Paper Developer Exhaustion During Use?

Bob, my aunt reckons you starred with her in Just William on the BBC Home Service around 1947

Will you admit to you're past follies

Ian

Yes, it's all true: I am the secret love-child of Arthur Askey and Joyce Grenfell ...

Martin Reed said:

It was actually almost exactly 40 8x10"s before
the developer was truly finished, ...

Click to expand...

You'd have had the same results testing with
4x5 sheets and the appropriate amount of
developer. What a waste. Dan

We're talking 1973 here... attitudes to economy & resources have changed more than a little since then. But apart from that, I think it was a way of doing something useful with some stale paper.

Martin Reed said:

We're talking 1973 here... attitudes to economy & resources
have changed more than a little since then.

Click to expand...

My comment was in retrospect; your assignment many
years ago. So, who was instructing us other wise? Not
that there were no thrift thinking sorts about only
that they were not so numerous.

Besides, there WAS plenty of every thing and NONE of
it was ever going to run out. Now more and more
share less and less. Dan

You've got me thinking now...maybe in the US making large prints was common a long time back, but in the UK into the '70's we did indeed have a culture of printing small. Possibly the aftermath of WW2 rationing, crude camera emulsions and being only a few decades away from when contact printing was the norm kept the size down. A 12x16" print was regarded as giant enlarging, and keeping the grain at bay must have been why there was such a lot of stipple paper around. It all seemed to change in the mid-late '70's when photo prints were capable of being 'art'.

I think it was European tradition Martin, you only have to look at the exquisite contemporary prints of photographers like Kertesz, Doisneau, HCB etc none printed large, also there was far less LF work outside of Professional photography.

There was very little paper over 10x8 in the shops I used in the late 60's early 70's, most was postcard, half-plate & whole plate. Many of us used ex-government surplus films & papers bought mail-order, FP3 & HP3, PE paper before they were marketed for public used.

The change seemed to happen in the early 70's, larger sizes were much more common by around 1972, I think the growth of colour replaced much of the market for small B&W prints, I know Ilford said that sales of B&W materials declined from then on. At that time Ilford where pushing B&W papers & films in the amateur market, with some excellent advertising, presumably to counter the very rapid decline in the B&W D&P market.

But you're right Martin that also co-incided with the growth of art based photography course, Paul Hill, Richard Sadler etc setting up the first course at Trent College, Nottingham.

Ian

BetterSense said:

In reality prints often sit in the fixer for several minutes until I get around to moving them.

Click to expand...

that is what should worry you mostonce fixer has soaked into the paper fibers, it is almost impossible to remove.
fix as long as you need to and as short as you can get away with.

RalphLambrecht said:

that is what should worry you mostonce fixer has soaked into the paper fibers, it is almost impossible to remove.
fix as long as you need to and as short as you can get away with.

Click to expand...

Two-bath fix. One minute each at film strength.
Bath 2: One fresh liter of Hypam at film strength for each printing session. Guaranteed fresh an potent.
Bath 1: Bath 2 from previous session. I actually have a gallon of this, and keep replenishing it with what's left of Bath 2 from each printing session, and saving the rest for silver recovery.

I believe that two minutes fixing is about the maxiumum without running the risk of having trouble washing the fixer out of the prints. Is that about right, Ralph?

Martin Reed said:

..... It was actually almost exactly 40 8x10"s before the developer was truly finished, but the fall-off when it happened was quite abrupt over only a few prints, loss of density & increase in warmth.

Click to expand...

RalphLambrecht said:

I made the same experience with modern papers. That's why I use factorial development. It will compensate for the gradual loss developer intensity at the beginning. However, once the developer fails to produce Dmax, it's time for fresh developer.

Click to expand...

I was recently printing a bunch of photos and I noticed how fast the developer dies off.

Printing on Ilford MGIV FB 11x14, developed in 1.5 liters of Dektol 1:2.

I use a variation on factorial development: I watch the clock for when the image pops out. If it comes up in less than 30 seconds, I continue for another 90 seconds. If it comes up between 30 and 45 seconds, I continue for another 2 minutes. If it takes any longer than 45 seconds I develop for up to 3 minutes but, after that, I consider the developer exhausted.

The last two sessions I had in the darkroom, the prints were popping out in about 40 seconds and were done developing at about 2:45 when, suddenly, they would not develop completely, at all. One print was fine but the next print, only two minutes later, would not develop.

At first, I thought it was because the developer was getting cold. My darkroom is in the basement and the temperatures can get down to 55º F. in the winter. Even if I mix my chems at 75º F., they'll be below 60º F. in a short time.
I went to Wal-Mart and got a large plastic tub and a fish tank heater.

Developing in a heated water bath solved the temperature problem but I still experienced developer die-off after about a dozen prints. That included a whole bunch of test strips, too.

The thing that gets me is not how many or how few prints I get out of a batch. I think I'm getting about the right number of prints per batch but what really surprised me is just how fast the developer dies off. I suppose, since I'm developing 11x14 prints, I can expect a faster die-off because the larger surface area of the paper uses up the developer faster. Right?

BTW: The plastic tub I got from Wal-Mart has a snap-on lid. I figured, "What the hell? I might as well use it."
Where, once, my developer was lasting about one day in the tray, covering it with a lid helps it last overnight and into the next day. The plastic tub with a lid helped save my developer enough that, now, I'm thinking about going out and getting more tubs for the rest of my chems. Not only will it help preserve them and save a bit of money, I won't have to clean the slopped developer and fixer off my table so often.

A good way to mitigate some of this developer fall-off is to use a replenished paper developer, where you replenish a certain amount of fresh developer with X number of 8x10 prints (or equivalent surface area). In my case I use Ethol LPD. From a mixed gallon kit, 1/3 gallon is mixed 1 part stock plus 2 parts water, and 2/3 gallon is replenisher mixed 2 parts stock plus 1 part water, so I have one gallon of each when I start.
When I print I use the full gallon of developer. Large developer volume = slower changes. With every 30 pieces of 8x10 paper (or equivalent), I replenish with 300ml replenisher. This is about equivalent to developer carry-over to the stop bath, so the volume doesn't change significantly. At the end of the printing session I top up the gallon of working solution so that the bottle is full.

I have not noticed any developer fall-off at all this way.

dancqu said:

If your volume of prints is low, a few 8x10s or their
equivalence your chemistry will go farther if you use
it at a greater dilution than usual; for example,
Dektol at 1:3 or even 1:5.

With a working solution volume of one liter you'll have
enough chemistry present for those few prints. Print
quality will not suffer. Extend times a minute or so
in each of the solutions. I know ahead the number
of prints I will make and prepare the chemistry
accordingly. Dump when done. No used any
thing aging away on the shelf. Dan

Click to expand...

This statement is not true. The number of square inches of paper, or film, a given developer will process correctly is based on the quantity of developer concentrate. If the same total quantity of developer is utilized, and the dilution is greater (ie. 1=3 or 4, rather than 1+2) there will be less active developing agents present, therefore fewer square inches can be processed correctly.

Jim

To get consistent developer action there really are only two directions to go.
1. Know the maximum capacity and only use it to about 90% of that and then replace it.
2. Learn to use factorial development. This enables the user to extend time as the number of prints increases with a greater degree of accuracy.

I use both, but only use factorial if I know I only need to make 3 or 4 more prints during that session.
If making a production run of more than 20 prints I replace the developer every 20 prints. This is cheaper in the long run than finding a number of undesirable prints on the screens the next morning.

I see we have resurrected a three-year-old thread here... Nevertheless, it is still worth discussing.

Jim, I think you misunderstood the method by dancqu that you quoted. He's saying exactly what you are, i.e., less concentrate in a higher dilution developer will develop fewer prints. He advocates only mixing enough developer for the number of prints being done in one session. If you plan on only making a few prints, then using a more dilute developer (thereby keeping enough volume) will prevent you from tossing underused developer.

I advocate factoral development as well. I find capacity numbers to be less useful. They are, by necessity, rough estimates with a large safety factor added. True developer capacity depends on throughput. A number of prints with large very dark areas will exhaust a developer faster than the same number with mostly light areas (more silver developed = more developer exhaustion). Time is also a factor, as the developer oxidizes, it loses activity.

Developer is pretty cheap, so when in doubt, throw it out! One way to test your inklings that a developer is dying is to mix a fresh batch before you toss the old one. Then develop two identical prints (factorally, to compensate for the degree of exhaustion of the old developer) and compare them. I usually find that I'm tossing my developer before I need to... Two liters of MQ or PQ print developer more than does a full day session for me.

I also have a tendency to tweak my developer (adding stock solution, carbonate, btz, etc.) and use split-developing techniques, so I probably end up tossing a bit more still-active developer than I would if I just used one solution to exhaustion.

For a more definitive test, one could always keep the step wedge handy and make a small contact print every now and then at the same exposure and see how they compare over the life of the developer. Comparing high-density areas and overall scale would tell the tale. In fact, that sounds so good I think I'll do that next time I print.

Best,

Doremus

www.DoremusScudder.com

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Two-bath fix. One minute each at film strength.
Bath 2: One fresh liter of Hypam at film strength for each printing session. Guaranteed fresh an potent.
Bath 1: Bath 2 from previous session. I actually have a gallon of this, and keep replenishing it with what's left of Bath 2 from each printing session, and saving the rest for silver recovery.

I believe that two minutes fixing is about the maxiumum without running the risk of having trouble washing the fixer out of the prints. Is that about right, Ralph?

Click to expand...

yes,itis.

Ian Grant said:

Papers aren't fully developed, they will continue to develop after the recommended time and gain density particularly in the highlights and mid tones.

Ian

Click to expand...

Hmmm, sounds like fogging more than continuing development, either stale paper or old safelights - Prints should be developed fully so a true black is a true black, but graded and exposed so highlights retain a delicate tonail range

i did exactly that.

Grumpy Old Man said:

Hmmm, sounds like fogging more than continuing development, either stale paper or old safelights - Prints should be developed fully so a true black is a true black, but graded and exposed so highlights retain a delicate tonail range

Click to expand...

No it's not fogging, but there is a difference between dveloping fully tomcompletion and developing to achieve the maximum black. Once you develop past that maximum black point you're altering the printing curve.

Ian

Grumpy Old Man said:

Hmmm, sounds like fogging more than continuing development, either stale paper or old safelights - Prints should be developed fully so a true black is a true black, but graded and exposed so highlights retain a delicate tonail range

Click to expand...

s
no. ian i correct. papers conti ue to develop and gain density with development time.

... exactly. An adjustment in developing time is a great way to fine tune print exposure too. Thirty seconds longer in the developer can add a bit of extra effective exposure and changes the curve somewhat. Sometimes just what the doctor ordered.

Best,

Doremus

www.DoremusScudder.com