Age of Paper Developer and Print Quality

If you use old paper developer, either stock or working solution, and it still produces a print, is the quality of the print compromised in a "scientific" way?" For example, I've noticed in a few posts lately (and some old ones by way of a search) that some of you hang on to your paper developer for quite some time, months even, and are still able to develop prints that are at least satisfactory in a subjective way.

I have done this myself, but not with prints that I really cared about. I did it mostly out of curiosity before mixing up a fresh batch. I'd do a print in the old developer and then a second one in the new developer. I couldn't tell the difference. I know manufacturers list the shelf life of their products, but I often wonder how accurate the shelf life is. Just curious and interested in others experience and technical knowledge.

What you see is what you get, usually. The most common indicator of developer aging out is patchy or faded blacks. If you do not see this, then realistically, silver is being developed to completion, agreed?

I too, though, would be interested if anything exists at a more microscopic scale, just for curiosity sake. However, I do use old developer at times and if it works, then great.

developer age affects dmax.

As the developer gets older, you have to develop longer to get to the same d-max.

I'm not sure what the development times are on Ralph's graph. That needs to be specified.

I look at it by plotting d-max against development time for developer of various ages.

I usually develop for 30 seconds beyond the time for d-max. So when it takes about 2 to 2.5 minutes for d-max, I develop for 3 minutes. After that I toss the developer.

Ansel Adams had a cool trick in that he used a development time factor based on the time for the first appearance of the image.

So, putting two and two together if my time to appearance of the image is greater than one minute, it turns out my time to d-max is going to be greater than 2.5 minutes and that signals time to toss the developer.

ic-racer said:

As the developer gets older, you have to develop longer to get to the same d-max.

I'm not sure what the development times are on Ralph's graph. That needs to be specified.

I look at it by plotting d-max against development time for developer of various ages.

I usually develop for 30 seconds beyond the time for d-max. So when it takes about 2 to 2.5 minutes for d-max, I develop for 3 minutes. After that I toss the developer.

Ansel Adams had a cool trick in that he used a development time factor based on the time for the first appearance of the image.

So, putting two and two together if my time to appearance of the image is greater than one minute, it turns out my time to d-max is going to be greater than 2.5 minutes and that signals time to toss the developer.

Click to expand...

I use the factorial development technique and do see an increase in overall development times as the developer gets older, even within a long and heavy printing session. I base my factor time on the emergence of the mid-tones. My normal development times with MG IV double-weight paper in Ilford multigrade developer at 1+9 are around 3 minutes (factor of 5). When the development time gets over 3:30 minutes, I will toss the developer. My densitometer measures only transmission, so I can't measure the d-max.

Thanks Ralph. That's the kind of scientific explanation I was seeking.

Moot point because aged developer is aged developer, but presumably bottling the used developer between printing sessions would serve to delay the inevitable, would it not (I'm assuming "open tray" to mean open 24/7 throughout the experiment)?

there are also factors that change the age and usefulness of a developer.
ansco 130 tends to last a long time, and if you ever make paper negatives
spent/used/oxidized/ black &c ansco 130 works great because of the effect on dmax.
sometimes i use a fresh tray AND a tray of spent old developer and go between the 2 trays until
my paper looks " just right " ...

i don't know if other spent developers are as useful as 130 ... but its good stuff !

RalphLambrecht said:

developer age affects dmax.
View attachment 46410

Click to expand...

That example holds for Dektol only, Ralph.

Won't hold for 130 or similar.

Nor, I suspect, for LPD.

I really couldn't tell any difference between the prints I made in October with freshly mixed LPD and the ones I printed in January with the saved working solution, just poured into a plastic darkroom bottle, the air squeezed out and capped off. I expected the blacks to be inadequate and to mix fresh, but the prints looked fine.

I still have that bottle, but plan on mixing up fresh. I will be printing this weekend. I will make a print or two with the old stuff, then mix fresh and compare.

I can't believe how long dektol lasts if you simply cover the tray with saran wrap at the end of a session, with the wrap in contact with the developer, than pouring it in and out of bottles.

walbergb said:

Thanks Ralph. That's the kind of scientific explanation I was seeking.

Moot point because aged developer is aged developer, but presumably bottling the used developer between printing sessions would serve to delay the inevitable, would it not (I'm assuming "open tray" to mean open 24/7 throughout the experiment)?

Click to expand...

I've been printing in Polymax T for several years, with the same bottle of mix. When I'm finished a session, I filter it back into the same bottle, after I've rinsed the bottle. There is always some loss due to usage, perhaps as much as 100 ml. For this, I estimate the volume, prepare that volume of fresh dev mix (10% for Poly-T), and fill the bottle to within an inch of the top. Then I give the bottle a burst of butane and cap immediately.

As I say, this same bottle of dev has been in use for over 5 years, with as much as 8 or 9 months between sessions, at one point. The original bottle of Kodak Polymax-T base is still more than half full. As with the working stock, I give it a burst of butane after use, as well, and I store it in the fridge. I've never seen any difference in the quality of the prints, definitely not in the depth of blacks.

What about stains? I've noticed Dektol left in my trays turns to a dark shade of brown, like coffee, and I suspect turned a few of my brilliant white prints into a tender cream.

Of course it could also be batch differences in my paper. I did pull out a few sheets from a 30 year old box the other day.

Bill Burk said:

What about stains? I've noticed Dektol left in my trays turns to a dark shade of brown, like coffee, and I suspect turned a few of my brilliant white prints into a tender cream.

Of course it could also be batch differences in my paper. I did pull out a few sheets from a 30 year old box the other day.

Click to expand...

Nah, this typically won't do much. Upon refilling with developer this "silt" will dissolve back into solution.

BTW: If you ever just want to clean developer trays, a 10% solution of pot-ferri/water left in the tray will nuke any residual oxidized developer/silver/etc.

Dektol and others last 6 months in full stoppered bottles. Once you dilute to working strength, life is 8 hours and putting it back into a sealed full bottle will not preserve it, not even to the next day. It will develop prints, but the tones are not correct. You can see the difference if you dilute new stock and make a new print.

When I finish a printing sesion I use to place an empty tray, of the same type and size, on top of all the working trays ( developer, stop , fix and hca ) . As long as I am only doing working prints , the developer can keep active for months. I just ad a bit more fresh hca-solution each time. When I start making exhibition prints I mix fresh chemicals for all the trays.

Karl-Gustaf

walbergb said:

I use the factorial development technique and do see an increase in overall development times as the developer gets older, even within a long and heavy printing session. I base my factor time on the emergence of the mid-tones. My normal development times with MG IV double-weight paper in Ilford multigrade developer at 1+9 are around 3 minutes (factor of 5). When the development time gets over 3:30 minutes, I will toss the developer. My densitometer measures only transmission, so I can't measure the d-max.

Click to expand...

correct factorial development works well, better with fb paper though.use a factor 6-8x to get started.

Ronald Moravec said:

Dektol and others last 6 months in full stoppered bottles. Once you dilute to working strength, life is 8 hours and putting it back into a sealed full bottle will not preserve it, not even to the next day. It will develop prints, but the tones are not correct. You can see the difference if you dilute new stock and make a new print.

Click to expand...

Dektol, yes, that has been my experience and the biggest reason I changed to LPD over a decade ago. "And others" absolutely not, depending on the "others."

RalphLambrecht said:

correct factorial development works well, better with fb paper though.use a factor 6-8x to get started.

Click to expand...

Ralph,
I am using fibre paper, so you are recommending that I increase the factor to at least 6? I'll give it a try.

A quick calculation tells me that as the developer gets older or more exhausted (i.e., 45 seconds), a factor of 8 will place the development time at the maximum window (6 min.) suggested by Ilford in their technical data sheet for MG IV fibre.

I'm a skeptic of extending paper developer to the next day or extending print capacity. Yes, you get images with aged developer but I experience a Dmax loss. Extended development regains Dmax but bends factors such as print tone. Typically I use 4 to 6 oz of stock LPD developer mixed 3 or 4:1. The working solution develops about (5) 8x10 fiber prints. By the 4th print development must be extended.

I'm not sure a print has the same sparkle developed in day-old developer. Variables are using a developer with Glycin, the amount of stock developer in a working solution, use of RC paper which often has less tonal range, or a paper with incorporated developers.

I'm using unreplenished P-Q-Glycin working solution (similar to 130) that I mixed and diluted in December 2010. I havent seen any scientific problems and artistically it looks fine to me. I haven't been using it straight through, it just sat most of that time.

Roger Cole said:

Nor, I suspect, for LPD.

I really couldn't tell any difference between the prints I made in October with freshly mixed LPD and the ones I printed in January with the saved working solution, just poured into a plastic darkroom bottle, the air squeezed out and capped off. I expected the blacks to be inadequate and to mix fresh, but the prints looked fine.

I still have that bottle, but plan on mixing up fresh. I will be printing this weekend. I will make a print or two with the old stuff, then mix fresh and compare.

Click to expand...

Results are in.

I made the best 8x10 I could of a negative I was working on, using the old bottle of developer mixed in September.

Then I mixed up a fresh half gallon (because I plan to make some 16x20s) and tried printing it and developing in freshly mixed working strength LPD.

First, the old developer had lost some activity as I needed less exposure with the fresh stuff. My exposure with the old developer was 20 seconds at f/11. With the fresh stuff I was printing at 15 seconds, same f-stop, with very similar results.

Similar, but not identical. The fresh developer is very slightly more contrasty, perhaps 1/4 of a paper grade, maybe a bit more than 1/4 grade but definitely less than 1/2 grade. I can't tell any difference in D-Max or print color. The contrast difference is just enough that I can tell the prints apart now that they're dry, but only just. It isn't a "strain to see the difference" thing, but it doesn't jump out either, and honestly some of that may be because the exposures are not perfectly matched.

Keeping (non-replenished) working strength developer this long is an aberration, even for me. I haven't had that many chances to print, so I'd pour it back planning to use it soon then "soon" would turn into weeks or months. Once I went back to print I'd think, "what the heck, give it a try" and it seemed to be working fine so I just kept using it. I'm not sure how many prints I made with this solution because I used it for Adox MCC and contact prints on RC paper, while I used Ilford WT developer for all the prints I made on MGWT during this time, so they become a bit confused in my mind. I'm sure I developed at least the equivalent of 30 8x10s and maybe more in this bottle that started out with 30 ounces (5 oz. of liquid concentrate LPD plus 25 oz water. My next batch will be powder mixed and 1+2 rather than 1+4.) By now just the developer being carried out had reduced the amount to 20 ozs. So it's not clear either how much of the change may be due to age and how much to simple over use.

Either way, I could still make perfectly good prints with that old developer. I don't plan on keeping it this long again, and in fact I may try the replenished route, but it is a remarkably long lasting developer.