Another self-replenishing developer?

[john_s]

I understand. And this is ALMOST how a proper replenished system should work. The seasoning brings byproducts to the aim concentration. But prior to that it would also be necessary to dilute the developer slightly, to lower the developing agent concentration to what will become the equilibrium concentration. Then it could immediately be brought into a stable condition, with developing agent and byproducts at some nominal equilibrium concentration. But the downside is that it is not the same as single-use Xtol. A different animal, so to speak.

In my view a self-replenished system is really something of an uphill battle. I think a better design goal would be to select some sort of developing solution to start with, and the design should include some concentration of development byproducts. The point of having them in there is so that you could control them via dilution with replenisher. This would determine the required rate for the replenisher. Then it would be a matter of finding what concentration of developing agent is needed, at that replenishment rate, to balance out the avarage amount of developing agent consumed. I'm not saying that this is easy to do, just that this is probably a better-controlled approach. Of course there are other things going on, such as some amount of evaporation as well as developing agent being oxidized by the air. Plus the need to keep preservatives at a steady level, and a controlled pH level.

and there is a buildup of halides to contend with.

 

[Mr Bill]

Actually not true.

Yes, true.

You're just making a different situation than what I said, by changing the volume of tank solution before you add replenisher.

I'm saying, that with some given developer solution, neither discarding nor carryout will change the concentration. For example, say that you have a liter, or whatever, of developer. And then you take out some arbitrary amount and throw it away. The concentrations of anything in there has not changed. If you want to reduce the concentration of byproducts in the developer you have to dilute them out.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that you are shifting the topic off from what I said, and you are trying to argue this different angle.

[Editing, belw... an addition for the casual reader who may not be following this clearly...]

What Matt is speaking about is saving replenisher. I'm saying that the concentration of byproducts is NOT changed by discarding some of the solution.

Matt's point, in my words (and interpretation), is that you ultimately are gonna limit your solution volume at some point. You can't let it keep increasing forever, can you? He is essentially saying that, for the solution that you already know you are gonna throw it away, there is no point in using good replenisher to dilute the used developer solution that you are already planning to throw away. So... you might as well throw it away before you add replenisher. Consequently you don't have to use as much replenisher as you would otherwise. [Matt, please correct me if I'm wrong.]

What I'm saying is that the act of throwing away this surplus does NOT change the concentration of anything in the developing solution. The concentration of these byproducts are primarily changed by diluting them with replenisher. I hope I'm explaining this well enough.

 

[Mr Bill]

and there is a buildup of halides to contend with.

Yes, mainly halides. I'm just using the term "byproducts" to encompass everything, more or less. It would probably be better if I said "development byproducts," but there are others things that come out of the film too, even without development.

To be clear, though, in a proper replenished system the halides do NOT build up (on the average), meaning that the CONCENTRATION does not increase.. The replenisher should have a lower concentrations of said halides, and therefore adding replenisher will dilute the halides released due to development. So the ideal situation is that the concentration of halides will stay more or less constant, on the average, in a replenished system.

 

[Paul Howell]

Edwal 12 and MCM 100, I've keep tanks going for years, my last MCM tank was over 3 years old. I replenished sorta using the system posted for 777. New tank, sacrifice one roll of 36ex 35 or 120 to season the tank. After next 3 rolls increase times by 15%, replenish with fresh stock to keep tank at a given volume, I used 2 quarts. Every 6 to 9 months depending on how many rolls I've process dump 1/2 of the stock strain it and replenish with with fresh. I really liked MCM 100, moved on due to price, at $48 a gallon Clayton F76+ and PF version of D76 is, well much more affordable.

 

[MattKing]

With an ascorbic acid based developer like X-Tol, the development byproduct build up is significantly different, and more controllable, than with other types of developers.
So whether or not you look at it as a problem of dilution, control of those byproducts is both more important and more easily accomplished than with more traditional developers like D-76.

