Developing time for FB paper

[Pieter12]

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.

 

[GregY]

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.

At circa $15 a sheet for Ilford Warmtone 20"x24" .....not likely i'll waste $30 of paper for a test...

 

[Pieter12]

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.

 

[GregY]

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.

I spend more time printing than testing....& i've been watching the prints and development time & know when to go to fresh developer....

 

[xkaes]

UNLESS you're running a proper replenished system, with appropriate "monitoring." In this case the developer can essentially live "forever."

Sounds like an ICU.

 

[xkaes]

I spend more time printing than testing....& i've been watching the prints and development time & know when to go to fresh developer....

I spend less time printing BECAUSE I ran tests.

 

[Mr Bill]

Sounds like an ICU.

More like the fountain of youth.

"Monitoring" is basically running a test strip periodically. Several test patches are read with an instrument (densitometer), then the results plotted on a chart. There is always a little jiggle on the charts, but from this you can readily see if the trend is going up, down, or staying the same.

If the trend is going up then you want to lower the replenishment rate slightly, etc. (It changes because film exposures are not exactly consistent.) Typically it is sufficient to only make replenishment changes in increments of 10%. Less than that is pretty insignificant.

One could probably do this by eye if they wanted, comparing two strips side by side. But nowhere near as precise.

But it's only worthwhile if the chemical savings outweigh your extra labor cost. And... you're not allowed to aerate the developer excessively.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[GregY]

I spend less time printing BECAUSE I ran tests.

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?

 

[Pieter12]

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?

Of course it is. Can't you tell?

 

[xkaes]

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.

 

[GregY]

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.

Whatever you like..... this thread has definitely taken some bizarre turns. My time is worth more than spending it on this one

 

[Mr Bill]

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.

Like Craig said, depending on the developer volume.

Fwiw something I found out fairly quickly when I got into the QC aspect of lab work was how sensitive a densitometer used on a sensitometric step wedge was for evaluation of development.

In a companion department to QC was a fresh photo science grad from RIT, eventually becoming a good friend, from who I learned a great deal. When we set up a new process (b&w) we'd run a series of wedges at different development times (the department had a Kodak Process Control Sensitometer, near 3 feet long, sitting on its own granite (?) slab for stability). Very expensive lamp, with certification for color temperature at a specific amperage (adjustable on the instrument), and spec on where to lock down the carriage for precise positioning of the filament. And a very repeatable shutter.

The processing machines had very repeatable times, as near as you could click a stopwatch - say to within one or two tenths of a second.

Once one gets into a position like this it can be a little surprising how easily you can detect changes due to something that you always thought was insignificant. Or vice versa. One thing that DOES happen, as a result of doing this sort of thing, is that you develop an intuition for the things that are most significant.

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.

But... let me ask... do you think that all of that past testing has contributed to your current ability to more quickly or efficiently get to a high-quality print?

 

[Pieter12]

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?

 

[faberryman]

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?

Some people value their time in ways other than money.

 

[Mr Bill]

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'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.

As a lifelong photo guy, full-time living at it, I appreciate that on small scale processing your time is worth way more to you than your chemical costs.

But it seems odd to me that you spend the time to read Richard Henry's book but seem a bit dismissive about comments here. I understand you don't have any idea who people here really are. But for kicks I'm gonna tell you a brief story. One of the guys I worked with years ago was laughing when he told me this (we often played a bit with the one-up game on each other): there was some sort of a chemical issue and I made an opinion. So he figures to call contacts at the chemical company for inside information. The head guy told him essentially the same thing I had said, and then - this is the part he was laughing about - they enquired, "why didn't you just ask Bill?" So he told em what was up and they had a good laugh.

 

[pentaxuser]

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.

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. What the correct ratio of replenishment is may be open to question but it would seem it could be found. There are those who never do this and never will. That's fine but I was not looking for that information about what they do

In fact had I not mentioned regretfully my replenishment in a Nova slot processor as an aside but as polite explanation of why I don't use factorial replenishment, this subject might have formed and should not have formed any part of the discussion that arose on factorial development as a way of ensuring consistent quality over a single long session of printing or possible several sessions provided you can complete that in 24 hrs or less based on Ilford's statement about how long their developer will maintain its qualities.

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Mr. Bill - most of that prior testing, along with very precisely calibrated equipment, was in relation to technical tweaks to color printing. For example, making well matched color separation negs along with any necessary masks, can be quite fussy. And of course, if nothing else, acquiring careful work habits and making it second nature transfers over into all kinds of darkroom tasks and photo skills in general. But basic black and white shooting and printing isn't anywhere near as fussy.

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. In fact, I find methodology like the revered Zone System so elementary it they can be reduced to a few sentences. It's not precise enough for me personally; but I don't think about any of that kind of thing when out shooting. Just a quick meter read and the rest is
intuitive based on experience.

But there are just so many projects where I see people overthinking it all, when in fact they might get to first base faster just by allowing themselves to have some fun in the darkroom. Some practitioners really enjoy the technical side of things, others the esthetic side, and some, both. I've known great scientists and optical engineers who worked with multi-million dollar lab project budgets (or even multi-billion), but who couldn't themselves take a picture worth a damn, let alone make a compelling print.

 

[Mr Bill]

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?

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I once had a lawyer gal crowd in front of the line asking me for advice about door locks or something like that. We sold some awfully expensive ones. She told me she didn't have time to wait due to appointments. I told her she'd get the same quality of help as other people, but had to take her turn. She butted in again and said, "How would you like it if I shrunk you head? I make $90 an hour, and those people don't". I replied, "That was all I made too back when I was a Psychiatrist", and booted her out of the store.

 

[Mr Bill]

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.

Thanks Drew, just curious about your opinion. Although I don't directly know much about your background I have occasionally seen, in your posts about color, pertinent comments that are perhaps not well-known nor stated explicitly in books. So I feel comfortable that you have some substantial in-depth knowledge about color. Anyway was just curious.

 

[Mr Bill]

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.

Well don't conclude too much on my account cuz I don't have any actual knowledge about the MG developer. In the case of Xtol I am guessing that the developing agent is not especially sensitive to the byproducts (I'm just making a semi-educated guess about this). It's possible, for example, that the MG developing agent MIGHT BE very sensitive to byproducts, and thus has different behavior.

 

[xkaes]

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.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Thank you for a perspective that I have never had.