some good options for the amateur film developer? I also do 6x9cm medium format, so I would prefer one that scans those as well. Also, have you tried d-76? I bought it when I first started out because it can be made in small 1 gallon batches. I want to try hc-110, but I would never go through the whole bottle.
Thanks for your comment Zack. I have only ever owned the Epson V500, and one other similar model that died after 1000 scans that I picked up at a a garage sale. The good news is if you like my photos, just about anything you buy is going to produce better results. I hear the V700 is still a solid choice. I plan to try D-76 at some point. HC-110 is economical and you don't need to make a stock solution.
I've considered that, and yeah it would take extra time but the other factors I thought of were things like, temp change in the developer for each print, the variation on scanning the paper individually, which is the right contrast filter to use with my Multigrade paper, etc. At least with the negatives all on the scanner at the same time it shows the relativity to each other, and let's be honest, most people are scanning their negatives these days.
Hi Azriel, I like the video, but could you make some prints on paper and also show that result from these test strips? I think that the scanning now distorts the result a bit since the Rodinal seems to have more contrast it shows lighter on your scans. Making silver prints should show the "real" result of the process. Anyway thank you for the videos, must be a lot of work!
Hi Jan! Great suggestion and I have considered it to the point where I may do a part 2 in the future with these. I'd also like to find a way to obverse the negative super close up, so I can see the grain.
Hey Tom! I wish, that set came in and it was total garbage :( Not your fault, I should have read the reviews, but yeah, doesn't work at all, or total static with occasional human like sounds, which was par for the course to other buyers.
Hey Azriel! I really like that you do these comparison videos! Have you considered to compare those three with Caffenol CH? Caffenol is my favourite developer, and gives a really nice contrast! :)
I keep running into frustration and confusion trying to find the "right" developing time to do 400TX in HC-110. It seems like the Massive Dev Chart, the Kodak HC-110 datasheet, websites about HC-110, and the myriad of anecdotal forum posts, all disagree with each other. (Sometimes significantly.) The last time I did it, I used the advice of one such website (dilution E, 6.5 minutes) and I think it came out okay. But I'm still constantly uncertain.
Thanks for the comment Derek. I think you might be getting too caught up in the "rules" of photography. Especially with Tri-X, it's (almost) all taste. Kodak can't agree with massiv dev, and M dev gets their own hate. Others insist on pushing, or souping it at 24C. The truth is if the photo is good enough, no one questions your methods. Sounds like you're on the right track with some testing.
What is the difference between x-ray film developer and B&W photo film developer? Manual x-ray film developer is very difficult to find with the advent of digital photography. So I tried using Rodinal 1+ 25 with decent results. Although the bottle says it is a one shot developer, I used it just like x-ray film developer, replenishing the developer after each set of films. It seems to be losing it's efficacy after a month which is when I change the developer. I realize this is an area of use beyond film photography, but I am unable to find any information on the web. Any information would help, especially recommendations for type of developer.
I started with Rodinal as I think did most people and I still use it for 'punchy' images. Mainly use DD-X with FP4 and Delta 100 and D-76 with HP5 and TMax. I'm just about to do my first roll of Acros which I might return to Rodinal for. I found this video extremely informative. I'd love to see the same experiment with slower film.
I appreciate your efforts here, but any difference in contrast is going to be a function of development, so the apparent contrast differences could be easily changed. I'd have gone with the manufacturers' time recommendations because that's what most users will do, as the MD Chart is somewhat subjective in its data sources and recommendations (and does not pretend to be otherwise). Since the scanner doesn't resolve a level capable of image sharpness or grain comparison, I'm not sure what was achieved. And even then, people will complain that whatever dilution you used, some other dilution will yield a different (better?) result. Years ago at the request of my local camera store, I did a comparison like this between D-76 and then-newly introduced Kodak Tmax Developer yielding comparison prints. The store (reaonably IMO) elected not to bother stocking the Tmax Developer.
Thanks for the comment Randall. I agree, you can take whatever developer and make it look closer to the others. The point of the video was to see what happens when you change one factor. If I followed the box label rather than MD, someone would have complained about that. I am curious about your method of grain comparison, if I can I'll use it and give you a shout out.
Sorry, bud, but you have to change your scanner for comparing 35mm films so you can see a real difference, epsons are just too fuzzy to do that job on this format (for example, Nikon 40/4k/50/5k). With that you could do a pixel peeping and see a real difference. I could send you examples of FP4+ pushed to 200 with Rodinal, HC-110 and ID11 (almost same as D76) so you'll see that there's a bit more to it. Just send me a message ;) P.S.: like the effort though. Good job!
Hi I love your channel, a very interesting experiment, I'm doing the change from Kodak D-76 to Rodinal, mainly because the Rodinal is more economical and versatile besides can be used very diluted, allowing for example to make an unattended development. Already in aesthetic matters I like that he respects both the highlights and the shadows without stacking them and maintaining a good level of detail in both even if you resort to push the film. And depending on the dilution you can manipulate the contrast according to your personal tastes, that if it is not a fine grain developer so if you do not like it excessively it is better to use it with low sensitivity film 25-200 ISO. A small proposal, I know you're a fan of Kodak, but how about leaving Tri-X and T-Max and try other black and white films like Fomapan, Arista, Kentmere (cheap films) or Ferrania P30, JPH Street Pan 400 or Adox Silvermax (not cheap films) Greetings from Mexico
That's a pain - getting the correct temp and keeping it there. I sometimes check the temp after I empty the tank to see if there was much temp. change during development.
Yes, you're right about your three fims. The problem I've noticed is the difference in weather changes. In winter, temps are fairly stable, but in summer the temp can rise significantly in the tank. Considering using a water bath in the future.
Amazing how much of a difference the diveloper actually make. Cool video, though at 03:58 I got a "How to Basic" flashback. Anyway interesting results.
I couldn't say anything for Kodak B&W film since I never shoot it, but when you shoot Ilford try out Ilford's Microphen. If you can fing it. I had used it for years...
Hello,Anzriel, can you help me? I was trying to develop Kodak Tri-X 400 with HC-110 Dilution B, I mixed developer 9ml~ with 281ml water (to use with paterson 300ml tank) and used 4 minutes to develop (at 24C). After that I used Tetenal Indicet stop bath and 5 minutes tetenal fixer. The result was almost clear negative.. wtf? What I did wrong?
Is the edge printing (like the numbers and film name) just as faded? 4 min at 24c, without checking, sounds a bit hot to me, as I dev my tri-x at 20C at about 6 min.
I absolutely love this video. I'm currently, and probably the only one who uses this- but depending on the film I use, I use a different developer. HP5? DDX. TX400? HC110/d76. Rodinal? Stand developer for tx100.
Love these comparison videos! I would love to see Rodinal broken down further. 1:25, 1:50. 1:100 etc. See what the different dilutions and times do to the image. Perhaps the same for DD-X and 110 as well?
Thanks for the comment! I was also told I should do hc-110's dilution types so it's inevitable :) I want to do an official first impressions on Rodinal as well.
Looking forward to that video. I just happen to buy a cheap Kyocera Samurai X3.0 recently with both dead batteries. After changing the button cell and 2CR5, it is good to go with AGFA vistaplus 200. Cheers!
li have some left of HC 110, im developing Ilford film FP4 plus B/W im a begginer, so can you refer me to one of your videos for developing with just HC 110 and fixer, thats all i have and the photoflow. Greetings from Cancun Mexico
DDX is the best developer IF it is fresh, but how do you know? Date code on the bottle. Oh but you can not read the secret code! It is not a nice date like milk. And it does not change color like D76. So you are stuck. If you know the date code and have to mail order if they will ship it, you are still stuck. Point two is to do a proper comparison you must establish your proper development time by printing, not scanning. Now you have a mess of different contrasts instead of a series where you can compare grain and sharpness alone. You have too many variables. At least you get clicks .
Quick question, I just got adox rodinal and it says 1+25..1+100. Anyway, it's not clear to me how much do I mix with water? My Paterson tank says for 1 35mm film, I need 10oz. How much of that should be the rodinal? Thanks so much
Azriel Knight thanks Azriel. I found this one websites that shows rodinal and how to develop all different types of film. In my case, I have Fuji acros neopan 100. It mentions that if I use ratio 2:25 instead of 1:50, it looks like I can decrease the development time. Would you recommend that or stick with 1:50. Thanks.
Each will produce a properly developed negative with some slight differences. It's really a matter of personal preference. If you're new to all this ask which will be easier physically. More standing around or more attentiveness.
Azriel Knight The development was successful it came out really nice thank you so much. The weak link to me seems to be my scanner because the tray doesn't hold the film flat. I'm going to try and flatten it out and then we scanned it. I have the epson 4490 and it's pretty good but would you write recommend something better?
@@AzrielKnight Rodinal has amazing shelf life, but if you shoot smaller formats (35mm or smaller) and faster films (faster than 400), you probably won't like the grain.
Yes.. Karma sees even in a darkroom when you are not wearing a lab coat. I hate Karma. Don't tell her I said that.... :-o You can ward off Karma by installing a ceramic Gnome. Even the Linux Penguin scares off Karma. honest ;-)
why didnt you do side by side comparison? the split view didnt make much sense ad the HC110 was on the shadow side! Also why couldnt we see all three together.?
cuz? I'm not your cousin ;) Maybe your dad but deffo not yer cousin! Come on get yer cam out and remake this vid and don't be lazy at the end this time eh ; >
@@AzrielKnight it's supposed to be optimized for T-grained films. That's what I used it for and got poor results - at least according to the recommended development. Same with T-Max developer.
Man, I wonder how many people will read the comments FIRST and THANK you for saving them allll that time! wait, did YOU check the comments first? No? ;)
What, film or reels? I got my reels from a local photography store, Bernie's Photo Center, on East Ohio Street, Pittsburgh. He had a huge box of them like 4 feet high. Or ebay. B&H has film.
Azriel Knight yee! Kinda cool you replied! Anyway yeah ddx looks good. Before dropping my film photo class at my junior college I have been using Kodak hc 110(?) developer the whole time to process my rolls of film with Fuji Acros 100 and used Kodak developer to develop t max 400 one time.
