Film Development in 2025: 50 Rolls, Fewer Choices, Better Negatives

In 2025 I shot, developed and scanned 50 rolls of film at home. Shooting both black and white and color there was a clear preference for moderate to fast film speeds and repeatable processes. This was not a year of experimentation. It was a year of refinement with enough repetition to confirm what worked and discard what didn’t.

What follows is a practical look at the films I relied on, the developers that shaped the negatives, and what a steady pace of home processing revealed over the course of the year.

The Year in Numbers

Total rolls: 50

• Black & white: 22
• Color: 28

By speed

• Black & white centered on ISO 400 (15 of 22 rolls)
• Color centered on ISO 200 (17 of 28 rolls)

At roughly one roll per week, the volume was steady enough to reward consistency and punish unnecessary complexity.

Black & White Film

Black & White made up a little less than half the rolls of film shot in 2025. The numbers show a clear preference to faster film speeds.

Black & White Film Usage

• Kodak Tri-X 400: 8 rolls
• Ilford HP5 Plus: 5 rolls
• Ilford FP4 Plus: 5 rolls
• Kentmere 400: 2 rolls
• Ilford P3200: 1 roll

In the second half of the year, and as prices of HP5 increased, I began shooting Tri-X. By the end of the year, it was my go-to film. It is tolerant of exposure error, predictable in development, and easy to scan. HP5 is a wonderful film, and it hasn’t left the lineup, but my fridge is filled with Tri-X, and my developing efforts are aimed at honing “my” look for those negatives. My use of FP4 was chosen deliberately for situations that suited a slower film. Kentmere 400 proved competent, economical and very easy on the scanner. The one roll of P3200 (exposed at ISO 3200) was used on a nighttime photo walk when speed mattered more than elegance.

In general, I wasn’t searching for a black-and-white look. I was reinforcing one.

Black & White Developers: HC-110 to DDX

Two developers handled all black-and-white processing.

• Kodak HC-110: first 14 rolls
• Ilford DDX: final 8 rolls

HC-110 was my go-to developer for the past three years. It is economical, reliable and produces excellent, repeatable results. However, as I often develop one roll at a time in a 250ml Nikor tank I find myself measuring small volumes of developer, usually at 1+31, where decimal points sometimes matter. And, developing times for HC110 being on the shorter side, small changes in timing and process can result in varying impacts on final negatives. While not a significant issue for me, I was interested in widening the aperture a bit and sought another developer. I ended up with DDX and have come to rely on the results it yields. It costs more per roll, but mixing the larger volumes at 1+4 is, for me, simpler, and the longer development times help average out minor variations in agitation or temperature. Those longer times reduce stress and reward consistency. To my eye, negatives developed in DDX were just a bit sharper, showed just a bit less grain, and provided just a bit more shadow detail. Subtle changes, but noticeable to me.  Going forward into 2026, DDX will be my primary black-and-white developer.

Color Film

Color made up 28 rolls of the 50 rolls and showed a strong bias toward moderate speeds.

Color Film Usage

• Kodak Gold 200: 14 rolls
• Kodak Portra 160: 2 rolls
• Harman Phoenix 200: 1 roll
• Ektar 100: 1 roll
• Kodak Portra 400: 5 rolls
• Kodak UltraMax 400: 4 rolls
• Kodak Portra 800: 1 roll

Seventeen rolls clustered around ISO 200, making it the practical center of my color work.

Gold 200 was my default: forgiving, easy to scan, and visually unobtrusive. Portra was used selectively — 160 in controlled light, 400 when flexibility mattered. 

UltraMax 400 filled an important everyday role. It’s far less expensive than Portra 400, and for local shooting the difference rarely justified the cost. However, that calculus will likely change for travel photography.

Phoenix 200, Ektar 100 and Portra 800 were one-off rolls and not film stocks I plan to revisit.

While the data show a clear nod to ISO 200, ISO 400 is more useable over a wider range lighting conditions. Especially when traveling far from home. To reduce “decision stress” while on the road I’d rather carry one film stock than multiple film stocks. Based on the five rolls of Portra 400 I shot this year I’m considering it, over Ultra-Max 400, as my primary stock for the two trips planned in 2026.

Color Development: Process Over Branding

Color processing was split between CineStill and Arista C-41 kits. I saw no difference in results. The chemistry, times, and process are effectively the same. What matters more is consistent temperature control and repeatable handling when processing.

What 50 Rolls Of Repetition Made Obvious

At this volume, patterns become clear:

• Simpler workflows survive
• Longer development times are more forgiving
• Consistency beats optimization

Anything fragile or overly clever fell away on its own.

The Look I’m Refining

The films and developers I turned to most often all support the same goals:

• Moderate contrast
• Usable shadow detail
• Grain that supports the image
• Negatives that scan cleanly

ISO 400 black and white and ISO 200 color serve the look I seek.

What Carries Forward Into 2026

The lesson of 2025 is simple: fewer choices, used well, produce better work.

Going into 2026:

• Core film stocks remain unchanged
• Tri-X will be my reference for black and white
• Gold 200 will stay on as my color baseline
• Though Portra 400 may likely anchor travel situations 
• DDX becomes my primary black-and-white developer
• I’ll use whichever C41 kit is least expensive

Fifty rolls were enough to make this clear - I’m not expanding the palette, I’m deepening it.

 

Six months with the Fujifilm GF670 Professional

Several years ago, I began shooting and developing medium format 120 film. As previously noted, unrolling wet 120 negatives from a reel is an emotional experience. They are huge, they are glorious and each time I again fall under the spell of medium format photography. Flash forward and I now own four medium format roll film cameras. First purchased was a Yashica Mat 124G. It is a Twin Lens Reflex (TLR) in 6x6. A little later I added an early-1960s Super Fujica 6 folding rangefinder. Later still a mid-1960s Zeiss Ikon Nettar folder with scale focus. Both folders are also 6x6 format. The fourth medium format camera is the subject of this post.

As I shot those cameras on a routine basis I learned three things. 

-       First, I prefer holding the camera to the eye when shooting. While the Yashica TLR is tack sharp, and has a meter, I haven’t bonded with the left-right reversal, nor do I enjoy looking down into the camera to compose a frame. 

-       Second, I prefer rangefinder focusing. The Super Fujica 6 is perfect in this respect and merges neatly with my daily use of Leica rangefinders. 

-       Third, an in-body light meter is a must. While there are a lot of light meters available for hand use, to include many mobile apps for cell phones, several of which are resident on my iPhone 15 Pro Max, nothing beats the convenience of an in-body light meter.

Earlier this year I visited a camera shop about an hour’s drive from me. On that visit I saw and held a Fuji GF670 Professional. I was blown away. The viewfinder was large, bright, magnificent. Range finding was easy, intuitive, and felt the same as on my various Leica M bodies. The built-in light meter was readily viewable in the finder, and it was easy to integrate readings throughout a scene to determine a correct exposure. Best of all it included an aperture priority mode. To achieve that mode the body included an electronic leaf shutter. As with my Leica M7, no power, no camera. However, as I detailed in a recent post on the M7, aperture priority is an important part of my shooting experience, and I am willing to accept that I need to bring along a few extra batteries. I left the shop without the camera but it haunted my dreams for many weeks. You can guess what happened when I revisited the shop… 

I bought the GF670 knowing full well it wasn’t a practical choice by modern standards. It’s a folding medium format film camera released in 2008, which already tells you everything you need to know about how out of step it was when it appeared. But that’s part of what appealed to me.

The camera itself is simple. It folds up, it opens out, and it makes big negatives. All while being small enough when folded to fit easily for travel. The fixed 80mm lens (35 equivalents are 44mm in 6x6 and 38mm in 6x7) keeps me from overthinking things, and the leaf shutter is quiet enough (almost too quiet!) that it never draws attention. Nothing about the GF670 feels flashy or clever. It feels built to do a job and do it well.

