when I saw brown, I assumed it was toast, and down the sink it went.
DIY options for standard paper developer
-
A
- Thread starter BHuij
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy WTB: Toyo Field 45CF
- Started by Jessxi
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 (V5) Camera
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 (V5) Camera with 4x5 Back
- Started by Barlow
-
Free 3 kits of kodak flexicolor developer, Free in Portland Oregon
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale Horseman 6x12 roll film back
- Started by OlliJ
Forum statistics
when I saw brown, I assumed it was toast, and down the sink it went.
MattKing
Moderator
That is one of the nice things about paper developer - it doesn't hurt (much) to check it out.
I first discovered the efficacy of using darkened PolyMax T developer when I bought a replacement for a bottle that had darkened considerably even though there was still about 1/3 of the concentrate left. I decided to try the old dark stuff for just a couple of prints. I didn't see any signs of meaningful lessening of activity, and I continued to achieve full blacks, so I just continued using the rest, until it was used up.
I believe that there is/was some similarities between HC-110 and PolyMax T - perhaps that accounts for my results.
I agree wholeheartedly. I've been using Bromophen for over 25 years, it's lovely stuff. Mixing something similar from scratch would work. I mix 5L batches in deionized water. In full glass or PET bottles it keeps for a year. None of the tar that you see with Dektol gone off.
MHOFWIW
No, not at all, fortunately.
Yeah I was already going to try without EDTA just to see if precipitate had a negative effect on my final prints, with the EDTA trick in my back pocket if it became necessary
By all accounts it sounds like ID62 is the superior developer for anyone who doesn't want to use it one-shot. If E72 doesn't pan out for whatever reason, ID62 is next on the list to try. Most of the ingredients are similar so it wouldn't be a particularly costly pivot.
Thanks for catching the typo!! I've corrected my original post.10 g per litre.
Not sure. I've never used E-72 nor compared it to ID-62. I've got all the dry chemicals needed for ID-62 in rather large quantities, but no ascorbic acid, so I'll likely not be making up any E-72 anytime soon.
That said, the lack of BTA in the E-72 formula may make it a bit warmer developer than ID-62. And then there are the considerations with the Fenton reaction.
It would be interesting to compare side-by-side prints, one developed in ID-62 and one in E-72 and see what the differences, if any, were.
My main purpose for posting was to supply the OP with my easy spoon recipes.
Best,
Doremus
I am going to compare side-by-side prints through Ilford MG developer, E-72 (mixed "properly" one ingredient at a time), and E-72 (mixed with everything at once) to see if there are noticeable differences. I'll be sure to post results.
According to Ilford's website, Bromophen is slightly warm-tone and is PQ-based. So I'd say it's probably close to ID-78. ID-62 is also PQ-based, but is neutral tone.
Mark
I suspect Bromophen is the name given to what was once sold in the 1950s and early 60s as ID-20 PQ, the PQ version of the original MQ ID-20 Ilford powder developer. Essentially ID-20 with the 3g of Metol replaced by 0.5g of Phenidone. Benzotriazole is not added to powder developer due to solubility issues. It's possible the Bromide level has been dropped to 2g instead of 4g.
Essentially it's somewhere between ID-62 and ID-78.
Ian
Don, do you actually know this, or are you assuming it to be the case because it’s the start of the process? I just wondered how the developer gets in if the emulsion is not softened pretty quickly.
The MSDS for Bromophen part B (here) includes benzo. But probably very little, as the soup is warm tone.
Part A includes sodium metabisulphite. Any idea why? I'll guess it's there to (1) protect developers from any moisture in the packet, and (2) scavenge oxygen upon mixing in water. But my guesses are often wrong...
Mark
Let's say the emulsion - particularly, the gelatin - doesn't soften very much in the developer. Of course it will soften a little. It also doesn't dry off before it's put into another solution (stop), so whatever residue is on it has an immediate chance to wash off.
