Old print developer created a negative image print

[Palmer]

As the title says, I was using some old working solution Bromophen print developer that would have been a couple of months or more old. I knew the developer was old but it was in a bottle that was full to the top and the solution still looked clear so I thought I'd try it and see what happens. Just a test, really. The working solution was diluted 1 + 3 and the solution would have developed maybe a dozen 8x10 sheets at most from when I first mixed it a couple of months ago.

The resulting print was a surprise as instead of a positive image emerging, I got a negative image. Not as strongly negative as the actual film negative but still a negative - highlights were dark and shadows were brighter but the overall print was very dark. A later print with fresh developer and the same paper returned a normal positive image in case anyone is thinking the issue is with the negative or the paper. So, I'm just curious, what chemically is going on to create this?

Thanks.

Steve

 

[Stanislav Boščík]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabattier_effect / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarization_(photography)

 

[AgX]

Both these two effects are based on exposure.
Either on exposure during development, or an excessive exposure from the enlarger.
The OP hinted at neither of these.

 

[pentaxuser]

Steve, interesting, I don't think I have heard of this before so a picture of the negative print would be helpful if you can along side the same print as an OK positive

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Palmer]

My understanding is that the Sabbatier Effect and Solarization require either long exposure times in camera or exposure to white light at the printing stage. Neither of these occurred with my print. I will upload an image of print the first chance I get.

Steve

 

[Palmer]

Here is a rough scan of the negative print. Ignore the vertical lines, they are just from the cheap scanner. The Horizontal lines are due to this being a print of test strips. The print is of my wife who won't want me to post the positive print online (she's a shy one) but I can tell you the print made in fresh developer looks like a normal print with nothing remarkable about it and printed straight using a Grade 2 filter on Ilford MGFB Classic Matt paper. The blotchiness you see here on the "negative" print is from the scanner. The positive print is quite smooth.

The test strip times run from 6 seconds at the bottom to 16 seconds at the top and the successful print made with fresh developer was made at 12 seconds. As I said, the successful print was a straight print with no dodging or burning needed.

I have attached the negative print as a pdf flile.

Any thoughts on what's going on here to produce this negative image in a print?

Steve

 

[pentaxuser]

Well this does look like a "negative" print and presuming that there is nothing wrong with the scanner then it is a puzzle to me. In fact being selfish, a worrying puzzle. I have in my darkroom a pack of Bromophen powder which I intend to make a stock solution of and place it into a winebag which is effectively "airless" and draw stock from this into a Nova slot and while as a working solution I do not expect many weeks of longevity, I do expect the stock solution to last a lot longer than your's seems to have done. Your stock was both full( so no air ) and clear.

What kind of a container was the stock Bromophen in and can you confirm that the fresh solution which produced normal prints was a new pack of Bromophen that was made into stock for the OK prints?

I take it that it is not a case of the diluted solution being clear with no air but being a few months old and then used or was it?

I am sure you will appreciate that there is a difference

I need to ask these questions because in a conversation this confusion on my part would be resolved instantly but in written correspondence this kind of a problem arises i.e. what you mean and what I read from what you mean can be two different things.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

It looks like it silvered out - can you scrape off the reflective stuff with your fingernail?

 

[CMoore]

It looks like it silvered out .....

Just to be clear, there is A LOT i do not know, but i have never heard this term before.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

It really looks to me as if the paper were light-struck during development. Are you sure this didn't happen? Did you develop any subsequent prints with the same developer and were they solarized as well?

FWIW, my experience with Bromophen is that is ages very well. I've had stock solution in full bottles last way more than six months - nine months at least in one case and it still worked fine.

I'd try another print in the old developer with paper I was sure wasn't light-struck (and no unsafe light during development) just to make sure.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Palmer]

Thank you for your responses and suggestions. Pentaxuser, I may have misled you. The old developer I used was old WORKING SOLUTION. I mixed it several months ago at a dilution of 1+3 from the stock Bromophen. I stored the working strength solution in a black concertina bottle with ALL of the air squeezed out. The temperature of the darkroom is usually between 13 degrees Celcius and 20 degrees Celcius. The stock Bromophen solution is still fine and it was that same stock solution of Bromophen, mixed several months ago, that I used to mix up fresh developer which gave me a normal looking positive print. So, the negative print only occurred with the very old WORKING STRENGTH Bromophen developer. The STOCK SOLUTION is several months old and is fine. I used it again today with no issues. I do know old working solution should not be used. But when I saw the old working solution was still clear with no visible signs of "ageing" I decided to do a test to see if I could get a maximum black, or rather, how black the blacks would go. I didn't expect it to produce a good print but I also did not expect it to produce a negative image.

