I doubt you would see any degradation on the first print. Maybe by the 5th one. But I'm not going to try to find out. But in all probability, in a print that large you might see more difference between the halves of a print due to uneven light distribution in the enlarger. So what you would really have to do is make 2 prints, cut them both in half and develop and compare the same halves.If, instead of the entire sheet of 20x24" paper, you tore it in half (yeah I know this would be a dumb thing to do) and first developed one half, then I would say you would see more of a gradual degradation of the developer.
I doubt you would see any degradation on the first print. Maybe by the 5th one. But I'm not going to try to find out. But in all probability, in a print that large you might see more difference between the halves of a print due to uneven light distribution in the enlarger. So what you would really have to do is make 2 prints, cut them both in half and develop and compare the same halves.
You could do this same experiment without cutting any paper. Just make 5x7 prints in a 5x7 tray with the least amount of developer and see how many prints it takes to start seeming a difference.At circa $15 a sheet for Ilford Warmtone 20"x24" .....not likely i'll ruin $30 of paper for a test.....
You could do this same experiment without cutting any paper. Just make 5x7 prints in a 5x7 tray with the least amount of developer and see how many prints it takes to start seeming a difference.
UNLESS you're running a proper replenished system, with appropriate "monitoring." In this case the developer can essentially live "forever."
I spend more time printing than testing....& i've been watching the prints and development time & know when to go to fresh developer....
Sounds like an ICU.
I spend less time printing BECAUSE I ran tests.
Of course it is. Can't you tell?The time i spend printing is related to the # of prints i have to make. Should i test for developer exhaustion before I print? I'm not saying i haven't done tests ever. But i can see in the prints when i need to use fresh chemicals. What is it you're trying to say now?....your process is somehow superior to mine?
But it's only worthwhile if the chemical savings outweigh your extra labor cost. And... you're not allowed to aerate the developer excessively.
Chemicals are basically free -- and sometimes are. My time is worth much more. Next time I have time, I'll see if I can connect a spare EKG to my developer.
I doubt you would see any degradation on the first print. Maybe by the 5th one. But I'm not going to try to find out.
I once did a ridiculous amount analytic testing. That's behind me. Now I do very little testing and have way more time to actually print.
I have to pay for chemicals. And nobody is paying me to print, or would be paying me for my time if I weren't printing. I just love it when people say their time is worth more than something...are they lawyers getting paid by the minute and booked all the time?Chemicals are basically free -- and sometimes are. My time is worth much more. Next time I have time, I'll see if I can connect a spare EKG to my developer.
I have to pay for chemicals. And nobody is paying me to print, or would be paying me for my time if I weren't printing. I just love it when people say their time is worth more than something...are they lawyers getting paid by the minute and booked all the time?
I'm from (or used to be) from a large outfit where the total chemical cost was pretty significant. It was a pretty big deal, in fact.Chemicals are basically free -- and sometimes are. My time is worth much more. Next time I have time, I'll see if I can connect a spare EKG to my developer.
I would argue that it is best to consider replenished X-Tol on its own - essentially as a different developer. If you do that, and you like its performance, than the question becomes does it do what it does consistently, when appropriately maintained.
A quick doctor/lawyer joke... the doctor is at a party and is a little irritated that people are always asking him for free medical advice. He starts talking to his lawyer friend and mentions how this often happens, and that he sometimes thinks he ought to send a bill to the big offenders. The lawyer agrees that the doctor would be perfectly within his rights to do so - perhaps for a 30-minute minimum consultation fee. The doctor says really? Perhaps he'll think about it in the future. Next day the doctor's mail includes something from the lawyer. He opens it and inside is --- an invoice for 30-minutes consultation at the party.I have to pay for chemicals. And nobody is paying me to print, or would be paying me for my time if I weren't printing. I just love it when people say their time is worth more than something...are they lawyers getting paid by the minute and booked all the time?
It does help to have a bigger tool kit (both literally and conceptually), along with more precise equipment, and to have mastered all that to a degree which becomes almost intuitive rather than taxing on the mind.
All I was trying to do was elicit informatíon as to whether Ilford MG developer works in a similar fashion to Matt's statement above on Xtol replenishment and my conclusion from Mr Bill is that it does.
I will agree the it doesn't hurt to do some testing, especially with safelights as people tend to use just about any red LED and assume everything's OK. On the other hand, if you purchase a safelight from a reputable source and use it according to the instructions of both the safelight and the paper manufacturers, you could probably get away without testing. For developing to completion, the manufacturers' data sheets are a great jumping-off point, minimizing the need for extensive testing. However all that is dependent on normal processing and may vary depending on methods and the desired outcome.No one in this discussion is forcing anyone to make any tests of anything, or condemning anyone for "playing by ear". I was never forced to make any tests, although one of my professors thought it was a necessary task -- but that is pretty common in any field of endeavor.
But in photography, without some tests, you are likely to end up frustrated with your prints -- and asking for advise from on-line strangers. Without ever testing your safelights, correctly, you are likely to end up with dull whites in at least some of your prints. Without ever testing for Max black, correctly, you are likely to end up with dull blacks in at least some of your prints. I could go on, but some testing seems essential for anyone putting all the time and effort and money into printing.
The same goes for film, as well.
And as I've already mentioned, for anyone interested in simple or more complex testing -- it's up to you how much -- I recommend Richard Henry's book, "Controls in Black & White Photography." The second edition adds some extra material, but both are fine for the basics -- which you set up the way that makes sense for you.
No, quality does not "fall off a cliff." Rather the developer activity just gradually falls off more and more. For some time one can deal with this, but eventually something has to be done.
Most of the people here, I think, are making exposures, then developing, then evaluate, etc. In the good old days commercial lab work was typically exposed in one place (in rolls) then taken to the processing machine where the operator would process the roll(s) under standard conditions. Then the printer would make corrections and reprint. Now, it might be hours between cycles, so it was necessary that the processing machine produce stable results. Otherwise it becomes a moving target for the printer.
As a QC guy in those days it was our job to keep the machines stable. We had the operators process control strips periodically, then we read and plot on a chart. As the contrast or overall density slowly drifts off we make adjustments to the replenishment rates. (We periodically make calibration charts for the rotameters so we can easily get the necessary settings for a rate change. ) Then we tape some new pointers on the rotameter for the different paper widths.
Periodically the operator forgets to turn a replenisher on or off, so developer activity shifts. There might be hours worth of already exposed paper which will become trash if processed under those conditions. So it becomes necessary to try to restore the processing machine to its aim activity level.
It's a completely different situation from what a hobbyist does in their own darkroom, developing by eye in a tray.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?