Film developer as paper developer

[Marco B]

Hi all,

Yesterday I developed my latest roll of film and today I decided that I at least wanted to have closer look at a contact sheet of it. Now I had run out of my regular Ilford Multigrade paper developer... So what to do? Well, I still had some stock solution D-76 film developer, and never afraid of some experimentation I thought: "Heck, I'll give it a go!"

So I made up 2 liter of developer by mixing D-76 stock 1:1 with water and put it in the developer tray.

After reading a bit on the internet, which suggested film developers were less concentrated and would need considerably longer development time, I also decided to add a teaspoon of soda (sodium carbonate), as I at least know that it helps as an accelerator in redevelopement with thiourea sepia toning, but I don't know if it is of any real use in a normal developer (except that normal development also needs OH- anion of alkali conditions for continued development).

So I than tried the following: Ilford Multigrade RC Warmtone paper, 3.5 minutes. And... it looked great! Yes, the development was a bit slow compared to normal developer, but tonality and max black looked OK.

It turns out that, compared to my regular Ilford Multigrade paper developer, the D-76 works more like a warmtone developer. The tones were distinctly warmer than with the normal Ilford Multigrade paper developer, even though the comparison contact sheet is also on RC Warmtone. The attachements show the results, I don't know if the difference in warmth shows up in the scans...

Attachment 1: Statue: D76, Stock to water 1:1, 3.5 minutes
Attachment 2: Tree: Ilford Multigrade developer at regular 1:9 concentration, 2 minutes

So I also decided to try out some regular Ilford MGIV FB paper and enlarge a negative. I was a bit in hurry, as I also wanted to do some other things this day, so after an initial max black test for 4 minutes development, which turned up a medium to dark grey color, I just figured 8 minutes would do to get maximum black.

Since the negative I wanted to print was shot on an overcast day, and hence with many mid tone greys anyway, being slightly beneath max. black would probably also not hurt. Actually, I choose the "statue" negative, and the final print results were close to what you see here in the scan of the contact sheet. I also split sepia/selenium toned the prints, and the color is a lovely sepia. Great.

So what is my conclusion and what did I learn?:

Don't hesitate if you are in a similar situation. I was completely satisfied with the final prints. Tonality is great, maybe a bit less max. black but more than OK.

Fair enough, printing times are a bit long, and I don't know if there is much capacity in such a bath, but as a "backup" option, even for final prints, it proved fine. I know the prints are keepers, I may post a scan of the enlargement tomorrow if I have time.

 

[Rick A]

In the past I've tried D-76 for prints, it's okay. I like it better mixed 50-50 with Dektol then diluted 1+4 for paper negatives.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Film developers can cause speed loss in papers due to the presence of Sulfite as in D76. They can also increase contrast in some cases by removing part of the silver halide. It depends on the emulsion.

PE

 

[Marco B]

Film developers can cause speed loss in papers due to the presence of Sulfite as in D76. They can also increase contrast in some cases by removing part of the silver halide. It depends on the emulsion.

PE

At least the Ilford papers seem to respond quite normally to D76. See the resulting image below on Ilford MGIV FB paper developed for 8 minutes in D76 1:1 (Stock solution : water). Image also split sepia and selenium toned, the scan looks a bit darker than the original photo. May need to adjust it a bit.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The result is beautiful. However, see your comment above in the OP about printing time. I never said that it would not work, I just commented on the changes you might see with any given paper.

PE

 

[Marco B]

The result is beautiful. However, see your comment above in the OP about printing time. I never said that it would not work, I just commented on the changes you might see with any given paper.

PE

Ron, these 3.5 minutes (Ilford Warmtone), and 8 minutes (Ilford MGIV) are development times, not printing or paper exposure times... I listed these because those are the only ones differing, and as a guide for others who might try it.

The paper exposure times were absolutely normal, just 18 seconds at F8 in my Durst M670 BW enlarger with, if I remember it well, a 100W tungsten opal light bulb.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I always wonder if you could use film developer for paper developer. Thanks for the information.

Jeff

 

[Rick A]

Kodk D-72 started as a film developer, you call it Dektol.

