Do you use the "Double Solution" per Darkroom Cookbook?

Having gone through the Darkroom Cookbook and stumbled on "the easiest improvement for your negatives is to double the amount of solution used in development rather than use the recommended minimum." Okay, now you can take that statement a number of ways: 1) Double the developer dissolved in the solution, or 2) Double the total solution mixed at the same recipe. I think the author pushes for the 2nd alternative as his recommendation, and that's my read. Tried it and yes, the negatives are smoother, richer, etc. I'm using a semi-stand technique per Ansel Adams recommendation, but I'm not crediting that for the improvement. And the improvement seems to be pretty uniform with respect to different developers and film stocks.

So what's the problem? Not the cost - that's pretty cheap no matter that it's doubled. The cost that I'm counting is time. This took my 2 reel tank and converted it back to a one reel of film + one "spacer". As the kids say, "OMG! what a time sponge!" So I'm wondering about a 4 reel tank with 2 reels of film and 2 spacers in order to get some life back. What do you folks do? Seems to me this could be creating some other problems... least of all that Patterson tanks carried here in the States seem to be 1,2,3 and 5 (for 35mm) and 5 is beginning to tip the scales. Try to do this with 120 and the problem is the tanks start to be taller than I am (I'm five-eight and shrinking). What's your experience? Is this why folks start motorizing? (I did buy a Uniroller some time back but haven't used it).

Thanks for your input.

Always fill the tank, no matter how many rolls are in it. Leave a small amount of space at the top by not 'topping off' so that some movement of the solution is possible. Use inversion with a twist, twice per minute. That's all the agitation you need.

Petraio: Thanks to the solution fill note. How many rolls do you process at a time? Onesies or (preferrably) more?

I think it is very different to double the developer IN the solution than to double the solution in the tank! In the first case you are altering the developer dilution in the second case no.

Edit: spelling

JWMster said:

Petraio: Thanks to the solution fill note. How many rolls do you process at a time? Onesies or (preferrably) more?

Click to expand...

I have several Paterson tanks (to hold 1, 2, 3, or 5 rolls), and shoot 35mm. If I have one roll, I use the smallest tank. If I have two, I use the next size tank, etc. In any event, I fill almost to the top, to give a small 'air' gap, to allow some movement of the developer. Agitation should not be over-done. That's why I do not use or recommend continuous rotary agitation. If you are unsure how much solution to prepare, fill the tank with water and the number of reels you plan on using. Pour the water into a graduate and note the volume. Prepare just enough solution to fill the tank with x number of reels. Never use less than that volume of solution.

I always use 1000 ml for all my processing dev, stop and fix , I never calculate minimal coverage options.

Twelvetone12: Yeah.... doubling the proportion changes the time (a la HC-110 dilution options). Therefore, I doubled the volume. Problem is that this meant I lost the ability to do 2 film stocks in a 2 reel tank and need to move to a 4 reel tank to reset the through-put back to a level where I don't find myself wanting another process. Results? I can finally say that I'm loving it! VERY consistent. Tried Hewes reels and that didn't work on the first trial, and that's not an "over and done", but I'm loving the Paterson tanks and Paterson-type (Arista) plastic reels as they're just very, very consistent. While I can say that I'm loving the Pyrocat-HD results, I'm paralleling that with HC-110 developed under similar dilution (1:100) and semi-stand (continuous for the 1st minute, then 10-seconds every 3rd minute thereafter until done with a 50% increase for semi-stand over times figured from a multiple of the Dilution B formula) with the same film stock as a control... as in "control your enthusiasm".

The real problem with the time expansion in semi-stand is me. Yeah. Time start (chem mix) to finish (clean-up) works out to about an hour per reel. I did 3 reels last night in three 2-reel tankfuls (processed in series) and that took 3 hours. I think that's beyond my limit as I actually made an error in the 3rd reel of grabbing a roll of HP5 shot at box speed thinking I'd grabbed a roll of FP4... and used an FP4 time which was too long. Shots all came out... and I haven't had a chance to really look at the negatives beyond that, but my expectations are low. Needless to say, I won't be doing THAT again. Makes the case for a number of arguments (1 film, 1 developer, etc) but mostly for not trying to work too fast when you're tired.

