Has anyone ever mixed developers?

Kevin Harding · Dec 26, 2014

Trask said:
Thanks for the recipe -- you put the Rodinal and HC-110 in what volume of water? Got any scans you can share to show the results?

Sorry, I should have been clearer on that! The mix goes into 600ml of water, enough for 1 of my 120 rolls in a Paterson tank.

I have some scans of this - here's an example: https://500px.com/photo/86940569/the-rocks-of-fulford-by-kevin-harding and https://500px.com/photo/89874701/the-point-by-kevin-harding (Scanned from neg, no PS adjustments other than BW conversion and in one, desaturation)

Regarding the fix - I fix for about five minutes.

Kevin Harding · Dec 26, 2014

Gerald C Koch said:
What do you hope to achieve from mixing developers. finer grain, better contrast? Anything you could mention could be obtained by using an appropriately chosen single developer. Any experiment must have a particular purpose. Without one it is merely playing.

Yeah, that's the magic of experimentation, isn't it? Playing, that is.

I don't honestly know what I get out of it. What I like is that the person who developed this recipe (Larry Dressler) has posited that any roll of film takes 30 mins with the agitation schedule I noted. I've used all kinds of films through it, from an IR film to RPX 25 to HP5 and all have developed to a density that I'm happy with.

So yeah, I'm playing around, and I'm getting consistent results I'm happy with. And I don't have any problems with people who use only one developer - I am happy to live and let live

I did note in my initial post that I didn't know if there was any benefit to this formula. I had been using an extremely dilute mixture of HC-110 for a while, but was getting edge density effects that I wasn't happy with, due to under-agitation. This mix doesn't give me those problems.

Sirius Glass · Dec 26, 2014

Neal said:
I accidentally used Dektol as a stop bath once.

Neal Wydra

Most of us have used hypo as a developer one time or another.

Kevin Harding · Dec 26, 2014

Gerald C Koch said:
Too many people on APUG seem to think that experimenting is fun. Performing a well designed series of experiments is time consuming, tedious, often unrewarding and just plain hard work. In order to evaluate a particular mixture you would need at the very minimum a densitometer, a step wedge and/or standard test strips plus many hours and rolls of film.

The history of photography is full of people who attempted to find a mystical portion known only to them. The classic example was Harry Champlin author of the unintentionally funny Champlin On Fine Grain. Dr Edmud Lowe who founded Edwal and designed many of their developers said upon reading the book "It was like reading a children's story where the dragon Grain is tracked to its layer and smothered in clouds of nickel ammonium sulfate." Not understanding chemistry did not deter Harry.

The web is full of poorly tested and usually bad developer recipes. Do we need any more?

Gerald added this after I responded below noting that I was having fun with the recipe I used.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with experimentation for fun - what I do is take photos, put them in chemicals, develop the negatives, print them, and often enjoy them. So far, my method works for me.

I'm not aiming for an international standard, nor scientifically publishable results.

I will stress that I don't think that there's anything wrong at all with experimentation for experimentation's sake. I don't know why there are so many people on APUG who seem to think that their job is to police others who do something different.

Best wishes for the season to you, Gerald. I hope that you have a relaxing and joy-filled holiday.

Photo Engineer · Dec 26, 2014

I don't mind experimentation either, but the moment someone sounds off about better grain, speed or sharpness, I want to see proof. Objective proof! If someone says a developer is economical, I want to get some feel for how much it has cost them in time and chemistry experiments that were bad. Well, the list can go on.

If someone says that they did it for fun, that is another story. However, just mixing up a developer formula from scratch and using it is not experimentation, it is dabbling unless you can show some reason why you did it even if this reason is only for yourself.

And BTW, no one can "police" anyone on APUG, the best we can do is try to teach them the right way to do it via words if they truly do wish to experiment and then let them show concrete results.

I've been in this long enough to know of all of the great spectrum of people who wish to dabble or experiment. I remember one famous person in this area in the '80s who had a developer for color paper that was 2x faster in development rate than the commercial product. It also seemed (to him) to give better color. I talked to him personally and found that he had done no image stability, but I had. When I pointed out that the cyan dye would have an expected lifetime of about 1 year, he was shocked. He only tested development times. He withdrew the formula after that. So, no matter what you plan on doing, this area of endeavor is often much more complex than you think.

Have fun and remember that I often say "if it works for you, use it!".

PE

Gerald C Koch · Dec 26, 2014

There's nothing wrong with experimentation if it's done to achieve a particular goal. However most goals can be achieved in another way. But before any new recipe or mixture is released on the net it really needs to be thoroughly tested. This is where the rub occurs. Lots and lots of boring, repetitive work. In addition so much of photography is very subjective you really need the equipment that I listed. This is why RMS granularity was devised because grain was too subjective without a scientifically approved measure.

Sirius Glass · Dec 26, 2014

Kevin Harding said:
I don't think that there's anything wrong with experimentation for fun - what I do is take photos, put them in chemicals, develop the negatives, print them, and often enjoy them. So far, my method works for me.

I'm not aiming for an international standard, nor scientifically publishable results.

I will stress that I don't think that there's anything wrong at all with experimentation for experimentation's sake. I don't know why there are so many people on APUG who seem to think that their job is to police others who do something different.

The problem is that in the past someone kept post substituting Borax® for photographic chemical reagents. He was doing it to save his money, but he was advising all to just follow his lead. He was misleading the less informed to act in a way that could damage their own films and papers. This is like posting that it is alright to use Oil of Olay instead of PhotoFlo [or equivalent] to rinse negatives. PE much more often than he should have to posts advisories against wily-nily chemical substitutions.

If one post an experiment it should be posted as an experiment and not advice.

Kevin Harding · Dec 26, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
The problem is that in the past someone kept post substituting Borax® for photographic chemical reagents. He was doing it to save his money, but he was advising all to just follow his lead. He was misleading the less informed to act in a way that could damage their own films and papers. This is like posting that it is alright to use Oil of Olay instead of PhotoFlo [or equivalent] to rinse negatives. PE much more often than he should have to posts advisories against wily-nily chemical substitutions.

If one post an experiment it should be posted as an experiment and not advice.

Yep, which is what I did, and got jumped upon with people exasperatedly wondering why anyone would ever dare to do this, and proclaiming that dabbling is bad. The OP in this thread asked if anyone has mixed developers. That's what I did, and shared my experience. I would never, ever advise anyone to do this.

I don't doubt that PE has decades more experience than I've ever been alive, and I'd ask his advice immediately. I just wanted to share my experience with mixing 20% of one developer with 80% of another, as the OP asked : )

I'm not substituting chemicals, as I have no idea the impacts of that. But I read someone else's experimentation (and his experiments included dozens of rolls on the exact same images to test out impacts and outcomes, though no step wedge, densitometer observable) and then I tried it and liked it.

I would never suggest that this is a better way to do things, but it is lovely in my opinion.

RalphLambrecht · Dec 28, 2014

indeed, the only way I was ever to get more shadow detail was more exposure!regardless of developer.

Kevin Caulfield · Dec 28, 2014

Agfa?

cliveh · Dec 28, 2014

RalphLambrecht said:
indeed, the only way I was ever to get more shadow detail was more exposure!regardless of developer.

How true.

Gerald C Koch · Dec 28, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
It is perhaps worth adding that perception is a very powerful thing. Everyone sees what they want to see, especially when there is no objective data/evidence (and even when there is). For the benefit of the original poster, I'll add another split process example. Bruce Barnbaum uses two different dilutions of HC-110 successively when he does "compensating" development. He begins with a strong dilution for a short time, and then finishes development in a weak dilution (at one time I believe he used XR-1 for the first part). Now, keep in mind he has no sensitometry to back up his claims (and the illustrative sensitometry he does present is no good), but it doesn't matter. He thinks something is happening, and the latitude built into the materials (combined with excellent printing skills) do the rest.

Unfortunately perception always trumps truth. Several times people have posted pictures claiming to document finer grain. In each case I was unable to see any difference even at highest magnification.

Photo Engineer · Dec 28, 2014

Many photo companies have done R&D and we live at the pinnacle of that work. (well, just about anyhow). There is no magic bullet.

As for R&D, without Ilford we would be without Phenidone. Keep that in mind when you take EK too seriously.

PE

Sirius Glass · Dec 28, 2014

RalphLambrecht said:
Indeed, the only way I was ever to get more shadow detail was more exposure! Regardless of developer.

Harken to the man, as he has said so has it been written.

Thank you for restoring sanity to APUGland and all the inhabitants who dwell there.

moltogordo · Dec 28, 2014

In addition to being a photo-nut, I also have done some competitive bench-rest shooting in the distant past.

I remember that there were a couple of guys in every club experimenting with duplex loads (usually a mixture of extruded 4198 and Ball C powder in one proportion or another.)

Don't ever remember a contest being won with duplex experiments, however. But perhaps that's not the point.

sfaber17 · Dec 28, 2014

Did I miss something? Is there a problem with using grocery store borax?

removed account4 · Dec 28, 2014

bdial said:
Jananian mixes Ansco 130 and Caffinal which he mixes from scratch. He has been working with that combination for some time, and probably spent a lot of time getting there.

I have experimented with a two bath method using Xtol first, and a short run in dilute Rodinal. What I remember of the result was that the film had dense highlights. It wasn't a rigorous test though, and I've not pursued it since.

There are a zillion ways to develop film, and broadly speaking they will all get you to the same result. The differences can be very subtle, but sometimes subtle is where you need to be. It all depends on what suites your taste.

There is fertile ground for experimentation, take careful notes and let us know what you find out.

yup,
i've been mixing caffenol c with 15-20cc of ansco 130 since sometime in 2006
it gives the coffee developer a slight boost in contrast. i had been working with ansco 130 for between 6 and 7 years before that
( used it every which way but loose ) and since mixing it with the coffee have done the same ... i have since run out of photo$$
and have switched to mixing dektol with coffee and it does similar things.

Kevin Harding said:
Yep, which is what I did, and got jumped upon with people exasperatedly wondering why anyone would ever dare to do this, and proclaiming that dabbling is bad. The OP in this thread asked if anyone has mixed developers. That's what I did, and shared my experience. I would never, ever advise anyone to do this.

I don't doubt that PE has decades more experience than I've ever been alive, and I'd ask his advice immediately. I just wanted to share my experience with mixing 20% of one developer with 80% of another, as the OP asked : )

I'm not substituting chemicals, as I have no idea the impacts of that. But I read someone else's experimentation (and his experiments included dozens of rolls on the exact same images to test out impacts and outcomes, though no step wedge, densitometer observable) and then I tried it and liked it.

I would never suggest that this is a better way to do things, but it is lovely in my opinion.

kevin, you have nothing to apologize for.
you are not the person being talked about.

keep enjoying yourself and don't let people that don't appreciate experimentation for whatever reasons they have, get you down.

john

jim appleyard · Dec 28, 2014

sfaber17 said:
Did I miss something? Is there a problem with using grocery store borax?

There is according to some. There was a long and heated discussion about this at photo.net.

Sirius Glass · Dec 28, 2014

Kevin Harding said:
Gerald added this after I responded below noting that I was having fun with the recipe I used.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with experimentation for fun - what I do is take photos, put them in chemicals, develop the negatives, print them, and often enjoy them. So far, my method works for me.

I'm not aiming for an international standard, nor scientifically publishable results.

I will stress that I don't think that there's anything wrong at all with experimentation for experimentation's sake. I don't know why there are so many people on APUG who seem to think that their job is to police others who do something different.

Best wishes for the season to you, Gerald. I hope that you have a relaxing and joy-filled holiday.

Kevin, relax. You are not the one I was referring to. You always state that you are experimenting and not recommending for others to use. The person I referred to no longer post in APUG.

kintatsu · Dec 29, 2014

The only mixing of developers I have done is to add 5ml of HC-110 to a 1/2 liter of Eukobrom print developer. It had the effect of extending the developer's life out to slightly over a week, finishing about 100 5x7 prints in that time. I didn't push it too far, as it started turning color.

I had read that it will extend the solution life and improve print highlights, but the highlights seemed to me the same.

removed account4 · Dec 29, 2014

Kirks518 said:
I was reading something last night, and it made me wonder if anyone has ever combined more than one developer for a roll. I'm thinking about doing it just as an experiment, and see what happens. I'm thinking of maybe developing for 1/2 the required time for developer A, then dump, and develop for 1/2 the time for developer B. Or maybe even do a 1:1 mix of two different developers and develop for the average between the two times.

Anyone ever do it? Or thought of doing it?

OP

does split developer development count ?
processing the film part of the time in 1 developer
pouring it out, and putting a different developer in the tank for
the rest of the ride ...

people do this sort of split development with paper prints ( dektol + selectol )
or with film, they use a borax bath for divided (d) d-23 ...

for about a year maybe longer i process my film, all of it ...
half the time in a print developer ( i started with ansco 130, now i use dektol )
and for the rest of the time in caffenol c ... i can't complain about my results ...
but i am sure it isn't for everyone .. and most likely there are some people complaining about my results ..
( or if they did what i do, their results ) ..

my semi-educated guess is that, if the pioneers of photography
listened to the chorus of naysayers photography probably wouldn't exist !

have fun experimenting

Gerald C Koch · Dec 29, 2014

There is according to some. There was a long and heated discussion about this at photo.net.

Some years ago I wrote off to US Borax about the purity of their product. They sent me back a very informative pamphlet which contained a typical analysis. There was nothing in the analysis that would preclude using Twenty Mule Team Borax in photo solutions. I have done so for years without any problems. On the west coast the product goes by a different name but both are the same. There was an old tale, probably apocryphal, of someone mixing up D-76 using Boraxo hand cleaner and complaining bitterly not recognizing his own stupidity.

Borax is a very pure mineral even as token from the ground. I am really annoyed when rumors like this get spread. We on APUG do not need to further contribute to it.

Photo Engineer · Dec 29, 2014

Experiment all you wish, but remember that there is no magic bullet.

PE

removed account4 · Dec 30, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
Experiment all you wish, but remember that there is no magic bullet.

PE

im not so sure about that PE
magic bullets are different for
every person. in the end
everyone has their own magic bullets ...
it usually has to do with how much effort
one puts into knowing how one uses his/er materials
and getting out of them what they want. its not magic really
but work and understanding ... i have a set of magic bullets
and they well for what i do, but will most likely be
a colossal failures if someone else did them ...
YMMV

Photo Engineer · Dec 30, 2014

Well John, I wish you good luck in the coming year, but I suspect that (as said by others besides me), direct comparisons with your work with good conventional processes will show little or no differences.

PE

Has anyone ever mixed developers?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency