dektol and lemon juice

[rx7speed]

ok might sound dumb with this and that's fine cause as far as I'm looking at it is I'm playing with magic when developing prints and what person when a kid didn't want to play with magic plus I'm fairly new to this so I hope it's excusable.

most of my negatives have been comming out fairly thin and while I do need to address that issue as well I noticed it was making for some very short development times. usually around 5 seconds exposure give or take with about 30 seconds to get the print at the standard 1:2 dilution with dektol so I was trying to figure out a way to get it to take a little longer to develop to get things to be easier to get right. with what little I know about this stuff is developers are alkaline and so why not add an acid to help slow things down and so just took a good squirt of lemon juice and put it in the developing tray. it did help with my inteded task of slowing down development but as a side effect I've noticed that my prints are comming out with a warm tone now. so far this has been quite welcome but I'm curious as to why it's happening? is there anything that can be done to get a cooler tone to the print instead using the same developer if I chose to?

I'm cheap and so it's easier to stick with dektol right now as it's the only thing that is available locally and I want to try to stay away from internet ordering if I can.

so any ideas as to why the lemon juice does this though?

 

[Anon Ymous]

Basically, you've weakened your developer by reducing it's pH. Have a look (there was a url link here which no longer exists) for more information and next time dilute more, don't add juice.

 

[rx7speed]

even with dilution it didn't seem to get the same warm tone. though I might of been overdiluting as well. tried around 50ml of developer and around 500ml of water and wasn't able to get that same tone, even tried upping it with another 500ml of water and still same thing. little warmer but not quite as much as with the juice. the moment I put a squirt of juice in though the results changed to a warmer tone.

is there something else the juice might be doing?

also why would it be a bad idea to add the juice?

 

[pgomena]

You have several things going on here.

First, if your negatives are thin, you have underexposed and/or underdeveloped them. I would suspect you have underexposed them.

This creates the problem of having to make a very short exposure on the printing paper and shortening the developing time to get an image that doesn't disappear into black.

Then your are adding an acid to a solution that must be basic to work. You are in effect neutralizing the developer. Exactly why this is giving you a warmer-toned image, I can't say, but exhausted or contaminated developer will behave in odd ways. It also will not give you a good black or good image contrast in your print.

Darkroom work is magic, but it's calculated magic! Randomly mixing chemicals in any laboratory is a bad idea. Most darkroom chemicals aren't immediately toxic, but you can create hazards if you don't follow directions and use good laboratory technique. I would read some basic photography texts before wasting time and money in the dark.

Peter Gomena

 

[Mark Fisher]

The juice probably contains some ascorbic acid which is a developer in its own right. I suspect lowering the pH will have more affect than the ascorbic acid, but a simple experiment will answer the question. Try lowering the pH a similar amount by adding acetic acid and see whether you get the same result. If lemon juice gives you results you like, I'd say use it.

 

[Anon Ymous]

I don't find it a good idea to add foodstuff to photographic chemicals. Mustard toned prints anyone?

Anyway, if you feel that the result is so nice, try adding a bit of citric acid instead, that might have the same effect.

 

[Anon Ymous]

The juice probably contains some ascorbic acid which is a developer in its own right...

... But it's only some mg, so I'd say it can't make a difference.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

You are going about this the wrong way.

You always develop paper to completion - that's 2 minutes for RC and 3 minutes for FB with fresh developer. These times double with old (dark yellow) developer.

If your printing times are too short to allow dodging and burning then you need to do one or more of the following:

1. Stop down the lens, stopping down past f11 will decrease sharpness but this won't be much of an issue with 5x7 and smaller prints;
2. Use a lower wattage lamp in the enlarger;
3. Use a neutral density filter in the filter drawer or dial in ND if you use a color head.

ND filters are expensive, but Rosco Cinegel filter material works just as well and is several hundred times cheaper. #3402 (No.3) reduces light one stop, #3403 (No.6) reduces light 2 stops, #3404 (No.9) reduces light 3 stops. Available from B&H and the usual group of vendors. About $7 for a 20x24" sheet.

If you aren't dodging or burning then 5 seconds isn't too short of an exposure time.

 

[George Collier]

Ditto Nicholas' comments. The warm tone of the prints is in part due to incomplete development (the rest the juice), unless it's a warm tone paper - you don't mention the paper.
Go for 2 minutes - density of the print (and the film, for that matter) is controlled by exposure. Read up on Zone System, you don't have to use it, but it will give you an idea of how emulsions and developers work.

 

[rx7speed]

Nicholas Lindan the lens was stopped down to f8, tried f11 and made a little change but not much. would rather not stop down more as I'm doing this with 8x10 prints. I am using RC paper as well right now. would prefer not to use ND filters if I don't have to though might end up switching to a lower wattage light as honestly I'm not sure what wattage currently is even in there.

why is it so important to develop for 2 minutes and set in stone for RC paper? so far from what I'm seeing (though granted limited experience) but using both exposure and time for development can be used to adjust the contrast of the final print with shorter exposure longer dev giving a bit more contrast.

I don't find it a good idea to add foodstuff to photographic chemicals. Mustard toned prints anyone?

Anyway, if you feel that the result is so nice, try adding a bit of citric acid instead, that might have the same effect.

lol I don't plan on using mustard anytime soon though I do honestly like the way the lemon juice print came out other then teh nice scratch I have on it and the OOF job I did with the camera... whoops.
not sure where I can find citric acid honestly and those little plastic lemon shaped bottles of lemon juice seem to be working and are cheap enough already

You have several things going on here.

First, if your negatives are thin, you have underexposed and/or underdeveloped them. I would suspect you have underexposed them.

This creates the problem of having to make a very short exposure on the printing paper and shortening the developing time to get an image that doesn't disappear into black.

Then your are adding an acid to a solution that must be basic to work. You are in effect neutralizing the developer. Exactly why this is giving you a warmer-toned image, I can't say, but exhausted or contaminated developer will behave in odd ways. It also will not give you a good black or good image contrast in your print.

Darkroom work is magic, but it's calculated magic! Randomly mixing chemicals in any laboratory is a bad idea. Most darkroom chemicals aren't immediately toxic, but you can create hazards if you don't follow directions and use good laboratory technique. I would read some basic photography texts before wasting time and money in the dark.

Peter Gomena

I would guess they are underexposed as well. times and temps I used were followed from the massive dev chart and so far every roll has come out the same from tmax exposed at 400 to tri-x exposed between 1600-3200. just thin ick and not very contrasty. I will be addressing that situation on the next couple rolls of film with either adjusting the dev time or moving the EI down a bit to see which gives the results I prefer. I can still get some good black out of the prints though it takes a while to get to that point. though I have found if I give too much juice mixed with way too much dilution that it gives up the ghost and tends to under develop. if I stay away from there though it seems to do ok and yet still have a bit of warmth. try it sometime if your bored the stuff is cheap enough as is dektol.

George Collier I don't know how much the zone system would of helped in this though. granted as I'm sure has been clear I'm new to this but it seems every single frame from teh last couple rolls have been thin so at this time I'm believing the metering of the camera is off. either that or the times on massive dev chart are not long enough. hell one of the rolls I even agitated the crap out of it (10 seconds every 30 seconds for full dev time) trying to get a little contrast out f it and still came out slightly thin.

I'm not using a warm tone paper but rather old somehow not fogged though sadly exposed on the edge for the first 1" or so kodak polymax RC paper or some neutral toned promaster RC paper. both show the same results. somehow I have even been able to get a slightly cold toned image with the kodak paper though I do believe that was (yes you can laugh) when I added a smidge of baking soda to the mixture. sadly I haven't been the greatest at note keeping but I can try some more experimenting when I do some more prints when I get my hands on some more fixer hopefully tonight. then I can give what I did and the results from this. to me so far though I'm having fun with it and while granted not all the prints are comming out to my liking some so far have. as for developer I only have dektol and d76 of which both seem to show that warm tone as well when beign mixed with lemon juice.




sorry if this seems a mess I'm at work and has taken me couple hours to type this up between calls and so it might be slightly unorganized but I hope the what I'm trying to say at least makes sense even if it isn't quite right.
thank you all for the info though.

 

[Anon Ymous]

...why is it so important to develop for 2 minutes and set in stone for RC paper? so far from what I'm seeing (though granted limited experience) but using both exposure and time for development can be used to adjust the contrast of the final print with shorter exposure longer dev giving a bit more contrast.