Also of interest is that with my TTL metered camera out for a routine CLA, I'm using a meterless camera with a Pentax spotmeter and the results are ... well, it's not fast work, but it is worth the trouble. Very encouraging!

michael_r said:

JWMster: Don't get too hung up on these kinds of statements. In The Darkroom Cookbook, only the formula section is really of value (mostly historical). The rest of the book actually contains quite a lot of bad information.

Click to expand...

Some of it is indeed bad (the comments about T-Max films are all wrong, for instance). I have communicated with the authors about some of these things.

Bob: Yeah. With a 2-reel tank, I'm making up 700ml for 35mm, but I'm betting as I start doing some 120 that number will rise. I'm finding a lot of utility in larger solutions to keep on hand. My biggest mistake offered some insight, too! Ordered some of Photographer Formulary's TS-4 Stop Bath... and though I thought I'd ordered 1 Liter, it turned out I'd ordered a 10 liter mix. What to do without a scale? I went out and bought a 2.5 gallon fuel can and mixed it in there. Marked the can up so I won't forget, and "my, isn't that handy?" I'm also using their TF-5 Fixer. But I like mixing to 1 liter amounts like you and will probably go there next.

Beauty of semi-stand and one developer is it pretty much removes a lot of variability in the process, and is simplifying the routine. As someone fairly new to this (but who's done a LOT of film processing in short order), I've been using a lot of checklists and spreadsheets to keep things on track. That part has worked fine. My problem had been pouring the wrong solution into the wrong container prior or post developing and having to throw it out and remix. No damage other than to my pride, a little to my wallet, and a bit of waste. But that's gonna get slowly cured, too.

Michael_R: Okay. I'm kind of sorry to hear that. But thanks for the heads up.

FWIW, I am one of those who have success loading two 120 rolls on to the same reel - load the first, push it through until it reaches the core, then load the second.
I think you already know about my not so positive opinion about semi-stand development for general purposes, but at least it will help you avoid the major challenge with loading two 120 rolls on to the same reel - vigorous agitation can cause the rolls to move and overlap each other.
I have way too many developing tanks, but if I had to settle on one size it would be the Paterson tanks that take three 35mm reels or two 120 reels.
And if you want simple, easy, high quality and economy, replenished X-Tol is the way to go with proper agitation (or semi-stand, if you must).

Does the statement quoted in the OP first post apply only to certain developers in the semi-stand method where there might be some leeway on what constitutes a minimum quantity such as Rodinal but while some might get away with a lower minimum quantity, isn't there a Rodinal minimum which was tested and found to produce optimum negs?

If this is a general statement of truth then doesn't this mean if we use DDX as an example that Ilford, say, is actually cheating itself out of extra sales and us users out of better negatives by recommending 1+4 and only 250mm which is enough to do one 35mm film in a Jobo tank when we'd be better off using the 500mm tank with 500ml of DDX?

If the OP judges he gets better negs then fine but it seems to fly in the face of what I had assumed was a carefully worked out and tested formula from Ilford.

I use Ilford as an example only.


pentaxuser

pentaxuser: Truthfully.... I can see smoother grain and more even development. Can I test that? No. Earlier negs are earlier negs and so this is a stage of process development that fairly hasn't been systematic at every step, but a learning exercise. I'm quoting the Development Cookbook as the source, but I believe Chris Crawford - who's on the rangefinderforum but also here from time to time - makes the same note. I gave it a try and the negatives look better. My agitation is also gentler and the kinks increasingly out of my process. I can come back and re-evaluate and do something systematic, but at the moment my first initiative was to query the group to find out whether they've tried this technique and what their results were. Primarily, the technique is using an excess volume of fluid in the tank relative to the minimum spec. Whether you develop stand, semi-stand or straight should be irrelevant to the volume question. The recipe remains unchanged whether you're using 1:3, 1:4, 1:9, 1:19, 1:50 or anything else - it is only the volume of the recipe that is changed.

