Low Dmax - is it my paper or developer?

Hi folks,

Despite excessively overexposing my sheets of Dead Link Removed , I am simply unable to produce a Dmax of > 1.25 once the paper has dried [1].

The FB paper is 3.5 years old and it's the 1st time I've used it (or any FB paper for that matter). It has been stored between 12-20degC the entire 3.5 years in my darkroom.

Using some even older Ilford RC MG IV paper (perhaps 5 y.o.) I can readily get a Dmax of >1.9

My paper developer is AGFA Neutol Plus diluted 1+9 made up from the stash I bought up when it went out of production over 4 years ago now. It looks browner that it used to but why would it produce perfect RC prints if it was expired ?

Dev temp =20-22degC, Dev time for FB paper as per mfg instr (120sec). Image first appears at about 45sec in dev

Will expired paper give such a reduced Dmax ?

Will expired developer work better with RC versus FB paper ?

regards
Peter

[1] I am using a calibrated densitometer to measure the reflection density of the paper.

Peter,

Just trying to help here, so please forgive me if I insult you along the way....

Did you use the highest VC filter when exposing the paper?

You state "Using some even older Ilford RC MG IV paper (perhaps 5 y.o.) I can readily get a Dmax of >1.9." Was this processed at the same time or from a different darkroom session? Was the RC paper developed in the Neutol Plus?

I've used Neutol W/A that is 4 years old and haven't noticed any significant change in the blacks of my Azo prints.

If you've used the highest VC filter to expose the paper and if the RC paper was processed in the same darkroom session as the FB paper then I would suggest you try a different developer and see what happens.

WHOOPS!!! I see you state the image first appears at about 45 sec in the dev. That, to me, is a sure sign the developer is bad! Try some fresh developer and see what "develops."

Good Luck,

Not really sure that Neutol WA is the ideal developer for MGIV, I'd use it at a slightly higher concentration if I had no other option. Being a warm-tone developer it has a higher bromide content and Dmax may well be a touch less.

Ian

jgjbowen said:

Peter,

Just trying to help here, so please forgive me if I insult you along the way....

Did you use the highest VC filter when exposing the paper?

Click to expand...

Nope, #3.5, although I've been told this should not prevent Dmax being reached.

jgjbowen said:

You state "Using some even older Ilford RC MG IV paper (perhaps 5 y.o.) I can readily get a Dmax of >1.9." Was this processed at the same time or from a different darkroom session? Was the RC paper developed in the Neutol Plus?

Click to expand...

Same time, same developer solution (Neutol Plus).

jgjbowen said:

I've used Neutol W/A that is 4 years old and haven't noticed any significant change in the blacks of my Azo prints.
If you've used the highest VC filter to expose the paper and if the RC paper was processed in the same darkroom session as the FB paper then I would suggest you try a different developer and see what happens.

WHOOPS!!! I see you state the image first appears at about 45 sec in the dev. That, to me, is a sure sign the developer is bad! Try some fresh developer and see what "develops."

Good Luck,

Click to expand...

As this is my first time using FB paper, I assumed it took longer for the image to appear than with RC. In fact Ilford says it will from hereAnyway I'm going to buy some different developer to see how that goes.

regards
Peter

Thanks Ian. I'm using Neutol Plus, not Neutol WA. I'll try 1+4 rather than 1+9 dilution.
regards
Peter

Peter,

Are your chemicals fresh?

Steve

I can't speak for the Neutol, but I just printed some 16x20 prints with Ilford MGIV from a box I bought in 2003 that look beautiful (they are for a show). I didn't measure the density of the blacks, but I would know if there was a problem. Also, I compared the other end of the scale (whites, as in the border) and it is normal too.
I should say that the first few sheets off the top, I printed a month or two ago, had a yellowish tinge at the edges, in from the edge maybe an inch or so (I posted this on this forum, and someone suggested that I go further down into the stack, which I did today). I have a fresh box just in case, but they look so good, I'm using them.
My developer is LPD 1:2, two minutes at 70F, or thereabouts. Not yet selenium toned.

Sirius Glass said:

Peter,

Are your chemicals fresh?

Steve

Click to expand...

That's what I'm trying to work out !

The AGFA Neutol Plus was purchased 4 years ago. I opened the 4 year old bottle 2 years ago and have always put marbles into the concentrate to expel the air. Anyway I'll try an unopened bottle of Neutol Plus at the higher recommended conc. of 1+4 rather than 1+9 and if that doesn't work I'll switch developers.

I stocked up on Neutol Plus (now out of production) as it contains neither Hydroquinone nor Metol. The only other paper developer today in that category is Silvergrain's Tektol which isn't sold in Australia and will cost me 4 to 8 times the price to ship it out !!

regards
Peter

George Collier said:

I can't speak for the Neutol, but I just printed some 16x20 prints with Ilford MGIV from a box I bought in 2003 that look beautiful (they are for a show).

Click to expand...

Thanks George, this reassures me that my paper is probably OK.

rgds
Peter

Is the RC one of those papers with developer-incorporated emulsion? If so, it could be that there is enough alkalinity in the old Neutol to activate it, but not to develop a traditional paper. Just a thought.

A low Dmax is almost always caused by insufficient development or less exposure than required to achieve maximum black from that particular paper. I have had some severely age fogged Kodax Polymax RC develop to maximum black (compared to a fresh sheet) once exposed to room light. I don't think that bad paper is even a remote possibility for this one. Tell me, if you expose a small piece of this paper to room light, then develop it in the Neutol Plus that you have, will it develop the dmax you expect? If not, it's a lead pipe cinch that the developer is weak. And the bottle of concentrate has been opened for 2 years? Even excluding as much air as possible won't keep a liquid concentrate that long. I'm surprised it worked at all. I would not be surprised if the unopened bottler were showing signs of weakness at this point. Get some fresh developer before you waste more paper. Dektol is great stuff. It's inexpensive, widely available, and very hard to beat.

Thanks John and Frank. I'm glad to read what you wrote, that a high Dmax is achievable even with older papers. This clearly points to the dev being a problem. I've ordered some Dektol and if my unopened bottles of Neutol Plus turn out bad then I'll try and get my hands on some Tektol.

This page identifies the permeability of different plastics often used for photographic chemicals. It suggests transferring to glass containers for long term storage !

I could also measure the pH of the concentrate to see if it is about 10.8 as per the MSDS.

Just to re-iterate I am persisting with the Neutol Plus until I have proved my stocks really are bad because it contains neither Hydroquinone nor Metol (and please don't diverge this thread to convince me otherwise ! I'm not religiously against using HQ and Metol as I've just purchased some Dektol to help me get through for now but Tektol might be my only other long term option).

rgds
Peter

The latest update I have is that indeed the developer is dying. Testing last night revealed that a 1+9 dilution takes 5 minutes to reach Dmax (of 2.1) and 1+4 takes 3minutes for Dmax of 2.1. As suggested elsewhere, longer times (10min+) should further increase the Dmax.

I have Dektol and Ilford Cool tone developer arriving tomorrow. If they end up giving me Dmax of say 2.3 or 2.4 then I'll probably not persist with the Neutol Plus. However with a little planning and testing, I plan to continue using my Neutol Plus.

The first thing I am going to do is to transfer all the concentrated solutions into glass bottles. Guess which plastic the Neutol Plus was sold in from AGFA ? HDPE which has the poorest gas permeability .... I cut open the plastic bottle last night and it didn't appear to have have an additional plastic lining in it.

Then each time I use the Neutol Plus, I will do a quick Dmax test to see how long I need to leave the paper in the dev for. Some might say I'm crazy, but I have my reasons. I have 3 young children and just the other day one of them got their stool, leaned over the top of my sink and inquisitively plonked their hand into my dev tray !! So the less toxic chems I have in the open the better. To that end I'm looking at eventually using Tektol.

regards
Peter

It's almost certainly the developer. You mentioned that it was turning color. That is a very bad sign.

Yes thanks nworth. The first sentence in my last post above yours reads "The latest update I have is that indeed the developer is dying.".

The following statement is interesting re. colour of developers


This could be why XTOL doesn't turn brown when exhausted.

rgds
Peter

I thought Id bump this thread instead of starting a new one. I've been using ilford matte FB paper recently (having been used to glossy) and the dmax seems pretty low to me. I can't get a decent black out of it, even after selenium toning it. This is using fresh dev, which from what I've read here old dev is apparently a problem. Is this an inherent quality of the type of paper? I think I know the answer to that is no after seeing Bill Rowlinson's prints all printed on Ilford Multragrade matte with luscious deep blacks. What could be the problem?

Matte surfaces never exhibit blacks as dark as glossy surfaces. The matte surface scatters more light than a glossy surface. It's just that simple.

Also don't forget that "Fresh" (liquid) developer means recently purchased and very recently made up. My Neutol plus had expired because it was a few years between purchase and initial opening of the concentrate liquid. By that time it had turned from a light yellow to a tea brown colour.

What initially threw me was that the 1st few prints would be fine, then the activity very quickly dropped off and due to wishful thinking (as I bought up a lot dev when it went out of production) I didn't suspect the dev was to blame.

rgds
Peter