 

[Ray Rogers]

I know PE disagrees with me, but I have long felt that the main reason we don't have a one developer system is because different groups were working on different processes, and, instead of designing an emulsion with the properties needed, it was easier to just to hunt for developers that worked with the emulsions that were produced.

BTW, Nice images Marco.

Ralnphot,
Kodak actually used to sell D-72 as a pre-packaged developer.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, first off Marco, this is what I went by in the OP, "Fair enough, printing times are a bit long," which is what I observed by losing about 1 - 3 stops in speed when I did much the same.

Second, I agree and disagree with Ray. I agree in the sense that print and film developers can be one and the same, but I disagree in the sense that after years of experimentation, they found that print developers were a rather narrow class of what became a broad class of film developers with potential for improving sharpness, speed, grain, image tone and curve shape. Curve shape and print tone were the main objectives of print developers. Therefore, ALL photo companies differentiated between the two classes..

Also, D72 is still sold as Dektol with minor modifications. I've mentioned the sequestering agent and the encapsulation here before that is used to 'combine' Dektol and D-72 into one formula and one powder.

In addition, Kodak sold a Universal MQ developer and Versatol as two developers usable for both film and paper, although the Versatol gradually became most used as a film developer IIRC. The Universal MQ was sold in a "Tri-Chem-Pack" for film and paper with Developer, Stop and Fix in one box good for one roll of film and about a dozen or so prints.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Interestingly Rodinal was recommened by Agaf for plates and prints right from it's early days. As Rick says D72 was originally a film developer as was S163 yetr later they became paper developers.

Recently I camea across a 1949 recommendation for using the bleed off MQ film deveoper (D76/!D-11) from commercial processing lines for printing, but it needed added alkali to improve the contast.

Ian

 

[Marco B]

Well, first off Marco, this is what I went by in the OP, "Fair enough, printing times are a bit long," which is what I observed by losing about 1 - 3 stops in speed when I did much the same.

Ron, I am the OP... but maybe my confusion surrounding your remark is with what the definition of "speed" is, in the case of photo papers. What I observed with this experiment, is that the exposure times of the paper under the enlarger were as normal, but that I just had very slow development of the paper in the trays, requiring up to 8 minutes for Ilford MGIV FB paper to get maximum black in D76 1:1 (stock : water).

Is that what you mean with "losing 1 - 3 stops in speed"? (so longer required development to get full development of the paper and max black)

I realize "speed" is a bit confusing parameter in analog photography, as it is both related to exposure of film and paper, and the subsequent development...

 

[Rick A]

I had all but forgotten the Universal MQ that came in my Sears developing kit when I was a kid. I dont remember if I ever used Versatol, might have though, my dad bought me whatever was available and cheap.
I liked the mix of D-76 and Dektol for paper negatives, mostly for the slower speed and bit of contrastiness. I havent shot any paper negatives in a while, might have to cut some paper up and shoot a few.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Marco, the "printing times are a bit long" means to me that a longer exposure was needed. This was consistent with what I saw with similar experiments. That is all I intended by my remark. The sulfite is a moderate silver halide solvent as we know. Thus, with some emulsions it can alter apparent speed and curve shape. That is about it. And this fits well with the decision of most photo manufacturers to have a dual line of developers.

Development rate would be the expression used if one used long development times.

Sorry about the mixup.

PE

 

[Marco B]

Thanks Ron for your further explanation and useful additional remarks in the context of the topic of this thread. It may be of use to others who would like to try it, use a "film developer" as a "print developer".

 

[Ray Rogers]

Second, I agree and disagree with Ray. I agree in the sense that... but I disagree in the sense that after years of experimentation, they found that print developers were a rather narrow class of what became a broad class of film developers with potential for improving sharpness, speed, grain, image tone and curve shape. Curve shape and print tone were the main objectives of print developers. Therefore, ALL photo companies differentiated between the two classes..
PE

This is true, but it is from the point of hindsight- who knows what they may have found they could do if research had been conducted in that direction.

With the advantage of hindsight, knowing what we know today, yes, I agree, but from a historical POV, they did not really try to design emulsions that would give them the results desired using a single developer.

There are more ways to manipulate the essential characteristics of a photographic image than there are characteristics themselves. Like reversal, it can be done several ways. I was just noting that those characterstics of photographic images can be manipulated at several different stages and that (IMO) little effort was put into the emulsion design side of the coin, that is, in attempting make them work well with a single developer.

I don't know for sure, but I would guess the reason we have the few universal developers that we do, is because someone, looking at it from the developing side, thought it would be a neat (good, profitable) idea and actually did some (developer)testing... I just don't think the research directors actually held a simlar desire. Wheather it would have been actually possible, or to what degree, is not my point.

print developers were a rather narrow class of what became a broad class of film developers with potential for improving sharpness, speed, grain, image tone and curve shape. Curve shape and print tone were the main objectives of print developers.PE

That's my point... Those things can also be fine tuned in the emulsion.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ray;

There is much more here than you have mentioned such as grain size. A 400 speed emulsion would not work for a good print emulsion as the exposure times would be very short. Also, the sulfur + gold + etc. needed to get the film gradation would affect the curve shape of the print material adversely but using a different sensitization would lead to a waste of silver halide due to lack of proper sensitization.

Much work was done to actually prove that there were classes of emulsions that were optimum for prints and others that were optimum for films. After all, who wants to wait 15' for a print to fully develop if using a 10% Iodide, 1 micron grain in common with a 400 speed film? Who wants all paper to be grade 1 or lower? Etc..

These points must all be factored into this problem as it evolved during the development of photo products during the last ~1.5 centuries. I worked with this evolution for more than 30 years, as you know, and I have seen actual examples of what I say here, and can probably demonstrate it in my darkroom for anyone to see.

To include a few more points, the dopants and organic chemicals used to optimize latent image keeping, raw stock keeping and reciprocity failure must be tailored to the given emulsion. A slow Cl/Br emulsion is totally different than a fast Br/I in all respects and one ends up on the easel while the other is in the camera.

Of course, they can be exchanged under some circumstances, but the results are most often less than optimum.

I would be interested if anyone can point on a direction contrary to my thoughts here.

PE

 

[Ray Rogers]

Yes I agree.

But, again, I wasn't saying they are identical, simply that there are usually many ways to do things... Naturally there will be differences somewhere.

Grain size example:
The emulsion could be dyed to slow it down,
Desentizers could be added
Development temperatures/times could be altered
Lower intensity exposing lights or the same lights with ND flters could be used

Of course, my original comment allowed all emulsion changes and only placed limits on developer composition.

I know we disagree on this subject. I think you are basicly saying that we could not have gotten to where we are today using a standard developer, and you are probaly right.

I am only saying* that we could have gotten somewhere, further along than we are now, had that been a design aim...

But it wasn't and we are not.

Naturally, freedom to manipulate both (emulsion and developer) gives the engineer the maximum number of options and is therefore I guess, ideal.

I am content to just agree that we disagree.

Ray

*(Well acually, if you go back to my OP, what I am saying is:
We did more designing of developers for particular emulsions
than than we did
designing emulsions for a particular developer)

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, your last comment in the footnote is not true either Ray.

At Kodak we did constant testing of new emulsions with new developers. I know that also for a fact. Part of my job was to keep track of the new emulsions being made and the number being sent to the plant. There were several groups doing testing of the emulsions, one a standard speed test and then one for color and one for B&W. These tested all possible variations and were pretty thorough.

Maybe what you describe is what Fuji does/did, but not what EK did for years. If Fuji did not, then I have no idea where you got this idea. Just as an example, you would be surprised at the number of emulsions and developers tested for the final (or first) C41 and E6 products. Same thing for Kodachrome and color paper.

At one time, I had 12 developers contending for Ektaprint 3 with 7 emulsions. One developer and 3 emulsions won out.

It was similar in B&W.

Dying back a film emulsion still leaves you with a long development time, high fog, soft toe and a long scale. All are undesirable for a paper product. And, none of this is easily corrected to force it to work! If you make changes to force it to work, you actually end up with a "normal" paper developer.

