Developer volume - Anchell's view

[Ian David]

Anyone have any thoughts on Steve Anchell's view that, if you want maximum negative quality, you should not go below 250ml of (full strength) developer per roll of film? This would mean that, if using say XTOL or D76 at 1:1, you should not use less than 500ml of solution for a single roll of 35mm. (Anchell suggests that this is a bare minimum and that 350ml or even 500ml (full strength) per roll would be better...)

Anchell, The Darkroom Cookbook (3rd ed, p.40-41).

Ian

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I use 150 ml per roll on a regular basis and have used half that without any ill effects. But then again, that's how I chose to test my film development. Consistency is key!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Does he offer any evidence to support that claim?

PE

 

[Ian David]

Hi Ron

Anchell actually does refer to some Kodak Research Lab research (re Versamat machine processing) on p.40 (but does not give a reference). He then says:

"Kodak's final conclusion was that while 150.0ml could develop 80 square inches of film, far better results would be obtained by using a minimum of 250.0ml of undiluted developer."

Anchell draws a distinction between 'minimal development' and 'full development'. He suggests that 'it is not possible to use too much developer, and more is always better'.

Ian

 

[nworth]

My experience has been similar to Anchell's. You can often get good results with less, but not consistently. A lot may depend on the circumstances, equipment, developer, and technique, but I have had some bad experiences with low volume. Bad things particularly seem to happen with dilute solutions. I've learned to use plenty of developer, and 250 ml seems to be about the minimum for good results with rolls (and sheets in a drum). One exception is the tiny Minox rolls in the tiny Minox tank. Developer is cheap - why skimp?

 

[Ian David]

Developer is cheap - why skimp?

The question is at what point you really are skimping. Why don't you use 1 litre per roll?

 

[Photo Engineer]

The question is at what point you really are skimping. Why don't you use 1 litre per roll?

That is basically my problem as well. Where is the cutoff and without one from the Mfgr. what do we really use?

There are single 35mm SS tanks, and I doubt if they take much over 150 ml of developer. Why were they made if they are too small for some development conditions.

I am not disagreeing with Steve. I am merely asking how we are to establish boundaries for different developers. How about Rodinal or HC110 dilution H?

PE

 

[Ian David]

Ilford ID-11 packaging says that 5litres will process 50 rolls of 135-36. That suggests that 100ml (of full strength) is sufficient per roll. But Anchell seems to be suggesting that the manufacturers advice', and what will actually give optimum results, may be two quite different things.

This isn't keeping me awake at night, but I was just reading this bit of Anchell again this morning and wondered...

Ian

 

[srs5694]

Any such cutoff would certainly vary from one developer to another. I find it hard to believe you'd really need a 12.75-liter tank to develop a single roll of film in Rodinal at 1:50 dilution (250ml of stock plus 12.5l of water).

 

[Ronald Moravec]

I have been using 125ml +125ml water for a single roll for 50 years, snow and water included. Not a single problem with thousands of rolls.

Be sure your D76 is less than 6 months old and stored in FULL bottles and you will not have a problem.

 

[frednewman]

Hi iandavid

Usually 8 oz (250ml) per roll of 35mm - 36 exposure should be enough. When I processed 35mm film in my Jobo I would use 8 oz per roll of film. D76 or Ilford ID-11 8 oz diluted 1+1 should be fine.

The developer I've been using is Ilford's DDX diluter 1+9 and at 8 oz per roll. I've done BTZS film tests at that dilution and if there was not enough quantity of developer, I would have seen it in the film test. It all depends on the developer and the dilution and a film test would show if there was a problem.

Basically the rule I follow is 2 oz of developer for 1 sheet of 4x5 film and 8 oz of developer for a sheet of 8x10 film (in our BTZS film developing tubes). So one roll of 35mm film is about 8x10 in area so 8 oz of developer should be fine.

I don't know where all that information comes from either.

Fred Newman

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I use replenished Xtol. Each roll of film gets 70-80ml of fresh chemistry in a 2liter working solution.

There's some good economy in that with absolutely wonderful results.

I always go by empirical evidence. If a certain process works repeatably and reliably - it works, regardless of what others say.

- Thomas

 

[ic-racer]

Its not hard to test. Just fog a piece of sheet film with an even exposure to light and process it. My experience (Jobo rotary, T-max developer, 24C) is that as the developer exhausts more during the process, the center of the sheet gets less development (edges will seem 'over developed'). The capacity information for single-shot T-max developer is a little ambiguous in the Kodak pdf, thus the need to test.

 

[Chris Douglas]

Using Anchell's Advise

I used to try to use 125 ml D76 and 125 ml water but my negs. came out flat and I had to add additional time to get the contrast I wanted. After using Anchell's recomendations, the times in the master humongous developing chart work fine. No right or wrong about it, it just works.

 

[Robert Budding]

I go with the manufacturers recommendation on the amount of stock solution needed per roll. So far, so good.

 

[Arvee]

I used to try to use 125 ml D76 and 125 ml water but my negs. came out flat and I had to add additional time to get the contrast I wanted. After using Anchell's recomendations, the times in the master humongous developing chart work fine. No right or wrong about it, it just works.

Same problem here. I think water quality may have a great deal to do with the variations we are reading about here.

 

[pentaxuser]

I don't have his book to do a check but I am amazed that if he is being quoted accurately that Steve Anchell has made a simple catch-all statement that 250mls of stock solution is required irrespective of what developer this is. On this basis Rodinal at 1:50 in a Jobo 250mls tank requires over 12 litres of solution??? The best part of 3 imperial gallons and probably over 3 U.S. gallons

While Rodinal is very high dilution , even devs at 1+4( like DDX) would require massive tanks which were never made for 35mm rolls. So it seems to me that if (and it might be a big "IF") Steve Anchell has made such an unqualified statement it undermines his credibility as the author of the "Darkroom Cookbook"

Does he post here? If not it might be worth his while to do so. That way we may know exactly what he is saying and in what context.

pentaxuser

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Anyone have any thoughts on Steve Anchell's view that, if you want maximum negative quality, you should not go below 250ml of (full strength)

Anchell, The Darkroom Cookbook (3rd ed, p.40-41).

Ian

When Anchell's book first came out several people found similar questionable statements. The first edition contained more errors than I thought acceptable. I find his extension of a Kodak study of the Versamat processor to manual processing not very convincing. If you have been developing your film for awhile I wouldn't change my methods.

 

[Ian David]

I don't have his book to do a check but I am amazed that if he is being quoted accurately that Steve Anchell has made a simple catch-all statement that 250mls of stock solution is required irrespective of what developer this is. On this basis Rodinal at 1:50 in a Jobo 250mls tank requires over 12 litres of solution??? The best part of 3 imperial gallons and probably over 3 U.S. gallons

While Rodinal is very high dilution , even devs at 1+4( like DDX) would require massive tanks which were never made for 35mm rolls. So it seems to me that if (and it might be a big "IF") Steve Anchell has made such an unqualified statement it undermines his credibility as the author of the "Darkroom Cookbook"

Does he post here? If not it might be worth his while to do so. That way we may know exactly what he is saying and in what context.

pentaxuser

To the extent that I have quoted Anchell, I have done so accurately. Obviously, Anchell did not intend his observations to apply to undiluted Rodinal. And in respect of DD-X, he essentially suggests that DD-X diluted 1:4 should be regarded as the stock solution as that is the way it is meant to be used. Anchell's comments do, however, apply expressly to D-76.

I am interested if your experience is consistent with Anchell's comments, or if it is not. But I did not start this thread as an attack on Anchell's credibility - so let's not make it one.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

I am interested if your experience is consistent with Anchell's comments, or if it is not. But I did not start this thread as an attack on Anchell's credibility - so let's not make it one.

Ian

There are issues when a a low volume of developer is used too dilute and becomes exhausted during the development process. It's why many people get poor results diluting ID-11/D76 1+3 and Kodak stopped recommending diluting Xtol 1+3. Very flat tonality with poor highlights.

A typical example is ID-11/D76 at 1+3 in a small developing tank, holding 250 - 300ml per film, so taking the 300ml example that contains 75ml of stock solution, and so 0.15g Metol & 0.375g Hydroquinone.

We know from research into replenishment of developers that developing 12 rolls of film converts Silver halide to give approx 1 gm of Silver.

This uses up:
0.5 gm. Hydroquinone
1.6 gm. Metol
0.9 gm. Borax (cryst.)
0.6 gm. Sodium sulphite (anhyd.)

and liberates 1.2 gm. Potassium bromide (or sodium equivalent)

In terms of one film, it means in 300ml ID-11/D76 at 1+3:

Metol 0.15g in 75 ml stock developer, but to develop properly needs 0.13 g
Hydroquinone 0.375 (in dev) 0.04g needed so excess present.
Borax and Sulphite excess present.

So the Metol the limiting factor, there needs to be excess, which is why Kodak and Anchell recommend a minimum volume of stock solution. To little developing agent means that development is curtailed particularly in the highlights as the developer becomes exhausted.

This is also why Agfa recommended a minimum volume of Rodinal concentrate per film.

Ian

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... I am interested if your experience is consistent with Anchell's comments, or if it is not. ...

My experience does not reflect Anchell's statement about D76. I use as little as 75 ml of stock solution per roll without a problem. I recommend to test and develop film under the same conditions, and you won't have a problem with D76 unless it's old.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ian

This is a great explanation. Did I understand this right, 75 ml stock is the minimum for D76?

 

[Ian Grant]

No 75ml is below the minimum because there's insufficient excess Metol.

But in a rotary processor with continuous agitation you probably just get away with it.

Ian

 

[RalphLambrecht]

No 75ml is below the minimum because there's insufficient excess Metol.

But in a rotary processor with continuous agitation you probably just get away with it.

Ian

Ian

I didn't understand your calculation then.

'Metol 0.15g in 75 ml stock developer, but to develop properly needs 0.13 g'

Can you explain again, please.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian

I didn't understand your calculation then.

'Metol 0.15g in 75 ml stock developer, but to develop properly needs 0.13 g'

Can you explain again, please.

As the developer becomes exhausted the amount of Metol drops significantly, this has a greater effect on the highlights which will be compressed. Less exhausted developer that's already been absorbed by the film in the highlight areas will allow them to continue developing slightly faster than the highlights.

The dilution will play a part as well 150ml of 75mm stock at 1+1 is better than 300ml of 75ml stock at 1+3

So 75ml stock per film is close to the borderline and well below Kodak's recommendations, rotary processing may just tip the balance slightly in your favour because of the constant agitation. But if it works for you then you are taking into account the effects anyway.

Ian