At some point, I can recall making the conscious decision to start developing my own black and white film. It was similar to way an epiphany probably feels, I suppose – I was reading a thread on an online forum – probably RFF – and realized that home development wasn’t just possible, but that it was actually easy. And, as it turns out, is incredibly satisfying and vital to my creative process.
Did I mention it’s also cheap? Well, compared to B&W lab processing here in LA it certainly is. I’ve done a lot of shopping around, and have found that even a “process-only” job, where no prints are produced, costs a minimum of $6. But with careful use of chemistry and some experience, I’ve discovered that I can get my recurring costs down to around $1 per 36-frame roll of 135 film. And I’m sure I’m not even scratching the surface, since I develop relatively infrequently; almost spastically, if you have to know, as I tend to do films in batches.
I started – as many other home-developers have – with Kodak D-76, both for its popularity and appropriateness for my emulsion of choice, 400TX. In its historical form, Tri-X, this film had a long-successful marriage with D-76, and for good reason. A generation Tri-X shooters used D-76 at a 1:1 dilution to get bulletproof negatives from normally exposed film. D-76 has been around for a long time, and is a “general purpose” developer, one that doesn’t do any fancy tricks (speed enhancement, accutance, grain dissolving, etc.), but rather works pretty much for every situation. A look at DigtalTruth’s Massive Dev Chart for D-76 and Tri-X shows that 1:1 (or 1+1, depending how you see things) suffices for most any realizable exposure index – ISO rating – of this venerable film.
However, I discovered that D-76 has a characteristic that made it difficult for me to love: it has a shelf life of 1-2 months, far too brief to be useful for me. Powder developers like D-76 have in common the need to be mixed in advance of use, and this “stock” solution is the component with the demonstrable shelf life. Sealed, the powder itself will last – if not forever, then a mighty long time – but of course one can’t develop film with powder. Once mixed, the complex chemistries of active developers in solution tend to fall apart over time, it mustI quickly found that D-76’s 1-2 month shelf life, too short for me.
This isn’t to say that paying for convenience and an experienced hand isn’t a bad idea. For a while, my local go-to lab for B&W has been The Darkroom Workshop; they do very good work, and have a very clean process. DR recently closed its retail location, although they’re still doing good business. Lately, though, I’ve preferred the more hands-on approach. However, as a photo hobbyist, this is pure luxury – were I getting paid for photographic work, I would almost certainly turn to a lab for reliability and ease. Of course, some might argue that I should also shoot digital for such a purpose, and I can’t say I’d disagree out-of-hand.
Having learned by frustration with D-76, I’ve zeroed-in on using “one-shot” developers. These are usually – but not always – liquid concentrates, meant to be diluted to working strength before use, then tossed out after the developing step. Handy, if perhaps less economical than D-76 and its compatriots (i.e., those others can be re-used and “replenished” for longer lifetimes). However, the waste is relative: having settled on Kodak’s HC110 as my current favorite, not only do I have a developer which in concentrate form can last nearly forever, but my chosen dilution (1:63, unofficial “dilution H”) makes a single bottle go a long way. Not bad for $13/bottle.
