Ilford developer shelf life

[ted_smith]

Hi all

Long time no post....I've been doing a little photography but haven't needed any guidance for a while, until now! I hope you guys are all still well...forum looks busier than ever....good to see.

Anyway, we moved house 3 years ago and I bundled my darkroom stuff in a box in the garage, and now want to get going on the home development again. I dug out an unopened bottle of Ilford Ilfotec DD-x which has an unopened shelf life of 24 months, it says. I opened it today and it looks good - still quite clear - not brown or anything.

I also have a bottle of opened Ilford Ilfostop. It reports to be good for 60 months unopened, 12 months opened on the bottle.

So, in both cases, these liquids have been stored for the 3.25 years in the garage at my new house, and at least a year (maybe two) in our previous house (it has been a while since I home developed!!).

I'm guessing the advice will be "throw it, and buy new", and whilst £40 or so for developer, fixer and stop isn't a fortune, I didn't want to bother buying all that if the current stuff would be OK.

My question is whether any of you would consider using these chemicals in this circumstances? I have read posts (like this one (there was a url link here which no longer exists) and (there was a url link here which no longer exists)) where folk refer to using to stop for 10 years without issue and the colour of the developer. So are these labelled guidelines just a means of ensuring you buy new, or do they really only have a shelf life as stated?

 

[bvy]

Neither. This stuff does go bad, but the consensus is that film makers are pretty conservative with their expiration dates. It makes sense; you have to consider the worst possible conditions in which someone could store chemicals. HC-110 has an expiration date too, but I can't recall ever reading about someone's HC-110 expiring naturally.

Back to your situation, if it passes the visible/smell test, then you should clip test it: Cut a piece of film leader from a new roll, drop it in prepared developer, and watch it (hopefully) turn black in a few minutes time. And/Or you could shoot a test roll and develop it. Your stop should be fine.

 

[pentaxuser]

+1 for the clip test. As a natural pessimist but one who likes value for money, I'd do the clip test each time I used the DDX, given its age, rather than assume that if one clip test makes it fine, no more are needed.

pentaxuser

 

[bvy]

+1 for the clip test. As a natural pessimist but one who likes value for money, I'd do the clip test each time I used the DDX, given its age, rather than assume that if one clip test makes it fine, no more are needed.

Right. It's good practice in general. I do a clip test every time I develop film.

 

[MattKing]

The stop bath will be fine - unless you see stuff growing in it (unlikely).
For the developer, try a clip test first, and if the clip blackens try a test roll.
Compared to a new bottle, the developer might not last as long after you start using it - watch it.
And the solution to all this? Use it more/more quickly .
Glad to see you back.

 

[ted_smith]

Glad to see you back.

- thanks Matt. I regularly popped in and read posts but just haven't written a new query for a while

I poured some of the developer into a glass to have a better look. It looks as clear as water (or Vodka!). I can't remember what new developer looks like but should it be that clear? Or is that sign that something is off...literally?

 

[bvy]

Don't mix it with orange juice. Clear is good. But the proof is in the clip test.

 

[ted_smith]

OK guys, well I think the dev is shot. I loaded a test roll that I shot today into the tank (Fuji Acros 100), gave it a little wash first, then used the dev for the standing development method, so I used the ratio of 5ml dev to 500ml water that was about 19.5 degrees C...not quite 20 deg (this is the first time I've tried this technique but from what I read beforehand this seems to be the accepted ratio). Agitated a bit for the first few minutes then left to stand for an hour. Poured out, fixed for 5 minutes. Removed film. It was almost see through - a few frames had the faint partial sign of an image...I'd say about 20% of the frame, for about 3 of the 12 frames.

So the question is, does that suggest the developer is knackered, or is it more likely my ratios are wrong?

(I also need to improve my loading technique - the film was kinked in a few places. Never loaded 120 before, and wasnt that good at 35mm!!)

Ted

 

[pentaxuser]

Is DDX the kind of developer that you can use with 5mls of it in 500mls of water and still get results? I must admit that I have never seen anything to suggest that as little as 5mls at this dilution is OK. There may be a minimum quantity needed but to be honest I do not know what that is. A quick call to Ilford might give the answer, Short of that I'd mix up enough do a complete 135 film at 1+4 and use a 135 film leader. Do it for the right time. If that works then mix enough extra for a 120 film at 1+4 and do the whole film. I am not at all sure you can draw the conclusion you have, namely that the DDX is shot from your test

It sounds as if you have sacrificed a whole 120 film to test the DDX. My commiserations

pentaxuser

 

[mgb74]

Are you sure that 5ml is enough developer for a roll of 120? Based on my notes for HC-110, which I believe is more concentrated than DD-X, 6ml is minimum (for HC-110).

 

[ted_smith]

I do feel pain at the film roll wastage pentaxuser!! Still, I hadn't loaded it well anyway so I need the practice.

Re the developer. I have no idea. I watched one of the videos by the guy at The Art of Photography on YouTube and he showed using rodinal at that measure. I assumed my Dec was the same theory. Maybe I'll try it out on another roll at the 1 to 4 normal measure as you suggest.

 

[MattKing]

Do a test with normal time, temperature and agitation.
DD-X is designed to be used 1+4. Ilford's data sheet for DD-X indicates that a litre of working strength DD-X has enough capacity to develop 10 rolls (with time compensation) In order to make up 1 litre working solution, you need to use 200 ml of concentrate. So simple arithmetic indicates that you need at least 20 ml of concentrate for each roll. 5 ml isn't nearly enough.
Rodinal and HC-110 are much more concentrated than DD-X.

 

[ted_smith]

Ok Matt, thanks. I didn't realise that. I'll have another go with proper measures and report back . As it happens, I just ordered another bottle from ilford anyway because now I have my scanner I'll be shooting a lot more and developing myself.

 

[ted_smith]

Seems we have a result!! Just opened a roll and held up to the light and developed as instructed. Both sides now totally black. So it seems the developer is ok after all. I just wasn't using it correctly!!

 

[ted_smith]

Here are a few of the two films I shot. So the process worked (except for the ones that got ruined by poor reel loading) Thanks guys for your help and guidance. No more messing about with stand development for me!!

 

[bvy]

Nice results! Glad you worked it out. And you've piqued my curiosity about DD-X.

 

[pentaxuser]

Nice results! Glad you worked it out. And you've piqued my curiosity about DD-X.

A very good developer which probably has the edge on most, especially if you use D3200. In the U.K. it tends to be a little more expensive than most but if it gets you the negs you want then on a cost per frame it may be a very small premium, if it gives you what you need

pentaxuser

 

[Slixtiesix]

If the developer was still sealed after 3 years I see no problem, obviously it worked. Stop bath does last for years (my experience). One question regarding the clip test: I always thought that developers do not expire suddenly but that there is a long phase during which the developer just loses power. Could it not be that the final result would be mediocre although the clip still proved some activity?

 

[pentaxuser]

One question regarding the clip test: I always thought that developers do not expire suddenly but that there is a long phase during which the developer just loses power. Could it not be that the final result would be mediocre although the clip still proved some activity?

A good point. I always clip test using the same developing period as for the film. I then quickly rinse and fix. My requirement is that the leader should be sufficiently black so that when held up to a 100W clear incandescent bulb's filament all that shows is the wire in an orange colour. Is there a more scientific test? All I can think of is a clip test comparison with a leader. properly developed and fixed when the developer was known to be fresh.

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

The clip test is to check for reasonable activity. If it fails that test, there is no need to waste time and film on a test roll. If it passes the clip test, then you develop a test roll.
Some developers (e.g. X-Tol die quickly).

 

[Dave Krueger]

Just to add another data point to this very old thread, I just developed a roll of HP5+ in DD-X developer purchased in March 2013. Since the fiasco with Kodak chemicals began, I have been experimenting with various non-Kodak developers. For me, shelf life is an important factor, so I have been thinking about switching to Ilfotec DD-X and/or HC some of which I just happen to have on hand from an order in 2013. I think HC is well known to have a long shelf life, but DD-X is specified to have a shelf life of 24 months. Today I tested the DD-X with HP5. Unfortunately, I over developed the film. At the elevated temperature using my typical agitation, 6-7 minutes would have been closer to what I prefer in the way of contrast/density.

Film:
Short roll (12 exposures) of unexpired HP5+ shot at EI 400 with Nikon F6 and 24-120 mm f4.0 lens.

Development:
Ilfotec DD-X diluted 1+4 with distilled water at 72F for 8 minutes. Developer was decanted into smaller bottles when opened in 2013.
Patterson 2-reel tank using one reel along with spacer.
Constant inversion agitation for 30 sec followed by 5 inversions every 30 sec.

The film is still drying so I just took a snapshot so you can see the density. Of course, a 12 exp roll does not guaranty equal performance with a 36 exp roll.

 

[foc]

You should be happy with your results, I know I would be.
It's great that the DDX, decanted into the smaller bottles, lasted so well, that's 8 years.

 

[Dave Krueger]

You should be happy with your results, I know I would be.
It's great that the DDX, decanted into the smaller bottles, lasted so well, that's 8 years.

Thanks, foc.

I am very pleased. I've read forum posts that suggested that DD-X as well as TMax developers use glycol as a solvent, so I expect them to have a fairly long shelf life, but 8.5 years was way more than I was expecting. I'm pretty sure even I could go through a liter of DD-X in less than 8 years. LOL! I also have some HC that's just as old, so I will test that soon, but I expect it will most likely be good as well since it is certainly glycol based. I don't have much faith in the "new formula" Kodak-branded developers and I probably won't live long enough to wait years for them to reestablish a history of reliability assuming they ever do.

The only thing that worries me is that Ilford might someday change their formulas to keep them profitable rather than just raising the price. People complain about the high cost of the Ilfotec HC, but even at $65 per liter, it's still very inexpensive on a per roll basis. Ilford needs to be the rock that Kodak used to be.

I have been experimenting with some other brands with mixed results, so I've become more inclined toward Ilford as a replacement for Kodak chems.