Developing paper in film developer?

[fingel]

This may be a dumb question, but has anyone ever tried developing paper in film developer? Not being chemically inclined, it looks like film and paper developer have many of the same ingrediants. I was thinking of trying maybe rodinal and seeing what happens. If anyone has already tried this, please let me know if I am waisting my time. Thanks.

 

[dr bob]

I have mistakenly done this. It takes a long time to get development. OTOH I have developed film in paper dev. (Dektol) intentionally for max grain and contrast. Long ago in a galaxy far away I used Kodak's Tri-Pack where the same developer was used for film and prints. I have no idea what that developer was.

 

[Robert]

Paper developer is more active [stronger] then film developer. Rodinal might be a good choice if you want to try this. But it's likely going to take a long time to develop. Or I guess you could use Rodinal stock-))) Hey try it if you like it use it.

 

[Donald Miller]

As others have related, I would think that it would be better to try a paper developer as a film developer rather then the other way around. I do use Dektol at varying dilutions for my negative masks. I use ortho lith film which is a different film then photographic film. By using Dektol at a 1-30 dilution I can arrive at a continuous tone negative from half tone film. At conventional paper dilutions with Dektol the result is a high contrast (black-white only sharp cutting mask). The results with a panchromatic continuous tone camera film may be interesting.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Back in the dim recesses of time, I read about just that - Rodinal used as a paper developer - possibly somewhere in the "History of Rodinal".
I have no idea where to start... I don't think I'd use the concentrate full strength... that is strong stuff. My guess would be 1:10 in a tray, and watch the development closely.
Paper is not a tremendous security problem - a couple of sheets at risk is not as frightening as losing an entire roll, or expensive sheets, of film.

 

[juan]

Many years ago, I bought a developing kit made by GAF/Ansco that used the same developer for both film and paper. I'm not sure what it was. When I went back to the camera store for more, the guy there recommended I use Dektol for both - at different dilutions. This was fairly common 40-years ago for photographers on very limited budgets.
Based on a thread I found on another site I tried developing Azo in Rodinal at 1:20. It worked, taking only slightly longer to develop than with Amidol. The results were far too contrasty for my taste, so I didn't really try to make a better print. I do think it would work if you tailored your negatives to the paper/developer combination.
juan

 

[fingel]

Thanks everyone. It was just an idea that poped into my head the other night. Next time I process some sheets of film, I'll throw a contact print in there and see what happens.

 

[removed account4]

hi -

i have been processing film in ansco 130 ( forumulary paper developer) for several years.
GAF used to market ansco 130 as "universal developer" and gave dilutions for film as 1:5.

i develop by inspection - 1:5 @72ishº for anywhere between 6 1/2 - 7 1/2 mins.
used to use xtol and tmax rs, and sprint film developers, i have xtol packets "in storage" just incase, but only use 130 nowadays ...

have fun!
-john

 

[gainer]

I used to use HC110 for paper, but I added some carbonate and a little sulfite if I expected to use it for a while. Proportions are not critical. I think I used dilution A and added a tablespoon of washing soda. You could use pHPlus that you get at swimming pool supply places. Nowadays, I add some ascorbic acid also.

Pat Gainer

 

[garryl]

If you really serious--
FROM-
"The Agfa Book of Photographic Formulae";1910-

Dilution was 1 to 15-20 parts water with three drops per ounce of solution of 10% Potassium Bromide. For really "delicate tone simular to Platinum" use 1 to 100 dilution. Good Luck. So far I've give this out too two other people and no one has tried it yet.

 

[juan]

This is for Rodinal? I understand today's commercial Rodinal may be different from the original formula, but I may give it a try.

I guess that means 3 drops of KBr per ounce of mixed solution - not per ounce of Rodinal?
juan

 

[Eric Rose]

As far as promoting the creative process and utilizing some "effect" using film dev instead paper dev, explain to me why I would want to do this?

 

[Ole]

As far as promoting the creative process and utilizing some "effect" using film dev instead paper dev, explain to me why I would want to do this?

Good question! Fond as I am of experimenting, I see no reason to do this? The other way around - yes...

Next time I fell really adventurous I'll try Dr. Vogel's Acidic Iron Blue Developer. That's exitement and uncertainty enough for me .

