Old developer turns film black in clip test -- but are other aspects of a "good negative" affected by developer age?

[Trask]

I've got a roll of 35mm FP-4 I want to develop. Immediately at hand I have two bottles of film developer, one mixed 1 year ago (ID-11) and another almost 5 years ago (Polydol) -- opaque glass bottles, wine preservative spray, original Saran Wrap over mouth of bottle/under screw cap. Kept in a dark cellar at around 68F or lower. Doing a film clip test of each developer shows that both will readily develop film fully in a reasonable time. So if the only criteria for success was that I could get fully-developed film with either one, it looks like I can choose at will.

But this all got me to wondering whether the standard stick-a-piece-of-film-into-developer test is sufficient -- could it be that a developer capable of turning film fully black could nonetheless be lacking in some other aspect of getting a "good" printing/scanning negative? For example, is it possible that an older developer would produce a grainier negative -- something you wouldn't see clearly in a strip of film that was fully developed to black?. Or perhaps subtleties in gradation would be lacking in a negative developed in old developer? Your thoughts welcome....

 

[mshchem]

Never seen anything on this.

 

[film4Me]

If the film strip turns black, the developer is generally ok. The real test though for very old developer is to develop some unimportant images.

The 1yr dev is not that old considering you've kept it well. The 5yr might be a different story but I've used dev that old and it worked fine, however you may not be able to use it again, you may have to toss it. It will spoil very quickly after the first use.

 

[mshchem]

Would be a great project make up a bunch of developer and come back in 2031.

 

[Don_ih]

No. You could lose shadow detail if the developer has some ingredient that has oxidized, even though the developer turns a fully-exposed clip black. You could have unreliable times. The only way to truly test developer is to take a known good exposure and develop it for the proper time.

 

[MattKing]

If your test comes back "dead", the result is accurate and true.
If your test comes back not dead, the result is true, but doesn't tell you much about how near dead the developer might be.
So do the test, and if it isn't dead, test further with film of known proper exposure, and then analyze the results - preferably by printing it.
Is the savings worth it?

 

[Trask]

If your test comes back "dead", the result is accurate and true.
If your test comes back not dead, the result is true, but doesn't tell you much about how near dead the developer might be.
So do the test, and if it isn't dead, test further with film of known proper exposure, and then analyze the results - preferably by printing it.
Is the savings worth it?

Is the savings worth it? In the immediate sense, no -- the success or failure of one roll (a test roll) is educational but nothing to lose sleep about. But given the multiple 100-foot rolls of film in my freezer, any information I can test for or deduce by using test strips is very welcome. And I've got a lot of developer squirreled away too, some in sealed glass vials, some in packets, some in capped bottles -- being able to do a test and make a conclusion is valuable. I guess my main "problem" is that I have a large stash of film but don't shoot enough!

 

[MattKing]

Is the savings worth it? In the immediate sense, no -- the success or failure of one roll (a test roll) is educational but nothing to lose sleep about. But given the multiple 100-foot rolls of film in my freezer, any information I can test for or deduce by using test strips is very welcome. And I've got a lot of developer squirreled away too, some in sealed glass vials, some in packets, some in capped bottles -- being able to do a test and make a conclusion is valuable. I guess my main "problem" is that I have a large stash of film but don't shoot enough!

100 foot rolls of film are a different kettle of fish!
I would buy some fresh developer, and then test the film in it.
If you get good results, you can use the fresh developer test as a reference. You can then test the old developer against that reference - if you think it is worth it.

 

[Yezishu]

I think the rigorous way is to test with a standard image (e.g., a color chart under fixed lighting), develop it, obtain a light-density curve, and then compare it with a new developer.
Some companies sold exposed films and standard development results for testing in the past.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

this all got me to wondering whether the standard stick-a-piece-of-film-into-developer test is sufficient -- could it be that a developer capable of turning film fully black could nonetheless be lacking in some other aspect of getting a "good" printing/scanning negative?

A clip test will not confirm if there is a speed loss or an increase in base fog.

 

[Romanko]

With your tests you have established that the developer is still active. What you don't know is how much (if any) of its activity is lost. I suggest you do a snip test using the film and developer combination you are most familiar with and compare your estimated development time (from the test) with your normal time.

 

[pentaxuser]

The 5yr might be a different story but I've used dev that old and it worked fine, however you may not be able to use it again, you may have to toss it. It will spoil very quickly after the first use.

Why does a 5 year old good developer spoil very quickly after one use ?

Thanks
pentaxuser

 

[lamerko]

I expect ID-11/D-76 to work wonderfully. At the risk of stirring up debate, it may actually produce quite interesting results compared to a freshly mixed solution. Theres a possibility that part of the hydroquinone has formed a sulfonate

 

[Saganich]

All the issues you speculated regarding the disfunction of an aged developer can only be actualized by testing. Up to you to decide how much time you want to spend in that rabbit hole and whether it's worth it...personally...after that much time...I would discard and start fresh.

 

[MattKing]

Why does a 5 year old good developer spoil very quickly after one use ?

Thanks
pentaxuser

Because you opened it, and for the first time some or all the air that had reached a stable state with the developer below it is replaced with new, thirsty-to-absorb air.
And of course, by that time, the developer below has had 5 years to change as well.

 

[film4Me]

Because you opened it, and for the first time some or all the air that had reached a stable state with the developer below it is replaced with new, thirsty-to-absorb air.

I think that's a very good explanation, it's what I was thinking at the time. The developer was stock D76 stored for about the same length of time as the OP's developer, about 5yrs, in a 750ml brown bottle tightly capped with just 1mm of air space at the top of the narrow neck. Even so, I had to filter the developer to remove black specks of stuff laying around in the bottom of the bottle before using it.

I'm not suggesting an old developer shouldn't be tried a second time, it's just that I became so suspicious of mine after the first use, I wasn't game to use it for a subsequent film with potentially keeper images. I considered myself lucky it worked at all after 5yrs, but the film was a test film, trying out a Kiev 6C. The images were nothing important. Only my anxiety about the old developer was the important factor. Would it work?

I also have some ID-II to try out. It's been sitting around for about 3 1/2yrs. I will try it for more than one use and see how it goes.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If the film strip turns black, the developer is generally ok. The real test though for very old developer is to develop some unimportant images.

The 1yr dev is not that old considering you've kept it well. The 5yr might be a different story but I've used dev that old and it worked fine, however you may not be able to use it again, you may have to toss it. It will spoil very quickly after the first use.

I use that test every time I develop a roll of film. I test and verify the developer.

 

[pentaxuser]

Because you opened it, and for the first time some or all the air that had reached a stable state with the developer below it is replaced with new, thirsty-to-absorb air.
And of course, by that time, the developer below has had 5 years to change as well.

So in opening it for the first time at the age of 5 years, pouring out the requisite amount and then filling with inert gas takes enough time to spoil the developer to what seems to be an irretrievable extent according to the way the OP describes what happened to its appearance? Effectively the developer once opened "falls off a cliff"

It just all seems to be a little too much of a "black or white" judgement, if you'll excuse the pun, on the developer's potential life post opening

In terms of this new thirsty-to-absorb air ( has that almost vampire-like ring to it ) then I add the words filling it with inert gas or decanting the remainder into a container or containers that are then small enough to be filled to the top as the kind of precaution that is needed anyway, even with new developer that may have to sit unused for some time before further use

pentaxuser

 

[Yezishu]

Effectively the developer once opened "falls off a cliff"

Likely, the preservative might be nearly spent and finished off by a little air exposure. Unlike fresh stock, the remaining life of old developer is difficult to judge without proper testing.

 

[MattKing]

Even if the old lettuce in the still sealed clamshell still looks good, once you finally open it, it goes off more quickly .
This was the secret of the old HC-110 - they made use of a manufacturing process that was successful in removing all the water, while the developer itself required water to work.
Even an opened and partially full bottle generally has so little water in it that the presence of water in the air above the developer hardly mattered.
Other developers are susceptible to more invasive, commonly encountered things.
The weird thing about HC-110 was that it wasn't designed with extra-ordinary longevity in mind. It was merely an unintended result of designing it for ease of use and great consistency in a small package.

 

[pentaxuser]

Likely, the preservative might be nearly spent and finished off by a little air exposure. Unlike fresh stock, the remaining life of old developer is difficult to judge without proper testing.

Well that's a new reason that I haven't yet seen as far as I can recall. So whatever this preserver is, it becomes spent while sitting in an unopened container for 5 years and there is so little of this preserver left that it is finished off by air exposure?

If this preserver is key to a developer's longevity then might it not be possible for maker's of the developer to increase the amount used in the developer?

What is the reason why Rodinal keeps for many years?. Does it have extra preserver or is there some other reason why it keeps so long?

Thanks

pentaxuser