It's far more likely to get good blacks with adequate development (good blacks) and repeatable results. You can adjust contrast with variable contrast filters and variable contrast paper. The techniques you mentioned are better suited to graded paper. Anyway, adequate development depends on the developer and dilution used. In any case, don't fall under 1'.

...not sure where I can find citric acid honestly and those little plastic lemon shaped bottles of lemon juice seem to be working and are cheap enough already

Probably at the super market, where you can also find washing soda.

I would guess they are underexposed as well. times and temps I used were followed from the massive dev chart and so far every roll has come out the same from tmax exposed at 400 to tri-x exposed between 1600-3200. just thin ick and not very contrasty. I will be addressing that situation on the next couple rolls of film with either adjusting the dev time or moving the EI down a bit to see which gives the results I prefer.

There's nothing wrong per se with the massive dev chart, it's ok to use it for cases where you have no way to get a starting point for a film/developer combination. That said, it's better to read the manufacturer's data:

Tri-X datasheet - Tmax400 datasheet

Don't use development times found in D76's datasheet, it's an old publication and films have changed since then. I've used both of these films with the times listed at the pdfs and the results are ok. As Nicholas said exposing at EI 200 will give you fine results. I've done so and developed for -20% as Kodak hints; great results if you don't mind losing a stop.

George Collier I don't know how much the zone system would of helped in this though. granted as I'm sure has been clear I'm new to this but it seems every single frame from teh last couple rolls have been thin so at this time I'm believing the metering of the camera is off. either that or the times on massive dev chart are not long enough. hell one of the rolls I even agitated the crap out of it (10 seconds every 30 seconds for full dev time) trying to get a little contrast out f it and still came out slightly thin.

Check the development times listed previously at pdf files and be sure that the developer's temperature is correct. And while your meter might be off, your developer might also be old and not as potent. What does it look like, clear? How old is it?

I'm not using a warm tone paper but rather old somehow not fogged though sadly exposed on the edge for the first 1" or so kodak polymax RC paper or some neutral toned promaster RC paper. both show the same results. somehow I have even been able to get a slightly cold toned image with the kodak paper though I do believe that was (yes you can laugh) when I added a smidge of baking soda to the mixture.

I wouldn't laugh, far from it. Baking soda is mildly alkaline and it's normal to get colder tones when adding some of it. It raises the pH of the developer. Dektol (AKA D72) uses sodium carbonate (washing soda). If you add some more, you'll get colder tones and more contrast.

One more thing: Make contact prints of your films to get an idea of what's happening. Don't try to make shots look good, instead expose the sheet for the minimum time to get maximum black from clear film base and use a reasonable contrast grade like #2.

 

[rx7speed]

It's far more likely to get good blacks with adequate development (good blacks) and repeatable results. You can adjust contrast with variable contrast filters and variable contrast paper. The techniques you mentioned are better suited to graded paper. Anyway, adequate development depends on the developer and dilution used. In any case, don't fall under 1'.

that is one thing for some reason my mind hasn't been willing to cooperate with me on is the steady dev times. so far I've been plucking by sight rather then a set time. I do have VC paper though and filters so might as well try to use them a little more to their fullest. it just seems not right though to me to do it that way. but I do agree will atleast be more repeatable then plucking by sight everytime.

Probably at the super market, where you can also find washing soda.

they don't carry washing soda around here. I've been trying to find it but no go.

There's nothing wrong per se with the massive dev chart, it's ok to use it for cases where you have no way to get a starting point for a film/developer combination. That said, it's better to read the manufacturer's data:

Tri-X datasheet - Tmax400 datasheet

Don't use development times found in D76's datasheet, it's an old publication and films have changed since then. I've used both of these films with the times listed at the pdfs and the results are ok. As Nicholas said exposing at EI 200 will give you fine results. I've done so and developed for -20% as Kodak hints; great results if you don't mind losing a stop.



Check the development times listed previously at pdf files and be sure that the developer's temperature is correct. And while your meter might be off, your developer might also be old and not as potent. What does it look like, clear? How old is it?

thank you for bringing up the kodak charts directly. I forgot all about them for some reason. will work on the negs a bit more to get that problem solved a little more before I waste too much more paper on printing. still need to get some and developer that I want to use long term.

the dev was mixed up the day before use so it should of been fresh unless the powder itself was aged. this was both with the dektol and the d76. all looked clear as can be. though the dektol when mixed up seems to have a slight brown tint to it even fresh. temps were right on at least according to my thermometer that I used. though Im' sure I could of checked with two thermometers to make sure. most the gear I have I bought second hand and who knows how many hands it's been through before that and so I can verify if all of it is perfect or not or how accurate it is.

at times wouldn't mind the loss of a stop but a lot of times so far I've been using the camera to take pictures of my kid indoors. 1600-3200 is about what I need to do so though. might just have to not use the film camera for that though and use my digital instead. atleast there I have a working flash

I wouldn't laugh, far from it. Baking soda is mildly alkaline and it's normal to get colder tones when adding some of it. It raises the pH of the developer. Dektol (AKA D72) uses sodium carbonate (washing soda). If you add some more, you'll get colder tones and more contrast.

One more thing: Make contact prints of your films to get an idea of what's happening. Don't try to make shots look good, instead expose the sheet for the minimum time to get maximum black from clear film base and use a reasonable contrast grade like #2.

what is the idea behind the contact prints when using 35mm?

also some other info. last night I was going to scan some of the prints to show examples. it's gone though. I've had lying around and haven't looked at them for a bit and the warm tone from the juice is gone. so whatever it is doing it is short term and not going to last so now I'm really curious as to what is going on with that and why it can't stay. it wasn't overpowering just a slight tint taht was enough to be noticable but now it's just straight black/white.

 

[Anon Ymous]

that is one thing for some reason my mind hasn't been willing to cooperate with me on is the steady dev times. so far I've been plucking by sight rather then a set time. I do have VC paper though and filters so might as well try to use them a little more to their fullest. it just seems not right though to me to do it that way. but I do agree will atleast be more repeatable then plucking by sight everytime.

A constant, adequate development time will ensure good results. From some point on, the print won't change much; development is not going to keep at the same pace. So, just use a development time that will be enough and develop to completion. Don't try to "snatch" the print when it "looks" good, alter exposure time instead.

what is the idea behind the contact prints when using 35mm?

also some other info. last night I was going to scan some of the prints to show examples. it's gone though. I've had lying around and haven't looked at them for a bit and the warm tone from the juice is gone. so whatever it is doing it is short term and not going to last so now I'm really curious as to what is going on with that and why it can't stay. it wasn't overpowering just a slight tint taht was enough to be noticable but now it's just straight black/white.

Contact prints done the way I explained earlier are a good way to assess negatives' quality and show you what has gone wrong. Since you mentioned push processing previously, I don't get thin negatives when I do so and I get reasonable contacts. Obviously, some shadow detail is lost, but that's something that would happen anyway. Midtones and highlights are ok.

Regarding the print tone, different light sources can make print tone look different. Did you check under the same lights?

 

[rx7speed]

same lights same location in the house. the color is just gone for some reason. kind of a shame too as I liked it more that way.

 

[Ian Grant]

Not as stupid as it sounds Lemon juice is mainly Citric acid, and some fine grain film developers and warm tone print developers contain Citric acid. Warm tone print developers work by increasing the fineness of the paper emulsions grain.

Kodak used Citric acid in a few developer formulae including the liquid version of Microdol-X.

Ian

 

[BetterSense]

I routinely print at f/16 for exposure times of 10s on 5x7. I don't worry about diffraction effects on the enlarger, even at 11x14, because I haven't seen any. Does anyone have any theoretical justification for avoiding small apertures?

 

[edtbjon]

It seems like you at least have some basic knowledge about chemistry, which is good when starting out in a darkroom. Also it's not a bad thing to be willing to experiment, but everything has a "good time" to do it. What Anon Ymous and others are trying to point out is that you have to nail the basics before starting to experiment. That is finding good standards which will give you a nice "standard" print with good contrasts and all that. You should also be able to repeat this process without any effort. When you've found a good standard way of working, you have a good foundation from which you can experiment.
This may sound a bit "boring", but it's well worth the effort.

About "developing to competion": This is just about the only way to ensure that you does get the contrast and the deep blacks in the prints from session to session. Photographic paper is made to be developed to completion. The times mentioned earlier are "minimum times". If the developer is getting a bit old and/or is well used, you may have to extend those times by up to 50%. (But it's better to replace old developer with some fresh soup.) Try this for yourself, i.e. after you've found the correct exposure time from a good negative, try developing for e.g. 2, 3 and 4 minutes and maybe even longer. Note on the back what time each print is developed and then check the dried prints in normal room lights. (The prints doesn't have to be big, but of course you should do your best with them.) Especially some of the (former) easten Europe papers does develop quite slowly, so you should test how different papers behave in the developer too.

While printing a negative can be a very "creative" process, the development of the negatives should be very "mechanical". I.e. it's very important that you repeat the processing time, temperature, agitation scheme etc. as closely as possible. If you need more contrast, increase the time and nothing else. Less contrast ... less time. The advice above about exposing a 400ISO film at 200 and to underdevelop it slightly is good advice. (Especially if you shot it in sunny conditions.) The negatives will be very easy to print. Once you have negatives which are easy to print, you can be quite wild with your experimentation when printing, i.e. "creative printing".

Last, about the contact sheet: It's a very useable tool when learning (and for most photographers, the rest of their life). When done so that the film edge is black, you have a very good visual indication on how to continue with the printing.

//Björn

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Aer your negs thin? If you lay a neg onto a sheet of white paper with print on it (like a page from a magazine), can you read the print through the densest parts of the negs? (We don't care if you can read the print through the thinnest part of the neg, as you should ba able to do that.)

If you can read the print, then your negs are too low in overall density and we can take it from there as it's going to be an exposure or film development issue. If it is dense enough to obscure the print on the page, then it's back to a darkroom issue.

 

[gainer]

Research to be done:
What does vitamin C have to do with the reason British sailors are called "Limeys".

Could photo paper be developed in lemon juice and washing soda?

Info: white vinegar is nearly pure 5% acetic acid. Baking soda is pure sodium bicarbonate. Not all foodstuffs are bad photo chemicals.

 

[Ian Grant]

Research to be done:
What does vitamin C have to do with the reason British sailors are called "Limeys".

Scurvy They carried limes as a source of vitamin C on long voyages.

Could photo paper be developed in lemon juice and washing soda?

Try it and let us know.

Ian

 

[Anscojohn]

RX7 speed,
As you have found, there are many knowledgeable folks on this user's group. For noobies (in my opinion) too much knowledge is counter-productive. Keep it simple: key your print exposure to the minimum time it takes to get a complete black through a section of clear film between negs.

 

[Anscojohn]

Developer-incorporated RC papers can be "developed" in washing soda alone. Lemon juice would, doubtless, give better black tones, and would also prevent scurvy in your finished prints.

 

[rx7speed]

Aer your negs thin? If you lay a neg onto a sheet of white paper with print on it (like a page from a magazine), can you read the print through the densest parts of the negs? (We don't care if you can read the print through the thinnest part of the neg, as you should ba able to do that.)

If you can read the print, then your negs are too low in overall density and we can take it from there as it's going to be an exposure or film development issue. If it is dense enough to obscure the print on the page, then it's back to a darkroom issue.

oh yes negatives are thin. don't even have to try your example I already know that one

 

[dancqu]

...tried around 50ml of developer and around 500ml of water
and wasn't able to get that same tone, even tried upping it with
another 500ml of water and still same thing. little warmer but not
quite as much as with the juice. the moment I put a squirt of juice
in though the results changed to a warmer tone.

is there something else the juice might be doing? also why would
it be a bad idea to add the juice?

Diluting full strength Dektol 1:10 then 1:20? That's EXTREMELY
dilute. How long were your developing times?

Acidifying the developer will reduce it's activity. ALSO, as the
developer's ph declines the hydroquinone present will become
inactive. That will result in a loss of contrast and possibly
a shift in color.

Edwal TST is a two part contrast control developer. It works
by reducing the ph of the A part as the acidic B part is added.
The hydroquinone becomes inactive. Image tone is said to shift
from cold to warm.

Ansel Adam's version of Ansco 130 worked the other way
around for contrast control. A carbonated hydroquinone
B solution was added to the A solution. Dan

 

[rx7speed]

honestly not sure. I remember at one point it quit developing all the way through but I believe that was at 1:20 with the juice. can't say I'm shocked but then again I was having fun with it and trying to see if I do this what happens here. it did develop but it reached a point to where no more would happen no matter how much agitation I tried. at 1:10 it worked though development times took a couple minutes before the image even really started to form on there.