Yes I completely understand what you said previously and you have said now. I am simply questioning why if there is a scientific basis for it, has other companies who carefully test their developers and film not suggested that while the normal quantity, say 250ml, gives excellent results, those wishing for optimum results might want to try double the volume.

If you see a difference then that's fine.

pentaxuser

Fill the tank for the best and smoothest results. It does not cost any more unless you are using the developer as one shot.

Darkroom Cookbook's suggestion is that the testing by the Film Companies is designed to establish the minimum amount of developer needed to produce a printable negative. Suggestion is made there that the purpose of the test's design is driven by economics for the purposes of the commercial labs, and NOT for producing the maximum potential quality in that negative. Thus the basis is commercial, not scientific. Of course the reverse is also true, as the author does not give a distinguishing density level difference between the same negative produced from the 1st, absolute minimum volume of liquid relative to producing the same negative from batch using doubled volume. Maybe this is Michael_R's (see above) reference to much of the text of the book as hogwash?

pentaxuser said:

Yes I completely understand what you said previously and you have said now. I am simply questioning why if there is a scientific basis for it, has other companies who carefully test their developers and film not suggested that while the normal quantity, say 250ml, gives excellent results, those wishing for optimum results might want to try double the volume.

If you see a difference then that's fine.

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Fill the tank, always. It doesn't matter how many films are in the tank. Make sure there is no way for the reels to slide up and down loose.

Sirius Glass said:

Fill the tank for the best and smoothest results. It does not cost any more unless you are using the developer as one shot.

Click to expand...

here here!

This isn't a surprise since you are doing stand developing with dilute developers. There just isn't enough developer in the tank. The developer gets exhausted, and your film doesn't look that great.

If you are using Pyrocat, there is no point to stand development. Pyrocat is already a compensating developer since it is tanning/staining. Just use it normally, and you can forget about stand developing which has it's own problems. Save yourself the time you are wasting.

If you like your negs but don't want to waste time, increase the concentration. You can use Pyrocat 2:2:100 and fill your tank with film.

Frankly I will never understand the need for people to try to reinvent the wheel. Way too much effort. You found out the hard way that your methods weren't really working. It isn't a revelation, just a mistake for going in the wrong direction and listening to all the internet "experts".

Anyway, I am glad you are back on the right track.

michael_r said:

Correct, this is an example of bad information - basically just Anchell's opinion without evidence or even a sound theoretical basis - best taken with a grain of salt. The book has its strengths and weaknesses.

Click to expand...

Be careful with the salt, it can effect development.

Sirius Glass said:

Be careful with the salt, it can effect development.

Click to expand...

Indeed the book in question does recommend adding salt to a number of formulae, but more than a grain, that assumes we are talking a troy grain of 64.79891 mg

I have been developing film successfully for over four decades following the instruction included with the developer, and see no reason to change now. Doubling the cost of developing without a scientific basis is dubious advice.

faberryman said:

I have been developing film successfully for over four decades following the instruction included with the developer, and see no reason to change now. Doubling the cost of developing without a scientific basis is dubious advice.

Click to expand...

I agree completely, D76/ID11 Rodinal/HC110 would have been found out years ago if the manufactures advice could have been bettered.
As for salt that should stay in the kitchen.

Manufacturers don't create recommendations to minimize costs for commercial labs. They create recommendations to maximize consistency, and minimize problems. The manufacturers benefit from the labs using more developer, not less.
Commercial labs may be tempted to cut costs.
Kodak's capacity recommendations are almost universally thought to be extremely conservative, but they aren't directed to those who use stand or semi-stand procedures, because their recommendations are to agitate regularly.
The reasons why using more developer might help in a semi-stand environment probably include the fact that the developer is more likely to start out homogeneous, and because there is at least a chance that the currents that arise in a stand or semi-stand environment may be more able to provide the fresh developer that agitation provides in a more normal environment.