Developing time for FB paper

[MattKing]

But do you get fully consistent results, from when you start, to when you mix fresh?
Developer activity changes gradually - thus the usefulness of factorial development for longer sessions.

 

[faberryman]

But do you get fully consistent results, from when you start, to when you mix fresh?
Developer activity changes gradually - thus the usefulness of factorial development for longer sessions.

Yes. I am pretty conservative about how many prints I run through the developer. My prints do not become visibly underdeveloped over the course of a session.

 

[GregY]

But do you get fully consistent results, from when you start, to when you mix fresh?
Developer activity changes gradually - thus the usefulness of factorial development for longer sessions.

Yes.... at a certain point IMO the cost of 16x20 or 20x24 paper outweighs the cost of fresh developer.

 

[MattKing]

Yes. I am pretty conservative about how many prints I run through the developer. My prints do not become visibly underdeveloped over the course of a session.

Do you make multiple identical prints during a session? It is in that situation that one tends to see inconsistent results - even if none of them would be described as "underdeveloped".

 

[MattKing]

Yes.... at a certain point IMO the cost of 16x20 or 20x24 paper outweighs the cost of fresh developer.

Agreed, but it is a question of consistency, not individual suitability.
If you use your developer one shot, it isn't an issue.
But if you aren't doing that, and you are printing more than one copy of a print - say an edition of five - than extending the time can help ensure consistency, as can using factorial development.

 

[GregY]

Agreed, but it is a question of consistency, not individual suitability.
If you use your developer one shot, it isn't an issue.
But if you aren't doing that, and you are printing more than one copy of a print - say an edition of five - than extending the time can help ensure consistency, as can using factorial development.

I do extend the time (by visual inspection), my comment was referring to faberryman's 3-4 hr+ sessions.....in which case for valuable single or multiple large prints..... with smaller work prints...not so much.

 

[faberryman]

Do you make multiple identical prints during a session? It is in that situation that one tends to see inconsistent results - even if none of them would be described as "underdeveloped".

If you get visibly inconsistent results during the course of a printing session, I suggest you run fewer prints through your developer before replacing it.

 

[faberryman]

But if you aren't doing that, and you are printing more than one copy of a print - say an edition of five - than extending the time can help ensure consistency, as can using factorial development.

Are you unable to get five consistently developed prints from fresh developer without extending the time of development? Is this a real problem for you or is it a hypothetical problem? Is your working method an "out of an abundance of caution" approach?

 

[pentaxuser]

If you get visibly inconsistent results during the course of a printing session, I suggest you run fewer prints through your developer before replacing it.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to use factorial development instead? I have never bothered myself but (a) I don't do many prints, usually 5x7s, in a session and (b) I use replenishment in a Nova slot processor. However it would seem that sticking to the same time throughout might result in the need for fresh developer at a point that would not be reached as quickly if you increases the development time as you go along

At least that's the conclusion my logic leads me to think

pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to use factorial development instead?

This appears to be the crux of the issue. How can I save a few cents. It is something that comes up regularly on Photrio in all sorts of contexts. What is the cheapest [fill in the blank]? I read about and considered factorial development a long time ago. Why screw with it? If you can see that your print is not fully developed, why not just use fresh developer? Better yet, why not use fresh developer before you can see your print is not fully developed. Developer is cheap.

 

[GregY]

This appears to be the crux of the issue. How can I save a few cents. It is something that comes up regularly on Photrio in all sorts of contexts. What is the cheapest [fill in the blank]? I read about and considered factorial development a long time ago. Why screw with it? If you can see that your print is not fully developed, why not just use fresh developer? Better yet, why not use fresh developer before you can see your print is not fully developed. Developer is cheap.

Thank you!

 

[pentaxuser]

This appears to be the crux of the issue. How can I save a few cents. It is something that comes up regularly on Photrio in all sorts of contexts. What is the cheapest [fill in the blank]? I read about and considered factorial development a long time ago. Why screw with it? If you can see that your print is not fully developed, why not just use fresh developer? Better yet, why not use fresh developer before you can see your print is not fully developed. Developer is cheap.

Isn't it the avoidance of the waste of an otherwise good developer that can produce the same indistinguishable of prints by increasing the development time?

pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

Isn't it the avoidance of the waste of an otherwise good developer that can produce the same indistinguishable of prints by increasing the development time?

How many prints do you run through "otherwise good developer"? How long do you extend factorial development? Or is this just a thought experiment for you?

 

[xkaes]

If you really want to save money AND get completely consistent results each time using fresh chemicals use tubes. WIN-WIN. Oh, I forgot, you save space too. WIN-WIN-WIN.

 

[GregY]

If you really want to save money AND get completely consistent results each time using fresh chemicals use tubes. WIN-WIN. Oh, I forgot, you save space too. WIN-WIN-WIN.

I prefer not to deal with kinking issues with large prints....& call me old school, but i like watching my prints develop.

 

[eli griggs]

I certainly have. As well as crystals forming in the bottom of the concentrate container after a while.

I'll be more attentive for these things.

Cheers,
Eli

 

[pentaxuser]

How many prints do you run through "otherwise good developer"? How long do you extend factorial development? Or is this just a thought experiment for you?

I don't know the answer to the first question because as I said I use replenishment based on the Ilford information. In respect of the second question I read the posts of those who advocate factorial replenishment and my thoughts lead me to say what I have said so yes you could classify my reasoning as a "thought experiment" but isn't that what homo sapiens does all the time to ensure his continued existence?

It is true that I have assumed that for those who say it works because they practice it that they have practiced it and their findings have been as they state. It is true that one of the benefits is saving money which you alluded to but did not seem to deny its validity but did, |I grant you, cast doubts on whether the effort required to do this warrants the saving involved

In terms of the cost to benefit involved, it would all depend on how much was saved in terms of the developer cost and again I cannot say because what I do bears little relationship to factorial development and have never tried the latter

However I presume that you do not believe that anyone who reads a thread should not participate in the form of saying what their logic tells them nor of asking questions that may be pertinent in helping them to make a decision on a subject?


pentaxuser .

 

[L Gebhardt]

It depends on the developer in my experience. I replenish Ansco 130 1+1 and keep about 3.5l in a homemade slot processor for 11x14 prints. With that volume a run of 5 prints is consistent and it’s consistent the next day if I pick it back up later after evaluating a dried print in the daylight before making more. I would not do that with Dektol.

 

[MattKing]

If you get visibly inconsistent results during the course of a printing session, I suggest you run fewer prints through your developer before replacing it.

If you start out by using a longer (but still within specified range), standard developing time, you will find that you will be much less likely to encounter any visible inconsistencies through a moderate print run. That is the advantage of using longer times to start with.
The disadvantage, of course, is that the longer times increase the time required and/or decrease throughput, which in a commercial environment decreases profit. Which is why higher volume, for profit printers use very short times, and either use developer one shot, or they use replenishment and carefully monitor results.
And that is why manufacturers like Ilford specify ranges of times, because the needs and preferences of users vary.
Within a reasonable range and consistent with the normal developer capacity recommendations, you have a choice of two options, both of which will lead to essentially the same results:
1) maintain the shorter minimum times, and replace the developer more frequently; or
2) use a longer standard time, and replace the developer less frequently.
The real challenge, and this applies to both options, is to know when to replace the developer. That is where factorial development helps you keep a handle on things, because it gives you some live data to base your decisions on.

 

[Pieter12]

Back to the OP. The information beyond the Ilford data sheet posted at the beginning of this discussion) can be confusing and sound ambiguous to someone with limited knowledge and experience of the photographic process. First, there was a statement by the OP that makes it clear he does not understand how f-stops and time relate. If you close down the lens aperture to the next smallest (higher number) stop, the time doubles. 2 stops and it doubles again--quadrupled from the original time, and so on. Secondly what size prints are you making? 3-5 second exposures at f8 seems too short to allow you to dodge and burn your prints (as you get more confident and gain darkroom skills). You might need a lower-wattage bulb or an ND filter in the filter drawer if your enlarger has one. find 6-7 seconds a minimum, comfortable time, but sometimes go up to 20 seconds. Also, larger prints require more time. I generally figure about 2x for every standard size up. For example, if the correct exposure for an 8x10 print is 10 seconds at f8, it will be approximately 20 seconds for the same negative enlarged to 11x14. Just a ballpark figure that usually has to be fine-tuned.