Matt, I can't scrape anything off the print. It feels like a normal print.

Doremus, I'm sure the paper was not light struck. Before making the negative test strip print, the one scanned and uploaded, which is on Ilford Satin RC paper, I made 2 test strips with Ilford MG Fiber Warm Tone Semi Matt paper and the same thing happened - I got a negative image, albeit, much darker because my times were too long, but they were definitely negative in appearance. It's a good suggestion to make another print with the old working solution developer, but, I dumped it. I wish I hadn't done that now.

Thank you for all your suggestions. I would like to understand this but maybe the mystery will remain. I hope not. Hopefully someone will know what's going on. Perhaps the next step is to take my current working solution of Bromophen, put it on the shelf for 3 months and see if I can recreate the effect. Actually, I think I might do that but I expect I will not be able to reproduce the same outcome.

Steve

 

[removed account4]

hi steve,
sounds like a great mystery to me!
if i was you ... i'd save some working strength in a concertina bottle again
for a few months and see if it happens again. i'd also shoot a paper negative
and see if you get a positive with the ancient developer as well, might be something
to have up your sleeve if you ever want to do "direct positives"

have fun!
john

 

[railwayman3]

I can remember seeing something similar many years ago, when I first started doing my own darkroom work. I had been given some, very ancient Ilford paper (could even have dated from the 1940's ! ), in a part-used packet, and the results were something like yours, very dark and with a sort of negative "silvery" solarisation effect. The developer and fixer would have been fresh and the darkroom safelight, etc., were good (my Dad's darkroom, he was a keen photographer....).

I appreciate that you believe your paper was good (but could it have been in poor conditions and/or not fresh before you acquired it ? ). Otherwise, I guess it would be a case of testing known fresh paper with the stock developer, and, conversely, the original paper with known fresh chemicals ?

 

[Kino]

I think the developer was accidentally stored upside down.

Well, maybe you can take a small sample of your current, fresh developer and store it for an equal amount of time. Mark your calendar and see if you have stumbled upon an interesting side effect of developer exhaustion!

Can't hurt! There might be a market for "Aged developers"!

 

[pentaxuser]

Thank you for your responses and suggestions. Pentaxuser, I may have misled you. The old developer I used was old WORKING SOLUTION. I mixed it several months ago at a dilution of 1+3 from the stock Bromophen. I stored the working strength solution in a black concertina bottle with ALL of the air squeezed out. The temperature of the darkroom is usually between 13 degrees Celcius and 20 degrees Celcius. The stock Bromophen solution is still fine and it was that same stock solution of Bromophen, mixed several months ago, that I used to mix up fresh developer which gave me a normal looking positive print. So, the negative print only occurred with the very old WORKING STRENGTH Bromophen developer. The STOCK SOLUTION is several months old and is fine. I used it again today with no issues. I do know old working solution should not be used. But when I saw the old working solution was still clear with no visible signs of "ageing" I decided to do a test to see if I could get a maximum black, or rather, how black the blacks would go. I didn't expect it to produce a good print but I also did not expect it to produce a negative image.

Steve

Steve thanks for the very full explanation which makes things crystal clear. No you didn't mislead me. It just struck me that what you said was maybe not what I read so I asked for clarification which I got. In any exchange of the written word only these things can happen

I hadn't thought about a light strike as Doremus suggests as a possible cause but certainly the negative print as a negative print is such a good one that I now wonder if the old diluted stock was fine and did its job but somehow there was a Sabattier effect.

Good to know the stock is fine and from others that Bromophen has a reasonable shelf life

pentaxuser

 

[Palmer]

Thanks once again for all your input. To those suggesting I put some developer away and age it for later use, I plan on doing just that. I'll even make sure the developer has a dozen prints run through it first as the developer in question was partially used.

Railwayman, I have used paper from the same boxes before and after the "negative print occurrence" and the paper has behaved as one would expect. Of the papers used, one box was very old (several years) and not stored in a fridge but the other box was new and stored in a fridge. Both boxes created a negative print.

Pentaxuser: I'm sure there wasn't a light strike so I have to rule this out as a possible cause. I don't know much about Sabattier effect but from the examples I saw online they look different to my print. The ones I've seen look kind of like a negative but not really a negative. My print looks like a negative. But, maybe it is a Sabattier effect, but that would mean that a light strike must have occurred which I know it didn't. So, the mystery remains. Regarding the strength of the old working solution, in spite of it being several months old it was still VERY active. It developed the paper very quickly and the image began to appear in about 30 seconds. So, just like fresh developer.

Well, it's still a mystery but thanks to everyone for their suggestions and thought. I will try to reproduce this effect again and I'm really hoping I can.

Steve