Simple Alchemy

My working supply of Beutler film developer, along with some of the supplies I use to mix it up. I made up the commercialesque labels for fun, printed them out and stuck them on with clear packing tape. 

One of the things that may have received passing mention in previous episodes is that I mix many of my own darkroom chemistry from scratch using raw ingredients. It's a practice I thought not all of you may be familiar with, but even you are it seems a ripe subject to share and perhaps exchange a few thoughts about.

While most of the chemistry used in the darkroom lends itself to the home-brew approach, the majority of attention falls quite naturally on developers for film. While arguably print developers and toners have a greater influence on the look of the final result, you only get one shot at developing the original image on film and the characteristics imparted by the particular concoction you chose for this are indelible. This is of course just as true for commercially available formulae as it is for the DIY variety I'm focusing on here, but mixing your own offers a level of selection and control you can't get by simply choosing from what the market has to offer, not to mention the incomparable amount of latitude it allows for experimentation.

I can't remember what triggered my interest in the alchemy of photochemistry in my younger days, but once I got my hands on a copy of Steve Anchell's "The Darkroom Cookbook" there was no going back. Prior to that my attitude had always been that any developer formula that was offered commercially must have earned that honour by being better than the other possibilities. In reality there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of possible good recipes for making photographic developers in a market that can only profitably produce a fraction of these. The ones that are most commercially viable are often the good compromises, the ones offering a balance of the characteristics most often pegged as desirable - the ability to produce images with fine grain, high sharpness, and maximize the effective film speed. Often excellent and highly useful developers exist on the margins of the photographic market because they are the proprietary formula of a lesser known manufacturer. Anyone who is familiar with Diafine will know what I'm talking about here. Other factors unrelated to desirable image characteristics also come into play - how well does a formula lend itself to the manufacturing process, what are its keeping characteristics on the shelf and so on. The bottom line is that there is a world of photochemistry, interesting worth-while and infinitely explorable photochemistry, lying in wait outside the confines of what is on offer from Kodak, Ilford and their rivals.

Recent results using my current standard combination of Fuji Acros developed in Beutler

So why bother? Fair question. I won't deny for a second that there are prepared commercial film developers out there that are just excellent. I could pick just one of these, say Xtol or HC110, and go on with my photography as before quite contentedly. A few years back when I returned to my analog roots that's exactly what I intended to do. The bottle of HC110 that had seen me through the roll of film I still shot here and there through my digital years was only half used and still going strong after at least fifteen years since I purchased it, and the results left me nothing to complain about really. Why make things complicated.

Such was the enthusiasm with which I returned to film however that it was only a few months before the second half of the bottle began to run dry, bringing to a head the decision as to whether to renew my supply of HC110 and press on as before, or whether some other choice might be more suitable. I found that when it comes to the characteristics I considered most desirable in a developer my thinking had changed over the years. Back then fine grain had been high on the list but grain isn't the enemy it once was. Not that I've gone the other way mind you, I don't intentionally emphasize grain, I just don't consider it a defect. Looking at the kind of work I had been doing I was after a high definition (or acutance) developer with a compensating effect so there would be printable detail in highlight areas (like clouds).

A bit of research allowed me to narrow the field to a few choices. One idea was to go with one of the pyro developers I had experimented with many years ago. This would mean throwing simplicity right out the window however as not only do the potential health hazards of working with pyro require extra precautions, they make it difficult to obtain from the US based suppliers who are often unwilling to ship to Canada, at least at a reasonable rate. There was another intriguing choice I found however, something called Beutler's formula. Though Photographer's Formulary sells this as Neofin Blue (perpetuating an historical error of equating Beutler's formula with another developer formula entirely, but that's a story unto itself), but it's such a simple formula and so much cheaper to whip up myself.

Beutler's formula (aka Beutler's developer or simply Beutler, and often mis-spelled as Buetler) is really just a published recipe. It consists of four ingredients including water (I have no idea where this notion came from that water doesn't count as a chemical.) The other three are Metol, one of the most common developer agents out there, Sodium Sulfite which is cheap and used in just about everything in photochemistry, and Sodium Carbonate which if it isn't sold in the local supermarket as washing soda can easily be made from baking soda. It's a high acutance compensating developer with characteristics I see compared to they pyro developers more often than any other formula that uses conventional agents. It's a one-shot developer, a virtual must for me both for consistency and the simplicity of not having to keep track to know when it's nearing exhaustion. It's prepared in two concentrated parts which are combined and diluted just prior to use, all of which helps ensure maximum shelf life. As a bonus Beutler makes the most of true film speed (which should in no way be confused with pushing film.) So while many photographers find they get better results by shooting a 100 ISO film at 50 when they use a standard developer like D76, they would probably find this unnecessary with Beutler.

To keep a long story from getting even longer, with the last of the old HC110 used up I found myself back in the game of mixing up photochemistry from raw ingredients. This did more than just allow me to use one particular non-commercial formula however. Having those few ingredients and the little electronic scale came in handy in other ways. When I found a few bottles of powdered Vitamin C on clearance at my pharmacists I was easily able to try Caffenol which, I hasten to mention, is interesting for far more than the simple novelty of developing film in instant coffee. And when I found myself wanting to do a few darkroom prints but didn't have any paper developer on hand I was able to make enough to get me using ingredients that were on hand. And there are other benefits to brewing your own photochemicals as well:

• Manufacturers are free to alter the recipe of their developers and other photochemical products without any change to the name or other indicator to let you know the developer you bought today is not the same as the one you had been using even though it was sold under the same name in the same package. Make your own and you'll never be surprised when what had been a favorite developer suddenly isn't the same.
• From a modest inventory of raw chemicals you can often experiment with many different formulae that seem interesting to you.
• You get a better understanding of the characteristics of the chemistry you use, how they're derived and often what tradeoffs may be involved than you ever would by simply choosing from whatever preparations the market offers.
• You can play with the recipes of an existing formula or even come up with your own to suit your needs, even if the need is just curiosity.
• Since you are the manufacturer you are immune from the possibility that a favourite developer will be discontinued.
• It can be a stepping stone into other interesting areas of photography such as alternative processes.

This certainly won't be for everyone, and none of this is to say I am committed solely to the use of home-brewed photochemicals. Even back when I was experimenting with home brewed pyro concoctions for film, my paper developer and most other chemicals were off the shelf preparations and there was always HC110 on hand. More recently the modest supply of Pycrocat HD I got my hands on when I wrote The Road to Pyro last fall came as a kit from Photographer's Formulary. I was able to get it without extravagant shipping charges because B&H had it in stock (if only other US suppliers made shipping to Canada as simple) though in such a small quantity it was hardly the bargain getting the raw chemistry would be. Because pyro fomulae like Pyrocat and PMK are highly diluted for use I could get a near lifetime supply or the raw chemicals for a few hundred dollars shipped, but when my small supply ran out I wasn't ready to pull the trigger on that. Not a problem, another batch of Beutler kept me in business without any interruption. More recently I discovered B&H has larger quantities of prepared PMK Pyro in stock, and again no special shipping restrictions to Canada. The package arrived yesterday. I don't know if it will become my new favourite developer or if it will continue to be as readily available. If not, there's always Beutler, and there always will be.