Also, I've always assumed that whatever is making my paper developer cloudy will dissolve in an acidic environment like stop bath.
Finally got a chance to try out my E-72 tonight. I did the same small print at the same exposure and contrast grade in three different developers. This was using Ilford MG FB Glossy paper:
The prints are all in their final wash right now, so I'll be able to do a more detailed comparison in the morning. But what I noticed during processing was:
I'm encouraged that this E-72 seems to fit the bill. It's cheap, I can't yet see any negative affects from storing the dry chemicals together (at least for a few days) and dumping into room temp water immediately before use, and it apparently lasts at working strength on the shelf in less-than-optimal storage conditions for at least 4 days without losing its ability to make an excellent print.
More testing required of course. I think tomorrow I'll mix up a film canister of dry ingredients and let them sit for several months to check if that developer gives noticeably different results than something that wasn't stored mixed up but dry for a longer term.
- Ilford Multigrade 1+14 (what I've been using for a while now)
- E-72 mixed directly from powder to 1+3 working strength by carefully weighing out the ingredients and mixing them until fully dissolved in hot water one at a time. I mixed up 750ml of this on Christmas and stored it in a half-full plastic bottle until today
- E-72 mixed directly from powder to 1+3 working strength by dumping all the powdered ingredients into room temp water and shaking it up until I couldn't see particulate anymore (a couple of minutes is all it took). I weighed out the dry ingredients for this on Christmas and they've been sitting all together in a film canister until today when I added them to 750ml of water
The prints are all in their final wash right now, so I'll be able to do a more detailed comparison in the morning. But what I noticed during processing was:
- Print density and contrast appears to be essentially the same. It's possible the E-72 is giving slightly more density and maybe slightly more contrast too. I wonder if it's more comparable to 1+9 Ilford MG; I've always used the 1+14 dilution because I'm cheap.
- Both versions of E-72 were cloudy - even the one that sat motionless on a shelf in solution for 4 days. This is, I suspect, the precipitation of some of the chemicals due to my extremely hard well water. It didn't seem to affect developer function, but it was more annoying than I thought it would be to not be able to watch the print develop out fully in a clear liquid. I will probably experiment with some chelating agent added to the mix and see if it's worthwhile.
- The E-72 seems noticeably more active than the Multigrade 1+14. I noticed this when I first moved from Dektol to Ilford MG as well - it just seems to be a much more gradual development process with MG. I gave the "older" E-72 a full 2 mins, but pulled the print from the fresh E-72 after only 90 seconds, because it hadn't changed in about a minute.
I'm encouraged that this E-72 seems to fit the bill. It's cheap, I can't yet see any negative affects from storing the dry chemicals together (at least for a few days) and dumping into room temp water immediately before use, and it apparently lasts at working strength on the shelf in less-than-optimal storage conditions for at least 4 days without losing its ability to make an excellent print.
More testing required of course. I think tomorrow I'll mix up a film canister of dry ingredients and let them sit for several months to check if that developer gives noticeably different results than something that wasn't stored mixed up but dry for a longer term.
Hey albada - after trying the E72 I did indeed get a very milky developer. It worked great and the prints came out fine, but I enjoy watching the print come to life in the tray, and clouds of precipitate in the developer made less fun. Worth the cost to add a chelating agent if it means I get clear liquid in the tray. I ordered some EDTA, but upon closer inspection I'm realizing I added tetrasodium EDTA, rather than the disodium you mentioned. Where did you find a calculator to find out how much you would need for your water, and is the tetrasodium going to work the same as disodium? Only thing I can find in googling that sets them apart from each other is that the tetrasodium is alkaline while the disodium is acidic.
As @albada said, for E-72 in contrast to ID-62, you really do not want to use EDTA as the chelating agent because it can help break down the ascorbic acid faster. You want to use DTPA. That’s harder to find and more expensive. Since you already have EDTA arriving, you could try it but you may not get good results. Hard to know for sure because it depends on the ions present in your water and tanks. If you have much iron or copper, it will die sooner.
You won’t need much. Try a gram/liter or less and see how it goes. I doubt that the small pH difference between the different salts will have a large effect on a print developer like this.
Last edited:
My EDTA should arrive in a few more days, and I'll start off by trying a batch with 0.75 grams of it added (750ml batches work well in my 8x10 trays). Hopefully that takes care of the cloudiness, if not I'll try upping the dose.
I'm hoping to not need to resort to distilled water. It's a lot more expensive and bulky to store, compared to EDTA. Shouldn't need to worry about DTPA, I'm not making a stock solution. I mix straight to working strength and use one-shot per printing session. So as long as the lifespan in a tray is at least ~4 hours, I'm golden.
I'm hoping to not need to resort to distilled water. It's a lot more expensive and bulky to store, compared to EDTA. Shouldn't need to worry about DTPA, I'm not making a stock solution. I mix straight to working strength and use one-shot per printing session. So as long as the lifespan in a tray is at least ~4 hours, I'm golden.
One gram per liter of EDTA did the trick. I put together a quick CAD drawing of a cylindrical container with two compartments so I can keep the alkalai and the non-alkaline ingredients from touching each other while they're waiting to be mixed up. I'm considering the EDTA an alkaline since it's the tetrasodium variant, which I guess has a pH of 11.3. 3D printed a few of these containers, so I now have pre-measured "capsules" of E72 ingredients that should theoretically keep forever. When I'm ready to print, I can dump a capsule into my 1 liter bottle, fill it up to the 750ml line, and shake it for a minute or so with the lid on. Everything goes into solution easy and the developer is totally clear.
Developement seemed a little bit less active compared to my last tests before I added the chelating agent. Not sure why that would be, but I'm still getting full development somewhere between 90 and 120 seconds, so I'm just going to stick with my default 120 seconds.
Did a quick print session tonight where I only made one final print, a 5x7. Felt nice knowing that I didn't have to toss >$1 worth of developer just for that one print, it's nice having the freedom to work on however many or few prints I want in a session without feeling like I'm wasting expensive developer. That said, I poured it from the tray back into the bottle because I might print again tomorrow, and I'd like to see if it passes the 24 hour test. The pre-EDTA version seemed fine after 4 or 5 days on the shelf.
Thanks all for your expertise and help! I'm very pleased with this developer and happy with my results.
Developement seemed a little bit less active compared to my last tests before I added the chelating agent. Not sure why that would be, but I'm still getting full development somewhere between 90 and 120 seconds, so I'm just going to stick with my default 120 seconds.
Did a quick print session tonight where I only made one final print, a 5x7. Felt nice knowing that I didn't have to toss >$1 worth of developer just for that one print, it's nice having the freedom to work on however many or few prints I want in a session without feeling like I'm wasting expensive developer. That said, I poured it from the tray back into the bottle because I might print again tomorrow, and I'd like to see if it passes the 24 hour test. The pre-EDTA version seemed fine after 4 or 5 days on the shelf.
Thanks all for your expertise and help! I'm very pleased with this developer and happy with my results.
I just realized I didn't answer your question. Sorry about overlooking that.
There is probably no calculator. I googled to find out the common and worst amounts of calcium and magnesium salts in tap water. I then assumed that one molecule of EDTA would chelate one metal ion. Multiplying by the atomic weight of disodium EDTA gave me the weight range of 1.0 to 1.7 g per liter of working solution.
Mark
Nice! Sounds like you got to where you wanted to go and made some nice results too.
FYI for anyone reading this down the line, I mixed up a batch with the EDTA on January 9th and let it sit in the mostly-full plastic bottle until today when I was going to do some more printing. I ended up mixing a new batch of E72, but out of curiosity tossed a small test strip into the nearly 20-day old working strength developer under room light, and it still hit a very convincing Dmax in under 2 minutes. I'm continually impressed with this stuff.
