film in paper developer?

has anyn ever deve;oped film in (diluted paper developer)? experience?

Ansco 130. 1+6. Worked very well, but I only processed 20 or so sheets of Delta 100, so my experience is limited. I achieved normal contrast easily, and the negatives printed without problems at Grades 2 once I had it reasonably dialed in. I remember good shadow detail and nice local contrast.
I know Kodak used to publish Dektol as a universal paper/film developer. 1+9 or so is probably a good starting point.

That's all I know. It's very good to see you back on the forum, Ralph. I have missed you.

According to my Photo lab index, for press negatives use Dektol (D-72) diluted 1+1 for 5 mins @ 20c, no agitation, or 4 mins with agitation resulting in average contrast. For less contrast dilute 1+2, greater contrast use full strength, or adjust developing time. There is no specification of film brand or speed.

I once developed a roll of Tech Pan in Dektol stock, rating the film at 200 and processing for three minutes per Kodak's instructions. This produced interesting, very high contrast negatives, almost like line art.

I have been solarizing some negatives lately in my paper solarol develeoper formulation, need to underexpose neg by 1 stop and works nicely for me, but I do not think this is what you are looking for.

I do it all the tine and have been doing so for about 10 years. I use a universal developer that is diluted 1+11 for papers and 1+49 for films. Negative contrast is normal and grain is comparable to that produced by Rodinal.

Dektol can produce larger grain.

Ilford PQ-Universal was originally designed for films and papers and Champion Suprol is similar.

I have not tried either for film developing.

Is there a particular reason why you want to use a paper developer for films?

hi ralph

i have been processing film in ansco 130 for about 11 years.
roll film and sheet film, about 1:6 ... for about 8.5 minutes and i can't complain !

great to see you back ralph !
john

Keith Tapscott. said:

Ilford PQ-Universal was originally designed for films and papers and Champion Suprol is similar.

I have not tried either for film developing....

Click to expand...

I use it for film -- but for contact printing. Ilford does not recommend it for roll films due to the larger grain size, I believe.

Terry King of the Royal Photographic Society recommended it for extending the contrast while keeping good tonal values in the mid-tones for platinum printing.

Many so called printdevelopers like D72 (Dektol) started life as negative developers

Ilford used to recommend PQ Universal for roll film development and if used more dilute still it's also good with 35mm as well.

One problem is these developers need to be used when they are quite fresh with negatives as any oxidation has a more marked effect, most modern film developers have a higher sulphite level which tends to help prevent deterioration.

Back in the 70's and 80's we used PQ Universal or Suprol a lot for film processing (at work), the negatives are far cleaner, much less base fog, than ID-11 or D76. Suprol was used in the B&W D&P trade in processing lines giving good fine grain, sharpness and an excellent range of tones.

Around 1986 I tested PQ Universal (at 1+29) as well as Rodinal, ID-11/D76, Adox borax MQ nad one or tywo other dvelopers with APX100. Of all of them Rodinal and Adox Borax MQ gave the best overall balance, finest grain, sharpness along woth excellent tonality (best tonal rendering). PQ Universal gave slightly less effective EI than ID-11 and both were a good half stop behind Rodinal and Adox Borax MQ. I switched to Rodinal for convenience and found it also brought the best out of Tmax 100.

The late Peter Glodfield came to similar conclusions and was a great advaocate of Rodinal and T grain (and similar) films.

My tests with PQ Universal showed that diluted as per M&B Suprol recommendations it was a developer that gave excellent fine grain. It's still recommended for Ilford's Ortho films. At work we were using 5-10 litres of concentrate a week so it was always fresh. However like many low sulphite developers it goes of slightly once opened, not enough to be serious for a print developer but significant enough when used Time/temperature with films.

As an aside one Agfa Ansco 103 started life as a packaged Film and Universal developer then Agfa dropped the sulphite level (around 1940) and sold it as a Paper developer no longer recommending it for films.

Ian

I used Tech Pan only when high contrast was desired, as in photographing clouds, and routinely developed it in Polymax with a prewash.

If I didn't have so much D76, I wouldn't hesitate using just Dektol. One of my favorite portrait prints was made using a TRI-X negative that was developed for several minutes in warm Dektol (working solution). Working "outside-of-the-box" can produce some of the most interesting results. Last week I had two 4x5 sheets whose compositions I regarded as "wanting", even before development. So, knowing they were destined for the trash bin, I gave them two minutes in Dektol. I'd say the results have usually been a bit more grain & contrast, but nothing outrageous. I can't recall making a D76 vs Dektol comparison, but I really should. If not just for grins.

I did a few rolls of Tri-X in Dektol (1+9) just to see how it looked. It didn't suit my taste and so went back to D-23 and D-76 for films.

Ian -- I take my 5 liters of PQ Universal and as soon as I open it, divide it up into smaller (1 liter) bottles (filled to the very top).

What would be the effect of a oxidized PQ developer like this on the negative?

Thanks, Vaughn

Vaughn said:

What would be the effect of a oxidized PQ developer like this on the negative?

Click to expand...

If a developer's used highly dilute then any oxidation of a PQ (or MQ) developer will just mean a corresponding amount under-development. In reality this degree of oxidation is over months rather than weeks and in partially full bottles and splitting a developer into smaller containers helps enormously.

Ian

Bob Carnie said:

I have been solarizing some negatives lately in my paper solarol develeoper formulation, need to underexpose neg by 1 stop and works nicely for me, but I do not think this is what you are looking for.

Click to expand...

Hi Bob,
Could you share a few details about how you're doing it?? Thanks, Evan Clarke

The old "Tri-Chem-Packs" siad you could use the developer for Prints or FIlm. Forget if it wanted more dilution. back in those days you could buy 4 oz size sachets of Microdol-X - mix it for 16 oz and use the 1+3 time.

Back in my the-more-grain-the-better days, tri-x in Dektol 1:20 worked well. I do not recall the exact times, but my memory suggests they were not that far off from D-76 1:1 times.

Ian Grant said:

If a developer's used highly dilute then any oxidation of a PQ (or MQ) developer will just mean a corresponding amount under-development. In reality this degree of oxidation is over months rather than weeks and in partially full bottles and splitting a developer into smaller containers helps enormously.

Ian

Click to expand...

Thanks, Ian. I have used it when it started to look pretty bad, and actually tossed out the last pint or so of it -- which is why I went to splitting it up into smaller bottles. It was getting to be a matter of months. Five liters lasts awhile when only using 50ml for five 8x10 negatives at a time in the 3005 -- and I do not burn thru a lot of film. And it is nice to be able to fill up a tray with a good amount when doing 11x14 negs without thinking about cost or running out soon.

Vaughn

Sure

For my print solarizations I am using Metol, sodium sulfite, sodium carbonate, sodium bromide with water, I mix up enough to make 12 litres, I split the chems into two trays and the second tray I add a lot of potassium bromide. The first tray is for the 1/2 development and make the print quite light. The second tray is my flash tray, I have a point light source with various intensity switches to control the light, with the addition of the p bromide which in layman terms changes the grain structure of the second dev. If Ian can jump in , I believe the p bromide is a restrainer and I add mucho mucho p bromide to the second bath. after the flash the image still has a way to develop and by controlling time and dodging and burning a lot of interesting results can be had.
With this two dev method when toning the real side tones one way and the unreal side tones another, by using bleach sepia, gold , and a third cool toner one can get some pretty funky results.


So now I mix the same developer, but I do not use potassium Bromide, I figured out a 5 minute dev time and I am using a century 8x10 camera so I load 2 sheets at a time into the deep tanks that are situated below my point light source, I develop as normal, but half way through I pull the film out lay on the lid of the deep tanks and flash . I have found that if you underexpose by 1 stop from your normal setting this will work..... Thank you Mr Jolly from Berkley U who wrote a wonderful description and after a few thousand solarizations that man really knew what he was talking about.

These negatives now have a black Mackie line vs the white that I get from print solarization.
As well I print with lith and then multiple tone so the sky is the limit as far as control and experimentation.

The jpegs above are 8x10 neg, solarized and the look is mimicked in PS as to how the print is going to look in my mind.

I believe this is how Man Ray did a lot of his work, ***Negative Solarization***so in respect to his work my first few years of solarizations was done by the print method which I believe he did not do . I wanted a look that was completely different. I believe Ed Buffaloe does print solarizations but I am not sure on that one.

eclarke said:

Hi Bob,
Could you share a few details about how you're doing it?? Thanks, Evan Clarke

Click to expand...

For those who might be confused due to a difference in terminology....

As I understand it, what Bob refers to as solarization is understood by some as the Sabbatier effect.

I'm not publically taking sides in the discussion about whether one name for that process is more appropriate than the other.

Yes - I have had a long standing argument with PE about this. William Jolly as far as Ron was concerned was wrong about how he described the name of his process.
I really do not care, and will continue to call them solarizations, which sometimes can be confused with the Sabbatier effect.

MattKing said:

For those who might be confused due to a difference in terminology....

As I understand it, what Bob refers to as solarization is understood by some as the Sabbatier effect.

I'm not publically taking sides in the discussion about whether one name for that process is more appropriate than the other.

Click to expand...