I am a total slacker. I’ve spent about $500 on a Jobo and the associated hardware, and do I use it for developing expensive and difficult processes like ECN-II? Nope. I use it so I can be lazy when developing monochrome film. This practice has a background in my film preferences – I tend to shoot movie film, and I push it, to boot.

Here’s why that matters – cine film is designed for constant agitation processing. So by processing my Eastman 5222 (Double-X) in a Jobo, I’m working much closer to the way a cine lab would process it. Next up is the pushing – it takes more time. With a rotary processor, I can maintain higher-than-ambient temperatures for my whole development cycle (Typically 22C) and because I’m not agitating the film by hand, I can develop for longer periods without resorting to stand processing.

This then leads to my choice of developer. ID-11 is the English knock-off of Kodak’s ancient D-76 process. It was selected (before I knew about the Kodak link) based on the fact that it’s designed for continuous-agitation. As it turns out, it is D-76 – at least for all practical purposes – and that means it’s originally a Cine film developer. We’ve come full circle.

Finally, I’m a “precariat”, part of that modern western generation who will likely never own a house – because the cost of entry rises faster than our savings can. This means that the things I own must last, hence forty year old cameras and developing kit – plus, the reason I started trying motion picture film in the first place – namely that it’s far cheaper than commercial, pre-loaded cassettes from major still film brands. But this also means that I can’t afford to waste chemistry. My pushed, continuously agitated film is also quite high contrast – so using 1+3 dilution on my developer does help manage the costs and improve my results at the same time. A little side note here – a realistic estimate of the “minimum chemistry” for a roll of 135 film is about 50ml of ID-11 stock. Since I use System 2000 tanks, that proves no issue – 1+3 gives the perfect amount of chemistry without waste or overdilution. If I were to switch to the System 1000 tanks (which allow the development of ten rolls at once in a CPA or CPP processor), I would need to develop at 1+1 to retain sufficient chemistry. Conveniently, this *also* gives the correct amount of chemistry, so this costs no more per roll – just screws up my development times.

So what does all this backstory mean in practice? It means I’m using unusual film, in a common developer – but at an unusual dilution, using unusual agitation and shooting at unusual film speeds. Or in other words, Massive Dev Chart doesn’t have a lot to offer my darkroom. This post is actually not meant for you – it’s meant for me. I develop five to ten rolls of film at a time, usually at a period of several months. I constantly struggle to remember the dev times I calculate from one dev-day to the next. What follows are tables of development times for processing in my obscure, but effective film development process.

The Development Tables

This will scale with time. These are the results of my own experiments. They have not been checked with a densitometer, just ‘eyeballed’. All times assume continuous rotary agitation, and a minimum of 50ml developer stock per roll, as above.

Orwo UN54

An 80-100 speed fine grain black and white movie film, somewhat similar to Kodak Plus-X.

Film	Speed	Chemistry	Temperature	1+3	1+1	1+0
UN54	80	ID-11	22C
UN54	400	ID-11	22C	25		13

Eastman-Kodak Double-X (5222)

A 200-250 speed black and white movie film. Reacts poorly to overexposure. The closest current film to Super-XX, though that’s not saying that much. For a demonstration of how this film looks when underexposed and overexposed, look at the intro scene to Casino Royale (2008), which showcases both.

Film	Speed	Chemistry	Temperature	1+3	1+1	1+0
XX	250	ID-11	22C
XX	1600	ID-11	22C			23