What I think will be the final update here in case anyone wants to know - I've been using E-72 successfully (with EDTA) for several months and a lot of prints. I generally developer for 90-120 seconds for fiber paper, 1 minute for RC paper. I keep these 3D-printed containers mounted underneath the shelf where I store most of my chemistry and paper, and when I want to print, it's as simple as just unscrewing one, dumping it in 950ml of water, and shaking for a minute or so. I standardized on 950ml instead of 750 because it gives a little more wiggle room in an 8x10 tray, which is handy when printing especially curly fiber paper.
The containers have two compartments to keep the alkaline powders separate from the non-alkaline ingredients. I've had zero issues so far using the powder after it has been stored as pictured for months. After mixing, the E-72 seems to stay good in the bottle for at least a week or two. I'm very aware that it's at high risk, at least on paper, of sudden death due to the Fenton reaction, especially using EDTA and my tap water (which does indeed have iron). But so far I haven't observed sudden death. If it's older than about a week when I come back to use it again, I'll toss a small scrap in under room light and confirm that I hit a proper Dmax before using it for any actual prints. When in doubt, it's very inexpensive to just toss it and mix up a fresh bottle.
My recipe for 950ml of working-strength developer (1:3 compared to stock solution) is as follows. Note that I"m using grains, because I find it easier to be precise when working with that unit (blame years of handloading ammo and weighing out gunpowder charges, which are generally given in grains). Feel free to convert to grams if you prefer.
Alkalai Compartment:
That's it! I liked this "keep pre-measured dry stuff on hand and ready to go" approach so much that I ended up using it for Mytol film developer as well. Only difference is that the custom one-shot compartments for Mytol make 250ml of stock strength developer (enough for 1 roll of 35mm film in my steel tank), and include a small 2ml glass vial that holds a phenidone solution in propylene glycol. I wasn't able to measure the tiny quantities of phenidone required for that small of a batch using dry powder, so I had to dilute. But I now have 6 capsules for 950ml Working E-72 paper developer, and 6 capsules for 250ml Mytol Stock on hand, which I refill in batches whenever they run out.
The containers have two compartments to keep the alkaline powders separate from the non-alkaline ingredients. I've had zero issues so far using the powder after it has been stored as pictured for months. After mixing, the E-72 seems to stay good in the bottle for at least a week or two. I'm very aware that it's at high risk, at least on paper, of sudden death due to the Fenton reaction, especially using EDTA and my tap water (which does indeed have iron). But so far I haven't observed sudden death. If it's older than about a week when I come back to use it again, I'll toss a small scrap in under room light and confirm that I hit a proper Dmax before using it for any actual prints. When in doubt, it's very inexpensive to just toss it and mix up a fresh bottle.
My recipe for 950ml of working-strength developer (1:3 compared to stock solution) is as follows. Note that I"m using grains, because I find it easier to be precise when working with that unit (blame years of handloading ammo and weighing out gunpowder charges, which are generally given in grains). Feel free to convert to grams if you prefer.
Alkalai Compartment:
- 165gr Sodium Sulfite
- 330gr Sodium Carbonate (monohydrate; aka Washing Soda)
- 14.5gr EDTA
- 70gr Ascorbic Acid
- 7gr Potassium Bromide
- 1.1gr Phenidone
That's it! I liked this "keep pre-measured dry stuff on hand and ready to go" approach so much that I ended up using it for Mytol film developer as well. Only difference is that the custom one-shot compartments for Mytol make 250ml of stock strength developer (enough for 1 roll of 35mm film in my steel tank), and include a small 2ml glass vial that holds a phenidone solution in propylene glycol. I wasn't able to measure the tiny quantities of phenidone required for that small of a batch using dry powder, so I had to dilute. But I now have 6 capsules for 950ml Working E-72 paper developer, and 6 capsules for 250ml Mytol Stock on hand, which I refill in batches whenever they run out.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |