developers

J.M. O'Malley · February 28, 2005

I'd like to find out how the developer at the lab compares with what I usually use, which is Ilford ID-11. Do most labs usually use Kodak D-96? That's not commercially available, is it? I've used D-76 before, is it similar?

GeorgeSelinsky · March 2, 2005

You can mix D-96 on your own (and most other developer formulae) if you order the chemicals from an outfit like the Photographer's Formulary (they'e on the net somewhere). I believe ID-11 is the standard chemical used to develop Ilford B&W neg films, and you can get that premixed.

I never analyzed the ID-11 formula, but D-96 is of a lower contrast than D-76. D-96 has even amounts of Metol/Elon and Hydroquinone, D-76 has a heavier dose of Hydroquinone therefore making it a bit more contrasty.

You might want to check out my movie processing page at http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky I have formulae posted on there, including D 76 and D 96.

- G.

Edited March 2, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

John Pytlak RIP · March 2, 2005

Kodak has the B&W Processing Manual (H-24.15) available on-line, including the formulae:

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...h2415/h2415.pdf B)

K Borowski · March 2, 2005

I believe that Ilford's ID-11 is actually identical to D-76, at least on paper. Kodak and Ilford's exact recipes might differ slightly from the formulas now. Of course, this difference should be negligable. As far as commercial processing goes, all you can get is D-96, which is a shame considering how many different developers there are and the different looks one can get from each. Also, Kodak's T-Max films apparantly don't show any improvements over the older cine films in D-96, which is why they still aren't offered for MP use. It is here that I'd say it is almost worth processing your own B&W whereas it is clearly in your interest not to process color due to the rigidity of processing in order to maintain consistant results. I'd highly recommend checking out George's site. It's where I first came upon movie processing specs and it's chock full of information regarding the matter, including a section contemplating whether or not it's worth one's time and money to take the DIY approach.

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

GeorgeSelinsky · March 3, 2005

Thanks for the good words Karl, I'm glad people are learning from my site! I really miss my darkroom days, it's becoming a lost art pretty quickly. Granted, motion picture processing isn't as enjoyable as making your own 16X20 prints, but it allows for flexibility w/o question (i.e. sepia tone B&W reversal - if you can stand the odor of the sulfide redeveloper).

I don't know how D-96 compares to D-76 in terms of sharpness and grain. Sometimes some chemical processes are designed for the benefit of the film processing equipment, so quality may not always be optimal. There are lots of interesting developers out there, and it would be interesting to experiment with them and B&W MP film. I tried Agfa Rodinal on B&W reversal, it was interesting - sharp but grainy. I still haven't tried D-23, and its divided developer variant (one bath is D-23, another is a Borax accelerator), nor have I tried Acufine (it's pretty expensive but it boosts film speed).

Anyway, if you experiment be sure to report your findings to the Movie Processing yahoo group, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/movieprocessing

One good way of experimenting, incidentally, is to do tests with short samples of film a few frames long, loading them into stainless steel developing tanks. Of course when it comes to rewind equipment you really can't get an accurate picture that way, but with spiral reel gear you'll get a good idea at least.

- G.

Edited March 3, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

K Borowski · March 3, 2005

Will do George. I'm a proud cardholder for that group. Too bad I haven't received my card yet ;-) As for D-23, be aware that there is a speed loss with it. Fortunately I found this fact out with still film and long before my pictures started to get good, much less painful than loosing a 1000 foot spool of XX 35mm. I think that Kodak's T-Max developer would be great for MP film, as would longer lengths of T-Max film. I'd love to play around with TMZ-3200 in this solution, maybe shooting from EI 1000-1600. Another great developer for fine grain besides D-23 is Microdol-X, again entailing a certain speed loss, but not as drastic as that of D-23 if I recall correctly. Another good point you make George is the lost art of toning. Didn't B&W moviemakers used to tone their prints? And Kodak ought to come out with variable contrast print film and some sort of advanced digital software to enable one to burn contrast masks frame by frame. . . However I digress. I need to start playing around with this stuff again and find the perfect B&W developer for the short I'm making in 16mm. Artcraft Chemicals here I come!

Take it easy.

~Karl Borowski

GeorgeSelinsky · March 4, 2005

I'd love to play around with TMZ-3200 in this solution, maybe shooting from EI 1000-1600.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would be fun actually, I would love to try shooting some very high speed stock like that. I thought they discontinued it though, or maybe they just discontinued the B&W Kodak Recording film (which was available in 100' rolls and was pushable to 3000 asa).

