D76 Type Developers Part 4: Geoffrey Crawley's FX18!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 авг 2024
- Today we take a look at Geoffrey Crawley's take on Kodak's classic D76 film developer. We examine how he made it and how it looks when used both scanned and darkroom printed. Crawley initially thought no one could better Kodak's all-rounder but eventually proposed this formula as a contender. Did he succeed? Well, this is what I found when I tested his FX18 ...
John Finch
www.pictorialplanet.com
Thanks John. Looking forward to the upcoming videos on d76 👍
Another fantastic series. Thank you very much for this, John. This is exactly the kind of content that film photographers need and that cannot easily be found anywhere else.
Thank you, Paolo
Hi John! Thank you for the interesting and useful information! I am currently experimenting with Fomapan 200 and a version of Adox D-76. I really like the result.
Sounds like you might have found a good combination.
In my estimation yours is the most underappreciated photography-related series on RUclips; I congratulate you and thank you. I've been curious about D-96, which is the recommended developer for Kodak 5222 film. At least here in U.S.A., we can get both the film in 35mm canisters and also ready-made powders to make D-96. Might I be your indulgence to consider testing it, or at least commenting on D-96?
Hi Chris and many thanks for your kind words! D-96 would be easy to make but unfortunately I have no 5222 film to test it with. If anyone who reads this would like me to do some video tests on it I'd need a few rolls/cassettes donated. It certainly is an interesting film/developer combination. How would it stack up compared to, say, FP4? I wonder if D23 or 510-pyro would be a good match with Double X, with their particularly forgiving contrast controlling nature?
@@PictorialPlanet hi John, I already have a time for Double XX in 510 Pyro. Due to the thick emulsion, it's best to rate as 125 and presoak. They do very well together at this rating
@@PictorialPlanet I've shot only a single roll of Cinestill's packaging of 5222 -- and loved it. I plan to get a bulk roll of it when I can, so I can load it as needed and pay less than half Cinestill's price. I pushed to 400 in Df96 monobath, with excellent results, including much better shadow detail than I had expected with a 2/3 stop push. @Chris Reich, I'd recommend trying 5222 in whatever developer you usually use; D-96 is intended as a low contrast developer to accommodate printing to a film positive for cine projection. Developed to the higher contrast we usually want for scanning and printing, there's no real advantage to D-96.
What a great photography channel. Thank you for making these videos.
Thanks Peter!
I have to say a big THANK YOU to you and your and your channel. So many tricks and tips one of which transformed one of my Forrest scenes. Your episode on liquid sunshine. I used a very week solution of farmers, and a second print for comparison. If it wasn't for your brilliant teaching I would still be disappointed in my mornings efforts in the darkroom. It even looks sharper. BIG THANK YOU.
That's fantastic to hear. I'm so pleased you a. tried the technique and b. you are pleased with the results! One 'makes' a photograph and it sounds like you've made a good one!
Once again, terrific video, John. In my opinion D-76 is one of the giants of black & white developers. Time-tested, utterly reliable and, perhaps, only bested by Harvey's Panthermic 777 (good luck getting your hands on any of that stuff), D-76 is one of my go-to developers when I'm not using 510-Pyro.
You know, I almost added a 510-pyro bit to the video because it's so good with HP5+. In the end I decided to not do it, I felt it was a little unfair. After all, I was looking at D76 type developers and not pyro. In the end I was very impressed with D76 holding its own against some tough competition!
As I said in an earlier comment in Part 3 of the series, I still prefer D-76. To my eyes, the FX-18 may have brighter whites, but not better whites. Some areas of the flower petals seemed a touch blown out in the FX-18 image. (Maybe, the difference in highlights is really due to the angle of light striking the pedals?) Could these blown-out areas be fixed with a more careful determination of personal ISO and development time along with post production/darkroom technique? Perhaps. Nevertheless, FX-18 doesn't represent a significant improvement to warrant a switch to that developer.
Enjoyed this video very much John! Always like to see more of Crawley's great developers. Was interesting to see you say FX18 had better whites when they looked blown to me!
Ha! It's hard on video to show the photographs well. No, they were not blown, they were a perfect reproduction of the mostly white flower in the bright sun 🙂 (510-pyro would have been just right for the image but I couldn't show it because I was demoing D76 type developers).
@@PictorialPlanet I see! By the way, I have had a SDS completed for 510 Pyro so it will be available in all the biggest UK and EU distributors soon :) just have to finish some paperwork for the EU side so EU will come later!! Manufacturing's got so big, I'm moving out of the basement into a small industrial unit! 😅
Congratulations are in order! Nice one James!!
@@PictorialPlanet thanks John :) Jay and I are looking at seeing if we can get his latest one manufactured by Ilford - PC based and even finer grained than 510 Pyro
It sounds great! If I ever get some I'll feature it in my channel.
On your next addition to this series on d-76 regarding dilutions, I'd love to see the 'mortensen' method, as done 1:3 with ID11?
I have Mortenson's method on my todo list of videos. It's something I feel would warrant a few videos to cover properly. I hope you don't mind waiting a while for that series? Should be fun!
Thanks John for your views on
D76/ID11 it is my standard Developer. Would it be possible to give your view / advise on Ilford Perceptol Please.
Good idea, Peter. I will add it to my todo list. I know the developer well and have enjoyed its results in the past. Keep an eye on my channel for a deep dive into this remarkable developer.
@@PictorialPlanet Thank you for your response.
I now mix up my own formula for D76. When I first made up the powders and found how easy it was, I was amazed.
Perceptol is supposed to have Sodium Chloride (table salt) in it. Is it a fancy D23 formula?
Do you also use Sodium Bicarbonate as a hypo clear on film? Thanks for your help and advise 👍
I've made a Perceptol type developer using D23 and sodium chloride and it works well although whether it's actually Perceptol is unknown. I do find stock D23 replenished gives lovely fine grain and gorgeous tonality and have stuck with that. I don't use bicarbonate for film because film's easy to wash using the Ilford method. For me bicarbonate hypoclear is more useful for FB papers. However, it does work with film, just make sure it's fully dissolved and do a thorough wash afterwards.
@@petervanorsouw2858 Table salt - shades of Kodak's Microdol-X, where sodium chloride is supposed to be the secret ingredient.
@@randallstewart175 Careful with your definition of salt used as a developer additive. It must be pure Sodium Chloride. Table salt is often iodised and has anti-caking agents added which may not be useful in a developer.
Any suggestion for the Fomapan400? Too much grain...
Try 510-pyro
So you wouldn't swap these "improved" versions of D-76 for the real thing, but would you go for a staining developer like PMK or Pyrocat over D-76? Just asking.....
This series focussed on D-76 type developers. There are other developers that I prefer but I wanted to look at the old standard and see if updated versions were an improvement or not.
I wonder that you didn't include Mytol -- home mixed Xtol -- in this comparison series. Kodak has long claimed that Xtol wins in every category, film speed, grain, sharpness, and tonality, and Xtol and Mytol are clearly D-76 derivatives. You can't reliably keep Mytol stock solution for long, because of the Fenton reaction caused by iron or copper in either your water or your ingredients, which oxidizes the ascorbate and kills the developer (Kodak solved that with sequestrants, and Xtol stock is good for six months by their claim, much longer by general experience, but those sequestrants are hard for individuals to source) -- but "Instant Mytol" does the job well and can be mixed immediately before use without heating the water.
There are so many D76 derivatives. I agree that I didn't include all the cousins of D76. Maybe I'll do a vitamin C developer comparison some day. Also, I've never has much luck with Mytol much preferring FX55.
@@PictorialPlanet I have no experience with Crawley's developers -- nor have I mixed Mytol for myself, because of the relative ease of access to Xtol and its clone, EcoPro, plus the "new kid" Adox XT-3 (virtually identical results, based on what I've read, but eliminated borates for EU environmental regs as well as adding "dust free" technology).
I have tried mytol and instant mytol and was disappointed with my results. When I used FX55 I was very impressed. If you ever try making your own developer I recommend it.
Great video but even the Massive Developer Chart has no times for this developer! Won't stop me, I'll try D-76 times but it apparently is not a very popular developer.
Yeah, D76 times should get you in the ballpark. However, have you tried FX15? It's my favourite D76 type by far.