Developing several sheet films in trays, and developer efficiency.

[Maris]

MattKing has explained sheet film development with replenished developer pretty neatly but because I've used the same replenished Xtol batch for eight years I'll add some extra thoughts.

I replenish at the rate of 90ml per film (35mm 36exp = 120 roll = four 4x5 = one 8x10) and the developer activity has stayed the same for years. Typically I develop four 4x5 sheets held in a slosher with 1 litre of developer in a tray. Excuse the curious line of thought but each 4x5 sheet lying on its back in the tray has 250ml of developer above it which contains enough developing agent to do about 11 sheets. So after one cycle with the slosher the developer activity in the tray has dropped about 9%. This decrease may not be discernable to the eye but might be discoverable with careful densitometer tests. In any case replenishment returns things to the starting condition and an original batch of developer can be refreshed essentially forever.

A more subtle consideration is that replenished developer activity is not solely limited by exhaustion of developing agent but also by the accumulation of development by-products. These include some dyes (antihalation, acutance, speed trimming, etc) and some free halide, typically bromide, a restrainer. These by-products can enhance the developer's ability to deliver improved image quality compared to one shot developers. Again, the by-product improvement of development outcomes is held consistent by the replenishment routine.

 

[marciofs]

MattKing has explained sheet film development with replenished developer pretty neatly but because I've used the same replenished Xtol batch for eight years I'll add some extra thoughts.

I replenish at the rate of 90ml per film (35mm 36exp = 120 roll = four 4x5 = one 8x10) and the developer activity has stayed the same for years. Typically I develop four 4x5 sheets held in a slosher with 1 litre of developer in a tray. Excuse the curious line of thought but each 4x5 sheet lying on its back in the tray has 250ml of developer above it which contains enough developing agent to do about 11 sheets. So after one cycle with the slosher the developer activity in the tray has dropped about 9%. This decrease may not be discernable to the eye but might be discoverable with careful densitometer tests. In any case replenishment returns things to the starting condition and an original batch of developer can be refreshed essentially forever.

A more subtle consideration is that replenished developer activity is not solely limited by exhaustion of developing agent but also by the accumulation of development by-products. These include some dyes (antihalation, acutance, speed trimming, etc) and some free halide, typically bromide, a restrainer. These by-products can enhance the developer's ability to deliver improved image quality compared to one shot developers. Again, the by-product improvement of development outcomes is held consistent by the replenishment routine.

Great!
Thank you.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I replenish at the rate of 90ml per film (35mm 36exp = 120 roll = four 4x5 = one 8x10) and the developer activity has stayed the same for years. [Bold added]

I use the Kodak specifications in the data sheet and replenish at the rate of 70ml per 80 square inches (35mm 36exp = 120 roll = four 4x5 = one 8x10).

 

[Maris]

I use the Kodak specifications in the data sheet and replenish at the rate of 70ml per 80 square inches (35mm 36exp = 120 roll = four 4x5 = one 8x10).

A valid observation! Years ago I started with a 70ml per film replenishment rate but found that Xtol activity continued to taper off and eventually I had to start a new batch. Until this new batch became seasoned I'd get slight overdevelopment. Why the Kodak recommended rate of 70ml per film didn't maintain developer activity was a mystery until a colleague pointed out that I was doing continuous tray agitation (to eliminate agitation rate as a variable) and the extra sloshing entrained air which oxidised the developer slightly faster. Increasing the replenishment rate to 90ml solved the problem. The experience highlighted the importance of monitoring development results.

 

[palewin]

I actually can develop 6 sheets in Peterson tank. But I would wait to get 6 sheets in orders to don't waist developer. Because I believe I would need to use the same amount of developer in the thank no matter if I have 6 sheets or only 3 or 2 sheets in it.

So I was wondering if I develop 2 or 3 sheets in trays I could use less developer than I would use in a Tank.

The constant in all of these posts is that the amount of developer you need, or the amount of replenishment, is a function of the square inches of film you are developing. So to answer your question about two sheets in a tray, two sheets of 4x5 film is 20x2=40 square inches. For Rodinol, if you need 10ml for 80 square inches, you only need 5ml for 40 square inches, and at 1+50, that would be 250ml of working solution.

