Paper developer 'replenishment'- am I doing the right thing?

Hi all,

I've been developing b&w paper (FB) for over 15 years. Some recent reading about the use of replenished developer for negatives ((there was a url link here which no longer exists) in particular) has made me wonder for the first time all these years if I'm doing the right thing with my paper developer.

What I do is I make two liters (Amaloco AM6006 1+9). I use that until I 'feel' that it starts to exhaust. Then I add some developer (diluted somewhat arbitrarily) to get to 2l again. I go on and on with the same stock and it seems to work fine, i.e. I get nice prints, nothing to complain about.

My question is: is there any advantage and/or disadvantage to my 'method' as compared to just chucking all of the developer solution after exhaustion and starting with a totally fresh solution?

Does the 'replenished' (if that's the right word) paper developer contain things that harm the paper in any way (longevity, quality of print, pollution of fixer, that sort of thing)? Or is there some seasoning taking place in the over-and-over-reused stock that actually benefits the quality of the print, like with seasoned negative developers?

I don't see anything particularly wrong or fantastic about my prints. They're good enough for me and they last just fine. Just wondering aloud.

[Btw, I use Kentmere FPVC, both glossy and fine grain, mostly 12x16 (30x40), developed in Amaloco 6006, then acidic stop bath and Adox Adofix 1+4 single bath. I used to use Agfa MCC until 'forced' to switch, to Kentmere in my case- great paper also.]

Thanks, Sander.

Hm, maybe I should reply myself then.

If your prints look fine by your standards and if longevity is alright (again, by your personal standards), then why bother to change your routine? What works for you works for you.

Just my two cents.

I think you're on the right track with your replenishment schedule. If it works for you then it must be right. I often use paper developer that is so dark brown you wouldn't think it would work but it does.

this is something i heard from an old photographer but never have tested it myself - replenished developers slowly acumulate the bromides released from development which start to affect the way the developer develops. not sure if it was the shadows or highlights or both that are affected. i currently replenish like you do ( dektol ) and am also happy with the results.

Yes, bromide will accumulate, which is a development restainer, and will accordingly need longer exposures to get the same image tone as compared to a fresh batch of developer.

As bromide levels rise, a warmer image tone may also eventuate, depending on the image tome charachteristics of the paper you are using.

More or less fresh concentrate to the working solution wil also affect active developer dilution, so the print contrast due to developer concentration may also vary.

All that being said, there is nothing wrong with what you do, if you are happy with the resulting image. A great baker is not judged by how the kitchen lolls as the cake comes out of the oven. .

For more long term consisitency you may want to save the 'seasoned' developer, and start a fresh batch with say 1.5l of fresh developer working solution, and 500mL of the 'seasoned mix'. Then as you add fresh concetrate as activity fades the results may vary less.

I tried that last year with Dektol, and kept it up for 12 months with replenishment. I finally got tired of the experiment and dumped the nastiest looking, blacker than espresso, smelly stuff that still worked just fine. I kept track of developing times, and prints looked just as good from the beginning til the last time I used it. As soon as I dumped it I regretted my action, as a project popped up that it was perfect for(developing some c-41 film)

Thanks for all the replies. From what you are saying there seems to be little difference between replenishing and starting with totally fresh stock each time near/after exhaustion, in terms of print quality that is. There might be a small difference in tone.

It's good to know that others are doing the same thing- no guarantee for anything but at least I don't seem to be making a basic & huge mistake.

an interesting experience i had was replenished ilford multigrade and agfa mcc paper. i never notice until my friend pointed out that my prints had a slight green tinge to the blacks. he brought me one of his prints, same paper and same but fresh developer and the difference was glaringly obvious.

Actually my prints (Kentmere FPVC) have a slight greenish cast compared to my old Agfa MCC prints. It's nothing that you would notice outside of a direct comparison. I always thought that the cast was down the papers, not to the developer having matured.

The greenishness may also come with the developer, regardless of age. I have never tried any other developer than the one that I use now (Amaloco AM6006).

I might run a comparison between Kentmere in fresh and old developer. Whenif I feel like it