PE

 

[bwfans]

Thanks for OP's experiment. I think the (D-76) print posted above is beautiful. Better than a lot photographs developed with Dektol .

I would like to see further experiment using film developer in the place of paper developer. What else the chemicals can be added to make it a better paper developer. I saw the development time is 4 times longer than usual. How to cut that time in half or even shorter? How to improve other property? What is the general method to turn a film developer into paper developer?

On the other hand, If there is anyway, or even a general method to turn a paper developer, like Dektol, into a better film developer?

bwfans

 

[Photo Engineer]

Dektol at 1:7 for 7 minutes for many films is not bad. It isn't great either, but it does work. You may like the results.

PE

 

[Ray Rogers]

Well, your last comment in the footnote is not true...

At Kodak we did constant testing of new emulsions with new developers. I know that also for a fact. Part of my job was to keep track of the new emulsions being made and the number being sent to the plant. There were several groups doing testing of the emulsions, one a standard speed test and then one for color and one for B&W. These tested all possible variations and were pretty thorough.

Maybe what you describe is what Fuji does/did, but not what EK did for years. If Fuji did not, then I have no idea where you got this idea. Just as an example, you would be surprised at the number of emulsions and developers tested for the final (or first) C41 and E6 products. Same thing for Kodachrome and color paper.

At one time, I had 12 developers contending for Ektaprint 3 with 7 emulsions. One developer and 3 emulsions won out.

It was similar in B&W.

I never said you (Kodak) doesn't test various combinations... I know they do/did and some discoveries may have actually been made that way...but it is my understanding those tests were pretty much routine... or up to the discression of the researchers... certainly not part of a design plan to create different emulsions that worked rather well in a standard developer.

Are you saying that Kodak actually had the creation of a Universal Developer
as a serious research objective? Or, are you just noting that Kodak tried a lot of things?

If Kodak actually had as a specific research objective the design of positive and negative emulsions that worked well in the same developer, then you are correct.

On the other hand, Simply stating the fact that Kodak tested many combinations does not really support your statement that I am wrong.

Pointing out a publication that describes Kodak abandoning this as failed research avenue would though.

Anyway, it does not really matter I guess, as we are where we are.

Since neither of us seems willing to budge, I move that we move on.

Ray

 

[Marco B]

Thanks for OP's experiment. I think the (D-76) print posted above is beautiful. Better than a lot photographs developed with Dektol .

Thanks

I would like to see further experiment using film developer in the place of paper developer. What else the chemicals can be added to make it a better paper developer. I saw the development time is 4 times longer than usual. How to cut that time in half or even shorter? How to improve other property? What is the general method to turn a film developer into paper developer?

Well, as I wrote, I added a teaspoon of soda (sodiumcarbonate) to "possibly" speed up the development, based on my experience with thiourea redevelopment in sepia toning. But I don't know if it is actually effective at all...

Maybe Ron or Ray can comment on that, they would definitely know...

And in addition, as you saw, I used my stock solution diluted with water 1:1. The only reason I did this, was that I had only one litre of D76 stock available, and needed two in the tray. Maybe if you use it at stock strength, the development time is shorted, but again, this is just a guess. Try it out yourself and post the results here. Of course that would only be really useful if you also use the same paper, as there may be differences here (like as with warmtone and normal papers).

The water I used was plain tap water by the way.

 

[Athiril]

At least the Ilford papers seem to respond quite normally to D76. See the resulting image below on Ilford MGIV FB paper developed for 8 minutes in D76 1:1 (Stock solution : water). Image also split sepia and selenium toned, the scan looks a bit darker than the original photo. May need to adjust it a bit.

That looks lovely.

I think you should try this method with 'bright' subjects and see what you get.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ray;

This is not the time or place to continue this argument, especially with such a lovely result here!

Suffice it to say that there were concerted R&D programs on all phases of B&W and color developers and emulsions to see what worked with what and to determine the how and why of it. My direct experience is supportive of that. If you wish to continue, start another thread.

PE