Develop to Completion - test dilemma

[Doc W]

Like most of us, I always try to improve my prints a little. I have wondered about development to completion for some time and I tried to do the test in Tim Rudman's book. He suggests five test strips: one is put straight into the fixer, the other four are developed for one, two, three, and four minutes and fixed. Look for the first strip showing some density over the undeveloped one and the maximum development time before fog will be somewhere between that time and the previous time.

Sounds simple enough, so I did it, using MG IV WT. I used Dektol 1:2 at 20C. The strip developed for one minute showed density. Not a lot, but it was very very slightly darker than the undeveloped strip. In fact, all the developed strips were all pretty much the same colour. I thought that perhaps that paper was a little old and maybe fogged so I opened a relatively new box and tried again. Same thing. I am baffled.

Any suggestions on where I might be going wrong? Are there other tests one can do to determine development to completion?

 

[RobC]

FB or RC ?

RC has probably reached max black after 2 minutes so the 3 and 4 minute prints won't look any different than the 2 minute print.

FB may take upto 5 minutes and you would more likely see differences.

 

[Doc W]

Fibre. Thanks, Rob. I will do the test again with Dektol 1:1 and develop longer.

 

[RobC]

It also depends on the developer being used. Ilford Multigrade developer does seem to be more active than some developers and may produce deeper blacks which is good sometimes and not so good other times. And it may work faster than some developers. So I think you have test a bit for your particular developer which could be longer than 5 minutes if its not as hard and fast working as the Ilford stuff.

 

[bernard_L]

the test in Tim Rudman's book

Which test? Which book? and, conceivably, not everyone has this book. So, could you be more specific what is on the test strip and what is te purpose of the test:
- unexposed => look for maximum dev time before chemical fogging
- fully exposed => look for minimum time for full blacks
- step tablet => both of the above, plus "fullness" of intermediate tones
- other (please specify)

Missing that info and regretably not having a copy of TBD Tim Rudman book, it's hard to help you.

 

[Ian Grant]

With warm tone papers you don't necessarily develop for maximum black that can kill the warmth. A lot depends on how warm you want your prints, slightly more dilute developer or a shorter time so just short of a maximum black and gain the density with selenium toning. So your Maximum black may in fact be a very beep dark brown.

Tests relevant for Bromide papers aren't right for chloro-bromide/bromo-chloride papers as you need to factor in the shift in image tone. Here's an example.

Ilford Warmtone paper is capable of similar warmth.

Ian

 

[Rudeofus]

Doc W, am I correct in my assumption that your test uses unexposed paper strips? If you get base fog in your developer, either your developer went berserk, or your paper is old and foggy. In both cases you should see an improvement when you add 1-2 g/l Potassium Bromide to your developer.

 

[Ian Grant]

Doc W, am I correct in my assumption that your test uses unexposed paper strips? If you get base fog in your developer, either your developer went berserk, or your paper is old and foggy. In both cases you should see an improvement when you add 1-2 g/l Potassium Bromide to your developer.

Or the safelight isn't safe.

Ian

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Or the safelight isn't safe.

Ian

+1

Repeat your test in total darkness. Do a safelight test while you're at it.

And yes, you may have old paper that is slightly fogged. I've bought "new" paper from reputable suppliers that was clearly fogged. Fortunately, they accepted it back. BTW, my test for paper fog is exactly what you're doing, but with the lights out; fix one unexposed strip, develop another for a minimum time (2 minutes for fiber-base paper) and see if there is fog. If so, then... get some fresh paper and try again.

As Rudeofus pointed out, you can use a restrainer (pot. bromide or BTA) to clear the whites if the paper is not fogged badly. Also, whites can be cleared up on fogged paper by bleaching a bit after printing with a dilute pot. ferricyanide bleach.

Let's hope it's your safelight though.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Ian Grant]

It's worth pointing out that some safelights are fine for graded papers but not safe enough for Variable contrast papers, particularly in a small darkroom.

Ian

 

[Rudeofus]

It's worth pointing out that some safelights are fine for graded papers but not safe enough for Variable contrast papers, particularly in a small darkroom.

Operating open trays with photochemistry in complete darkness is not something I would recommend to anyone except under the most special circumstances. If safelights are a concern, I'd recommend leaving a test strip out there for 5-10 minutes, then develop&fix. If this test strip turns out noticeably darker than a test strip going directly into developer&fixer, then yes, safelights do need closer attention.

 

[Ian Grant]

Operating open trays with photochemistry in complete darkness is not something I would recommend to anyone except under the most special circumstances. If safelights are a concern, I'd recommend leaving a test strip out there for 5-10 minutes, then develop&fix. If this test strip turns out noticeably darker than a test strip going directly into developer&fixer, then yes, safelights do need closer attention.

Some older orange/red safelights like the older Paterson ones weren't safe with MG papers it was necessary to buy the newer type and then the MG (902 brown equivalent) dome filter. A lot depends on darkroom size and one work around is to put the safelight on a dimmer switch.

Ian

 

[Doc W]

Which test? Which book? and, conceivably, not everyone has this book. So, could you be more specific what is on the test strip and what is te purpose of the test:
- unexposed => look for maximum dev time before chemical fogging
- fully exposed => look for minimum time for full blacks
- step tablet => both of the above, plus "fullness" of intermediate tones
- other (please specify)

Missing that info and regretably not having a copy of TBD Tim Rudman book, it's hard to help you.

The test involves unexposed strips. One is put straight into the fix. The others go the normal route of developer, stop and fix. This test seeks to establish the maximum development time before fogging.

 

[RobC]

I thought this was a question about "Develop to completion" as per the topic title and my responses were for that.

 

[pentaxuser]

Now that we fully understand the process that was used, have we answered the question? If I have understood the test correctly it suggests that even with brand new paper a fogging occurs in normal development after X minutes. So there is a max development time after which the black do not become any blacker but the paper is the print is affected by fog so in effect deteriorates

pentaxuser

 

[Doc W]

I did a test to see if it was my safelight but first, I positioned the lights so that they were much weaker. I half-covered a strip of paper (MGIV WT FB) and at 30 second intervals, I put a coin on the strip. After 12 coins, I put the strip in the developer (Dektol 1:1) for 10 minutes, then fixed and dried.

Like the test yesterday, the paper showed slight tonality over the undeveloped strip from yesterday, but there was no trace whatsoever of coin shadow. Can I conclude from this that my safelight is in fact safe? If so, then I think that the only thing for me to do at this point is to buy some absolutely fresh paper and try the first test all over again. I have a lot of paper that is 1-3 years old so I may have to look at some sort of restrainer.

 

[RobC]

safelight test is good except you should flash fog the paper first for 2 or 3 seconds so that your test is done on paper which has had the "paper inertia" used up before adding the coins.

I have my safelights set so that I get a full 20 minutes of safety if possible. Burning, dodging and playing about with masks can take some time.

But is sounds like you are doing the right things.

Also I think some papers can be fussy about developer and if your paper is 3 years old then it may have aged with a hint of fogging. All depends on particular paper and storage conditions. Best try with brand new paper to be sure.

 

[ic-racer]

Do the safelight test first.

 

[Jim Noel]

Or the safelight isn't safe.

Ian

I agree with Ian. Since most people don't buy huge quantities of paper, and paper doesn't usually fog evenly across its surface it seems less likely that is the problem.
You need to test your safelight.

 

[Doc W]

Re safelight test, use Kodak's method. Ilford's is the same.

I must admit I don't see any point whatsoever to the test described in the original post, in relation to print quality. It only tests for one specific thing, and there is no defined purpose. The test does not establish "development to completion", nor does it consider tonality at the various development times.

That raises this question: what is the point of development to completion? I know that I should not leave paper in the developer for too long, so what is too long and how do I determine what is too long?