Using it slows me down in a good way. Opening the camera and extending the bellows forces a pause before I even look through the finder. Once I do, the rangefinder is bright and focusing feels natural (although sometimes I fiddle around finding the focus tab). The controls are right where I expect them to be, and aperture priority works well enough that I don’t have to think about exposure unless I want to. 

The lens is excellent, but not in a way that shows off. It’s sharp, handles tones well, and gives me negatives that scan and print easily. That matters more to me than corner sharpness or MTF charts. My results are consistent, which is exactly what I want from a camera like this. Or any camera for that matter.

Six months on and the GF670 has become my regular 120 shooter. It matches how I like to work. I don’t shoot fast, I don’t shoot a lot, and I usually know what I want the negative to look like before I trip the shutter. This camera supports that mindset. It reminds me to slow down, pay attention, and make each frame count. That’s enough for me.

Britain 2025

In October 2025 my wife and I travelled to Britain to attend a two week tour with Rick Steves Europe (RSE). We thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. A great itinerary with a good group of fellow travelers and a superb guide (thank you Robert!). While I very much enjoy the DIY travels I have arranged, it is nice to have someone else worry about itinerary and logistics! All I had to do was arrange to travel into Heathrow then make our way to Bath. On the back end, it was a short walk to the Tube from our London hotel, and 45 minutes later we were back at Heathrow for an uneventful flight home. The map below shows the primary stops and the number of nights stayed at each location. Highlights for me were Hadrian's Wall and York. I've always been interested in the history of the Roman Britain period as well as the Viking invasion period and those two locations were a wonder to behold. Other key sites for me were Keswick in the Lake District and the Cotswolds. Both were beautiful! At some point I'll go back to England, rent a car and head back up to the north to spend more time exploring. This tour was our fourth RSE tour and we are very much looking forward to our fifth when we return to France in the spring of 2026.

Camera kit for the trip included the M10R and 21mm / 35mm / 90mm lenses. The majority of images were captured with the 35mm Summicron. Cathedral interiors were the purview of the 21mm Color-Skopar. The 90mm APO-Skopar saw a bit of use but spent most of the trip in the camera bag. My wife carried the Leica D-Lux 8 I purchased earlier in the year. I'll have more to say about it in a later post but the elevator speech is it is a Micro 4/3, point and shoot which hosts a 24-75mm equivalent lens. I bought it as a pocket camera and it performed superbly. Between the Ireland trip in April and this trip to Britain it has captured nearly 1,200 images. Again, more later on this amazing camera.

A few of my favorite images from Britain

Leica M7

Earlier this year I purchased an early model (2002, year of issue), recently refurbished and pristine, Leica M7. It was not inexpensive. The purchase culminated a year of YouTube videos and internet articles/blogs on the merits of the M6 TTL vs the M7. But first, let me discuss what it was I was looking for in a film camera.

For the past three and a half years my daily, go-to camera has been a Leica M10R. I've written at length in several articles my love for this camera system. Size and simplicity, ergonomics, industrial design, menu system, heritage. The M10R has it all. It has travelled with me to seven countries and numerous U.S. states. With three small prime lenses it is, for me, the perfect travel kit. With one small prime lens attached it is, for me, the perfect "walk around town for a few hours" camera. I love it. The primary mode in which I shoot is Aperture priority (usually f/5.6 or f/8) with Auto-ISO. Sometimes I set Shutter Speed as well, again with Auto-ISO. Easy peasy, solid exposures, wonderful images.

Several years ago I included film as a part of my regular photography. Over that time I've worked through a number of different film camera systems seeking the similar size and simplicity of the M10R. In addition to my old SLRs (1970s through 1990s) I've shot on Canon P, Canon 7, Leica iiif and Leica 3. All of them shot well. Not all were fun to use as certain quirks were sometimes more irksome than endearing. Of those four bodies, the Leica M3 resonated strongly as it fit the M mount lenses I used on the M10R and as the body shape, controls locations and rangefinder system were also very similar. And while I am comfortable shooting Sunny 16 I felt my way ahead needed to include a light meter. 