Theoretically you shouldn't loose speed with D-23 (unlike with Microdol-X). Check out this article on D-23, which also includes the formula for divided D-23:

http://www.photoshot.com/articles/general/kodak_d_23.htm

I think divided development would be a good thing to try for B&W negative MP processing (wouldn't work for reversal well though, because divided developers are pretty low con). It's pretty automatic and it's more economical - all you have to do is toss the accelerator B bath after a short while (and the accelerators are cheap chemicals), the A formula has an extended capacity so long as there is no contamination.

I always wondered how divided development would work for a rewind tank, better or worse than standard development? Henry Horenstein's "Beyond Basic Photography" book warns on p. 97 that overagitating the B bath can lead to streaking, so maybe with a rewind tank one would have to slow down the cranking to reduce the risk of that happening.

- G.

Edited March 4, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

John Pytlak RIP · March 5, 2005

Processing the film yourself lets you have fun trying different developers. But for consistent results, most use a professional motion picture lab.

GeorgeSelinsky · March 5, 2005

But for consistent results, most use a professional motion picture lab.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With color I agree all the way. It's hard to match a lab which runs daily control strips and has an automated temperature regulation and replenishment system.

With black and white, I'm not so sure that most labs really give a damn. It's not like it's such a competitive market for them. I've seen many labs turn up pretty bad results in B&W, if they did that in color they'd have serious problems. Furthermore, you can save some big bucks if you run your own B&W (the smaller the gauge, the greater the savings), and you'd probably end up with more consistent results given the way some labs run their B&W baths...

With B&W negative processing you have three very basic chemical steps, not much to go wrong. Reversal is a bit trickier but it's still not the same thing as running an ECN-2 or VNF-1 bath.

So long as your processing equipment is in shape and you either replenish your baths or mix n' dump, you really don't have that much to worry about.

- G.

Edited March 5, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

GeorgeSelinsky · March 5, 2005

I just found out that T max P3200 is available in 100' lengths (recording film has indeed been discontinued).

While this place doesn't have TMZ in 100' rolls, it has the other Tmaxes and the prices don't look so bad:

http://shop.store.yahoo.com/ecamerafilms/kodakfilm.html

K Borowski · March 5, 2005

George, as I sit here writing this, there is a 100 footer of the TMZ-3200 chilling in my freezer. I got it on ebay for about $70 from Ultrafine, which basically did one of those Buy It Now Auctions where all you can do is buy the item. Unfortunately, TMZ-3200 is much pricier than the slower films and only available in bulk rolls from the USA, not USA-W or IMP which are much cheaper. I believe my roll expired in April, but it has been frozen for quite a while and should hold up for another year while I use it all for photojournalism (sadly 16mm is the largest motion picture gauge I can afford and even that's pushing the envelope). However, $70 is a great deal for this film, with it usually going for $110. If you're interested in playing around with the stuff (again rather pricey, but fun), www.ultrafineonline.com has rolls and rolls of the stuff laying around for $70 a pop. Throw it in some T-Max developer rating it from anywhere from 1000-6400 and enjoy the results.

John, I have to agree with George that most labs thing B&W is a joke and that only students who don't need top quality and consistancy are using it. I have labs do all of my color, but do all of my B&W MP film at home, which is basically the same thing that I do with still film (although I'm getting into making my own color prints now).

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

GeorgeSelinsky · March 5, 2005

(sadly 16mm is the largest motion picture gauge I can afford and even that's pushing the envelope).
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'll actually find that 35mm is more affordable than you perhaps imagine. Using short ends I am shooting 35mm for a cost that is just a smidge higher than using fresh color 16mm stock. If you got yourself a Konvas you too could be shooting 35mm for very little, so long as you're okay with transfers to tape (when you start doing film dailies, that's when 35mm starts costing a lot).

I would love to use a 3200 speed B&W film (although P3200 is really a 1200 asa film that is pushed during processing). It's actually a cool idea, do a film with all existing light (well, perhaps augmented here and there with a fill card and stronger bulbs :)) using P3200 pushed to 6400. It would probably look totally surreal. The one problem is 100' loads, and of course the stuff isn't cheap. One could probably use Tmax 400 and just push that to 1600 or 3200 using a high energy developer.

- G.

K Borowski · March 5, 2005

George, I rightully shouldn't be able to afford 16mm. I'm shooting on film I got for free (VNF), probably going to try and develop it on a processing machine in a friend's basement because even 20c a foot is stretching my budget to the limit (and he only does 16mm). Also, I don't have a camera for 35mm (my 16mm is an Auricon that cost me about $400), don't have a decent tape recorder for sound, don't have any sort of 35mm editing equipment (16mm is available to me, again out of my friend's basement), and I live in Ohio, so the closest lab is probably the one in Detroit. Then again, my camera is the SIZE of modern day 35mms so at least I FEEL important ;) As for shooting on TMZ P3200, I agree that 100 feet is very very short, even if you're only shooting 2 perf or 3 perf. If only there were someone inside of Kodak here on this forum who could get them to spool up 1000 foot cores of TMZ from their 8-mile-long coffins of film. . . Actually, the thing that's always bothered me about Kodak is that they're so picky about selling stuff, which is contradictory to the whole concept of business. And I'm sure that PMZ 3200 isn't doing as well in the still sector with the chunk that digital has taken out of the stills market. The same could be said of all of the E6 films. Why not make them available in whatever length someone wants if it will mean that both the still and motion picture segments will be buying them? I've heard that the biggest problem in Kodak that will hopefully be worked out is that their still and motion picture divisions are independent of each other, even though they offer such similar products! So it's a case of the left hand not caring what the right hand does.

~Karl

GeorgeSelinsky · March 5, 2005

Actually, the thing that's always bothered me about Kodak is that they're so picky about selling stuff, which is contradictory to the whole concept of business. And I'm sure that PMZ 3200 isn't doing as well in the still sector with the chunk that digital has taken out of the stills market. The same could be said of all of the E6 films. Why not make them available in whatever length someone wants if it will mean that both the still and motion picture segments will be buying them? I've heard that the biggest problem in Kodak that will hopefully be worked out is that their still and motion picture divisions are independent of each other, even though they offer such similar products! So it's a case of the left hand not caring what the right hand does.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sometimes that has been the case, I can't say that the marketing and publicity strategy for Super 8 was an act of brilliance, even in spite of the hubub of the video era. I remember for a long time Super 8 was listed in the amateur category and any professional picking up a catalog would have no idea that Kodachrome was still manufactured.

Kodak like any company has different people running things, one person may be very vested in keeping Super 8 a viable medium, another may be shouting out during board meetings "Let's dump it already and concentrate on the video market!".

It seems today that there has been more of a change in attitude and even though Kodak had to get rid of mag striped filmstocks, K25, and the VNF Ektachromes, they seem more interested in hearing what a wider spectre of filmmakers have to say than before. At least that's my impression.

Also, the heat is on right now because digital has become a very visible threat to the existance of motion picture film. Back when 3/4 inch Umatic was still a standard format, film still had a more comfortable edge. Now there's more of a survival mode attitude, and that benefits all of us really.

All in all Kodak is a business, and its really up to them to make the most profitable decisions. If they are overlooking something interesting, our only hope can be that they'll listen. That said, Kodak is also aware that many people ask for things only so they can have the "possibility" of using them, it's not like they have real practical plans. For instance, I think it would be NICE if K-25 was still there, but I don't see myself really using it for anything major. However, if they knocked out all the color negative filmstocks except for Vision 200, I would be really, really motivated to speak with my mind and with my wallet.

- G.

jon w · March 17, 2005

maby you can help me george???

this is on topic, but kinda off.

been processing my own 7222 in a morse g3 rewind tank for a couple years now. love it, getting good consistant results. i just bought a Konvas, im still in the testing stage, i bought 100' load of ilford hp5 asa 125. my problem is that i have no idea how long i should develop for? been using D-19 for 6min for 7222, and getting great results, do you know if development time in D-19 would be similar for the ilford stock?

thanks!

James Erd · May 7, 2006

maby you can help me george???
this is on topic, but kinda off.

been processing my own 7222 in a morse g3 rewind tank for a couple years now. love it, getting good consistant results. i just bought a Konvas, im still in the testing stage, i bought 100' load of ilford hp5 asa 125. my problem is that i have no idea how long i should develop for? been using D-19 for 6min for 7222, and getting great results, do you know if development time in D-19 would be similar for the ilford stock?

thanks!

I am going to be processing some film with my old G3 soon so, I would be interested in comparing your formula, times and temps. My results with the G3 were not good, that was some years ago.

James