 

[mshchem]

Wait... From the page linked above: "The Fuji E-6 1st developer or replenisher has a processing time of 6 hours (5 to 7 hours spread)." -- did someone mistake hours for minutes, or is E-6 a LOT slower than I thought? Or is that "processing time" how long it takes them to pick it from their warehouse and ship it (compared to multiple weeks for Flexicolor LORR C-41 Devloper and Replenisher)?

Yikes, Unique Photo needs to fix that. I use 6'30" with my Jobo, with a pre soak, with fresh chemistry. I usually develop 4 to 6 rolls per liter of 1st developer then toss. I spent about $300 on the regular Fuji Hunt E6 in commercial sizes. I will probably end up throwing out some of it, but the fixer can be used for both E6 and C41, the bleach lasts forever etc.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, so for E-6 we have a first dev that gets (almost) to completion in 6 to 7 minutes, doesn't need to have a fine-grain nature, may or may not benefit by a little fixing action (in B&W there's considerable debate, seems to vary from one worker to another) -- and that's with stock solution. Sounds like cutting back to 4-5 minutes (further extended by reducing temp from 38C to 20C) for negatives (to avoid "pushed" condition) might make E-6 first dev a candidate here -- or at least a formula to look at as a start for experimentation leading to the end goal: simple to manage and highly economical replenished developer. And the 4x10 pack from here seems roughly practical, if the as-received shelf life runs to several years.

"Simple to manage" doesn't get any simpler than the same packet or formula for stock solution and for replenisher. A starter is acceptable in place of seasoning -- Kodak has never, AFAIK, offered a starter for Xtol (giving seasoning instructions instead), but they have, over time, for a number of other replenished developers (including Flexicolor, which is kind of the gold standard here aside from Xtol -- replenisher plus starter to make a new tank solution, and in LORR format, 25-35 ml per roll depending on exact format and emulsion type, capable of running for multiple years and tens thousands of rolls in a 5L solution batch).

 

[AnselMortensen]

The lab I worked at in the '90's used TMax RS as a self-replenishing developer.
I don't think it's being made any more.

 

[removed account4]

Agfa/Ansco 130.

I've used ansco 130 like that ...

I don't get it, Juan. For film, you'd dilute that 1+9 (same as Dektol/D-72) and you wouldn't normally attempt to store a solution at that dilution, never mind replenish it. It certainly doesn't seem it would be useful for film in stock strength where self-replenishment might be attempted.

I'd use ansco130 1:6 for film and extract 100c of developer and replenish with 1:6 for every roll processed with it, I never process 1 roll or 1 sheet at a time
so it as always after a handful of rolls or at least 10-20 sheets, seemed to work fine...
sprint film developer can be replenished too, they have instructions on the bottle / on their website ..
when I apprenticed at a portrait studio we used to only use DK50 and replenish with DK50R.. I'd keep track of ever 5x7 sheet put through it and replenish accordingly..
when the tank was to capacity I'd leave 1/3 the tank and mix fresh into the seasoned tank, Defender/Harvey's/BluegrassPackaging 777 was/is self replenishing no 777R. just 777...
when I use sumatranol130, I don't replenish at all I use it for about 6 months until I get nervous and remove 2L and add a fresh 2L into the batch.. stuff is magical.

The lab I worked at in the '90's used TMax RS as a self-replenishing developer.
I don't think it's being made any more.

did it work well ? the RS was the good stuff, the non-RS was non-good. the two used to confuse the RIT grad students who answered the pro-phones at EK back in the 90s when it came out. they told me ( and I am sure others ) to use the NON RS for sheet film, BOO HISS. ruined it all with dicrotic fog, and then they couldn't didn't know out how to remove the fog .. I had to call Local Heros at SPRINT to learn to use Farmer's Reducer (of course sold by EK. LOL ). good times!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Wow, I'd never seen Sprint replenishment mentioned. Adding concentrate at levels that would emulate Xtol self-replenishment if it were diluted first, but only after using to capacity of 5 rolls per liter. Once again, though, like replenishing D-23, they have the recommendation to discard the solution after you've replenished 10 times (4000 square inches = ~50 rolls), which wouldn't even meet the "replenisher volume equal to original tank solution" rule of thumb if your replenishment were diluted. Manufacturer, at least, doesn't claim indefinite replenishment as with Xtol or Flexicolor. Part of the goal here is an indefinite replenishment life -- mix in 2021, process a few rolls a month until I'm too old to get into my darkroom. Xtol will do that, but there are concerns about reliability of supply. EcoPro appears to be identical to Xtol, and XT-3 is at least as good if not better, but not yet easy to get in the US. Ideally, I'd like something I can mix myself but is available in commercial form for convenience (the way D-76 and D-72/Dektol are).

I did mention 777 as one of the prototypical self-replenishment formula, but I understood it to have been out of production for good while -- however, Google disagrees, apparently it's still sold. However, information available seems to suggest it's not very useful (loses much of its special nature) in small tanks; it's a big lab soup, hard to mix, requires seasoning, and great consistency to give excellent results.

I'm not interested in trying to store a coffee developer (I'll mix Caffenol fresh when I want to use it).

 

[removed account4]

Yeah .. I used to use tanks and hangers with sprint, and replenish like they instructed, worked swimmingly.
and the great thing about sprint is its very difficult to block up highlights, I love using it... and always have some on hand.
I've never replenished their print developer, I just use it...
to find 777 you need to contact bluegrass packaging in Kentucky(?)
They own the rights to it and are the folks who sell it. For a long time they were waiting on a certain ingredient that was needed to make it
about IDK 3-4 years ago they made another huge batch, I think it only came in 2 gallon kits but I can't remember. people either loved the stuff
or they were like "meh" ...
I don't make caffenol from instant coffee .. I roast beans (sumatran robusta) and brew it fresh my recipe &c is in the caffenol-cookbook.
I usually add about 15-20cc of either d72/dektol or ansco130 or whatever similar I have on hand, / L... that small amount of potassium bromide, metol, HQ sodium sulfite and maybe glycin
dilute 1/:60ish acts as some sort of preservative, while it boosts the contrast, develops, fogs and stains everything a just enough when I use it to develop film and paper...
YMMV

 

[mshchem]

Kodak has never, AFAIK, offered a starter for Xtol (giving seasoning instructions instead),

This is at least 15 years old.

 

[cjbecker]

I would be interested in a xtol-ish developer from photographers formulary. At this point I have more faith in photographers formulary then I do in kodak.

Does the sprint replenish indefinitely?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Does the sprint replenish indefinitely?

Not according to their instruction sheet PDF -- they say up to 4000 square inches of film (50 rolls = 10 replenishments after using 5 roll capacity each time) from an original one liter tank solution + 7.5 ml/roll of concentrate as replenisher. Since the concentrate is not diluted when used as replenisher, this should require very little if any discard, hence there's no removal of byproducts, merely replacement of developing agents, solvents, and preservatives.

 

[removed account4]

Does the sprint replenish indefinitely?

I can't remember, I stopped using it when I ran out of $$ and started to sell off gear and started to use GAF Universal
which I found in a giant can on my darkroom windowsill ( I'm guessing it had been left there for like 15- 20 years ) and I
used that until I ran out of that . ... that was a 5 gallon summer!

oops Donald looked on the data sheet! what he said..

 

[MattKing]

The lab I worked at in the '90's used TMax RS as a self-replenishing developer.
I don't think it's being made any more.

It is, but it is only packaged in large (IIRC, 25 litre) cubitainers that are totally impractical for individual users.

 

[MattKing]

Kodak has never, AFAIK, offered a starter for Xtol (giving seasoning instructions instead), but they have, over time, for a number of other replenished developers (including Flexicolor, which is kind of the gold standard here aside from Xtol -- replenisher plus starter to make a new tank solution, and in LORR format, 25-35 ml per roll depending on exact format and emulsion type, capable of running for multiple years and tens thousands of rolls in a 5L solution batch).

The X-Tol instructions describe how to use a variety of different starters, as follows:
You can also “pre-season” fresh XTOL Developer
by adding one of the following:
• 6.5 mL of KODAK Developer Starting Solution
(CAT 146 6382) per litre of developer
• 1 mL of KODAK EKTACHROME R-3 First Developer II
Starter (CAT 869 9795 [U.S. and Australia] or
CAT 524 0007 [Europe]) per litre of XTOL Developer
• 1.2 mL of KODAK PROFESSIONAL First Developer
Starter, Process E-6 (CAT 167 1577 [U.S.] or CAT
526 2670 [Europe and Asia]) per litre of developer

 

[Paul Howell]

Photographers formulary no longer lists 777 on their web site, I do see some old stock for sale on various sites. As I recall there was some debate over PF version of 777 was really 777 or not. Bluegrass Packing Industries was the last known producer to have the original formula and as I recall they were unable to get some of the ingredients, last made at least 10 years ago. Last I bought was from the Frugal Photographer well over 10 years ago, he said his was Bluegrass, turned I thought it to be too soft. Have you thought of Edwal 12. I used Edwal 12 for several years, although not a compensating developer it worked well in the desert, although lighting is quite bright it is flat, so much reflected sunlight. Fine grain but sharp as well. I switched from Edwal 12 to MCM 100.

From PF's Edwal 12 data sheet, I replaced developer lost during processing after the first 3 roll.


CAPACITY AND DEVELOPMENT TIMES The capacity of the developer depends upon the method of use. The most economical method for use is a replenishment procedure, the description for which is given below. The development times also depend upon the method by which the developer is used. The fresh developer is more active than the partially spent developer. When using replenishment, a shorter development time is used for the first roll of film, but all subsequent rolls are developed using a longer time. The development times given below are only suggested starting values. Your exact time may vary depending upon your agitation technique and contrast requirements. Working Solution Development Time Film Type First Roll Subsequent Rolls Plus X 5-7 minutes 7-9 minutes Tri X 6-9 minutes 8-11 minutes HP 4 6-9 minutes 8-11 minutes Using a 500 ml stainless steel developing tank, the following replenishment procedure should be followed. Use 500 ml of the working solution as the active developer and set aside 500 (or 1500) ml of the working solution as the replenisher. Do not mix the active working solution and the replenisher except as described below. Roll number 1-3: Use the “First Roll” recommended development time for the initial roll of film, and the “Subsequent Roll” time for the next two rolls. No replenishment is necessary.

 

[removed account4]

Hi Paul
I think the PF version of 777 is from the Fred de Van, article Ed Buffalo did back in the day ? That's what I heard..
https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Harvey/harvey.html
I remember having a conversation with the lady who mixes it at Bluegrass and she laughed and said
"there's a lot of chat online about this stuff and they are waaaaaay off" (paraphrase)
There was a guy here on this site compiling a book(?) of formulas years ago, his avatar was a chimp holding a human skull I think
anyways he seemed to think he figured out what the composition of the developer was too, it wasn't the unblinking eye recipe but
had something to do with heating up the chemicals don't quote me on that, cause I don't completely remember. ...

anyhow, I'm guessing that if someone was interested in making their own Germain/PF/UBE 777 they can get the chems.
The Edwals recipe are in the article too .. as well as a replenishment table for the Germans et al. / 777 recipe ...

YMMVFTSITUCDW

 

[MattKing]

The real 777 used a special kind of water. I’m not at liberty to discuss this further. I may have already said too much.

Were the Knights Templar involved?

