Developer volume according to Anchell

[Ian Grant]

Anchell is right, Agfa and Ilford research found that once the developing agents in a diluted developer drop too low in areas where there's been a lot of development (the highlights) the developer absorbed into the emulsion gets exhausted, but they aren't in the shadows so they can keep developing. The effect is sometimes called compensating. Agfa recommended a minimum volume of Rodinal concentrate per film, regardless of the dilution to get optimal contrast and that is what Steve Anchell is alluding to.

The most comprehensive published research I've come across on exact exhaustion of a developer was done by Ilford in the 1950's, it was part of their evolution of Autophen, also known as the Axford-Kendal Fine Grain PQ developer. Essentially it's a PQ variant of D76/ID-11 and was sold to large scale photo-finishers. Unlike D76/ID-11 it didn't collapse as the Bromide built up during replenishment and one lab kept it going for years without having the restart.

That's an aside, the importance is the amount of available developing agent, so extra volume is one way of them not dropping too low. So say you use a dev 1 to 50 500ml, at 1 to 100 ideally you need 1 litre.

That exposes the reality the older days of stand development, it was done in replenished deep tanks, not highly dilute developers.

Ian

 

[bluechromis]

Okay some say that the needed volume of developer depends

150ml/l of what? 250ml/l of what? Etc. The "what" seems to me to be important. "Developer" does not equal "developer." Any given developer formulation will likely have a minimum needed to give a specified result. That may be similar for certain similar types of developers, but likely different for different types. Apples vs. oranges...

Doremus

If I understand your question about "150 of what?". Anchell and Anchell and Troop (and potentially manufacturers) are clear that what they refer to with those volumes it is a developer in its most concentrated dilution per roll of film or 80 sq. inches of film. So for D-76, it would be the volume of stock solution per roll and the same for many other developers. With developers based on a concentrated syrup like Rodinal and HC-110 though, it is usually based on an amount of concentrate per roll.

 

[markbau]

I believe that this issue came about when people started using Jobo's for film processing. A Patterson tank needs 500ml for a roll of 120, if using D 76 1:! you are good as you will have 250ml of developer and 250 ml of water. OTOH a Jobo 1520 tank says it needs 240ml, if you are using D 76 1:1 that would mean 120ml of developer. When I was developing film for other people I had a customer bring in a bag of 220 film. I was using the Jobo recommendations and the first rolls were seriously under developed (220 film has twice the film area of 120) I increased the amount of stock and the problem of underdevelopment went away. I can't comment on developers like Rodinal but I totally agree with Anchell that when using a developer like D76 you need at least 250 ml per 80 square inches of film. (1 8X10 sheet, 1 120 film, 1 35mm film) of course a 220 film needed 500ml of stock)

 

[bluechromis]

Okay let's assume we agree that there is SOME minimum volume of developer needed per dilutions to get best to get results. Perhaps we can agree there is some uncertainty about what that amount is. Anchell and Troop say that you can NEVER have too much volume of a developer. This is an important point. We know that the degree of dilution of developer can have a major effect the character of the negative. But what about the volume of developer? Does increased volume act like reduced dilution? Can one have too much volume of developer? Anchell and Troop say no. I have not seen evidence that is not correct. This implies that volume does not act in the same that dilution does. If they are right, inadequate developer volume can degrade image quality, but excess cannot. My conclusion from this is that, though is uncertain, developer is cheap and I will play it safe by using the greater volume assuming there can be no harm to image quality. Other folks may say "no, I get good results from less volumes I rather save few nickles by using less developer," but if the assumption is that the ideal volume is uncertain and you can't have too much, they are taking more chances and rolling the dice more than using larger volumes.

 

[MARTIE]

I must have used the wrong film/dev combo in my test because although I haven't made prints, the neg scans looked indistinguishable.

Developer Volume Test
After reading chapter 4 ’Film Development’ of Steve Anchell’s “The Darkroom Cookbook” 3rd edition and more specifically the sub-section on developer volume on pages 40-41

Kodak Tmax 100 in Tmax RS developer

1+4 Dil.
250+1000=1250ml
200+800 =1000ml
150+600 = 750ml
100+400 = 500ml

1+7 Dil.
65+455 = 520ml

1+9 Dil.
50+450 = 500ml

1+15 Dil.
35+525 = 560ml

FILM Kodak TMax 100 roll film exposed at 100ASA* (*EXCEPT 1:15 DILUTION AT 50ASA)
AGITATION Intermittent by hand “Continuously for the first 60 seconds then 10 seconds every minute thereafter.”
PREWASH None
DEV Kodak TMax RS developer at 24℃ on spirals in Patterson 4 (3x120 reel) size tank
STOP Ilford Ifostop 1+19 30sec
FIX Ilford Rapid Fix 1+4 5mins
WASH 15mins

 

[MattKing]

Can one have too much volume of developer?

Yes, if the much increased volume of much diluted developer results in non-uniformity.
To illustrate this with an absurdity, if you put 6 ml of HC110 in a tank with 594 ml of water, and attempt to develop one roll of film in it, it may be difficult to agitate the developer in a way that ensures uniformity.

 

[Kino]

Okay let's assume we agree that there is SOME minimum volume of developer needed per dilutions to get best to get results. Perhaps we can agree there is some uncertainty about what that amount is. Anchell and Troop say that you can NEVER have too much volume of a developer. This is an important point. We know that the degree of dilution of developer can have a major effect the character of the negative. But what about the volume of developer? Does increased volume act like reduced dilution? Can one have too much volume of developer? Anchell and Troop say no. I have not seen evidence that is not correct. This implies that volume does not act in the same that dilution does. If they are right, inadequate developer volume can degrade image quality, but excess cannot. My conclusion from this is that, though is uncertain, developer is cheap and I will play it safe by using the greater volume assuming there can be no harm to image quality. Other folks may say "no, I get good results from less volumes I rather save few nickles by using less developer," but if the assumption is that the ideal volume is uncertain and you can't have too much, they are taking more chances and rolling the dice more than using larger volumes.

I would agree with this as long as we are talking about volume of developer diluted to whatever strength you desire to use. (Which is what you basically said, I think)

 

[Kino]

See, this is how people get into trouble for no reason. Put the cookbook away.

Can't agree. It's a valuable resource as long as it's interpreted correctly, I think. You may not agree.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I believe that this issue came about when people started using Jobo's for film processing. A Patterson tank needs 500ml for a roll of 120, if using D 76 1:! you are good as you will have 250ml of developer and 250 ml of water. OTOH a Jobo 1520 tank says it needs 240ml, if you are using D 76 1:1 that would mean 120ml of developer. When I was developing film for other people I had a customer bring in a bag of 220 film. I was using the Jobo recommendations and the first rolls were seriously under developed (220 film has twice the film area of 120) I increased the amount of stock and the problem of underdevelopment went away. I can't comment on developers like Rodinal but I totally agree with Anchell that when using a developer like D76 you need at least 250 ml per 80 square inches of film. (1 8X10 sheet, 1 120 film, 1 35mm film) of course a 220 film needed 500ml of stock)

OTOH a Jobo 1520 tank says it needs 240ml ===> means that 240ml is the minimum volume of developer not the only volume, not the maximum volume, it is the minimum volume

In post #17 I stated

When I develop film I fill the tank. If the Jobo tank or drum takes 500mm that is what it takes. If it is a steel tank I fill it up. The developer goes back in its bottle to get mixed around with what was left in the bottle and everything gets mixed and diluted. The developers always seem to be happy with that so there is no need to change that practice.

If one chooses to dilute the developer, than do not be cheap about it, after all we are not using liquid gold, make sure that you supply more than the minimum. I reuse the developer either as Stock which become seasoned stock or in the replenished mode and I fill the tank. There needs to be sufficient quantity of developer to do the job so there is no gain in stinting on developer if the result is to loose the film due to underdevelopment.

 

[markbau]

Yes, if the much increased volume of much diluted developer results in non-uniformity.
To illustrate this with an absurdity, if you put 6 ml of HC110 in a tank with 594 ml of water, and attempt to develop one roll of film in it, it may be difficult to agitate the developer in a way that ensures uniformity.

Sorry Matt but your post makes no sense. The OP was simply asking if the total volume of developer mattered. I normally use 500ml of developer in a Patterson tank but I could use 1000ml or 1500ml I suppose, as long as it has at least 250ml of stock, I'm good to go. You mentioned a scenario of a highly dilute developer, if you used so little HC 110 syrup, agitation would be the least of your worries, your developer would quickly exhaust itself.

 

[Kino]

Volume of developer in specific dilution vs total liquid volume of developer solution depending upon application.

 

[markbau]

OTOH a Jobo 1520 tank says it needs 240ml ===> means that 240ml is the minimum volume of developer not the only volume, not the maximum volume, it is the minimum volume

In post #17 I stated


If one chooses to dilute the developer, than do not be cheap about it, after all we are not using liquid gold, make sure that you supply more than the minimum. I reuse the developer either as Stock which become seasoned stock or in the replenished mode and I fill the tank. There needs to be sufficient quantity of developer to do the job so there is no gain in stinting on developer if the result is to loose the film due to underdevelopment.