It was the inclusion of a light meter that led me to investigate the M6, M6 TTL, M7, MA and MP. And it was the design and operation of each of those camera's shutter speed dial which proved to be a critical decision point in my reviews of those bodies. The shutter speed dial on the M6, MA and MP are identical to that on the M3. It is a small dial which, for me, is a bit challenging to manipulate when the camera is to the eye. The M6 TTL and M7 shutter speed dials are larger and overhang the front of the body just enough that they can be manipulated while shooting the camera from the eye position. Exactly as is that dial on the M10R. Also, as important to efficient operation is the size and location of the dial is the direction of motion of the dial in relation to changes in shutter speed. Clockwise motion on the M6 TTL the M7 and the M10R lowers shutter speed. On the other bodies it increases shutter speed. While that does not seem to be a big issue, for me it is. 

The light meter indicator on these cameras is a rudimentary, three red LED display in the bottom of the viewfinder. From left to right there is a right facing arrow, a dot then a left facing arrow. The right facing arrow indicates one or more stops underexposed. The left facing arrow indicates one or more stops overexposed. From the M6 TTL forward, not including the MA and the MP, to the current M11 series, that three red LED system has been the same. If the right facing arrow is illuminated, turn the aperture ring to the right and/or turn the shutter speed dial to the right. If the left facing arrow is illuminated, do the opposite. Very easy, very intuitive. On the M6, MA and MP that small, reversed rotation dial confuses things. Is the right facing arrow lit? Then rotate shutter speed dial to the left. For me this is not intuitive. If I were shooting only an M6 I would develop muscle memory and it would not be a big deal. In fact the M6 is pretty much considered the GOAT of Leica's and are much sought after in the used market. Clearly folks figure it out. However, I didn't want to be in a position where I rotate right on one camera and left on the other to achieve proper exposure. Too hard. Especially after nearly 16,000 shutter actuations on my M10R in the past three and a half years. I really needed the shutter speed dials to move in the same direction. 

Let's recap - shutter speed dial size, location on the top of the camera and rotation modality all common between the M6 TTL, M7 and M10R. Tough decision. Left with the M6 TTL vs M7 dilemma, I spent a lot of time researching technicals, opinions, case studies in an effort to not make an expensive mistake. The M6 TTL is, with the exception of a battery driven meter, a fully mechanical camera. And if the circuit board fries or the battery dies only the meter stops working, the camera continues to shoot, with all shutter speeds available and you are still in business. 

The M7 is a different beast altogether. Its shutter is not mechanical (with two exceptions) but electronic. If the circuit board fries or the battery dies not only do you lose the meter but you are left with only two shutter speeds; 1/60 and 1/125. Still shoot-able but certainly not ideal. Especially at the cost of entry.

However, what the electronic shutter on the M7 does provide that the M6 TTL does not is an aperture priority mode (auto shutter speed). The very same mode I shoot with my M10R 75% of the time. It was clear the shooting experience of the M7 would be nearly identical to the M10R. And that realization got me over the finish line of brain numbing research and onto my favorite camera sites for shopping. It looks a few months to find the right deal. When that deal arrived (thank you Roberts Camera), I pounced. Pictured below is the new-to-me M7, quite literally still in the box, just a minute or so after I opened. Gorgeous. The other pic is about ten minutes later with a CV 28mm f/2 Ultron ASPH mounted and a roll of Portra 160 waiting patiently to be loaded.  

To date I have put 20 rolls of film through the M7. Several different film stocks of color and BW. No issues. In fact, perfect. And best of all, shooting the M7 is (nearly) identical to shooting the M10R. I added (nearly) as there is a slight difference in thickness that I can feel between the two cameras. The M10R is also heavier. And silver. However, the important elements of focusing, metering and composing are exactly the same. 

Interestingly, when shooting the M7, I have not missed Auto ISO. I manipulate Aperture more than I do with the M10R but that is to be expected. When shooting in Aperture priority mode the view finder shows the metered shutter speed. This, combined with an accurate center weighted meter, makes on the fly "Zone System like" meter readings easy to visually integrate while shooting scenes. Certainly, it helped that I had three and a half years of previous experience shooting the identical mode on the M10R. I had already learned how to rapidly evaluate a scene, meter the area where I wanted the correct lighting information, half press to lock in exposure, re-compose and shoot. It sounds so much longer to do than it is in actual practice. Bottom line, for my use case, shooting the M7 is just like shooting the M10R. 

The internet is filled with M7 nay-sayers. Their concerns are either dead batteries or electric circuitry failures. With regard to the first concern, I carry a strip of spare batteries (my goodness they are so tiny). Just as I carry a spare battery for the M10R (not so tiny). Regarding camera failures, the same can be said of any camera. For that matter everything we own that is mechanical or electrical can (and may) fail, and when they fail you get 'em fixed. If something untoward occurs with my M7 I will box it lovingly and ship it to Wetzlar for repair. Yes, it will take a long time. Yes, it will be expensive. Yes, I will be sad. But the day it returns from the Mothership, looking minty fresh in its box, will be a happy day and I will load a battery, mount a lens, and shoot up a truck load of film.

The M7 has been a game changer and it has solidified my love of the rangefinder M system. They are such easy cameras to travel with and to use. I value their small size, their simplicity, their high quality construction and the premium feel in hand. Cheers all.

A few of my M7 favorites from the past year. 

Working with Ilford DD-X

When I began developing film at home in early 2023 I started with CineStill's DF-96 Monobath. After a few months I transitioned to Kodak's HC-110 and never looked back. Over the past two and a half years, I became very comfortable with HC-110 and a few of its many dilutions. My results were nearly always very good and on the few occasions where there were issues it was due to exposure decisions I had made in camera and not the development of the negatives. However, as I developed more film I began wondering about results other developers might return. Also, I was shooting a lot of Ilford HP-5 and FP-4 and couldn't help but notice the statements on the interior of the film boxes regarding Ilford's "recommended developer," DD-X. Eventually, I purchased a bottle. Life events do what they do and I found myself defaulting to HC-110 for the next two years. In September 2025, I finally opened the DD-X and began using it. As of this post I've developed nine rolls of film with DD-X. Both 135 and 120 in several film stocks. With about half of the bottle left I thought I'd provide a few comments on my experience of the past four months of the use of DD-X.   

DD-X is a one-shot developer mixed usually at 1+4. Given that ratio and given I usually develop rolls, as I shoot them, in a 250ml stainless steel tank, I'm using 50ml of DD-X per development session. Basic math tells me that 50ml into 1000ml results in 20 rolls of developed black and white film. Even more rolls if I develop two at a time in 450ml stainless steel (90ml DD-X versus 100ml). At current B&H pricing of $42.95 per liter, and not counting shipping or tax, that comes to about $2.15 worth of developer cost per roll. Not bad. And the truth of it is that if I were anxious about costs I wouldn't be in photography in the first place! 

Regarding the processing of negatives, I use the same procedure with DD-X that I used with HC-110. That is:

• All liquid temps to 20C.
• Pour in developer and start the timer (Massive Dev app on my iPad).
• Gentle agitation, invert and twist, for the first minute. Then gentle agitation for ten seconds every minute thereafter.
• Pour out the developer with 15 seconds left on the timer.
• When the timer buzzes, pour in the water stop bath, agitate for 15 seconds and pour out. I repeat that sequence four more times. This step takes about three minutes. After pouring out the final stop rinse,
• Pour in the fix (I use Photographer's Formulary TF-4) and start the timer.
• Gentle agitation for the first 15 seconds followed by ten-second agitation every minute afterwards. My current fix time is 5:30. Note: I snip test the fixer on a regular basis to determine clearing time, then I fix for three times that clearing time. As of this post, my seven month old fixer has seen 30 rolls of BW film - 135 and 120 both of differing film stocks. Clearing time a few weeks ago was a little over one minute. Yes, I'm fixing longer than necessary, but my negatives come out clear every time and I'm happy.
• Pour fix back into the bottle at the end of the fix time then complete the Ilford water rinse method followed by a final Photo-Flo rinse.    

Given my natural OCD I am a stickler for process when it comes to developing negatives. Agitation cycles are all identical and all timing is to the second. I've detailed the process above only to highlight that there have been no changes in the way I develop negatives using DD-X than when I used HC-110. And, my photography hasn't changed either. I shoot all types of scenes in all types of contrast and lighting and with different stocks and formats and have thrown HC-110 and DD-X at all of them. 

In the end, the small differences I've seen in my scanned negatives (I don't own a densitometer) I chalk up to the DD-X itself. So, what have I noticed?

• Predictable results regardless of film stock. On a regular basis I shoot Tri-X 400 (at 320), Kentmere 400 (at 320) and FP-4 (at box 125). I have shot a lot of HP-5 (at 320) as well as a few other film stocks but have been locked in to Tri-X in the past year. I shoot in 135 and 120. No changes, other than dev times, have been required in my negative development processes. Perfect for folks like me who shoot a few different film stocks and formats.
• Excellent scanning using the Valoi's Easy 35 or Easy 120 attached to a 1992-era Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 Micro adapted to a Leica SL-2. The grain is even and well structured and scans easily. Note: having previously used flat bed scanners for years it is hard to express in words just how happy I am when using the Valoi system. 
• Less noticeable grain. Not a significant difference, but enough that I notice it when applying Clarity and when I (sometimes) apply Texture and/or Sharpening while processing the scans in Lightroom Classic. Again, subtle differences.
• Rated EI. I have routinely shot 400 speed BW film stocks at 320 and have been happy with results. However, on high contrast days shooting street when I default to metering shadows, I'm not always happy with the skies. While not blown out, I lose the tonality I prefer and I see less detail and structure in clouds. I realize 320 is only +1/3 stop over baseline but it seems to be just enough sky brightening, in those certain situations, to impact my digital post-development. My intent going forward is to shoot 400 films at box speed to see if there are any differences in final edits. 
• That said, I believe I see a bit more shadow detail with DD-X than I did with HC-110. As with grain, it is subtle, but I think there is a slight improvement in this area. And as much of my photography includes high contrast scenes having a bit more shadow detail while preserving highlights improves my final edits.
• Regarding acutance, I am a serial user of Clarity. Sometimes with a bit of Texture thrown in. Not so much Sharpening. In Lightroom I find myself using a bit less Clarity to achieve the mid-tone contrast and sharpening levels I usually work towards. Subtle, but a bit less.

Are there differences between the two developers? Yes, however I find them very subtle. That said, DD-X produces great results for me and I find it to be an excellent general developer. So far there have been no surprises, no weird results. Creativity is up to me, my camera and my lenses. The film and developer will give back what the hardware recorded with no additions.

Final thoughts: I will continue using DD-X. It has proven longevity in unopened storage (dark and cool) and remains potent four months on. HC-110, even the new formulae, is an even longer lived developer, sealed and opened. And as a highly concentrated developer, over the long term HC-110 should be less expensive per roll. However, cost isn't a driver for me. Again, nothing in photography, film or digital, is cheap. At the end of the day my math shows me I pay much, much less to develop at home than I do when sending out to the lab. And, hands down, my scans are better than any lab scans I have received. Plus, I love fully processing, chemically and digitally, my own negatives. For 2026 I plan to shoot Tri-X and FP-4 almost exclusively. Probably at box speeds. For the foreseeable future, DD-X will be my developer of first choice.