 

[Doc W]

Testing Round 2

I am officially baffled and I am guessing that ALL of my paper must be fogged.

I discovered that my fixer was bad and I am guessing the developer was probably on the shady side as well. I mixed fresh fixer and fresh developer and put a piece of Ilford MGIV WT FB (undeveloped) into Ilford Rapid Fixer (my usual two bath fix, so 30 seconds in each bath). The paper turned a lovely shade of pale brown, not unlike the palest part of a brown egg. Oddly, it is a colour I have NEVER seen before on MGIV WT.

As for the safelight, if it were any darker in that darkroom, I would probably trip and kill myself. As it is, I can barely find the test strip in the fixer (in a white tray - I just changed that to black - lol). But I am open to suggestion. What is a good test for the safety of a safelight?

One more thing: how does one find the expiry date on Ilford paper, or any Ilford product for that matter?

 

[RobC]

Testing Round 2

I am officially baffled and I am guessing that ALL of my paper must be fogged.

I discovered that my fixer was bad and I am guessing the developer was probably on the shady side as well. I mixed fresh fixer and fresh developer and put a piece of Ilford MGIV WT FB (undeveloped) into Ilford Rapid Fixer (my usual two bath fix, so 30 seconds in each bath). The paper turned a lovely shade of pale brown, not unlike the palest part of a brown egg. Oddly, it is a colour I have NEVER seen before on MGIV WT.

As for the safelight, if it were any darker in that darkroom, I would probably trip and kill myself. As it is, I can barely find the test strip in the fixer (in a white tray - I just changed that to black - lol). But I am open to suggestion. What is a good test for the safety of a safelight?

One more thing: how does one find the expiry date on Ilford paper, or any Ilford product for that matter?

One doesn't, one finds the batch produced date. http://www.palomarkovic.net/mobile/BatchNumberDecoder/

note batch numbers get reused but I doubt your paper is old enough for that. Batch number should be on box label.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ideally your development time is long enough to get the desired maximum black or with warm tone paper the desired tones, you don't want to over develop as that shifts the mid tones and highlight. The manufacturers time is the best starting point, usually 90 seconds to 2 minutes.

Ian

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Development to completion is a somewhat confusing term. Perhaps it is best to describe the stages of print development.

1. Inertial stage - there is no visual change in the print. No detail is observed.
2. Change in density of the print becomes very rapid.
3. Change in density and contrast slows dramatically. (This point should be within the time range given by the developer manufacturer. For Dektol 1+2 this would be within 2 to 3 minutes at 68F.)
4. Over development - Developer fog becomes to be evident in border regions of the print.

It is at stage 3 that development to completion is said to occur. This method insures rich blacks and clear highlights. It avoids a common error of those new to printing. That is pulling a print before it is completely developed. This is usually done because the printer fears the print is getting too dark.

This is why it is best to watch the print and not the clock. Prints can be left in stage 3 with little change in density and contrast provided they do not slip into stage 4 resulting in fog. It will soon become second nature to determine the correct point to stop development. By using this method rather than time the temperature of the developer is compensated for. The 4 stages will still be present only the times between them will vary.

The times between the 4 stages is dependent on choice of developer and paper.

 

[Doc W]

Stop the presses!

Hexavelent, a local Apugger, came by to help and was suspicious of the results so far. He said the test strips looked like they were printing out. He suspected that the fixer was bad - the SECOND batch of fixer - so we put a piece of film in it just to check. Nothing. The film didn't budge. That fixer might as well have been gin (which I surely need about now). We then mixed up a small test batch of yet more fixer and this batch cleared the film. We threw in a few test strips from earlier today and they completely changed, almost instantly. The brown colour was gone. It was quite remarkable. I was too beat to take this any further tonight but I will continue tomorrow and post results.

Sorry for all the false starts. Live and learn. Thanks for all of the great advice. I am optimistic that this is going to work out fine tomorrow night.