But that's where people started getting into trouble, by following the minimum volume written on the tank. If they look at this volume and then use a 1:1 dilution they won't have enough stock. Do you recall the flame wars in the old photo user groups about Jobo motor burnout? People were saying that if you used more than what Jobo said it would put too much strain on the motor and it would burn out. I believe that's where this whole subject started and Anchell correctly addressed it in his book. I used double the Jobo volume for years and never burnt anything out. If I recall, it was a real problem when doing E6, some of the chemicals needed much more volume than the minimum volume on the Jobo tank.

 

[Kino]

I don’t think it’s about interpretation. It’s just mostly baseless opinion and a fair amount of hyperbole, mixed with some long out of date, problematic generalizations. The section with all the old formulas (ie the cookbook part) has some historical value for scratch-mixing, but the rest of that book…

Like I said, we disagree. We can afford to disagree as long as we each get to develop film as we see fit, right?

 

[Sirius Glass]

But that's where people started getting into trouble, by following the minimum volume written on the tank. If they look at this volume and then use a 1:1 dilution they won't have enough stock. Do you recall the flame wars in the old photo user groups about Jobo motor burnout? People were saying that if you used more than what Jobo said it would put too much strain on the motor and it would burn out. I believe that's where this whole subject started and Anchell correctly addressed it in his book. I used double the Jobo volume for years and never burnt anything out. If I recall, it was a real problem when doing E6, some of the chemicals needed much more volume than the minimum volume on the Jobo tank.

I agree with you and I agree that what you state is likely where the problem probably started.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry Matt but your post makes no sense. The OP was simply asking if the total volume of developer mattered. I normally use 500ml of developer in a Patterson tank but I could use 1000ml or 1500ml I suppose, as long as it has at least 250ml of stock, I'm good to go. You mentioned a scenario of a highly dilute developer, if you used so little HC 110 syrup, agitation would be the least of your worries, your developer would quickly exhaust itself.

6 ml of HC-110 syrup is Kodak's capacity recommendation, and as such will provide the necessary amount of developer to get the job done. But if you use it at a 1 + 99 dilution, it is difficult to get all of that developer to the film. You would need to use greatly extended developing times, and an agitation scheme that is very efficient at getting fresh quantities of unused portions of that original 6 ml to the film.
Your response I think highlights a difficulty in this thread - what are we meaning when we say "developer"? Is it developer concentrate (as in HC-110), stock developer (as in D-76) or working strength developer? If we intermix the meanings, it is hard to understand the results.

 

[bluechromis]

OTOH a Jobo 1520 tank says it needs 240ml ===> means that 240ml is the minimum volume of developer not the only volume, not the maximum volume, it is the minimum volume

In post #17 I stated


If one chooses to dilute the developer, than do not be cheap about it, after all we are not using liquid gold, make sure that you supply more than the minimum. I reuse the developer either as Stock which become seasoned stock or in the replenished mode and I fill the tank. There needs to be a sufficient quantity of developer to do the job so there is no gain in stinting on developer if the result is to loose the film due to underdevelopment.

I agree with this. It is a hard thing for beginners to understand. What develops film is the actual chemicals, e.g. Metol, Ascorbate, Phenidone etc. Water does nothing to promote development. You can't think about the water. When we dilute, if we don't increase the volume of solution all we have done is add more water, but the chemistry is less and we starve the film of developing agents. The optimum amount of chemistry needed per roll is ABSOLUTE, irrespective of dilution. For example, if we need 10 ml per roll of Rodinal for 1 + 50 we still need 10 ml for 1 + 100 per roll. just with more water.

 

[Kino]

I think the confusing word here is VOLUME. Maybe amount of stock developer vs liquid volume of the tank/vessel?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I agree with this. It is a hard thing for beginners to understand. What develops film is the actual chemicals, e.g. Metol, Ascorbate, Phenidone etc. Water does nothing to promote development. You can't think about the water. When we dilute, if we don't increase the volume of solution all we have done is add more water, but the chemistry is less and we starve the film of developing agents. The optimum amount of chemistry needed per roll is ABSOLUTE, irrespective of dilution. For example, if we need 10 ml per roll of Rodinal for 1 + 50 we still need 10 ml for 1 + 100 per roll. just with more water.

Using reducto ad absurdum: Start with the opposite of your statement "Water does nothing to promote development." ==> Water is necessary for the development process. Well if water is necessary let us take that to be applied to alcoholic drinks. Instead of one shot of whiskey with a splash of water, we can save money by using more water and less whiskey. There for I will pour a bottle of whiskey into the swimming pool and everyone at the pool party will get drunk!