Back to the OP's original question about developing time, here's an easy experiment. I will assume you have been able to make a print you like. Using that exposure, develop the print for 2 minutes. Now, make another--same exposure time--and develop for 4 minutes. Then a third, developed for 6 minutes. After fixing, washing and drying, compare the print side by side in even light (not bright sunlight!). Is there a difference in the blacks between them? Is there a difference in the whites? If there is no difference, you're good to develop all your prints for the rest of your life at 2-6 minutes and never have to think about it again. If the 4-minute blacks look a little deeper, then 4-minutes is your time. If the in 46-minute print, the whites seem a tad dingy, you know that was too long in the developer and stay with a shorter time.

 

[Pieter12]

If you start out by using a longer (but still within specified range), standard developing time, you will find that you will be much less likely to encounter any visible inconsistencies through a moderate print run. That is the advantage of using longer times to start with.
The disadvantage, of course, is that the longer times increase the time required and/or decrease throughput, which in a commercial environment decreases profit. Which is why higher volume, for profit printers use very short times, and either use developer one shot, or they use replenishment and carefully monitor results.
And that is why manufacturers like Ilford specify ranges of times, because the needs and preferences of users vary.
Within a reasonable range and consistent with the normal developer capacity recommendations, you have a choice of two options, both of which will lead to essentially the same results:
1) maintain the shorter minimum times, and replace the developer more frequently; or
2) use a longer standard time, and replace the developer less frequently.
The real challenge, and this applies to both options, is to know when to replace the developer. That is where factorial development helps you keep a handle on things, because it gives you some live data to base your decisions on.

I usually base my developer life on the data sheet. I regularly use eco-Pro developer and the sheet states 60-100 8x10 sheets at 1+9. I usually change it when I hit 50 sheets or less, depending on the length of the session. I always develop my prints for 3 minutes and have never run into any inconsistencies except for variables such as dodging and burning which might not be precisely repeatable.

 

[Don_ih]

In my opinion, if you are getting inconsistent results through a single printing session, you are watering down your developer too much.

A used developer will generate the same print as an unused, sometimes with a longer dev time.

A depleted developer will never generate the proper print - doesn't matter how long you leave the print in.

Extending dev time will never compensate for depletion. And a tray of paper dev should not become depleted developing 25 postcards. (or 8 8x10s)

 

[MattKing]

A used developer will generate the same print as an unused, sometimes with a longer dev time.

Extending dev time will never compensate for depletion.

It can be difficult to differentiate between "use" and "depletion", because one of the results of use is of course depletion of some of the active components.
But I think the point that I'm making has some similarities with what Don is saying here.
A tray of normal working strength developer has the capacity to make a quantity of full quality prints.
But as you use it, the activity of the developer may decrease, meaning that in order to use that capacity, you sometimes have to either:
1) extend your development time as you go; or
2) start out with an already extended time, because within reason, the extended time with fresh developer will yield the same results as the extended time with partially used but still sufficiently active developer.

 

[xkaes]

Back to the OP's original question about developing time, here's an easy experiment. I will assume you have been able to make a print you like. Using that exposure, develop the print for 2 minutes. Now, make another--same exposure time--and develop for 4 minutes. Then a third, developed for 6 minutes. After fixing, washing and drying, compare the print side by side in even light (not bright sunlight!). Is there a difference in the blacks between them? Is there a difference in the whites? If there is no difference, you're good to develop all your prints for the rest of your life at 2-4 minutes and never have to think about it again. If the 3-minute blacks look a little deeper, then 3-minutes is your time. If the in 4-minute print, the whites seem a tad dingy, you know that was too long in the developer and stay with a shorter time.

That's one way, but a much more accurate test only takes two 8x10 sheets of paper -- each cut into eight strips, and developing each strip for a different time (1m, 2m, 3m...). One set is used to test for maximum processing time due to fog, the other is used to test for minimum processing time to reach maximum black.

Then you know exactly how wide your window is, and can choose accordingly.

 

[Pieter12]

That's one way, but a much more accurate test only takes two 8x10 sheets of paper -- each cut into eight strips, and developing each strip for a different time (1m, 2m, 3m...). One set is used to test for maximum processing time due to fog, the other is used to test for minimum processing time to reach maximum black.

Then you know exactly how wide your window is, and can choose accordingly.

What is the exposure time, enlarger head height, lens & aperture for such a test? Or is it two tests, one for fog and one for max black? Same question about exposure, though.