Home Developed Black & White Film Comparison | TMax vs Delta vs Acros II - Part 2
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 сер 2024
- Turns out there's more to this story...
In my first comparison of these three films I left out some key details about the developing process that could effect the results, so in this video I develop the images myself and talk about the process of doing so. I compare the results of each film stock to one another, and then take a look at the difference between the images I developed at home and the previous images developed at the lab.
Timestamps
00:00 About UA-cam
02:31 Developer matters
04:06 My lab's response
06:43 Home developing and a new test
08:15 Panchromatic vs Orthopanchromatic
09:13 Back in Lightroom
10:37 Chemicals I used
11:04 Developer times used
12:25 Scan settings
14:00 Looking at the results
19:43 Comparing to the first video's images
24:17 Key info from Kodak
25:08 Final thoughts and learnings
Looking for more to watch?
Binge watch everything from in the field:
ua-cam.com/users/playlist?list...
Binge watch everything from the office:
ua-cam.com/users/playlist?list...
Thank you to my Patrons!
🙏🏻 Help support the creation of more and better content:
/ chrisdarnellphoto
Follow me on social media:
Instagram - @chrisdarnellphoto
Vero - @chrisdarnellphoto
Twitter - @cdarnellphoto
Chris, I was heavily into film photography in the late 1980's. I was still living at home, and my parents encouraged me, and even gave up a third of the two-car garage so that I could build a darkroom. Although I developed E-6 film too, you might expect that the majority of my darkroom work was black and white. And one of the things that I remember from all the learning I did back then from professional photographers that worked in black and white was that the majority of them had a favorite film stock, and when they were going on a trip, or working on a specific project, they would buy enough film stock for that project, all of the same lot number. Then they would do test shots with that batch of film, and do "snip tests." They would make several exposures of a well-known subject, and then in the dark, they would cut the film into short strips and develop them individually, varying the time, temperature, etc., with their preferred chemistry, until they got the results they were expecting with that batch of film. Then they would do the project and use the findings from the snip tests to develop all the film from that batch the same way, to get the results that they expected. Every time they used a new manufacturer's lot number, they would start again, to learn how that lot of film needed to be processed to get the desired results. It was just part of the game. For those of us not buying 4x5 film in 100-sheet boxes, or buying 35mm film in 100' rolls and loading it ourselves into cassettes (although I did do that if I was going on a trip, it was cheaper once you had the cassettes), we just did the best we could, and hoped that between paying close attention to each roll we'd develop, and varying exposure time in enlargement, and using variable-contrast paper for printing, we'd get good results.
Now, as I get closer to retirement, I'm thinking in terms of analog photography again. Mostly, because I enjoy time in the darkroom much more than sitting in front of a computer screen. I work in IT, and I've done that for the past 27 years, and by the time I finally retire, I'll have spent more than 30 years in front of a screen. It will be time to get out, expose film, and work in a darkroom again.
Thanks Tom, this is really interesting insight! It makes total sense and I wonder how much raw material / lot variation there is in the manufacturing process today - there has to be at least a little. I haven't managed to build a dark room into my house just yet but I wouldn't say that's off the table.. haha. I certainly understand the screen time thing, between work and hobbies I spend all of my time in front of a computer screen also. That's probably the biggest blessing in disguise about the view camera - there's no menus, buttons, histograms, firmware or software updates - just the view and the image 😌
My experience is relatively limiting but I will say … I have found it very educational sticking with one film (I buy bulk rolls) and one developer and vary metering/exposure and development times/styles for different conditions and artistic intentions. It’s quite rewarding - more fun than product testing!
Really interesting video! I've been developing bw film for a really long time . Massive rabbit hole to say the least . Best thing I ever did was finally choose one film and one developer and did a lot of testing . I finally decided on HP5 and Pyrocat HD for 35mm up to 4x5 . I tested to establish what my true ISO should be to get detail in the shadows (which turned out to actually be 200 instead of 400 ) Then I tested to find an N development time to get good highlights . John Finch has a channel (Pictorial Planet )and one of his videos provides a super clear way to get true film speed and snappy negatives. The episode is called "Matching your film to your developer" Has 2 parts. . All the best , really enjoy your vids .
Once again, very interesting findings. My first take away from both your commercial lab and your home development is that so long as the brighter Delta 100 results were not blown out and contained as much data as possible, I would definitely want to be using them to develop from in LR or whatever photo editing software one would be using. The shadows in the B&W development are going to be completed in much less time than the highlights. That said, what your additional readings from the TMax recommendations made sense. You likely are already aware of this but it matches closely with the recommendations that Martin Henson makes in his video "The Zone System and spot metering explained part 2". Full disclosure, I've been photographing seriously for the past 15 years and as a hobby for over 60. That said, I developed my own slides 50 years ago but I am only a couple of years into 4x5 shooting and in developing B&W. I've found the Stearman Press 4x5 processing tank to work very well. I would be very interested in what you've been finding in your scanning software tests. Enough said. Your thoughts, experience and humility are much appreciated and valued.
Thanks Jim! Agreed, I also prefer the Delta 100 results in either case; particularly with a semi-digital workflow as you mentioned. I'll need to adjust that development time a little but it's been a lot of fun to experiment with. I haven't tried the Stearman Press tank yet but I've had my eye on it for quite some time; good to hear you've had some luck with it and perhaps I'll have to pick one up!
“Drink from the firehouse that is analog photography”. That is great!
Haha, definitely describes the way it feels 😆
Chris, tremendous video. Your information is spot on. Black and white developing is not for the faint of heart. One needs to experiment and find a combination of developer, film , and technique that suit your style. I use Iford Delta with 510 Pyro developer. I develop using the semi-stand method, with good results. Thanks for your time and effort.
Thanks so much for watching Jerry! I've had some luck experimenting with times using D76 on Delta 100, but I think once that is used up it'll be fun to try a different developer. I'll have to keep that in mind!
Clayton Chemical has been making film developers and related products for at least 60 years, as we used Clayton products when I took high school photo class in 1961. Their site shows that they currently make two B&W developers. The formulas are not discussed, and the names imply practically nothing. I suspect that one, "F76", is a basic D-76 formula using phenidone to replace metol as the primary developing agent. (This variation on D-76 was very popular with the DIY crowd at one time, and it has several advantages.) Interestingly, the spec sheets for neither developer list 6.5 minutes as a standard developing time for either T-Max 100 or 400. Conclusion: This lab is running its dip and dunk processor, which requires a number of films to be processed together to operate profitably, at a compromise developing time to allow it is mix a variety of film types in one run. That's not a bad thing if you like the results you are getting, but those who process their own film can certainly dial in their process more accurately.
Still-an-analogue-beginner here: This was really, really awesome to watch in any way :)
Thanks so much for watching!
Fantastic lesson teacher!!
Thanks!!, Chris
really insightful; I think i commented before about the lab/chemistry variables. And is great to see you "went there", peering into that rabbit hole which could turn into an absolute canyoneering obsession 🙂
Thoroughly enjoyed it, thanks so much for doing this.
Thanks Bernard! Haha this definitely turned into an expedition but admittedly it's also been a lot of fun!
Hi Chris. Long time watcher. I really like your videos. Really surprised because I thought that TMax was the 'Holy Grail'. It didn't look so good. I've shot Acros before, but neither good nor bad comments to say about it. I need to try Delta 100. It looks like a toss-up between Delta and Acros. Keep up the videos.
I really love this series of film comparisons from you Chris. You show first hand how many uncertainties there are and that one has to do the tests himself to find out what works and what doesn’t. I also loved your comment about Ansel Adams notebook 🤣🤣🤣. I generally do not like film comparisons because they as much too often an opinion piece about what to do and what not instead of encouragement to try it yourself - your video stands out as a positive counter example. Looking forward to your Zion trip this year - all the best, much fun and as always most importantly GOOD LIGHT!
That's really kind and thank you so much!
Great video and information. I’ve wanted to dive more into B&W but haven’t because the process is more complex. This is good information that is explained with great visuals and helps to speed up that learning process. Thank you.
Thanks as always Dave! I never anticipated how complex the process was.. ha!
510 pyro. I am a recent convert. Love this developer for just about every film.
Thanks for the suggestion Thomas, I'll take a look at it!
Thanks for a great exploration! I've used tmax and delta and like both. Yes, tmax can be flat, but I sure appreciate the chance to recover those highlights on post-processing! Tmax is great if you're trying to get flares in photos. Now I understand why my photos with these 2 films look so different...
Thanks for watching! I've never tried to shoot anything that high of dynamic range on Tmax but that totally makes sense, I'll have to try that sometime!
I just came across your Channel (Apr 2024), and the first video I watched was Part I of these. This has gotten my interest because I currently use Phase One digital backs with my Phase One XF, but I want to start using B&W film for a few projects (I have older Mamiya 645 lenses, and a 120/220 film back, just need a 645 AFD body). My original thought was to get T-Max, but when I searched B&W comparisons for fashion photography, I saw your Part I. While I have not searched the rest of your Channel, it would be good to know if you, or any of the more experienced subscribers here have a definitive opinion on a 100 ISO B&W 120-film that works bests for Commerical artistic portraits, in a fashion scene (odd request I know). Either way, I am Subscribed now, and looking forward to more of your content.
I like the methodical approach you use for testing. It’s great to see some of the variations in results. For the most part, I stick to one film and one developer (FP4 and ID11). That’s just for consistency and no other reason. I’ll be brave one day and shoot something else. Thanks for putting in the effort to make this video.
Thanks Matt! Ultimately I’m pretty sure that’s where I’m going to end up as well, just sticking with one combo and learning it well. It’s been interesting to monkey around with things though and I’ve learned a ton!
@@ChrisDarnell I’ve tried a couple of different film stocks on 35mm. I can see how different films would suit different purposes, but I’ll probably find and stick with a slow/medium film and a fast one and, like you, learn to use them well.
Thanks for these videos, found your page through your E6 comparisons.
I have just recently started home developing and through all of my research it seems that most prefer XTOL for TMax for sharpness and grain, d76 gives a bit more of a flat curve. Also to note when developing Tmax film know that it exhausts fixer quicker
Thanks again for your videos and good luck with your future developing endeavors
Thanks so much! Agreed, seems I need to give XTOL a try myself and see if I like that better. I did not know about the fixer thing, I'll definitely keep that in mind!
Great video
Science is messy. I enjoy shooting ACROS II and have enjoyed my results using Ilford DD-X with recommended times. But like you I learnt late last year that developer and times can lead to many different results...as a hobbyist I have just accepted that I must pick one and stick with it. Thank you for taking the time to do this experiment and even more so in videoing the results.
Thanks Randy, totally agree in that I’ll eventually need to just pick one combo and learn it well, but it sure has been fun playing around to see how crazy things can get, ha!
Very nice comparison Chris. While I don’t typically shoot a lot of black and white film, my philosophy has always been to keep it simple. Your point about how the image looks rather than getting lost in the technical aspects is quintessentially most important. PS and LR are great tools that allow us photographers to spend less time fiddling with nuances. For me, I’d rather shoot color film which, in my humble opinion, is far easier. 😅 Cheers!
Thanks Tony! Had to laugh because I never, ever expected shooting color would be easier than black and white, but sure enough it definitely appears that way and I totally agree, haha!
Great video! I have yet to deep dive in film development. So far all I am able to do is stand development with rodinal. Considering that I shoot film with old box cameras and a couple Holgas, I really don't have a need to open that can of worms as of yet. But, I love these types of videos that give a better understanding of the intricacies of film. If you haven't tried stand development it's a nice easy, and lazy way to develop film. Worth giving it a shot. Thanks Chris.
Thanks Nels! To be honest I'd never heard of stand development until now.. suuuuuper interesting! I'll have to dig into that and play around, thanks for the tip!
Stand development is a brilliant place to start … but it’s also brilliantly useful in it’s own right. I get high contrast Tmax 100 negs in stand dev 1:100 for an hour, initial agitation then one agitation after 30mins.