 

[bluechromis]

Yes, if the much increased volume of much diluted developer results in non-uniformity.
To illustrate this with an absurdity, if you put 6 ml of HC110 in a tank with 594 ml of water, and attempt to develop one roll of film in it, it may be difficult to agitate the developer in a way that ensures uniformity.

Okay Matt, but the range that we seem to be talking about is between 150 ml of full strength developer per roll and 250 ml. that Anchell and Troop claim Kodak recommends. With highly concentrated developer syrups like Rodinal and HC-110 you use the amount of concentrate, but is still the same idea and one could get the equivalence. This is a pretty constrained range. Is there really much evidence that using the higher amount would be problematic? Because I haven't seen such evidence I will play it safe and use the higher amount. Others may say there isn't clear there evidence the lower amount is a problem so I will do save a bit money. Then it gets to what is more important to you, to play it safe or to take a chance to save a few nickles.

 

[bluechromis]

Using reducto ad absurdum: Start with the opposite of your statement "Water does nothing to promote development." ==> Water is necessary for the development process. Well if water is necessary let us take that to be applied to alcoholic drinks. Instead of one shot of whiskey with a splash of water, we can save money by using more water and less whiskey. There for I will pour a bottle of whiskey into the swimming pool and everyone at the pool party will get drunk!

Ha, ha! For my optimal functioning, I prefer lower whiskey dilutions, more like 1 +1 or less. It's gritty and gives great contrast.

 

[MattKing]

1) figure out what the minimum recommended-per-roll/sheet amount is for your developer, used at the dilution you wish to use;
2) decide how many rolls you are developing and which tank you are using, and then calculate the total necessary minimum volume of working strength developer;
3) check to see how much developer the tank manufacturer recommends you use;
4) check to see what the maximum usable volume is for the tank.
Choose a volume that is between 3) and 4), as long as that volume is at least as much as the minimum calculated in 2). If the tank is too small to hold that minimum, change either the tank, the number of rolls, or the dilution.
If you use more than the minimum, it will decrease economy, but increase the comfort zone, which may help with negatives that need lots of density.
At the risk of throwing an additional variable into the question, I would point out that using replenished developers in moderately large tanks makes all these concerns nearly go away.

 

[MattKing]

Okay Matt, but the range that we seem to be talking about is between 150 ml of full strength developer per roll and 250 ml. that Anchell and Troop claim Kodak recommends.

Both sets of numbers reference particular developers. You would use different numbers for different developers. As an example, you need to use a minimum of 100 ml of stock X-Tol.

 

[bluechromis]

I think the confusing word here is VOLUME. Maybe amount of stock developer vs liquid volume of the tank/vessel?

When Anchell (and Troop) talk about the volume, they refer to a developer in it's most concentrated form such as D-76 stock and Xtol stock. That is the base volume that they say is best to have 250 ml per. roll. If one uses D-76 1 + 1 now we need to double the developer volume to 500 ml.. That is not hard to understand. Okay, with developers that come in a concentrated syrup it s different. But still, there are miminmum volumes manufacturers say are required and it is the same idea. The underlying idea in all cases is that there is an ABSOLUTE amount of full-strength developer required per roll regardless of dilution. For example, Agfa said that one should have at least 10 ml of concentrate per roll. irrespective of dilution. So 1+ 50 and 1 + 100 requires exactly the same amount of concentrate, but the 1 + 100 requires more dilution water. So you MUST have twice as much volume of 1 +100 working solution than 1 + 50. d This inherently means that as we dilute more we must increase volume or the absolute amount of developer chemistry or and we starve the film of developing agents.

 

[reddesert]

If we read the datasheet for Kodak D-76, Kodak publication J-78, https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j78.pdf , Kodak themselves say that D-76 diluted 1:1 has a minimum recommended volume of 80 square inches (one roll) in 16 oz of 1:1 working solution. Kodak says, in a small tank with 8 oz of solution per roll (like a steel tank), you should increase the developing time by 10 percent. It's at the bottom of page 2 of the Kodak datasheet. Here is a screenshot:

Obviously, this doesn't apply equally to all developers and dilutions, but yes, you can use too little developer. It is wise to read the datasheet.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ha, ha! For my optimal functioning, I prefer lower whiskey dilutions, more like 1 +1 or less. It's gritty and gives great contrast.

I am more of a Gin Martini guys, but I will imbibe Whiskey, Rye, Ouzo, Raki, ...