The question becomes one of film handling in the tray. Shuffle processing is something you learn by doing. Almost everyone ends up scratching some film in the beginning, but with experience scratches become extremely rare (at least that is my experience). That said, the deeper the liquid in the tray, the easier it is to avoid scratches. So a liter of working solution in an 8x10 tray would be much more than you need for two sheets, for example, but the amount of liquid would make shuffling easier. 250ml would chemically be sufficient for two sheets, but without putting 250ml in a tray and experimenting, it might not be enough liquid for you to methodically lift the lower negative out of your stack of two, and lay it on top, without scratching. Incidentally, if you are doing only two sheets, you would "shuffle" only every 15 seconds, so you go through the stack of two sheets once every 30 seconds; that's the same as shuffling a stack of six sheets every 5 seconds which would again have you finish shuffling the stack once every 30 seconds.

I must admit I'm a little puzzled by the apparent preference of many for replenished developer. I have always used one shot developers: D-76 1:1 for 35mm film, HC-110 at 1:31 for 4x5 Tri-X, and now PMK or Pyrocat HD for 120 and 4x5 Ilford HP-5+. I've never used Rodinol, but many seem to like it a lot, and my understanding is that it is also meant to be a one-shot (use and discard) developer. There is certainly nothing wrong with using a developer designed for replenishment, but that is merely an option, depending on what developer you wish to use.

 

[marciofs]

I will try today the replenishment method. Not with Rodinal because as said it was made for one shot, so I prefer not to risk. But I have Ilfotec HC and I will try with it.

So... If I want to develop my negatives on a 1:31 concentration I make the whole syrup in this concentration and separate in bottles (1L). One bottle will be the work solution and the others left the replenishment.

Then I will develop single sheets to watch how many the solution can bare before replenish. And by trial I try to figure out how much ml is good as replenishment.

Is that right?

 

[marciofs]

Here it is:



It was actually indicating 9min exposure but I made 12min about.

 

[MattKing]

I will try today the replenishment method. Not with Rodinal because as said it was made for one shot, so I prefer not to risk. But I have Ilfotec HC and I will try with it.

So... If I want to develop my negatives on a 1:31 concentration I make the whole syrup in this concentration and separate in bottles (1L). One bottle will be the work solution and the others left the replenishment.

Then I will develop single sheets to watch how many the solution can bare before replenish. And by trial I try to figure out how much ml is good as replenishment.

Is that right?

Marcio:

I hate to disappoint you, but not all developers are suitable for a replenishment regime, and some of the developers that are, require that you use a special purpose replenisher rather than the developer itself. I looked at the data-sheet for Ilfotec HC, and Ilford/Harman indicates that that developer does need a special purpose replenisher.

Here is the data-sheet: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427105392231.pdf

I note as well that the replenisher solution referred to in the data-sheet is not showing on the most recent Ilford/Harman Product Availability pdf.

 

[marciofs]

Marcio:

I hate to disappoint you, but not all developers are suitable for a replenishment regime, and some of the developers that are, require that you use a special purpose replenisher rather than the developer itself. I looked at the data-sheet for Ilfotec HC, and Ilford/Harman indicates that that developer does need a special purpose replenisher.

Here is the data-sheet: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427105392231.pdf

I note as well that the replenisher solution referred to in the data-sheet is not showing on the most recent Ilford/Harman Product Availability pdf.

Thank you for let me know.

I only did one bottle solution anyway (I have to buy bottles). I am actually trying to finish it, and Rodinal,... And Tmax dev. Before buying Xtol.

 

[Will S]

Another alternative here is to use development by inspection. I routinely let negatives go longer in the tray as I work because the temp goes down and the developer gets exhausted. I've even added fresh dev in the middle of the process and had no problems. I'm doing one or two 8x10 negs at a time using a brush in a slosher tray (no brush on xray). It takes about 2400 ml to get enough liquid in the 20x24 tray for the sloshers to work right, but then it lasts longer too Even with a heating pad under the tray I find my temps go down pretty quickly in the winter and the only way to really control is to use dbi. And it controls for other issues as well of course. If you are developing sheet film I think it's the way to go. And with infrared googles it's supposedly even easier, though I've never tried that. Of course, two sheets at a time takes longer, but at $5 a piece of film why hurry?

 

[marciofs]

I actually founded out about taco development method. It seems more convenient.