# Different types of developers



## Compaq (Sep 13, 2012)

Some developers are "replenishable", such as Ilfotec DD. What exactly does that mean? 

Other developers are concentrates. That's easy enough to understand, one dilutes the concentrate with water. 

Have I misunderstood something when I saw that there are some developers that come already mixed? Just to pour into the developing tank?

I use mostly Ilford's Delta Pro range films, 100, 400 and 3200. The DD-X developer from Ilford are supposedly low grain and excellent with the Delta Pro range films. I've seen many members at the RangeFinderForums find this developer especially good with the faster films in the DP range. Does anyone have experience with this? It so happens that I will be shooting some concerts in the future, and I will bring my rangefinder loaded with DP3200 pushed to ASA6400.  I'm in the process of buying paper and chemistry, and I think I'd like to stick with Ilford products, just because it's easy. I have access to Rodinal in the uni darkroom if I wish to use that.

I realise that with experience comes knowledge of which films give better results with which developers (based on my own opinions, ofc), but as a starting point, wouldn't Ilfotex DD-X in combo with Ilford Delta Pro films work fine? As for paper, I was thinking some Ilford VC RC paper, in two different sizes. One small format for those "non-important" prints that I can use to give to friends, hang on the wall just for fun etc, and one larger format for those images that turn out really well and that I can hang on the wall. Variable contrast because I may not be very consistent in my exposures, and I've understood it's easier to control contrast with VC paper, rather than graded paper.

Does this seem like a good start? If anyone has anything they think I SHOULD own, please inform me and I'll see if it fits my budget 

Anders


----------



## Helen B (Sep 13, 2012)

With a replenishable developer you can remove some of the used developer after each batch of films and replace it with the same volume of replenisher to maintain stable properties and developing times. There will be a recommended replacement volume per film developed. Some developers, like Xtol, are replenished with the normal developer, some, like D-76, are best replenished with a specially-formulated replenisher (like D-76R in the case of D-76). Some developers, like 777, work their best this way - the 'ripened' developer is stable and optimal. Some two-bath developers, like Diafine, never really exhaust so they can simply be topped up with fresh developer to replace the missing volume that is carried over by the film itself. These aren't really 'replenishable' like D-76 etc. 

DD-X is OK for pushing D3200 beyond EI 3200 (it is an ISO 800 to 1000 film - depending on which developer is used - so even EI 3200 is a push. It's definitely not an ASA or ISO 6400 film, ever). It's really a personal choice. I usually used dilute Xtol - which may be being discontinued, by the way - or dilute D-76 for pushing. Dilute Microphen and its clones are also good.

VC paper is fine. Whether you use RC or fibre-based is personal choice, but I would suggest giving fibre-based a try. You might not want to use RC for everything afterwards.

I'm curious: You don't seem old enough to have been around before ISO film speeds became the standard in most countries, so why do you use 'ASA'?


----------



## Compaq (Sep 13, 2012)

Ah, okay. Thanks for clearing  up the replenishable part.

I think it was you who explained to me that EI3200 does not equal ISO/ASA 3200 (from your question, I suddenly became very self aware of which term I use). I think ISO800 in my head, as it's easier to calculate stops with that reference.

As to why I write "ASA", I think it's because my dad used to work in a lab when he was young. Whenever we talk about film, it's ASA he refers to and so I've sort of  just taken on that term from him. It doesn't help that it says ASA on the analog cameras I use (60's rangefinders). I'm not sure if it's incorrect to say ASA, as ISO has taken over. Just to clarify, I don't claim to be well schooled in this, or prefer ASA over ISO from any "hipster standpoints"


----------



## Helen B (Sep 13, 2012)

Thanks. I was just curious. 'ASA' looks like it will be around and understood for a long time yet.

I've just looked through my records and I discovered that I have used DD-X 1+4 with D3200 slightly more often than I have used Xtol 1+1.

By the way, I forgot to mention that developers like Xtol and D-76 are always used at full strength in replenished systems, never diluted. When diluted they are used one-shot. The preservative concentration in the diluted developer may be too low for long life.


----------



## Compaq (Sep 14, 2012)

Hmm, okay. I'm pretty sure I'll buy Ilfotec DD-X and some Ilford rapid fixer. The darkroom has Rodinal, and I'm planning no testing the difference. Shooting two D400s of the same stuff, and see how the different developers handle them. I think it may be interesting.


----------



## Compaq (Sep 14, 2012)

Ordered! Dev and fix, two 1L bottles, more plastic sheets for storage. I'm all set!


----------



## timor (Sep 14, 2012)

Compaq said:


> Shooting two of the same stuff, and see how the different developers handle them.


_ Warning ! Warning ! You are about to step in a very dangerous maze of gozillion possibilities you may never emerge from. Warning !_
My advice: stick with DD-X (if you plan to push) as a basic chemistry, leave to Rodinal stand development. Keep it simple, is better to be a master of one then Jack of all. That being said let's have a beer.


----------



## Compaq (Sep 14, 2012)

I was just interested to find out if I can see any significant differences between the two. I always hear that Rodinal gives sharply defined grain. 

I've also ordered a couple of efke 25 films. I'm looking forward to try these for landscapes!


----------