 

[Paul Howell]

No I think the Knights Templar were behind Edwal 20.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I understand. And this is ALMOST how a proper replenished system should work. The seasoning brings byproducts to the aim concentration. But prior to that it would also be necessary to dilute the developer slightly, to lower the developing agent concentration to what will become the equilibrium concentration. Then it could immediately be brought into a stable condition, with developing agent and byproducts at some nominal equilibrium concentration. But the downside is that it is not the same as single-use Xtol. A different animal, so to speak.

In my view a self-replenished system is really something of an uphill battle. I think a better design goal would be to select some sort of developing solution to start with, and the design should include some concentration of development byproducts. The point of having them in there is so that you could control them via dilution with replenisher. This would determine the required rate for the replenisher. Then it would be a matter of finding what concentration of developing agent is needed, at that replenishment rate, to balance out the avarage amount of developing agent consumed. I'm not saying that this is easy to do, just that this is probably a better-controlled approach. Of course there are other things going on, such as some amount of evaporation as well as developing agent being oxidized by the air. Plus the need to keep preservatives at a steady level, and a controlled pH level.

Do not over think the problem: Add 70ml/roll stock XTOL and then pour the used replenished XTOL is full. Tightly cap the bottle and discard the rest. The XTOL is highly trained so you do not have to worry about diluting out part of the solution. It works while you sleep soundly at night.

 

[Bazza D]

XT-3 is at least as good if not better, but not yet easy to get in the US. Ideally

Was looking through Freestyle's website today and they have XT3 in stock, listed as new.

 

[mshchem]

Was looking through Freestyle's website today and they have XT3 in stock, listed as new.

Yep, I got XT-3 and 2 bottles of Adox FX-39 II . Adox has nice packaging, dust control. I like it.

 

[Mr Bill]

Do not over think the problem: Add 70ml/roll stock XTOL and then pour the used replenished XTOL is full. Tightly cap the bottle and discard the rest. The XTOL is highly trained so you do not have to worry about diluting out part of the solution. It works while you sleep soundly at night.

Where I come from these ideas about replenished systems are mostly old hat - doesn't take too much extra thinking.

Let me make a brief comparison between replenished Xtol vs the C-41 color process. You described the Xtol routine - 70 ml fresh Xtol added per "roll." Discard the extra volume. (I'm guessing the discard at about 60 ml per roll - the addition minus the carryout by wet film.)

With C-41 developer you can use the LORR replenisher, running about 25 ml per roll. Roughly 1/3 the rate that Xtol needs. The volume to be discarded, after subtracting the (same) carryout volume, is about 15 ml per roll (compared to 60 ml for Xtol).

C-41 developer has another characteristic. The design "activity" does not fall off in replenished use. When one mixes up a fresh batch of developer, say for single use then discard, it produces a certain specific level of activity (per control strip tests). If, instead of throwing it away, you decide to begin replenishing, it can continue running exactly as is, no loss of activity. Even though the replenishment rate is only about 1/3 of Xtol's.

C-41 developer has two big downsides. First, the thing that makes replenishment so effective also makes it touchy - you have to keep an eye on things, and make small adjustments to the replenishment rate over time. Second, these color developers necessarily have only a low concentration of preservatives. Consequently they are very touchy with respect to being aerated. Kodak recommends to NOT reuse C-41 developer in a rotary processor, so users of these machines don't have the option of reducing their developer cost by a factor of 5 or 10 times, whatever it actually is, as a result of replenishment.

Now, C-41 developer behaves this way because it is what I would call a well-designed replenished system that works effectively. Whereas, in my view, a self-replenished system is a bit like driving a car with the brakes on. I'm guessing that replenished Xtol is successful mainly because the developing agent is relatively insensitive to bromide ion, etc., a primary thing released by developed film.

Now, if one runs small enough volumes of the chems that the cost is insignificant to them, it doesn't really matter much what they do. So it maybe looks like overthinking? My own background, once I moved into photo finishing work, has been in high volume processing. So this sort of thing is a big deal. We could drastically reduce chemical costs, as well as effluent loads.