Paper Developer Types

[KidA]

Hey everyone!

So, I've been wet printing for a relatively short amount of time and have used only two types of paper developer so far: Dektol and Multigrade. Mostly Multigrade as Dektol was used a while ago when I first started and I was much more into making my print look the way I wanted than comparing the two developers with the same variables (paper, duration, negative, etc). Unfortunately, I don't have the time or money to be experimenting much. However, I'm running low on my Multigrade and I wanted to know your thoughts on different developers before getting some more. There seems to be so much talk on everything else: papers, films, film developers, even agitation processes, etc. Is there really a huge difference on developers for paper? Is is a convenience thing? Colour? Grain? What are the traits of different developers?

Please share some experiences (also with film/paper/film developer combos if possible) with your favourite paper developer and why! I would love to see some scans if they're indicative of your statements as I know scanning pretty much ruins everything analog, minus the convenience! Also include, if possible in words, the style you go for (eg. deep blacks, high/low contrast, 'clean' look, etc.) just as a referrence for what it is I'm looking to achieve.

FYI I use many types of film, mostly 'traditional' grain (Pan F, FP4, Tri-x) but I do work with the newer style, or whatever they're referred to as [T-grain??] (Deltas, Tmaxs) in HC-110 or Rodinal. I use Ilford FB papers mostly. My main concern would be a sense of depth; for example, the difference between crappy RC paper and fibre paper...

 

[cliveh]

I use multigrade print developer all the time and find it to be an excellent print developer.

 

[NedL]

I really like LPD 1:2 replenished. My bottle has been going for about 2 years now and it is always ready whenever I want to make prints.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Because of the way I work, my replenishment routine is a little different from what Thomas described. I keep a tally sheet of how many prints have gone through it, and replenish at the rate of 20ml stock solution per 3 8x10 prints. Because I often pre-soak my prints and paper negatives before developing, I don't get as much carry-over as traditional tray printing. Occasionally I even need to pour off a little to make room for the replenishing. On the same tally sheet I keep track of how much paper has gone through the fixer, to know when it is time to mix fresh.

Over time some fine black precipitate sinks to the bottom of the LPD bottle.... I filter it every few months or whenever I notice it has built up. Couldn't be happier.

 

[Alan9940]

Paper developers and their use are probably about as varied as film developers. For me, the paper developer I use tends to correlate directly with the paper I'm printing. A couple of examples: Amidol for Lodima, Pyro Plus, Dektol, or some Dektol derivative for Foma Variant/Ilford Multigrade/etc. I generally pick any particular paper/developer combination based on the final print I'm trying to achieve; which sounds like what you're doing already. Experiment and have fun!

 

[Ian Grant]

Essentially there's four basic paper developer types, normal (D72/Dektol, PQ Universal etc, Soft working ID-3, Kodak D165, Adaptol Soft, Warmtone ID-78/Ilford Warmtone, Neutol WA, and Contrast ID-14 etc.

Ian

 

[Gerald C Koch]

A bit of personal advice. The error most often made by those new to printing is to pull a print when it starts to be too dark. This results in a muddy print lacking in contrast. Therefore there are two keys to making excellent prints. The first is careful exposure. The second is that print development is done to "completion." By "completion" is the point where rapid change in print density begins to slow significantly. So watch the print and not the timer. There are several older threads which describe the process in more detail.

 

[KidA]

Paper developers and their use are probably about as varied as film developers. For me, the paper developer I use tends to correlate directly with the paper I'm printing. A couple of examples: Amidol for Lodima,
Pyro Plus, Dektol, or some Dektol derivative for Foma Variant/Ilford Multigrade/etc. I generally pick any particular paper/developer combination based on the final print I'm trying to achieve; which sounds like what you're doing already. Experiment and have fun!

And what sort of basic qualities would you be able to describe base on these pairings? Your most common? And for what subject matter?

 

[KidA]

A bit of personal advice. The error most often made by those new to printing is to pull a print when it starts to be too dark. This results in a muddy print lacking in contrast. Therefore there are two keys to making excellent prints. The first is careful exposure. The second is that print development is done to "completion." By "completion" is the point where rapid change in print density begins to slow significantly. So watch the print and not the timer. There are several older threads which describe the process in more detail.

Gerald, how well can you actually see all the blacks coming in? I find it so tough to notice a difference in blacks anywhere from about the 1:15-1:30 mark (of the recommended 2 min developing time), depending on the amount of black in the print. Would you say I should be taking the paper out at about that time? Or do I need to look closer, perhaps give myself more safelight, and potentially edging the 2 min mark? What happens if I develop past this 'deepest black' point?

 

[markbarendt]

Gerald, how well can you actually see all the blacks coming in? I find it so tough to notice a difference in blacks anywhere from about the 1:15-1:30 mark (of the recommended 2 min developing time), depending on the amount of black in the print. Would you say I should be taking the paper out at about that time? Or do I need to look closer, perhaps give myself more safelight, and potentially edging the 2 min mark? What happens if I develop past this 'deepest black' point?

There are two basic controls for how black something gets: Print exposure; Print development. More exposure, more black; more development, more black. How much? IDK

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Gerald, how well can you actually see all the blacks coming in? I find it so tough to notice a difference in blacks anywhere from about the 1:15-1:30 mark (of the recommended 2 min developing time), depending on the amount of black in the print. Would you say I should be taking the paper out at about that time? Or do I need to look closer, perhaps give myself more safelight, and potentially edging the 2 min mark? What happens if I develop past this 'deepest black' point?

It is not only the depth of the blacks but the overall contrast of the print that you need to look for. Developing to completion is a skill that increases with experience. Try making a few test exposures. Then pick the one that looks best to you after the stop bath in room light. Then look at the same test under the safe light to familiarize yourself with what to look for. Make sure that your safe light is bright enough. A second one right above the developer tray that can be used briefly for inspection also helps. Since the development slows considerably at completion it doesn't hurt to go a bit past it for safely. The depth of the blacks will barely change.

Something else that makes things simpler is the consistency of your negatives. Nothing makes enlarging harder than a batch of negatives that are of all different densities and contrast values. So be careful of your film exposure, development time, etc. This all goes back to Ansel Adam's admonishment to become completely familiar with a single film, developer, paper, etc.

 

[bernard_L]

Would you say I should be taking the paper out at about that time?

Paper should be developed to completion. Develop for the time recommended by the manufacturer. Never compensate over-exposure by under-development. Under-developed -> muddy tones. Over-developed -> very little difference.
Best of all is to experiment for yourself and see with your own eyes, much better than asking everybody's opinion; say, the recommended time is 2' (@20°C); expose identical prints, mark htem on the back as 30", 1', 1'30",... 3'. Develop accordingly, fix, wash dry; examine.

FYI I use many types of film

Often-repeated advice on this forum. Learn to use one film (well, depending on what subjects you shoot, possibly one 100ASA for sunny outsides and one 400 pushed 800 for interiors). And one developer, preferably mainstream type. Really learn how it responds in various lights from harsh sunny to flat overcast.
Same goes for papers, and print developers.

 

[Roger Cole]

I'm a big fan of LPD.

And I totally agree about developing to completion. Longer development times tend to give cooler results on warm tone papers so bear that in mind. I develop Ilford MGWT FB for two minutes, and neutral tone papers for four minutes. Three is fine too but prints do seem to gain a bit of richness and possibly a tiny bit of d-max with the longer development.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Hey everyone!

So, I've been wet printing for a relatively short amount of time and have used only two types of paper developer so far: Dektol and Multigrade. Mostly Multigrade as Dektol was used a while ago when I first started and I was much more into making my print look the way I wanted than comparing the two developers with the same variables (paper, duration, negative, etc). Unfortunately, I don't have the time or money to be experimenting much. However, I'm running low on my Multigrade and I wanted to know your thoughts on different developers before getting some more. There seems to be so much talk on everything else: papers, films, film developers, even agitation processes, etc. Is there really a huge difference on developers for paper? Is is a convenience thing? Colour? Grain? What are the traits of different developers?

Please share some experiences (also with film/paper/film developer combos if possible) with your favourite paper developer and why! I would love to see some scans if they're indicative of your statements as I know scanning pretty much ruins everything analog, minus the convenience! Also include, if possible in words, the style you go for (eg. deep blacks, high/low contrast, 'clean' look, etc.) just as a referrence for what it is I'm looking to achieve.

FYI I use many types of film, mostly 'traditional' grain (Pan F, FP4, Tri-x) but I do work with the newer style, or whatever they're referred to as [T-grain??] (Deltas, Tmaxs) in HC-110 or Rodinal. I use Ilford FB papers mostly. My main concern would be a sense of depth; for example, the difference between crappy RC paper and fibre paper...

You can create a whole army of variants on D-72/Dektol from warm to cold, turn it into Ansco 130 & create further variants on that. The same should be possible with Ilford ID-62, which with a slight difference in restrainers becomes ID-78 - see Ian Grant's website here:http://lostlabours.co.uk/photography/formulae/formulae.htm. How much time/ money do you want to waste mixing multiple variants of developers? There are no magic bullets, but there are subtle differences that may be useful.

More to the point, what is Multigrade not doing for you right now? I use it almost every day & apart from a few highly specific circumstances have found little need to use anything else.

 

[removed account4]

Hey everyone!

So, I've been wet printing for a relatively short amount of time and have used only two types of paper developer so far: Dektol and Multigrade. Mostly Multigrade as Dektol was used a while ago when I first started and I was much more into making my print look the way I wanted than comparing the two developers with the same variables (paper, duration, negative, etc). Unfortunately, I don't have the time or money to be experimenting much. However, I'm running low on my Multigrade and I wanted to know your thoughts on different developers before getting some more. There seems to be so much talk on everything else: papers, films, film developers, even agitation processes, etc. Is there really a huge difference on developers for paper? Is is a convenience thing? Colour? Grain? What are the traits of different developers?

Please share some experiences (also with film/paper/film developer combos if possible) with your favourite paper developer and why! I would love to see some scans if they're indicative of your statements as I know scanning pretty much ruins everything analog, minus the convenience! Also include, if possible in words, the style you go for (eg. deep blacks, high/low contrast, 'clean' look, etc.) just as a referrence for what it is I'm looking to achieve.

FYI I use many types of film, mostly 'traditional' grain (Pan F, FP4, Tri-x) but I do work with the newer style, or whatever they're referred to as [T-grain??] (Deltas, Tmaxs) in HC-110 or Rodinal. I use Ilford FB papers mostly. My main concern would be a sense of depth; for example, the difference between crappy RC paper and fibre paper...

one thing people of all abilities, genders, ages &c forget is that they need to agitate the print in the developer for the whole time it is in there.
some folks just plop the print in there, face up, or face down and stand around, and at 2 mins ( or 1 min rc ) pull it out ..
you need to flip it and submerge it a handful of times and then rock the tray ... and if you are doing test strips and test prints
you have to make sure you flip the same amount of times or nothing will look the same.

good luck !

 

[Michael Wesik]

It can be super overwhelming with the infinite number of developing combinations, additives - like bromide and carbonate - and permutations. The most important thing is that you're getting the results you want. After testing different papers and developers I settled on Ilford's Warmtone and Classic papers developed in either Ilford Warmtone developer, Multigrade, Agfa 115, and ID-14...all of which are simply a matter of preference.

On the comments about developing to completion, while those sentiments are right, I've overexposed/underdeveloped and underexposed/overdeveloped many prints with great success. Base your opinions on your results. Best of luck!

 

[Rolleijoe]

I was taught Dektol about 40 years ago (hate mixing from powder). Tried Ilford (didn't like), Agfa (very happy with), Polycontrast (nothing to write home about), and about 15 years ago discovered Ethol's LPD on the advice of a friend. love it! it's the most versatile paper developer I've ever used, and it doesn't impart any type of "coloring" onto your choice of paper.

Since the demise of Agfa, I switched to Fotokemika graded fiber, and then when that was also done away with, have settled on Foma papers. LPD is a good match for this as well, delivering full blacks, and solid greys and whites.