 

[blansky]

Eric:

It's done for the same reason that some people like to go scuba diving with helium in their tanks instead of oxygen. It just gives them a different diving experience.

Man, you are sooo set in your ways.

Michael McBlane

 

[Ed Sukach]

As far as promoting the creative process and utilizing some "effect" using film dev instead paper dev, explain to me why I would want to do this?

Oh, easy. Because ... uh ... that is .... Well, I.....

Why do I do any of this?

Same reason, whatever it is.

 

[Eric Rose]

The reason people use helium is so they can do deep dives to 250 feet plus and not experience the toxic effects of O2 at that depth. Also at shallower depths say around 180 feet helium is great because you do not experience the narcotic effect O2 gives you at that depth. Something that is kind of important if you are working at depths.

It's part of using the right tool for the job. All I am wondering is when using film developer for paper is using the "right" tool.

Hey I'm a crankie old bastard and proud of it, damit! Just ask Aggie.

 

[Ed Sukach]

The reason people use helium is so they can do deep dives to 250 feet plus and not experience the toxic effects of O2 at that depth. Also at shallower depths say around 180 feet helium is great because you do not experience the narcotic effect O2 gives you at that depth. Something that is kind of important if you are working at depths.

Hah!! My chance to jump on someone for an obvious error.

O2 is narcotic at .... ? Maybe so, but I don't think it would be a good idea to replace ALL of it with helium. Replacing the avaliable nitrogen (N) with helium (He) - and leaving the oxygen alone might work well.

Where are the smilies ... got 'em ...

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[fingel]

My main reason for doing this is to see what happens. I have no practical reason for wanting to do this, but then I have no practical reason for doing anything in photography since it is not my profession. But then again, I've never been accused of being practical

 

[blansky]

Eric:

I was just trying lamely to make a joke. I honestly didn't know that people used helium for diving. I thought it was only used for filling balloons and talking like chipmunks. I thought if you used helium to dive you would die and float quickly to the top. (not good).


But you are still sooo set in your ways.



Michael McBlane

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[blansky]

After a taste of California hospitality they could never go back home again.

What's that song again, "how can you send them back to the farm after they've seen gay"..... whoops.

You show them the Bay Area, I'll get them drunk in wino country.



Michael McBlane

 

[Eric Rose]

Ha Ha. Yes I am taking all of this in the light it was intended. And Ed you are STILL wrong. Ha. You can dive with 100% helium but it is darn expensive. At greater depths you have to replace all of the O2 or as much as you can afford (lots of calculations going on here) as O2 is toxic. If you were to dive with 100% O2 you would go into convulsions at anywhere from 18 to 27 feet. It's all about partial pressures and all kinds of other voodoo.

And you thought mixing pyro was complicated.

But hey if anyone in California wants to adopt me that would be great. But none of this get me drunk and leave me in the Bay area stuff ok. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

It's so darn smoky up here right now from all the forest fires my lungs are in training for LA air.

 

[Ed Sukach]

You can dive with 100% helium but it is darn expensive. At greater depths you have to replace all of the O2 or as much as you can afford (lots of calculations going on here) as O2 is toxic. If you were to dive with 100% O2 you would go into convulsions at anywhere from 18 to 27 feet. It's all about partial pressures and all kinds of other voodoo.

I never suggested 100% Oxygen.

Are you serious ... Man can exist, breathing 100% helium, with *NO* oxygen?

What about the space program ... where the atmosphere may well be 100% oxygen... at a much reduced pressure? OIr are you relating to *much* increased pressures as would be found in diving?

 

[Ed Sukach]

Michael, we need to import Eric for a while. I think Cailfornia could loosen him up. We can throw in an Import visa for Ed too, since MA. is like a foregin country. I would gladly take street shots if those two would enter the bay to breakers race.

Bay to Breakers - I've heard abut that race!

I understand that some of the runners wear costumes - that "themes" are common - along with a significant number who DO NOT wear costumes - of any kind.

What about an APUG entry ... We can have a contigent of APUG members representing photographers (possibly someone disguised as an 8"x10" View Camera?) and some of our female members disguised (or maybe ... "undisguised...) as nude models.

I'm sure that Aggie, having suggested this in the first place, would volunteer.

Let's vote on this ... All in favor of Aggies suggestion, and her involvement, say "Aye". :roll: