Developing time for FB paper

[GregY]

That's what happens when you don't read the instructions.

Doesn't take much to stir up the hornets' nest.......

 

[faberryman]

Doesn't take much to stir up the hornets' nest.......

It is not the fact that people do things differently that's stirs up a hornets nest, it is the reasons given for doing things differently.

 

[pentaxuser]

To my knowledge, Ilford does not have any information on replenishment of paper developer. The technical datasheet for paper developers states that, for fiber based paper, the capacity of one liter of working solution is 40-50 8x10 sheets depending on developer. Do you typically use 40-50 sheets of 8x10 paper in a session?

The questions I asked were meant to elicit a response as to what you actually do. Based on your logic as a homo sapien, will you now shift to factoral development?

Note: I know some people become apoplectic whenever someone mentions that they read something in a technical datasheet, but I find them useful, certainly more useful than trying to search through threads on photo forums where answers vary and there is no easy way to gauge the credibility of the person sharing his opinion. People, including me, who routinely rely on technical datasheets for technical data are frequently denigrated as curmudgeons. We all have our crosses to bear.

So from the technical data sheet is it not possible to work out a replenishment rate? For simplicity let's say that I use MG developer and RC paper only ( which is actually the case) Ilford says I can do 100 sheets of 8x10 with 1 ltr. So if I do 10 sheets in a session I have used 10% of that 1 litre's capacity in which case I replenish that one litre with 10% of fresh developer which is 100ml

Now bear in mind that I have said before when giving my reasons for not trying factorial development that I have a Nova slot processor. The nature of the slots means that less than an inch of developer is exposed to the air and at the end of the session the slot is covered by a tube and in my case cling film forming an air tight barrier or as near as makes no difference so the next night the developer is as good as it was the night before when for sake of argument I do another 10 prints and now the 2 day old developer has only 80% of the original developer. In 10 days the developer has changed completely

Do I do 10 prints a night? Yes, I have done but not on a regular basis of night after night and in addition I may do no printing at all for weeks when even the life of my developer in its Nova slot may have expired and I do not want to take a chance of using it.

However for those using trays who do lengthy printing sessions at a time and then pour the developer back into bottles and then do the same again the next day/night, I can see that in their case factorial development might enable them to use that same 1ltr rather than dump it and start afresh and still get the same quality of prints. If they were regular printers then in addition to producing the same quality over a session and over time, it gives them a cost saving. Are those factors big enough to be bothered about and is it worth it for most printers? I don't know. Is it worth it for you? No, by the sound of it but it clearly is for others who use that method and I can see the logic of doing it.

There's not much more for us to exchange now by way of extra discussion, is there? I don't think it will get either of us any closer to agreement. except maybe on this last point, namely, that we won't get any close to agreement

It has been an interesting discussion however

pentaxuser

 

[xkaes]

But first, the exposure under the enlarger has to be correct or everything else is just an exercise in futility.

In order to know what the exposure time of the paper should be, you first need to know how long to develop the paper -- to achieve maximum black & to avoid fog. The horse comes first.

 

[Photo Knowledge]

The OP definitely got his money's worth & then some, all from a simple question:
"Can anyone give me the times to develop FB paper in Ilford Multigrade paper developer. Ilford Ilfostop and Ilford rapid fixer?"
Who would have thought?.......

What is OP? And yes I got some knowledge and now since I'm familiar with the site I'll post questions where they are supposed to go. I don't need to be given a hard time I'm just learning and it's my first time ever joining a website like this!

 

[Photo Knowledge]

Is that a big RTFM?

What is RTFM?

 

[faberryman]

So from the technical data sheet is it not possible to work out a replenishment rate? For simplicity let's say that I use MG developer and RC paper only ( which is actually the case) Ilford says I can do 100 sheets of 8x10 with 1 ltr. So if I do 10 sheets in a session I have used 10% of that 1 litre's capacity in which case I replenish that one litre with 10% of fresh developer which is 100ml

Now bear in mind that I have said before when giving my reasons for not trying factorial development that I have a Nova slot processor. The nature of the slots means that less than an inch of developer is exposed to the air and at the end of the session the slot is covered by a tube and in my case cling film forming an air tight barrier or as near as makes no difference so the next night the developer is as good as it was the night before when for sake of argument I do another 10 prints and now the 2 day old developer has only 80% of the original developer. In 10 days the developer has changed completely

Do I do 10 prints a night? Yes, I have done but not on a regular basis of night after night and in addition I may do no printing at all for weeks when even the life of my developer in its Nova slot may have expired and I do not want to take a chance of using it.

However for those using trays who do lengthy printing sessions at a time and then pour the developer back into bottles and then do the same again the next day/night, I can see that in their case factorial development might enable them to use that same 1ltr rather than dump it and start afresh and still get the same quality of prints. If they were regular printers then in addition to producing the same quality over a session and over time, it gives them a cost saving. Are those factors big enough to be bothered about and is it worth it for most printers? I don't know. Is it worth it for you? No, by the sound of it but it clearly is for others who use that method and I can see the logic of doing it.

There's not much more for us to exchange now by way of extra discussion, is there? I don't think it will get either of us any closer to agreement. except maybe on this last point, namely, that we won't get any close to agreement

It has been an interesting discussion however

Quite apart from replenishment, are you not concerned with the life of the working solution of the developer? Here is what Ilford has to say:

"Working strength MULTIGRADE developer, PQ UNIVERSAL and BROMOPHEN left in an open dish should not be kept for more than one working day. If stored in a tightly capped bottle they may last up to 24 hours."

So I would not decant a tray of developer into a bottle, cap it, and use it the next night. I am not familiar with your slot processor and do not know whether its design allows you to keep working solution of developer longer than 24 hours.

 

[Pieter12]

In order to know what the exposure time of the paper should be, you first need to know how long to develop the paper -- to achieve maximum black & to avoid fog. The horse comes first.

It just seems like an exercise of limited use. Why bother? I would only test for maximum black if I was not satisfied with the blacks in a print for some reason. There are data sheets for recommended development time, an excellent starting point, plus paper has a wide latitude for development to completion.

 

[Pieter12]

Quite apart from replenishment, are you not concerned with the life of the working solution of the developer? Here is what Ilford has to say:

"Working strength MULTIGRADE developer, PQ UNIVERSAL and BROMOPHEN left in an open dish should not be kept for more than one working day. If stored in a tightly capped bottle they may last up to 24 hours."

So I would not decant a tray of developer into a bottle, cap it, and use it the next night. I am not familiar with your slot processor and do not know whether its design allows you to keep working solution of developer for longer than 24 hours.

Slot processors generally keep developer for quite a few days, because while working there is very little surface exposed to the air and when not in use, the slots are covered. I usually only have to replace the developer (and all the chemicals for good measure ) due to hitting the number of prints processed that I am comfortable the developer can handle--usually about 50 8x10s or 25 11x14s, including test strips and test/waste prints.

 

[xkaes]

It just seems like an exercise of limited use. Why bother? I would only test for maximum black if I was not satisfied with the blacks in a print for some reason. There are data sheets for recommended development time, an excellent starting point, plus paper has a wide latitude for development to completion.

Most won't bother. But I know that running these simple tests -- and other tests from Henry's book about film, etc. -- changed how I developed my paper. And my prints are showing better blacks and better whites.

I've also changed how I expose paper, how I develop film, and how I expose film. I always had a lot of fun, but my results are better now. I'm sure glad he wrote that book.

But, most won't bother.

 

[Pieter12]

Most won't bother. But I know that running these simple tests -- and other tests from Henry's book about film, etc. -- changed how I developed my paper. And my prints are showing better blacks and better whites.

I've also changed how I expose paper, how I develop film, and how I expose film. I always had a lot of fun, but my results are better now. I'm sure glad he wrote that book.

But, most won't bother.

So,what were your conclusions/results? And did you test with multiple developers and papers or just one or two?

