How long does paper developer working solution last?

[pentaxuser]

I had been using Liquidol which lasted 3 to 4 hours which the upper limit I now spend in the dark room.

Is Liquidol the developer that the late P.E. had a hand in devising, if so I thought that was by far the longest lasting one It has been a while since I saw it mentioned but in a variation of this thread I had thought that longevity of several days at least was mentioned?

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Howell]

Did you ever try Ansco 130? Rumor has it that the working solution is good for months. I've been meaning to try it.

I've used it, PF still sells a version of it if you don't want to mix your own. I think that Edwal Ultra Black was a liquid version of Ansco 130.

 

[Paul Howell]

Is Liquidol the developer that the late P.E. had a hand in devising, if so I thought that was by far the longest lasting one It has been a while since I saw it mentioned but in a variation of this thread I had thought that longevity of several days at least was mentioned?

pentaxuser

I think P.E was involved something to do with ion exchange. It does last, I was able to bottle the working developer and use it a week later. I was going to buy Liquidol but at the time it was out of stock. I bought a gallon size Dektol Clone which is almost gone then I have a couple of bottles of Clayton's standard print developer, they also sell a ultra cold print developer, by the time I am half way though the Clayton I hope Liguidol will be back in stock. Omgea Brands has brought back Edwal TST Print Developer which is a 2 part developer that can mix in differnt ratios to control contrast. I've used in the distant past, but at $75 a quart, although high capcity, just a bit too much for me.

 

[dcy]

Developer doesn’t become exhausted through oxidation in 5 hours.

Do you have any guesses as to what I might have done wrong? I don't understand how I started out getting fairly nice blacks at the start of the session and ended up only getting wimpy blacks at the end.

Those larger blemishes: looks to me like you’ve splashed stop bath or something onto the print before development. Go gently with the rocking!

Perhaps my gloves were wet from a previous print? If I touched the emulsion with a glove that had residual stop bath, or even worse, fixer, that could look like what I saw.

 

[Nopo]

Perhaps my gloves were wet from a previous print? If I touched the emulsion with a glove that had residual stop bath, or even worse, fixer, that could look like what I saw.

This is very personal, but I don't use gloves in the darkroom with trays, it is very difficult to keep them dry and you will contaminate the developer.

 

[dcy]

I intentionally avoided referring to the phrase "factorial" development when I made my earlier post, because while I recommend it to the experienced, I thought it a bit early in @dcy 's learning curve to bring it up.
Best laid plans ......

Reading koraks' description, it sounds a bit difficult. I don't feel I have a good sense of where the midtones are; especially under a safe light where it's just really hard to see what's going on.

But I'm going to try your simplified version --- keep an eye for when the darkest parts start to appear, and if it's taking much longer than with a fresh developer, it's time to refresh the developer.

But if you aren't going that route, informal replenishment is highly recommended.
Replenishment of print developer doesn't have to be nearly as precise as with film developer.
As you probably have already noticed, due to the effects of developer carry-over, the volume of developer in the tray will slowly decrease during a multiple print session. ...
.... But other print developers can easily be kept reasonably active through a long session by just taking out a little bit of used developer after every few prints, and then adding enough new developer to bring the volume back to the starting point volume.

I can try that!

By the way, if you are going to leave a tray of developer open to the air for hours between prints, cover the tray. I have trays that work as great covers for other trays when used for that purpose.

... to avoid getting dust into the developer?

 

[GregY]

This is very personal, but I don't use gloves in the darkroom with trays, it is very difficult to keep them dry and you will contaminate the developer.

Likewise. A set of tongs goes a long way to prevent cross contamination.

 

[Nopo]

Likewise. A set of tongs goes a long way to prevent cross contamination.

I agree, so if I think a clamp has been contaminated I soak it in clean water and replace it.
I keep two replacement tweezers for the developer, it's cheaper than replacing the paper.

 

[dcy]

I currently have Dektol but will switch to Clayton once the last of the Detol is gone. I had been using Liquidol which lasted 3 to 4 hours which the upper limit I now spend in the dark room. But PF was out Liquidol so I bought a gallon size dry mix of a Dektol cone.

My next question might be incredibly naive, but what difference does it make which paper developer you use? I thought they were essentially the same --- How else can you have books and websites tell you to develop for 2 minutes without even asking you what paper developer you have? For that matter, development time doesn't even seem to depend on the paper, except a small distinction between RC and FB.

 

[Nopo]

@Paul Howell
Photographers Formulary has stock of liquidol.

Liquidol Paper Developer

Developer Liquidol Paper Dektol Photography Chemistry

stores.photoformulary.com

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Did you ever try Ansco 130? Rumor has it that the working solution is good for months. I've been meaning to try it.

That's what I use. 1+1 working dilution can last for weeks, but of course it does depends on the amount of printing you do.

Stock solution is said to last about 6 months. I print too much to get that far in time.

Fantastic developer. Deep, gorgeous blacks and very nuanced mid-tones.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

what difference does it make which paper developer you use? I thought they were essentially the same

Paper developers are as different as film developers are different. And for the same reasons: each has it's own chemical mix, and what chemicals two developers might share, they are often not in the same amount. They each have their own properties, so the results are all different: some give more constrast, some more warmth, etc.

I always have three developer mixes ready: ID-78 (a warm-tone developer), D-72 (Dektol-like developer) and Ansco 130. Same paper will not look the same from one to the other. Which I use will depend on the project and the paper.

Moreover, selenium toning will not look the same depending on which developer you use.

 

[GregY]

Reading koraks' description, it sounds a bit difficult. I don't feel I have a good sense of where the midtones are; especially under a safe light where it's just really hard to see what's going on.

But I'm going to try your simplified version --- keep an eye for when the darkest parts start to appear, and if it's taking much longer than with a fresh developer, it's time to refresh the developer.




I can try that!



... to avoid getting dust into the developer?

to slow down oxidation.....

 

[dcy]

I always have three developer mixes ready: ID-78 (a warm-tone developer), D-72 (Dektol-like developer) and Ansco 130. Same paper will not look the same from one to the other. Which I use will depend on the project and the paper.

Ok. I understand "warm tone". But when do you use D-72 vs Ansco 130? Their formulas look similar.

 

[Paul Howell]

My next question might be incredibly naive, but what difference does it make which paper developer you use? I thought they were essentially the same --- How else can you have books and websites tell you to develop for 2 minutes without even asking you what paper developer you have? For that matter, development time doesn't even seem to depend on the paper, except a small distinction between RC and FB.

It does make a difference, warm tone, cold tone, neutral tone. I like Carson Graves, but paper has changed to some degree over the past 32 years. I find that most RC paper needs less time than FB, the emulsion on RC is thinner than on FB, I guess, well Multitone which is a bargain grade paper. I use Multitone for work prints, and with most developers 1 minute seems to work fine, FB different story, 2 to 3 minutes depending on the brand and type. Currently I have Foma FB VC and graded 2 and 3, with Dektol 1:2 2 minutes seems to be right. I use a step wedge with each new box as there might be changes from on run to another. I will retest when I mix up a batch of Clayton. Many say that Amotol developers such as Westons give rich blacks and hold mid tones better than standard developers, some report that they leave prints in the developer for as long as 5 minutes. Ansal Adams used Dektal sometime mixed with Selectal Soft. ILford seems to be the most popular paper, I dont use it much, times for ILford might be differnt from Foma. If one developer was as good as the next then we would all be using Dektol.

Photographers Formulary has stock of liquidol.

Good, once I've use the Clayton will reorder Liquidol.

 

[Bill Burk]

Yeah. I rock the developer tray constantly and I can see the liquid whooshing back and forth across the print. ---- Looking again at the prints (below), they don't really look like bubbles, but more like liquid drops of non-development.

View attachment 401710

View attachment 401713




My thinking was that the developer became oxidized mostly from sitting in the tray for a few hours, not from the number of prints. I only did like eight 5x7 prints. The time between the first print and the last print was just over 5 hours, largely doe to a long break I had to take in between.

Can you rule out the cross-contamination of fixer drops on paper?

For example, after seeing a test strip in the fix, you’ll turn the white light off and reach for a new sheet to place on the easel.

What strategy do you follow to ensure your hands are clean and dry?

I have running water and wear gloves. I rinse the gloves and dry on handkerchief like cloths. I check between fingers and they’re not always totally dry.

 

[Bill Burk]

Do you have any guesses as to what I might have done wrong? I don't understand how I started out getting fairly nice blacks at the start of the session and ended up only getting wimpy blacks at the end.



Perhaps my gloves were wet from a previous print? If I touched the emulsion with a glove that had residual stop bath, or even worse, fixer, that could look like what I saw.

Yes. Wet gloves can do this. Dry off between fingers.

I use gloves but replace them often and try to keep one dry.

 

[dcy]

Can you rule out the cross-contamination of fixer drops on paper?

I cannot. In fact, thinking back to the session, I think this is the leading hypothesis.

For example, after seeing a test strip in the fix, you’ll turn the white light off and reach for a new sheet to place on the easel.

What strategy do you follow to ensure your hands are clean and dry?

I have running water and wear gloves. I rinse the gloves and dry on handkerchief like cloths. I check between fingers and they’re not always totally dry.

I didn't think to specifically rinse my hands. I used different tongs to transfer the paper from tray to tray until it got to the final rinse. For the final rinse, I didn't have a full size tray, just a small shallow one that I kept over the sink, so I dipped my hands in the tray to move the paper back and forth with my fingers. I figured it's just water so it doesn't matter, so I just lightly patted my hands dry with a towel and then went to grab the next sheet.

 

[MattKing]

... to avoid getting dust into the developer?

A bit I guess, but mainly to cut down on oxidation.
By the way, factorial development is easier to do than to describe.
And with respect to gloves, I recommend nitrile gloves and tongs. The gloves are easier than skin to rinse off.

 

[Maris]

I usually leave my Dektol 1+2 paper developer in an open tray over night when using it on two consecutive days.
There is a small loss of activity on the second day and this shows up as tiny reduction in the blacks and a slightly longer development time. But there is a work-around.

I routinely test strip every negative before printing it full size and the test strip shows me how to compensate for the change in developer activity.
A print that might need 8 seconds of enlarger exposure to develop maximum black on day one might need 9 seconds on day two to allow for the weaker developer. The test strip reveals this.
A print that looks good on contrast grade 2 on day one might ask for grade 2 1/2 on day two. The test strip reveals this.
A print that develops to completion in two minutes on day one might need three minutes on day two. The test strip reveals this.

Are the prints made on day one and day two identical? Probably not going by the second decimal place reading of a reflection densitometer but to the eye I reckon the prints look fine even next to each other.

 

[dcy]

And with respect to gloves, I recommend nitrile gloves and tongs. The gloves are easier than skin to rinse off.

Yeah. I use nitrile. When I started with film I got some "lint free" gloves, and that was a lie, so I switched to nitrile.

 

[Craig]

Personally, I never let my fingers touch a solution when printing. That ensures my fingers stay dry and chemical free, so I don't inadvertently contaminate my fresh paper stock.

The paper is slid into the developer tray and I have a set of tongs in each tray that stay in that tray. The print is moved from one solution to the next by tongs, but only in one direction. For example, the developer tongs will be used to move the print to the stop bath, the stop bath tongs to move to the fixer and the fixer tongs to the wash. I'd never use fixer tongs to remove a print from the stop. However, I am careful that when the print is moved into the next solution the tongs don't touch the next solution.

From the stop to fix for example, I lift the print out of the stop, let it drain vertically against the side of the tray. Then I move the print over the fixer tray and let it go. Then I switch to the fix tongs and move the print into the tray and adjust.

This ensures that I always have solutions moving in the same direction as the print, and there isn't any backwards contamination, such as fix into the stop. I'm very methodical to ensure there is no "upstream" contamination if you like and I'm also very rigorous about separating dry side and wet sides of the darkroom. I want to keep the enlarger and unexposed paper away from the wet side.

 

[snusmumriken]

Do you have any guesses as to what I might have done wrong? I don't understand how I started out getting fairly nice blacks at the start of the session and ended up only getting wimpy blacks at the end.



Perhaps my gloves were wet from a previous print? If I touched the emulsion with a glove that had residual stop bath, or even worse, fixer, that could look like what I saw.

Do you not use tongs? Your hands (gloves if you like to wear them) don’t need to touch any of the chemicals. I know you see video of both ‘influencers’ and master printers dabbling in the trays with bare hands, but it isn’t necessary, and exposes you to potential dermatitis (that’s why you are wearing gloves, I imagine). Fixer, especially, is difficult to wash off to the extent that it will not affect your next print.

There will be lots of replies here from folk who like dabbling, so you must make your own decision. FWIW, I don’t wear gloves except when washing trays, mixing powder chemicals or handling nasty concentrates like sulfuric acid or selenium toner. During printing, my hands are never wet with anything other than water, and they are always dry (towel) before I touch a negative or a new sheet of printing paper.

The Paterson tongs are excellent, btw, and because they are coloured you can dedicate them to specific baths. Likewise the trays - label them dev, stop and fix, and keep them that way.

 

[dcy]

Do you not use tongs?

I do.

Furthermore, I follow exactly the process as @Craig described it, modulo unintentional errors (of which, there might have been a few), and I did put my fingers in the final wash because I reasoned that at that point it's just water ---- I've since switched to using tongs for the final wash too.

I know you see video of both ‘influencers’ and master printers dabbling in the trays with bare hands, but it isn’t necessary, and exposes you to potential dermatitis (that’s why you are wearing gloves, I imagine).

I am going to assume that "you" in that sentence is the "generic you" and doesn't refer to me specifically. I do not know what influencers you're talking about. I have never seen a YT video where people intentionally dipped their bare hands into caustic chemicals. I do not follow any YT channel that I think a typical viewer would consider an "influencer", unless you adopt a definition where any and all YT channels are influencers.

There will be lots of replies here from folk who like dabbling, so you must make your own decision. FWIW, I don’t wear gloves except when washing trays, mixing powder chemicals or handling nasty concentrates like sulfuric acid or selenium toner. During printing, my hands are never wet with anything other than water, and they are always dry (towel) before I touch a negative or a new sheet of printing paper.

I know many photographers don't do it, but wearing nitrile gloves or similar PPE is always good practice when handling caustic chemicals.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Ok. I understand "warm tone". But when do you use D-72 vs Ansco 130? Their formulas look similar.

Well, to state the obvious, "similar" is not "the same".

Don't forget that, apart tone, the developer is another level of contrast control of your black and white print (i.e., it doesn't end with the contrast filters). D-72 at a 1:1 dilution gives me a bit more contrast than Ansco 130 at the same dilution, and I prefer the depth of the blacks with Ansco 130. I think the glycin in Ansco 130 has something to do with that, but I'm not sure.

I haven't tried D-72 at a 1:3 or 1:4 dilution, so I can't say if it would get me closer to Ansco 130.

Of course, this all also depends on the paper. Fomabrom Variant 112 looks absolutely glorious in Ansco 130, to a point where it doesn't look like a matt surface. I have to work a bit harder under the enlarger to find the right levels of contrast to get Ilford's MGFB paper, glossy and matt, to sing as well in Ansco 130.

The difference is even more striking when using warmtone papers.