Use Ilford xp2+ 400 , made for c41 developer , ei250 on a bright sunny day, ei 400 on a sunny day with soft shadows, ei640 on a dull overcast day. Send it to any lab for developing. The negatives scan really well.
That should be xp2 super not +
Rabbit hole? More like Grand Canyon! But fun to play around with, if not a tad pricey. To be honest, I'm happy with the b/w results from the lab given what I can do in post once scanned. I guess that makes me a pure hybrid, or something. I think I used a Kodak developer with pushed Tri-X back in my newspaper days, for what that's worth, but even back then we were scanning to prep for the page. But more importantly, we're Zion-bound tomorrow as well for most of next week. Perhaps our paths will cross somewhere in the wash.
Thanks Frank! I’m right there with you on the lab thing, at least until I get a better idea what I’m doing on my own, ha. Looking forward to running into you out there!
Hi Chris, just found your channel and really enjoying them . I would be keen to see a video or 2 of you working on finding your own personal exposure and development time for Tmax 100, using your own developer and agitation process. My early experience was very similar to yours and not until I decided to fix on 1 x film and developer combination that I started to make sense of it all. Once i had done that and also worked out by N+ and N- development times i don't need to use grad filters anymore to balance a scene's contrast, i just adjust my development instead.
Hi Stuart, thanks for watching! Also thanks for the video suggestion, I think that is going to be the next step in the black and white series of videos when I have some time to experiment. I agree sticking with one film and one developer seems like the way to go, at least while learning to make adjustments so that's my plan as well. It'll take me a bit to get to those videos but I'll put them in the queue!
No surprise here - old adage still at work: exposure controls shadow and development controls highlights. Great work Chris! Hope to see new video on cracking the Max 100 with varying development time. But before you do that - ensure that the scene that you shooting includes objects with 5EV scale - from Zone 3 to 8, and put them into the exposure scale accordingly.
Thanks Rudolf! I'm hoping to get some time in the near future to experiment more on this. Definitely appreciate the tips!
Great video Chris. Would love to see more if you do more testing FWIW I like to keep it simple and just use D76. Yeah you're definitely going to find a lot of experts and a lot of strong opinions when it comes to B&W 😂.
Thanks Rene! I've got a couple ideas rolling around that could be fun when I get time. Whether it's D76 or something else I can definitely see the value in keeping it simple.. there's just too many variables ha!
Scan as positives and turn off all corrections in the cofiguration tab in Epson Scan. Also adjust the brightness slider in the configuration tab manually. The brightness slider is automatically set in the middle by auto color correction and since you have now turned off all color corrections in the configuration tab there is no auto brightness settings being made and you can manually set the brightness slider to get the best scans. Doing these two things in "Configuration" gives you full control of your scans. You will never use anything but Epson Scan after making these changes.
Thanks John for the tip! I've done a similar approach as well but I've had a lot of software issues with my M1 Mac and Epson Scan, hopefully I can get that resolved at some point
A little late to the comments here but you have done a great job. My personal recommendation to you would be, although developing your self is fun and satisfying, if you have generally been pleased with the results from the lab no need to change. I personally develope and wet print all my own negatives. But that is just me.
Thank you for the input! I agree and I'm currently still sending my critical work to the lab because I don't trust my process and inexperience just yet, but that could change!
@@ChrisDarnell As the old saying goes " How do you get to Carnegie Hall ... Practice Practice Practice.
Good morning, Chris. While it's good to know where your neg starts, IMO, it's also about how it prints (or views) as that's the ultimate goal. To that end, apples to apples comparisons go out the door when you have different scenes with different contrasts. As a former pre-press scanner operator, three things are important, 1) it's not blown out, 2) it has detail in the shadows, and 3) (to me) it has good separation in the 3/4 tones. Of all these films (in this episode), the TMax wins for printing (on a reduced range media)... But I am hoping you'll prove me wrong.
Thanks Paul, that's really great input. Admittedly that's a blind spot of mine, I haven't had any experience in dark room printing just yet.. (suggestive pause... haha). It makes total sense that a given negative is going to produce wildly different results when throwing in a whole other bag of variables in the printing process, and I find that pretty intriguing to be honest. Not entirely sure if it's curiosity or masochism at this point, but perhaps one day I'll venture unwittingly into that realm as well 😣
Great video Chris. I can't speak for Acros but my results with Delta and Tmax are similar to yours however I use HC110 dilution B and the Tmax isn't quite as flat as what you are getting but I do bump the contrast in LR more than Delta. I like both films a lot probably preferring Delta just a bit more because I love contrasty B&W. My eye needs a real highlight to grab on to. I'd like to see a video on scanning too. I have all the software as well. I like Silverfast AI a lot but I've been preferring to flip both color and B&W in NLP lately. It looks real good.
Thanks Jason, that's good info! I've been eyeballing HC110 thinking the liquid form would be easier than trying to mix a whole jug, haha. I'll have to give that a shot and I'll get to work on a scanning video soon!
Chris, when I started with film photography I did my own developing and it was a steep learning curve but it turns out to have been one of the most powerful ways to modify the look of film. It took some time just to get basic development right but over time I tried a variety of developers, dilutions, development times and agitation schemes. Each one has a real effect on the look of a negative. It didn’t take forever. I didn’t try every developer of course, but found one (Rodinal) that I liked the look of and over time tried different dilutions. The final piece of the puzzle for me was agitation. I use a minimal agitation method that gives some of the look stand development without the potential problems. I love the look it offers. You wouldn’t think that agitation would make much difference but it does.
The other great benefits of doing your own developing is that it’s incredibly cheap (at least with Rodinal), you get fast results, and you get even more of the great experience of analog, hands on photography. You can go down this path without spending years tinkering. It might take a few months of messing around if you are willing to settle on something that pleases you without going down every possible path. Enjoy the new learning experience!
Thank you so much for the tips and encouragement! I will most definitely try out different agitation methods to see which works best for me, and I'll check out Rodinal also!
@@ChrisDarnell Rodinal is a classic. Dirt cheap, lasts forever and I like the look. I like the high dilutions up to 1:100 but the development times are long (about 17 to 18 minutes.) I start with 5 one minute agitation intervals then go to 3 minutes. It yield really sharp details. Of course that will vary with the film stock. Also I was sharing mostly medium format film at that time.
Very interesting insight 👍
Confirms how I understand TMax looks before any custom development.
I have some old TMax 4x5 which I am going to Stand develop. Perhaps this will off set the under developed areas🤔?
Though not a preferred film it may still turn out to be acceptable.
We need some choice as prices rise 😂
Thanks Stuart! I'm really curious how TMax looks using stand development, that's a technique I've never tried but I may give it a shot myself. Agreed, more choices is definitely better!
A very interesting video even though I'll never develop myself, it sounds like you are on the right line but what a List of alternate videos you've a choice for the future.
Again I have no experience developing but 2 good friends who have a mass of years doing it are recent converts to and swear by Pyro 510. It's a relative modern chemical but they say it has a wide latitude, good contrast, gives fine grain and highly consistent.
Thanks Andrew! That's another tally for Pyro 510, I'll definitely have to take a look and give it a try. Thanks for the tip!
Chris, once you "close the loop" you will be far more satisfied with the work you make. I've developed all my own film now for years, and have a 4x5 color enlarger, I've gone nearly broke gathering everything for my darkroom and would do it all over again if it was gone tomorrow.
Thanks Robert, gotta say I can really resonate with that. Something about every part of the process being done with one’s literal own two hands is really incredible
I have almost everything I need other than a room to set it up.
I found that if you choose TMax films you should use TMax developers. D76 was not designed for tabular grain films.
Use the histogram and eye dropper in the advanced settings. Click the highlight dropper onto the white chip and the shadow dropper on the black chip. TMax would end up looking much much better than it does with a flat curve.
This is a good suggestion. Scale all comparisons so each film has the same white and black points from your reference card. Then differences in films show up in the middle of the tone curve.
Clayton f76+, xtol and 510 Pyro all work great with these 3 films. IMO
Thanks Ron! I've only recently heard of Clayton so I'll take a look into that along with the others!
Interesting video, but not sure exactly what your goal is. If you're trying to learn which film is most suited to a particular subject, then you're on the right track IMO. But if you want to get different film stock to look the same before post processing (digital or in a darkroom) then you're in for a major struggle. Personally, I shot my first roll of 35mm film in over ten years this summer. While it was fun to use film again, I decided against developing it myself and just send it in. Maybe I could get more consistent results than from a lab, but with a semi digital workflow it's fairly easy to get the results I want by adjusting while scanning and editing in PS/LR.
I certainly understand where you're coming from with the lab thing. To be honest that's where I'm still at with my critical work, at least until I get more practice and a better idea of what combination works for me
Really interesting comparison. My advise would be to find a film or 2 and developer combo that you like and just stick with that for consistent, repeatable results. Out of interest, do you darkroom print? I shoot exclusively on film, but only because I love to print in a darkroom. If not for that, it would be digital all the way.
Thanks Mike! That's definitely the direction I'm headed with home processing, but it's been pretty fun to experiment and play around in the meantime. I'm not currently darkroom printing, but that may change...
Hey Chris, I don't know if you follow the naked guy but he is doing testing on all B&W films available. He is very thorough (and is not actually naked). Check him out at The Naked Photographer; it is an interesting series.
I resisted developing my own film for many years, but it really is very easy. Apart from fine tuning your B&W process to the needs of the specific film, it opens up other options. On my recent trip I overexposed one sheet by 2/3 stop when transferring the "new" shutter speeds of the meter (30, 60, 125) to the "old" speeds of the lens (25, 50, 100). This can be easily corrected in development. There were a couple of other screw ups that can be ameliorated in development.
Good luck at Zion. Hopefully the crowds will have thinned out.
Thanks Tim! I'll have to check out his channel, sounds like it could save me some time. I've heard about correcting for under/overexposure before but haven't done that myself yet, I'll have to keep that in mind because I certainly make those mistakes, ha!
I liked this video a lot. Of course I’m not a standard viewer either 😉.
Thanks Paul! There are no "standard" viewers, only viewers!
not specified in the video, for the d76 developer did you end up using 1:0 or 1:1?
I used full strength, no dilution and single shot on each roll.
Great effort on your part. I usually rate the Delta 100 @ iso 64 and adjust the development times. It all goes to show how stupid and futile these ' film emulation ' presets, desgined to make digital photographers think that they are shooting film, are. Enjoyed the video, thanks.
Thank you! I appreciate the tip, I’ve been contemplating a similar approach and I may give that a shot as well!
@@ChrisDarnell I have some in 120. I have been waiting for over three weeks here up in Manchester UK to give them a try with 510 Pyro. The problem is the weather. Look forward to seeing your results.
Did you pull or push your exposure
Hi James, on these rolls I used the standard development times out of each film’s data sheet for Kodak D76 developer.
Makes me wonder whether all box speeds are equivalent. Would it be a fairer comparison to shoot the TMax at 80 ISO, the Delta at 125, and the Acros at 100? My own experience with TMax 100 in 120, 4 x 5, and 8 x 10 formats has led me to use a fairly short development time (no more than 6 min, HC110B) and minimal agitation. And that's at box speed. Only the 8 x 10 gets a little flat at times, which for scanning is fine. (I believe Shane Dignum, on his YT channel, mentioned rating his 8 x 10 TMax at 80 ISO.) Interesting subject for all us non-experts, Chris. I for one would love to hear your thoughts on scanning software.
Thanks Bernard! It definitely seems to me that the development charts offered by the different manufacturers are totally subjective at least. I suppose with a good densitometer I could probably answer that question on whether the speeds are equivalent, but man those aren't cheap, haha. I really appreciate the input and I'll see if I can work on a scanning video in the near future!
@@ChrisDarnell Dektronics has a moderately priced densitometer (about $250), but I wouldn't expect you to go that far. I like the way you're doing the comparison: empirically, by showing us the results.
It seems arbitrary to chase equivalent dev times. More useful to chase a good negative. Tmax need to contrast so give it more development or agitation (or temp).
Tmax is very sensitive to development times, once dialed in, Tmax has a fantastic tone curve.
Thanks Charles, that's really encouraging to hear. Hopefully I'll get it narrowed down soon!
@@ChrisDarnell Are working out your exposure and development times with traditional methods, zone one to establish EI and zone eight to determine development times?
I have experimented with XTOL as the most eco / safe specialized developer. Even with one developer you have many variables like film stock, dilution, agitation and temperature/time that it becomes a nightmare without a decent densitometer 😂
Thanks Igor! XTOL is definitely on my list to give a try
If you are comparing 3 films and one developer, you should be printing to paper in a wet darkroom I f you hight light the whites and the black chip, it would give a better representation of the films. This example is like taking the time to meter and light each shot and then having the kid at the drugstore print your photos
I am glad I shoot digital. Film is really time consuming. But realy interesting. Thanks for the info.
Haha thanks Ruud, it sure is. I have to admit shooting digital these days feels almost like cheating, haha
When your computer crashes, all your digi pics disappear. Trust film.
❤️❤️👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Most film labs will batch like rolls together for b&w.
Makes sense, seems like a pretty reasonable approach
Vigorous fixing can cause grain clumping. Just agitate like normal.
Good to know.. I'll keep that in mind and thanks for the tip!
So, I'm finding this video almost exactly a year to the date that it was released - and I'm sure you've likely come much farther in your darkroom/developing/lab journey . . . but as a 5x7 LF shooter, and having spent the better part of 20 years processing/darkroom printing/scanning my own films, and having tried countless developer and film combinations and processing times, I can see a few places you got hung up here . . . so, for the sake of the idea that you likely have learned from this and (hopefully) improved your process over the last year - and are hopefully also getting better results - I'll just throw out a few things I've learned in this rabbit hole of B&W home processing . . .
1.) There is absolutely NO way to achieve consistency at a normal lab when submitting B&W film for processing. Ever. Never. Every lab reuses/reconditions their developer and fix, and often lump together "similarly timed" films (if they even do that), and this leads to an amazing amount of inconsistency. Commercial labs also use 'affordable' chemistry, which is generally sub-par since it's only meant to give "even" results in the neg. The few premium B&W labs left in the country charge a pretty penny for custom development. The ONLY way to get predictable, repeatable results (or as physically near as possible), is to process your own.
2.) Though you don't mention your EI for these test films, I have yet to have found a B&W film stock that can be shot at box speed, especially in LF, that produces great results. Almost every B&W film benefits from some over exposure, however great or small, , and even negating developer choice/processing, will yield much better initial scans. It's a highly subjective matter when it comes to "Art" - but if you seek gamma, and you're reasonably good at metering, then some amount of overexposure - coupled with a great developer - will net you a ton more image data in the neg. This is true for T-grain films like TMAX and Delta (and Neopan), and even more so for traditional Pan films (Tri-X, HP5, etc)
3.) There are SO many B&W film developers out there; but IMO, D76 is pretty blah. I've found that "personally, for me), acutance developers really deliver - especially with T-grain films, and slower normal Pan films. One-shot is the only way to go for repeatability and consistency. I use a few different developers, depending on what I'm shooting and how I'm exposing, but 80% of the time I'm using Rodinal - which gives me amazing sharpness, a slight increase in speed, and makes slower film stocks shine and pop off the scan.
4.) if you haven't found it yet, the Massive Film Dev Chart is easily the most peer-collected site for film/developer combinations for processing times. I've used it for years, and come back to it from time to time when shooting obscure films - and they're always listed. Highly recommend it. www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php
Sorry for babbling on . . . but I see what you're doing, fully support you on your journey, and just want the best results for you that you can get. Keep going! And see you out on the trail. ;-)
I'm just waiting for you to eat more slugs, that's what I wanna see!
Haha!