 

[xkaes]

My conclusion is that my prints are better, as I mentioned. But what I do is not appropriate for anyone else. I only use Multigrade RC glossy with home-made Dektol 1+2 at 71° and use selenium toner at 1+9 -- which increased MAX black. And I use tubes -- which also makes a difference. Just as important, I expose my films and develop them to match what my paper can produce -- not the other way around, like probably most people do -- or TRY to do.

None of this is my idea. I owe it all to Richard Henry -- after reading lots of other photography books, from Adams to Zakia. Henry basically says "Don't accept anything you read or hear -- do your own tests, and decide for yourself". He starts off by listing scores of photographic myths, like "papers with more silver create blacker blacks." So he tested it, and found out it's not true.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Replenishing a partially exhausted developer might produce a shift in the final print color toward warmer. I don't know why anyone would want to do it, unless it's just some High School photo teacher who knows he's dealing with a bunch of monkeys anyway, and doesn't even bother the replace solutions until they look like a warthog mudholes.

Big lab production lines carefully monitored each step, and in relation to developers of well known characteristics. But just washing dishes over and over again in the same water, with a little fresh water added, carries its risks. RC papers can be processed a lot faster than FB ones, so are a little more forgiving in this respect.

 

[Pieter12]

My conclusion is that my prints are better, as I mentioned. But what I do is not appropriate for anyone else. I only use Multigrade RC glossy with home-made Dektol 1+2 at 71° and use selenium toner at 1+9 -- which increased MAX black. And I use tubes -- which also makes a difference. Just as important, I expose my films and develop them to match what my paper can produce -- not the other way around, like probably most people do -- or TRY to do.

None of this is my idea. I owe it all to Richard Henry -- after reading lots of other photography books, from Adams to Zakia. Henry basically says "Don't accept anything you read or hear -- do your own tests, and decide for yourself". He starts off by listing scores of photographic myths, like "papers with more silver create blacker blacks." So he tested it, and found out it's not true.

I would still like to know the numbers, even if your developing process is different.

 

[pentaxuser]

If stored in a tightly capped bottle they may last up to 24 hours."

So I would not decant a tray of developer into a bottle, cap it, and use it the next night. I am not familiar with your slot processor and do not know whether its design allows you to keep working solution of developer longer than 24 hours.

My example in my previous reply was in respect of those who may want to use the developer 24 hours later but primarily factorial development would seem to work best for those who in the course of a printing session do enough prints to make the original working strength developer be affected by the need to extend development time to ensure that the same quality is maintained

If on the other hand it is the case that 1 ltr of MG developer is as good at say 1 min for print 100( let's assume that this is the Ilfor recommended time) as it was for print 1 and it is a risk using it more than 24 hours later then you are right factorial development would not seem to make sense

The problem here: Can we be sure that Ilford is saying that what I said in the preceding paragraph is the case i.e. there is no deterioration at all. The following from Ilford may suggest that there is something in factorial development : "To maintain print to print consistency when batch processing a large number of either RC or FB prints, it may be advantageous to reduce exposure slightly and extend development."

However I agree this is not definite enough of a statement to be absolutely sure. However on balance it would seem that Ilford is at least hinting that its developer does deteriorate over many prints

On your second point about the design of my Nova Slot Processor I do know that it does allow the user to keep the working solution for longer than 24 hours and as I said if your usage is frequent enough then replenishment can work in a similar fashion to the Xtol replenishment system where you can use that method to keep your developer fully active and consistent for a long time.

So do I use the Xtol replenishment system? No, so how do I know it works. I base this on what the vast majority of users, some very experienced, say who do use it.

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

Replenishing a partially exhausted developer might produce a shift in the final print color toward warmer. I don't know why anyone would want to do it, unless it's just some High School photo teacher who knows he's dealing with a bunch of monkeys anyway, and doesn't even bother the replace solutions until they look like a warthog mudholes.

Big lab production lines carefully monitored each step, and in relation to developers of well known characteristics. But just washing dishes over and over again in the same water, with a little fresh water added, carries its risks. RC papers can be processed a lot faster than FB ones, so are a little more forgiving in this respect.

Well I was never expecting that kind of a response from you, Drew Many years ago I should have looked more closely at my fellow students to see how far up the primate chain they were. Having no warthogs in the U.K. I can't even check what one of these mudholes look like

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, the school darkroom had a bad enough reputation. But the chemistry lab is where things sometimes literally did blow up. I personally never did anything worse there than rigging up a messy stink bomb to the back door. That didn't go so well when the teacher decided to walk around building looking for someone, and then entered that door himself.

 

[Roger Cole]

Congratulations. No point in going that long! I wasn't so lucky, but I didn't even get to 10 minutes to find a difference. But I was undoubtedly using different paper and developer and dilution and........

Of course, eyesight also varies, along with the viewing situation, brightness, distance, paper coating, etc. -- and whether you use your eye, a magnifying glass, or a photocell of some sort.

But fogging does exist -- especially in the extreme highlight areas of a negative (dark areas), as Matt pointed out. If there is a highlight in the negative that doesn't quite reach the threshold to show any grey in a print, a little fogging can be enough to push it over the edge.

The only thing worse that grey highlights are grey maximum blacks.

I tested in compete darkness. Did you use a safelight?

No safelight is 100% safe. The vast majority of the time that's what people are seeing in highlight fogging.

 

[Roger Cole]

That may have been different if you had used different paper, or different developer - but it still requires a long time!
A better test is to do it with two copies of a properly exposed print - one stopped and fixed after a normal time, and the other left in the developer until it fogs. Or a sheet of paper that has had a partial, "flashing" exposure that brings the paper close to the image threshold.

Yup, I agree about the flashing. That's absolutely essential for doing a proper safelight test too.

 

[Roger Cole]

What is OP? And yes I got some knowledge and now since I'm familiar with the site I'll post questions where they are supposed to go. I don't need to be given a hard time I'm just learning and it's my first time ever joining a website like this!

OP = "Original Poster" - the first poster that started a thread, or "Original Post" - the top post of the thread. Context will tell you which it means.

 

[Roger Cole]

What is RTFM?

Read The *ing Manual

These are acronyms common to all Internet forums ("OP") and everywhere on the Internet ("RTFM.") I'm not giving you a hard time but google would have told you what they meant quicker than asking here.

 

[xkaes]

I would still like to know the numbers, even if your developing process is different.

The numbers vary depending on several factors. I've got different pages depending on what I want to do with the print, such as toning. I don't have one number for anything. If I said I develop for two minutes, that's meaningless -- because sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I expose Delta 400 at ISO 200 & sometimes at ISO 800. Same thing.

 

[xkaes]

I tested in compete darkness. Did you use a safelight?

No safelight is 100% safe. The vast majority of the time that's what people are seeing in highlight fogging.

Apparently you didn't read my earlier instructions for testing for fogging. The first line is TURN OFF ALL safelights.

But there are lots of things you should do before you test for fog or MAX black, among them are testing for fixing the paper, testing the safelights (not as easy as many think), enlarger light leaks, etc. But those are all separate topics. This one's messy enough as it is.

 

[Roger Cole]

Apparently you didn't read my earlier instructions for testing for fogging. The first line is TURN OFF ALL safelights.

But there are lots of things you should do before you test for fog or MAX black, among them are testing for fixing the paper, testing the safelights (not as easy as many think), enlarger light leaks, etc. But those are all separate topics. This one's messy enough as it is.

I DID read it, thankyouverymuch. That said absolutely nothing about what YOU ACTUALLY DID.

 

[Craig]

The OP definitely got his money's worth & then some, all from a simple question:
"Can anyone give me the times to develop FB paper in Ilford Multigrade paper developer. Ilford Ilfostop and Ilford rapid fixer?"
Who would have thought?.......

Yup, asked for a drop of water and got a tsunami...