Has anyone ever mixed developers?

removed account4 · Dec 30, 2014

OP sorry for the tangent ...

Photo Engineer said:
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

i haven't heard that before ...
if someone can make photographs that look like
tinted postcards from 1910, or a painting ( cave or modern ),
wet plates ( without being wet plates ) through a "good conventional process"
great, more power to them !
i haven't seen many .. but then again i'm not looking very hard ...

Well John, I wish you good luck in the coming year,

PE

a very happy and productive new year to you as well .. !

Sirius Glass · Dec 30, 2014

jnanian said:
if someone can make photographs that look like
tinted postcards from 1910, or a painting ( cave or modern ),
wet plates ( without being wet plates ) through a "good conventional process"
great, more power to them !
i haven't seen many .. but then again i'm not looking very hard ...

It is called toning. See Tim Rudman's book.

removed account4 · Dec 30, 2014

can you point some out to me ?
i'm always interested in seeing photographs ...
( and learning about how they are done)
the toned and lith images i have seen have
a different look and feel ...

Sirius Glass · Dec 30, 2014

jnanian said:
can you point some out to me ?
i'm always interested in seeing photographs ...
( and learning about how they are done)
the toned and lith images i have seen have
a different look and feel ...

E*N*J*O*Y!!!

http://www.timrudman.com/toning-processes
http://www.timrudman.com/offers
http://www.timrudman.com/content/toning-book-reprint

Photo Engineer · Dec 30, 2014

John, I think that this is what Sirius and I are referring to.

PE

Sirius Glass · Dec 30, 2014

Tim Rudman's book will give you many opportunities to experiment with bleaching, developing and toning.

removed account4 · Dec 30, 2014

ron and sg

thanks for the links
but those things you linked to
have nothing to do with what i spoke about.
they are indeed beautiful photographs
but nothing there looks anything like the tonality
of a dag, or ambrotype/tintype, or fauvist painting or cave painting
or the colors of a hand tinted edwardian postcard.
i see what you 2 are getting at / referring to .and .. while i appreciate
"good conventional processing" and have explored bleaching/toning/redevelopment ( BTDT )
what i am referring to, and have done ( do ) look nothing like that, but like something else altogether.

thanks for showing me just the same, i'd rather stick to more straightforward methods for obtaining my results,
with less harsh chemistry in my darkroom ...

i'd attach images but this thread has been derailed by my asking the OP about split process development ...
rather than mixing 2 developers together, and somehow this tangent we arrived at.

so ... we'll just have to agree to disagree
john

Photo Engineer · Dec 30, 2014

Just about anything you produce can be reproduced by other methods. There is more than one way to approach a given problem and there is no magic bullet.

PE

Xmas · Dec 31, 2014

If you are not a chemistry major it is called alchemy.
They did lenses and developers by trial and error in the 19 th century.
Eventually they started to used sums.
D 76 is an optimum ratio of two developers.
A significant problem with mixing liquids is reproducibility as liquid developers can go stale and have their formula varied as production moves to a new factory or different company.
Rodinal pre and post WWII was altered in concentration so 1+50 was 1+40.
If you like alchemy a better bet is a set of micro scales 0.01 gm resolution, face mask, goggles and a density step wedge, together with raw chemicals.
http://www.lostlabours.co.uk/photography/formulae/developers/devD76_variants.htm
If you do well Ian will put you in his database.
Eventually the alchemists were validated all you needed to do was fire a neutron at thorium or uranium atoms and they would change into something else.

removed account4 · Dec 31, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
There is more than one way to approach a given problem and there is no magic bullet.

PE

the magic bullet i am talking about is having an open mind and being willing to learn something new
not resting on one's laurels ... it isn't a materials-thing ... maybe we are saying the same thing but in a different way.

Photo Engineer · Dec 31, 2014

You can learn something new with a failure. You can learn something new by using something old with a new method. There are always possibilities, but nothing "magic" that will make a huge difference. Incremental differences can be made at great cost and labor. BTDT. Esthetic changes can be made easily by changing process or materials.

In my entire "life" at EK, I saw one "magic bullet" found and it was not commercially practical and so the project failed. All of the other inventions were increments of previous inventions including the digital camera. The camera was just a way of assembling existing objects in a new way. That is still a marvelous invention but is not a "magic bullet". Hypo was a "magic bullet" when it was discovered. Sulfur and Gold as well. These made huge changes to photography but took a lot of R&D.

PE

removed account4 · Jan 1, 2015

the way i see it is that 99% of the people who even read this thread have blinders on
they don't experiment and don't see for themselves what happens when you do something
out of the box. they don't do anything but what is necessary or prescribed. they don't experiment at all

being open to something new is a silver bullet.

you may not see it that way because it is part of your culture, but it IS a silver bullet.

you may not thing there are silver bullets, because your definition of a silver bullet is
a chemical combination that changes everything or whatever. but my definition of silver bullet
is not that ....
as i have said ( maybe 4 times? ) it is having an open mind, and realizing you might learn something
( instead of being pigheaded and thinking you know it all )

Sirius Glass · Jan 1, 2015

jnanian said:
the way i see it is that 99% of the people who even read this thread have blinders on
they don't experiment and don't see for themselves what happens when you do something
out of the box. they don't do anything but what is necessary or prescribed. they don't experiment at all

being open to something new is a silver bullet.

you may not see it that way because it is part of your culture, but it IS a silver bullet.

you may not thing there are silver bullets, because your definition of a silver bullet is
a chemical combination that changes everything or whatever. but my definition of silver bullet
is not that ....
as i have said ( maybe 4 times? ) it is having an open mind, and realizing you might learn something
( instead of being pigheaded and thinking you know it all )

There are no silver bullets.
There are more than enough great products out there to spend a life time playing with.
My photographs are work developing and printing. Maybe your photographs are not worth keeping so you are willing to take unnecessary risks.

Photo Engineer · Jan 1, 2015

John, if I did not think outside of the box, I would not have been able to do the type of work I did! If I had just one penny for every liter of blix or developer that I designed (outside of the box), and that was sold by EK, I would be very wealthy. I know what an incremental improvement is compared to a quantum leap (or silver bullet). I've been present when both take place.

But to show it to the masses, you must have side by side proof that what you do is either one or the other, compared to the existing material.

You may enjoy "tinkering" or "dabbling" and this is great if it makes you happy. As I say often here, if it works for you, use it! As for the rest of us, you and others that "invent" new things should consider making those side by side comparisons sometime.

PE

Xmas · Jan 1, 2015

jnanian said:
the way i see it is that 99% of the people who even read this thread have blinders on
they don't experiment and don't see for themselves what happens when you do something
out of the box. they don't do anything but what is necessary or prescribed. they don't experiment at all

being open to something new is a silver bullet.

you may not see it that way because it is part of your culture, but it IS a silver bullet.

you may not thing there are silver bullets, because your definition of a silver bullet is
a chemical combination that changes everything or whatever. but my definition of silver bullet
is not that ....
as i have said ( maybe 4 times? ) it is having an open mind, and realizing you might learn something
( instead of being pigheaded and thinking you know it all )

Way way over the top sir.
The only reason for developing at home with eg D76 is it is cheaper more convient and you get less dust and scratches. Note it may not be cheaper.
The choice of film is the critical determinant.
The local pharmacy drop off is as good.

Now if you use POTA for star spectra lines maybe, you got some application that needs...

Vaughn · Jan 1, 2015

APUGuser19 said:
There is a magic (or silver) bullet whatever; manufactured and sold by EK for a long time that gave the sharpness and grain of Panatomic, with the speed and tonal range of Tri-X. Called Microdol X 1:3 on Tri-X 35mm...

Microdol X 1:3 with Panatomic-X was my ammunition of choice over lead, gold or silver with the old Rolleiflex...but I'll take some magic anytime!

Sirius Glass · Jan 1, 2015

Yes but finding Panatomic-X in 35mm, 120 or 4"x5" is a bit challenging these days.

Vaughn · Jan 1, 2015

Which is why I wrote 'was', The only way I found Pan-X in sheets was in the old Type 55. My film and developer choices all over the place now. I'll use just about anything now (though I have gone off x-ray film as it is not sharp enough for my purposes -- due to emulsion of both sides.)

Kirks518 · Jan 1, 2015

As the OP, I must say this has become way more entertaining than I ever thought it would.

First and foremost - if there are no 'silver bullets', how do you kill vampires then???

Seriously though, I started this thread because I'm new to developing (about 9 months now), and I follow every instruction to the 'T', try to be extremely consistent, and I'm not one to really experiment with things that have proven to be successful. But doing everything 'by the book' makes me wonder what would happen if you put the book down once in a while.

I think that 99% of the time, the advice a newbie to developing gets here at APUG (and elsewhere) is to follow the instructions, and be consistent, which is great advice. It also seems that I really hadn't seen any threads about mixing developers, so it prompted me to ask. I figured it had been done, but it really isn't discussed, so I was curious as to what happens when it is done. And honestly, from what I've read here, it seems like not much changes from having stayed inside the box. Maybe some slight changes, but nothing too exciting.

I have no plans to mix 'n match, since I don't have a good enough understanding of what each different developer does versus another, and don't like wasting/ruining film and/or developer. But seeing that some folks regularly mix is interesting to say the least.

Old-N-Feeble · Jan 1, 2015

Vampire... wooden stake through the heart.

Werewolf... silver bullet anywhere.

In my youth I may have tinkered with mixed developers but these days I'm too old, jaded, lazy and ornery to bother with such things. I'm just now getting back into analog photography and I'll be limiting my monochrome film to maybe three types and developers to two types with three or fewer dilutions each. I'm sure that's good enough for an old coot like me.

Xmas · Jan 1, 2015

Kirks518 said:
As the OP, I must say this has become way more entertaining than I ever thought it would.

First and foremost - if there are no 'silver bullets', how do you kill vampires then???

Seriously though, I started this thread because I'm new to developing (about 9 months now), and I follow every instruction to the 'T', try to be extremely consistent, and I'm not one to really experiment with things that have proven to be successful. But doing everything 'by the book' makes me wonder what would happen if you put the book down once in a while.

I think that 99% of the time, the advice a newbie to developing gets here at APUG (and elsewhere) is to follow the instructions, and be consistent, which is great advice. It also seems that I really hadn't seen any threads about mixing developers, so it prompted me to ask. I figured it had been done, but it really isn't discussed, so I was curious as to what happens when it is done. And honestly, from what I've read here, it seems like not much changes from having stayed inside the box. Maybe some slight changes, but nothing too exciting.

I have no plans to mix 'n match, since I don't have a good enough understanding of what each different developer does versus another, and don't like wasting/ruining film and/or developer. But seeing that some folks regularly mix is interesting to say the least.

If you use the search engine you will find some have been using scales and a step wedge to design edge condition developers and characterise them.

But mixing liquids is close to alchemy when the basis liquids keep changing suppliers and COSH leaflets.

eddie · Jan 1, 2015

jnanian said:
... maybe we are saying the same thing but in a different way.

I don't really think you're in disagreement. I think PE is talking about the pursuit of magic bullets in a technical sense. I think you are talking about magic bullets in a creative sense. PE's career was/is involved in devising materials which will allow the best results in photographic reproduction, for those interested in accuracy. Your interest is in making unique images, outside of the mainstream view of what a photograph should look like. Frankly, I believe it's the efforts of people like both of you which pushes photography forward, as an expressive medium.

Sirius Glass · Jan 1, 2015

Old-N-Feeble said:
Vampire... wooden stake through the heart.

Werewolf... silver bullet anywhere.

Zombies ... kill -9 <<process id number>> :munch:

removed account4 · Jan 2, 2015

eddie said:
I don't really think you're in disagreement. I think PE is talking about the pursuit of magic bullets in a technical sense. I think you are talking about magic bullets in a creative sense. PE's career was/is involved in devising materials which will allow the best results in photographic reproduction, for those interested in accuracy. Your interest is in making unique images, outside of the mainstream view of what a photograph should look like. Frankly, I believe it's the efforts of people like both of you which pushes photography forward, as an expressive medium.

thanks eddie
you said it better than i did ....

Kirks518 said:
As the OP, I must say this has become way more entertaining than I ever thought it would.

First and foremost - if there are no 'silver bullets', how do you kill vampires then???

Seriously though, I started this thread because I'm new to developing (about 9 months now), and I follow every instruction to the 'T', try to be extremely consistent, and I'm not one to really experiment with things that have proven to be successful. But doing everything 'by the book' makes me wonder what would happen if you put the book down once in a while.

I think that 99% of the time, the advice a newbie to developing gets here at APUG (and elsewhere) is to follow the instructions, and be consistent, which is great advice. It also seems that I really hadn't seen any threads about mixing developers, so it prompted me to ask. I figured it had been done, but it really isn't discussed, so I was curious as to what happens when it is done. And honestly, from what I've read here, it seems like not much changes from having stayed inside the box. Maybe some slight changes, but nothing too exciting.

I have no plans to mix 'n match, since I don't have a good enough understanding of what each different developer does versus another, and don't like wasting/ruining film and/or developer. But seeing that some folks regularly mix is interesting to say the least.

hi kirks518

this thread might be useful
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
from my experience, the same thing that happens with paper emulsion happens with film emulsion.
i should have posted this link a few pages ago but it took a while to find it ...
also ... les mclean ( http://www.lesmcleanphotography.com/ ) has an articles section with information
about split grade printing which might be helpful down the road.
split grade printing is similar to split developer printing because you use a hard grade filter
for part of the exposure and a soft grade filter for the other ( like using a hard and soft developer to process your prints + films )

its like anything, your results might not be exactly the way you want them at first, but practice makes perfect...

good luck !
john

Photo Engineer · Jan 2, 2015

Since I have been involved on both the technical and esthetic side as a profession, I think that one could put me in both camps.

I might add that some of the developers being used today for "esthetic effects" have been used for years such as caffeinol, winol, urinol and etc. They are discussed by many authors and Haist devotes a chapter to them. He tested many of them and found nothing outstanding or different.

PE

Has anyone ever mixed developers?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency