paper developer vs. high contrast film developer

johnielvis · Jan 2, 2013

results of experimentation with paper direct reversals show that film developer used on paper develop fog where paper developer does not.

Now--this being the case--would the paper developer also develop less fog on regular film, or is film different from paper in the fog-wise sense so that it is much less sensitive to fog?

it would appear that all thing being equal, paper deveoper will be able to develop older film say or do reversal with more detail/dmax....

any ideas on this anyone? experiences? whys and wherefores?

johnielvis · Jan 3, 2013

Let me re-phrase the question:

Would the extra restrainers used in paper developer have any beneficial effects in developing film "to completion" ala reversal processing OR is film just naturally more resistant to developer action due to finer grains and the extra restrainer does nothing SIGNIFICANT RE fog reduction?

Remember SIGNIFICANT...of course it does something, but it may not be significant and that is the suspician here--since this has probably been investigated before, in order to save time experimenting, what are the facts here?

Ian Grant · Jan 3, 2013

Your mistaking fog with under-development in the first developer, you need a more vigourouse developer for reversal processing anyway. Few film developers will process paper to a high enough Dmax.

Ian

werra · Jan 3, 2013

johnielvis said:
any ideas on this anyone? experiences? whys and wherefores?

I use paper developer with long expired films with known high base fog. Generous (over)exposure and 2-2:30mins in paper developer, usually Orwo N113.
The grain and contrast will be higher than with film developers, tho it is not the problem with 120 and up formats.

Dec 1965 expired 120 Perutz P17, shot at EI25, developed in paper developer. Rodinal gives me only mush with high fog with this film.

nworth · Jan 3, 2013

The first developers used in reversal film processing are quite similar to paper developers.

johnielvis · Jan 3, 2013

Ian Grant said:
Your mistaking fog with under-development in the first developer, you need a more vigourouse developer for reversal processing anyway. Few film developers will process paper to a high enough Dmax.

Ian

you don't understand. using hc-110 dil a to develop paper resulted in fog or other developing unexposed in under a minute. Using paper developer on the same paper at the same time, same "exposure" (no exposure at all) this resulted in no such "fog" developing after over 2 minutes. This means that the paper develop has some extra restrainers in it. This was not "underdevelopment" since the same was done with exposed papers and the paper developer developed an image where the hc110 developed the image plus fog and kept getting darker and darker and darker as time went on.

The conclusion is extra restrainers in the paper developer work to keep the "fog" from developing but still can develop the high densities needed in a similar amount of time.

Now the question is: if this is due to restrainers doing their job properly, then is there something more hypersensitive in paper--bigger grains or something--that makes it more sensitive to developers where film would be insensiive due to smaller grain structure? Is this what is going on? if that is the case then film developer could be designed "hotter"...as it apparently is...

johnielvis · Jan 3, 2013

werra said:
I use paper developer with long expired films with known high base fog. Generous (over)exposure and 2-2:30mins in paper developer, usually Orwo N113.
The grain and contrast will be higher than with film developers, tho it is not the problem with 120 and up formats.

Dec 1965 expired 120 Perutz P17, shot at EI25, developed in paper developer. Rodinal gives me only mush with high fog with this film.

YES--this is what I"m getting at---paper developer seems to be more forgiving of fog due to time or heat yet still allows high contrast development to save the image--film developer--apparently "hotter" would cause more fog to develop then, right? This is due to restrainers, correct? and therefore this WOULD give better dmax in reversal processing of film since it inhibits fog development--or at least will allow reversal processing of older films that have agefog that would otherwise lose dmax.....

this seems to be the case--so you've noticed this and are exploiting it--good!...that's like a confirmation then....any OTHER experiences folks?

Alan Johnson · Jan 4, 2013

Some of the chemistry is discussed in this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec....t:single+insubject:agent+insubject:developers
My summary (it may not be completely right):
HQ selectively develops the more exposed areas as its semiquinone oxidation products are also developers, possibly this would imply that the fog is developed less.Organic amines make HQ active at pH 8.8-9, lower than the pH required without them.At higher pH than 10 benzotriazole is the preferred restrainer with PQ developer.
I have a couple of old films (10 yrs) to develop, will make up some Ilford ID-62 universal developer and try that. In absence of organic amines use of carbonate gives high pH and some benzotriazole is preferred.

johnielvis · Jan 4, 2013

that link is a long detective tale--that is true...apples and apples were not compared--the hc110 was up against PQ universal ilford paper developer--paper strength concentration....but it does seem strange that low fog on film gives very significant fog on paper...or just outright develops stuff that is not fogged or otherwise exposed--like a fogging developer type behaviour.

StoneNYC · Jan 4, 2013

Well if you suspect it's the restrainer, why not just identify the compound (I'm sure chemists already know which I'm not that proficient yet) and then add that compound to the HC-110 film developer?

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

johnielvis · Jan 5, 2013

StoneNYC said:
Well if you suspect it's the restrainer, why not just identify the compound (I'm sure chemists already know which I'm not that proficient yet) and then add that compound to the HC-110 film developer?

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

that's the original idea...BUT...if paper developer already does it out of the box, then why bother, right?

Alan Johnson · Jan 5, 2013

johnielvis said:
results of experimentation with paper direct reversals show that film developer used on paper develop fog where paper developer does not.

Can you measure the approximate pH of film and paper developer working solutions? It may be that at high pH HQ in paper developers is activated to preferentially develop more exposed areas of film,not the fog.

johnielvis · Jan 5, 2013

Alan Johnson said:
Can you measure the approximate pH of film and paper developer working solutions? It may be that at high pH HQ in paper developers is activated to preferentially develop more exposed areas of film,not the fog.

right--now there's another thing---so this can be happening too then..hc-110 is apparenlty not pq but but is HAS been recommended as a paper developer or a universal developer--this may not actually be the case then--just because it CAN developer paper does not mean it does so as good as paper developers.

NOW the question: would the PQ developer have the same preferential development effect with film or are the film grains too small for it to matter?

The weekend may give time to see if there's a visual difference in reversal processing of film--speed changes...dmax changed, etc. time for another "let's see what happens"....

Mark Crabtree · Jan 5, 2013

If you want to know how developer works on film, then you need to test it on film rather than paper. Paper is very different in many ways.

I don't think you mentioned what paper developer you used. The most common paper developer is Dektol which is based on the Kodak D-72 formula (many other developers in the past were nearly the same composition). D-72 was a developer for film and paper. It was very commonly used for film processing in early press and other photography. Walker Evans used it for many of his 8x10 negatives. I used it a great deal for Cirkut negatives. What we consider paper developer is not always something that was originally intended for only paper, so the distinction is somewhat artificial.

StoneNYC · Jan 5, 2013

johnielvis said:
that's the original idea...BUT...if paper developer already does it out of the box, then why bother, right?

Because there were other developing issues mentioned about using paper developer such as needing a more aggressive agitation technique etc. that might dislodge the film especially if it's old and curly or thin base, and why change your developing techniques if you can just add some chemical to a developer that already works well. Plus personally I don't optically print (for location reasons not because I don't like optical printing) so to buy a bottle of paper developer JUST for a few old rolls of film seems a waste to me.

Alan Johnson · Jan 9, 2013

Results of my test of 10 year old HP5+ (storage unknown) in film developer Rodinal 1:50 16m 20C and print developer Ilford ID-62 1+7 8m 20C.
The first attachment shows the fog levels by photographing the developed films on a light box.There is little difference, 10 years old film did not give a significant problem.
From prints, there is little difference in grain either.
I like the more contrasty print developer as giving a more "fine art" look, second attachment,it may be coincidence.
So IMO HC110 probably is the best for low fog combined with finer grain,better than these two developers.

johnielvis · Jan 9, 2013

HEY....some results...

hc-110 appears to be mucho mucho more powerful than the ilford paper developer--maybe that's why it was so hot acting with the paper.....

results of FILM (txp-320--fresh film) experiments recent:

there is definite speed loss with the ilford pq universal paper dev vs hc-110....a very WEIRD thing just happened...the last test done was STRAIGHT ilford pq universal concentrate liquid--no dilution...and it actually developed the image WAY LESS than the concetrate cut 1:1......the experiment set was started with the recommended dilution of 1:9 which came out dark...then to 1:1 which came out about 1 or so stops darker than hc110....then when no dilution was used, the results were way darker...like darker than the 1:9 dilution....either water has some superaddative effect or something went wrong...this last straight soluion test will be repeated....

preliminary results are that hc-110 is much much more strong than pq universal...apparently it isn't ph that drives this since the straigt pq uinversal concentrate would have a stronger base but it developed LESS than when cut with water.

either that or PQ needs water to work where hc110 needs less water?....first a re-do of the straight concentrate test.....

bottom line...based on the results so far--it appears that the hc110 used was much stronger than the ilford pq universal paper develoer--even at full strength concentrate.

Alan Johnson · Jan 10, 2013

A possible explanation of your result is that HC-110 is more active because the organic amines make HQ active at pH 8.8-9.0 compared to typical print developer pH 11-12.Likely HC-110 will give finer grain.
If there are any results for fog levels with film in the two types of developer that would be interesting as well.

johnielvis · Jan 10, 2013

the "straight concentrate" pq universal "retest" showed SAME results as original....way dark--meaning way less first development than diluted pq-universal.....the "more first development with more concentrated mixture" curve just dumped...the last "good" concentration that showed "improvement" was at 1:1...so next it will be 2:1 developer to water and run it one more time and see what happens...apparently water dilution is needed for this stuff to get up to speed....

THEN AGAIN...perhaps this is the result of FOGGING...the darker transparencies lack contrast...so you are right apparently, mr alan johnson--the more concentrated stuff is fogging a bit..or otherwise reducing contrast, but diabolically, at the same time, somehow preventing density from building up as much as more diluted solutions. nothing's easy

the hc-110, of course is a totally different animal, that stuff just gets stronger and stronger with more concentrated solutions....it's not pq but other stuff which nobody knows for sure what EXACTLY it is...more when it comes...

johnielvis · Jan 11, 2013

RIGHT...re-did the experiment with the PQ universal liquid concentrate--SAME RESULTS--much less first development than the diluted concentrate.

Last test was with a 2 parts concentrate : 1 part water...THIS gave WEAKER results than the 1:1 dilution--close but noticibly less development.

It appears that this stuff must be diluted with water for it to become "activated" properly. Interesting. It appears that 1:1 dilution is the limiting factor for developer strength--any less dilution and you get less development.

It appears the source of the paper developing fog when hc110 was used was that the much much stronger hc110 developer overpowering the paper and bringing out fog where there was none otherwise...the developer was too "hot".

paper developer vs. high contrast film developer

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency