Has anyone ever mixed developers?

[removed account4]

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

hi ron

.
i use caffenol because it costs me about 1¢ ( one penny ) / roll/print/sheet of film and it lasts for a very very long time.
i don't have to have loads of nasty chemicals, bleaches or toners lying around, and i can go for a month or 2
without having to mix new chemistry. i can travel overseas and not have to bring chemistry with me on the plane ( a very good thing if you have olive skin )
or have to search for developer for 4 days to find a photo store in a remote region i might be staying ( so i don't have to deal with xrays / scanners and my film )
i can get ingredients at a local grocery store without a problem, or a pharmacy if i am feeling "rich" ...
... yes, caffenol's results have been compared to d76 ( i never said it wasn't like a normal "mainstream" "conventional"developer )
it likes my film ( and paper ) and i am able to control + use it better than other developers i have mixed.
you are right, there is nothing new under the sun ... it develops stuff ...

getting back to this thread ... it is about mixing developers to process film ...

OP
... for years i mixed 15-20cc of ansco130 into 1000cc of caffenol C and stand develop for about 30minutes, and get great results
( no matter the iso, expry date or film, and i process everything together )

and i also divide the developers and process my film that way .. using a hard contrasty developer ( ansco 130 )
and a soft working developer ( sumatranol c ) they like working together
for 8 years ? i suggested that it would probably work just as well with dektol or any other print developer
and these days i am using dektol 1:7 ish, 68ºF 4mins agitate 1full min, then 10seconds every 60 and sumatranol c 4-5 mins continual agitation.
(sheets, just shuffle both baths continuously ... )
both ways ( stand or agitate ) gives me film i can print, scan or make sunprints with,
... if i change the way i agitate or the time i develop for i am easily able to alter the look of my negatives and they are a stepping stone to make
prints that look like they are from another era without using the harsh/nasty chemicals associated with those processes.

have fun processing your film and paper !
john

 

[Photo Engineer]

John, I agree with the premises that you put forward regarding cost and having chemicals around. I agree though that this method is better for cost and ecology, not for esthetics in the sense that things comes out better. You are right, there is nothing new under the sun. Your method works.

Of course, cutting edge R&D would disagree with there not being nothing new under the sun. But that is another story.

PE

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

RE incremental improvements: This changes the world... a tiny bit at a time. There are a few giant leaps made but those are few and far between. All other improvements are baby-steps but over a long period of time these add up to make a huge difference in quality and ease-of-use or operation. "One small step for a man... one giant leap for mankind".