"just in time" full speed developer with long shelf life

[Richard Man]

Sorry I am a computer geek, so I can't think of a better term than "Just in time" developer. What I meant is a developer that you mix on the spot, so almost certainly liquid, that has a long shelf life, and give full speed, and ideally can push film speed. Oh, it has to work well with a Jobo rotary system.

Basically, I have finally settled on using the split Pyro PMK ala Bob Carnie. It works great for most/all films I use but it's best when the film is exposed at 1 stop below box speed (yes, yes, I know some people would consider most films should be exposed that way). So I am looking for a solution (ha ha) for cases where I shoot full speed or push. Since this is unlikely to happen frequently, I need something that will last a long time

If I have to to, I could do hand processing instead of Jobo, so...

Thanks

 

[Tom Kershaw]

It isn't a developer I use at the moment but ILFORD DD-X should work well for your situation. You may want to use it slightly more dilute than 1+4.

 

[koraks]

Sorry I am a computer geek, so I can't think of a better term than "Just in time" developer. What I meant is a developer that you mix on the spot, so almost certainly liquid, that has a long shelf life, and give full speed, and ideally can push film speed. Oh, it has to work well with a Jobo rotary system.

Pyrocat HD fits the bill quite well. Similar results can be had with 510 pyro, obsidian aqua etc.
PC-TEA can be seen as an XTOL-derivative that would also accommodate the 'just in time' characteristic you're looking for.
And plain old HC110 may also suit your needs very well indeed.

 

[Richard Man]

It isn't a developer I use at the moment but ILFORD DD-X should work well for your situation. You may want to use it slightly more dilute than 1+4.

Ah yes, I did use DDX before. Good point, it does keep well.

Thanks!

 

[David Allen]

I would recommend that you buy either Kodak HC110 (or its near equivalent Ilford Ilfotec HC if that is easier for you to source). Rather than making the recommended stock solution, mix direct from the syrup for one-shot use.

In their concentrated forms, both of these developers will last for at least 4 years. They are both extremely versatile with variations in dilution providing differing results. In addition, they are extremely cheap to use because you require so little of the syrup.

The classic HC110 dilution B which is made from the syrup at 1:31, but many people prefer dilution H which is made from the syrup at 1:63 for double the development time as dilution B.

Ansel Adams used HC110 with Tri-X at 1:119 as a compensating developer.

One of my former students likes to make images that take a nod to Daidō Moriyama / Anders Petersen. Following some testing, he settled on Tri-X rated at EI 1600 developed in HC110 diluted from syrup at 1:33 @ 20˚C for 16 minutes (first 30 seconds continuous agitation, thereafter 1 inversion per 30 seconds).

If you ever find yourself without any print developer, you can use HC110 at 1:4 to get you by until you can buy more print developer (obviously this is only for emergencies as using HC110 this way is rather expensive).

IMPORTANT NOTE: be sure to use at least 6 mL of syrup per 135-36 or 120 roll of film, even if this requires you to mix up more than the usual amount of liquid for the tank.

Bests,

David.

Please note temporary website address: http://dsallen.carpentier-galerie.de

 

[grainyvision]

Another vote for HC-110, though I'm unsure if the recent formulation change still is good for shelf life, supposedly (according to Kodak) it will last for at least 2 years. The old HC-110 formula though will outlive you. HC-110 is versatile, though in my experience the most common dilution B isn't exactly ideal for pushing, at least for HP5+. Compared to DD-X it seems to leave some shadow detail behind and increases contrast a bit too much.

You can also look at my personal creations (EXG1, and maybe eventually EXG2) for a developer stock solution that should last forever, though I've never tested them in a jobo. EXG1 specifically is my favorite for push processing though it resembles rodinal in grain level

 

[BradS]

I was gonna suggest HC-110 but it does not work well with continuous agitation (eg Jobo).

 

[Roger Thoms]

I was gonna suggest HC-110 but it does not work well with continuous agitation (eg Jobo).

What are the issues with HC-110 and continuous agitation?

Roger

 

[David Allen]

I was gonna suggest HC-110 but it does not work well with continuous agitation (eg Jobo).

Yes, HC 110 is very sensitive to agitation in comparison to other developers and this has led to many people stating that it is not suitable for drum processing.

However, I know plenty of photographers who use HC 110 for its value for money, long keeping qualities and consistent results when used as a one-shot developer. Most use drum development with constant agitation and get great results. The key points to observe when using HC 110 in a drum processor are:

• use dilution H (1:63)
• use a development time that is -15% of the recommended time (so, for example, T-Max 400 at dilution B is 6 minutes, at dilution H it should be 12 minutes therefore your starting point would be to use dilution H in a drum processor for 10 minutes and 12 seconds)
• be scrupulous in ensuring that all of your chemistry is at 20˚C
• be exacting about processing for exactly the same time every time
• make sure that you use at least 6mL of syrup per film

Bests,

David.

 

[MattKing]

T-Max developer isn't bad for long life, and will give you full speed.
Unless you can find T-Max RS, you are limited to roll films.

 

[BradS]

What are the issues with HC-110 and continuous agitation?

Roger

HC-110 is very sensitive to agitation. More agitation produces more contrast. Continuous agitation makes it very easy to accomplish 'chalk and soot'. HC-110 is really very unsuited for use in a continuous rotary agitation regimen.

Yes, HC 110 is very sensitive to agitation in comparison to other developers and this has led to many people stating that it is not suitable for drum processing.

However, I know plenty of photographers who use HC 110 for its value for money, long keeping qualities and consistent results when used as a one-shot developer. Most use drum development with constant agitation and get great results. The key points to observe when using HC 110 in a drum processor are:

• use dilution H (1:63)
• use a development time that is -15% of the recommended time (so, for example, T-Max 400 at dilution B is 6 minutes, at dilution H it should be 12 minutes therefore your starting point would be to use dilution H in a drum processor for 10 minutes and 12 seconds)
• be scrupulous in ensuring that all of your chemistry is at 20˚C
• be exacting about processing for exactly the same time every time
• make sure that you use at least 6mL of syrup per film

Bests,

David.

That may very well produce acceptable results for some. I'd rather use something forgiving, like D-23, in the Jobo and know that I'm going to get good results every time. I do use and love HC-110 and prefer it for roll films in the small tank (Patterson two reel). I tried mightily to get it to work with sheet film in the Jobo tank (on a motorized roller base) and found it unsuitable.

 

[Pioneer]

I was gonna suggest HC-110 but it does not work well with continuous agitation (eg Jobo).

??

I wasn't aware that this was a problem. I've been using a Jobo for years and frequently dunk my films in HC-110 while agitating continuously. Never noticed that it caused the negatives any harm.

The biggest potential issue is short developing times in a Jobo that could result in inconsistent results. But dilution changes can certainly be used to adjust development times.

I personally try to adjust dilution so my developing times are at least 6 minutes. To be honest I have never really tested that to be certain it is good advice so consider it anecdotal.

 

[Peter Schrager]

pyrocat-MC; full speed; lasts indefinitely ;easy to make!

 

[David Allen]

"I'd rather use something forgiving, like D-23"

I understood the OP to mean that he was looking for something that is preprepared, has a very long life and is flexible so that he can use it 'off the shelf' on the rare occasions that he does not want / need to use Bob Carnie's Pyro PMK.

Bests,

David.

 

[BradS]

??

I wasn't aware that this was a problem. I've been using a Jobo for years and frequently dunk my films in HC-110 while agitating continuously. Never noticed that it caused the negatives any harm.

The biggest potential issue is short developing times in a Jobo that could result in inconsistent results. But dilution changes can certainly be used to adjust development times.

I personally try to adjust dilution so my developing times are at least 6 minutes. To be honest I have never really tested that to be certain it is good advice so consider it anecdotal.

Hmmm, I really didn't think this would be controversial enough for people to get their hair up about it. I don't know what to say other than I'm glad it works for you. It definitely does not work for me (see #11 above). I guess there could be any number of differences in our processes or we might also have different ideas about what are acceptable results. I do not actually have a Jobo machine for example, I process sheet films in a Jobo 3006 tank on a motor base. Or perhaps, you prefer your negatives to be a little more bullet proof than I do, for example. I print with a condenser enlarger and so really prefer negatives to be a little more on the delicate end of the scale.
Whatever....if it works for you and you're happy with the results...then that's great!

 

[BradS]

"I'd rather use something forgiving, like D-23"

I understood the OP to mean that he was looking for something that is preprepared, has a very long life and is flexible so that he can use it 'off the shelf' on the rare occasions that he does not want / need to use Bob Carnie's Pyro PMK.

Bests,

David.

Yes, you are correct. D-23 does not meet the OP's constraints/desires. I wasn't suggesting that it did (although a bottle of replenished D-23 might). I was only stating my personal preference.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The problem here is that you're not specifying what specific films you have in mind. They're not all the same in this respect.

 

[Richard Man]

Tri-X, HP5, the pedestrian stuff.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

The HC-110 / Ilfotec HC will work fine but DD-X is probably a better option re shadow detail / film speed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Tri-X and HP5 have a bit of toe to them, so full box speed or not is really more dependent on the scene contrast. I routinely shot Hp5 at full box speed for ordinary PMK development.;
it's just not an ideal film for extreme contrast. TMax films have a longer straight line, deeper down into the shadows, and will work full speed with PMK. The secret is more the correct film for the kind of shadow separation involved. Switching to HC-110 isn't going to change that. The main feature of pyro developers is the staining property that makes it easier to control highlights. Spitting PMK is just for sake of controlling excess oxidation in rotary processing; it has no significant advantage in tray processing or hand-inversion tanks.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

TMax films have a longer straight line, deeper down into the shadows

I always find the T-Max films well behaved.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The two films he mentioned - HP5 and TriX sheets are particularly prone to edge fogging with highly aggressive processing like rotary. If that method must be used, then Pyrocat might be a better choice than PMK. I've done it both ways, but distinctly prefer tray dev.

 

[Richard Man]

First of all, any "box speed" or pushing would most likely be done with MF or 35mm. For 4x5 and 8x10, since they are on tripods, of course I will shoot them with more exposure, and the dual Pyro-PMK works great for that.

In fact, I did some testing over the weekend, and it shows that at least for 4x5 HP5+, dual-PMK works quite well at ISO 400 also, by extending the development times. So it's possible that I won't need other developers at all, unless I do extreme pushing (which is not very likely nowadays). I should find out what it can do with 120 Delta 3200, exposed at ISO 1200 or thereabout.