Paper developing newbie.... chemical advice

[hoganlia]

I'm not assuming you wouldn't consider it. And you should consider it. My point is just that because a very experienced photographer prefers developer A over B, does not mean that you will. You'll find an equally experienced photographer that prefers the opposite. They all have their reasons -- and they are all legitimate for them. That's why I suggested thinking about what characteristics you want in a developer. It's much like buying a car -- depends. What do you want in a car? Besides friends, of course!

I can see your point of view perfectly. As a "thinker" my process is to do and then analyse and from the reading I have done I understand that printing is a world unto its own ... as I love "process" then the learning itself attracts me very much. For me to now what characteristics I want to attain in printing, I will only discover that by doing. Thanks for your comment and especially that related to friends.

 

[hoganlia]

In my experience (printing, densitometer) Fomabrom variant 111 is as good as I'll need, and as good as Ilford MGIV (haven't tried V/classic).
But Fomaspeed "velvet" is inferior to Ilfospeed RC deluxe (44/Pearl): lower Dmax, whites slightly grey.

@hoganlia: Fomaspeed may be OK for learning, but make sure you try some Ilfospeed, and your eyes tell you if the difference (if you see a difference) is worth the extra cost.

Yes, expense, well..... The first book I ever read on photography started with the sentence: Welcome to the most expensive hobby in the world.

One of the reasons I posted here was this... I realise my "usage" level in the learning process will be high, which is why I have decided to stay with 5x7 for the moment, but one thing does concern me is the fact that I have no idea of cost/quality and so far you folks have given me so much to go on that I really do feel far better informed. I stuck with Rodinal/Anadol with negatives for shelf life and price but also because it is so standard. I realise that in paper printing the "variants" are far more important in creating "the" outcome I want.
Thanks Bernard!

 

[hoganlia]

Yes (just for completeness as TS states to be new to the printing hobby: Ilfospeed was Ilford's RC paper a loooong time ago) Ilford Multigrade DeLuxe paper definitely is the superior product of the two. So if you want top quality and can spare the cash then go with Ilford.
If not or you want to keep the cost as low as you can, don't rule out Fomaspeed Variant as it's still good value for money and will certainly produce good prints.
But you should definitely see for yourself, as bernard_L says!

I did notice that Foma papers are a bit more sensitive to safelight, you need an absolute red light for it because any other light will fog the paper within minutes. And then you won't be able to get pure whites in your prints.

Great... thans Buzz... and especially for the "safe light" advice. I was going to buy a second-hand one, so I think you have really helped me aviod a potential problem I had no knowlege of

 

[hoganlia]

Don't buy what you might not use.

A number of comments have more or less convinced me of that already. As a negative developer I am fairly careful about not over stocking... using Rodinal helps!

Thanks!

 

[hoganlia]

On the other hand, don't delay getting started because you are unsure whether you can use up an entire container.
It is better to buy slightly more than you can end up using in a reasonable time, and therefore end up having to discard a small portion of a bottle, than it is to buy too little and end up regularly running out when you want to print.
You won't be able to accurately gage this until you have enough printing experience to know how much and how frequently you are going to print.
One advantage of packaged powder chemicals is that you can buy two, mix up one, and leave the other on a shelf for a very long time without worrying about it going "bad". Then when you finish the first batch, you can mix the second and, at relative leisure, order a replacement to take its place on the storage shelf.
Unopened containers of liquid chemicals can also be handled this way, but they don't last quite as long when on the shelf.

Delay... well I am a super slow starter at anything... but I do know when I am "ready" and then I dive straight in.

I am waiting on the arrival of the main part of the equipment I need and just this morning I got an email to say the enlarger has been shipped... what a buzz that was!!!!! I wanted to get al of that out of the way before buying chemicals and paper, which is why I started the post yesterday. I have my house free June 3 to June 6 and my plan is to begin then as there will be no interruptions apart from me cursing myself for stupid mistakes.

I had thought of your advice regarding the powder base when you mentioned the idea of making sure I had fresh mixes for each session starting out.

Thanks a lot Matt. Much appreciated.

 

[bernard_L]

Buzz-01 said:
I did notice that Foma papers are a bit more sensitive to safelight, you need an absolute red light for it because any other light will fog the paper within minutes. And then you won't be able to get pure whites in your prints.

Great... thans Buzz... and especially for the "safe light" advice. I was going to buy a second-hand one, so I think you have really helped me aviod a potential problem I had no knowlege of

@hoganlia You might want to see this thread; I made the test with Foma paper because I knew it was more sensitive to safelight in the red-orange spectrum.

Crappy LEDs, nice safelight

Some time ago a coworker gave me a RGB LED strip salvaged from the dumpster. I saw an opportunity to improve the safe lighting of my darkroom, two 15W red tungsten bulbs, overall quite dim, just enough to find one's way around. I thought RGB opened the possibility of a combined...

www.photrio.com

There you have a link to the Kodak method for safelight testing. And remember also the remark by koraks.

More importantly, all your highlight separation will have gone down the drain long before that point. As you said, it needs a red safelight. Some testing doesn't hurt, either...

Still in-topic, but different point. Do not waste time trying different paper developers. Apart from maybe some exotic and costly developers which I did not try, they all perform the same when paper is developed to completion (generally 2min). That statement does not include warm-tone papers in warm-tone developers, but you are not there yet.

 

[Buzz-01]

Great... thans Buzz... and especially for the "safe light" advice. I was going to buy a second-hand one, so I think you have really helped me aviod a potential problem I had no knowlege of

I currently use some red LED car taillight bulbs, but you could also try those cheap battery powered red bike rear LED lights. Then perform a safelight test like bernard_L says and explains in his topic, that will tell you if and for how long you're safe to handle your paper in the red light of your darkroom.
With my current bulbs, I can leave the Ilford paper out for over 20 minutes with no issues, Fomaspeed a little shorter (but still > 12 minutes or so IIRC).

And bernard_L is right; just get a general purpose paper developer and start with that. I've switched from Adotol Konstant to Kodak Polymax-T and now to Fomatol LQN only because of local availability, all three give more or less the same end result. Not worth the trouble of wanting to try them all!

Regarding the paper, what you can also consider is buying a box of let's say 100pcs 5x7" but also a smaller envelope of say 10 or 25 sheets in 7x9½" or 8x10" in the exact same paper type (brand/finish). That allows you to also make a few larger prints if you like, without the need to order some more paper and wait for it to arrive.
Ofcourse you'd also need the trays to acommodate that paper size, but up to 8x10" they're not that expensive.
Between the different sizes of the exact same brand and finish (eg MG RC DeLuxe Pearl) you can use the smaller box for your test strips too and when you're ready to make a larger print, you can only use the larger sheets just for the final print.
Yes there can be minor differences in exposure time between different batches of the exact same paper, but especially when you're just starting out, the differences are close enough to allow you to save a little on paper this way and still get some good enlargements. Just some food for thought.

 

[hoganlia]

@hoganlia You might want to see this thread; I made the test with Foma paper because I knew it was more sensitive to safelight in the red-orange spectrum.

Crappy LEDs, nice safelight

Some time ago a coworker gave me a RGB LED strip salvaged from the dumpster. I saw an opportunity to improve the safe lighting of my darkroom, two 15W red tungsten bulbs, overall quite dim, just enough to find one's way around. I thought RGB opened the possibility of a combined...

www.photrio.com

There you have a link to the Kodak method for safelight testing. And remember also the remark by koraks.


Still in-topic, but different point. Do not waste time trying different paper developers. Apart from maybe some exotic and costly developers which I did not try, they all perform the same when paper is developed to completion (generally 2min). That statement does not include warm-tone papers in warm-tone developers, but you are not there yet.

Now that was interesting.. thanks a lot

I just checked Fomabrom Variant 11 for availability and price... 5x7 €50 (100 sheets) +/-, in Germany, €70+/- in Spain... no problem, if I buy chems and a safe light from Fotoimpex then I would save on transport.

Fomabrom is fibre based? How is the washing different?

 

[hoganlia]

I currently use some red LED car taillight bulbs, but you could also try those cheap battery powered red bike rear LED lights. Then perform a safelight test like bernard_L says and explains in his topic, that will tell you if and for how long you're safe to handle your paper in the red light of your darkroom.
With my current bulbs, I can leave the Ilford paper out for over 20 minutes with no issues, Fomaspeed a little shorter (but still > 12 minutes or so IIRC).

And bernard_L is right; just get a general purpose paper developer and start with that. I've switched from Adotol Konstant to Kodak Polymax-T and now to Fomatol LQN only because of local availability, all three give more or less the same end result. Not worth the trouble of wanting to try them all!

Regarding the paper, what you can also consider is buying a box of let's say 100pcs 5x7" but also a smaller envelope of say 10 or 25 sheets in 7x9½" or 8x10" in the exact same paper type (brand/finish). That allows you to also make a few larger prints if you like, without the need to order some more paper and wait for it to arrive.
Ofcourse you'd also need the trays to acommodate that paper size, but up to 8x10" they're not that expensive.
Between the different sizes of the exact same brand and finish (eg MG RC DeLuxe Pearl) you can use the smaller box for your test strips too and when you're ready to make a larger print, you can only use the larger sheets just for the final print.
Yes there can be minor differences in exposure time between different batches of the exact same paper, but especially when you're just starting out, the differences are close enough to allow you to save a little on paper this way and still get some good enlargements. Just some food for thought.

The paper size idea is great. 5x7 for "playing" (hahaha) and then test out how a fewe look on larger pints.

We have a saying in Catalonia "Mai t'acostis sense aprendre una cosa nova"... never go to bed without learning something new..... I am sure sleeping well these days!

 

[Buzz-01]

Now that's a good saying to strive by!

Personally I'd start with RC paper and don't start out on Fiber paper like Fomabrom just yet. The handling is different in that it takes much longer to wash and dry fiber papers, it doesn't allow for quick processing / quick learning like RC Paper. It just makes much more sense to use RC first as it is cheaper and way faster in processing (washing/drying).
Dry-down is also less in RC papers IMO, making it much easier to go from test strip to final print without the need to completely dry your test strips. (I usually fully dry them anyway so I can write notes on them).
Also RC paper dries absolutely flat, where FB papers tend to curl like crazy, making you frustrated over how to get them flattened...

If you want the best possible quality then just start with the Ilford Multigrade RC DeLuxe, as most people find its performance very close to FB paper. But with the convenience and processing speed of RC paper.

 

[hoganlia]

Now that's a good saying to strive by!

Personally I'd start with RC paper and don't start out on Fiber paper like Fomabrom just yet. The handling is different in that it takes much longer to wash and dry fiber papers, it doesn't allow for quick processing / quick learning like RC Paper. It just makes much more sense to use RC first as it is cheaper and way faster in processing (washing/drying).
Dry-down is also less in RC papers IMO, making it much easier to go from test strip to final print without the need to completely dry your test strips. (I usually fully dry them anyway so I can write notes on them).
Also RC paper dries absolutely flat, where FB papers tend to curl like crazy, making you frustrated over how to get them flattened...

If you want the best possible quality then just start with the Ilford Multigrade RC DeLuxe, as most people find its performance very close to FB paper. But with the convenience and processing speed of RC paper.

That's what I was wondering. Thanks.

And please, feel free to use our Catalan saying.

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

If youd like to have low to no odour, I can recommend Fotospeed odourless stop bath and odourless fixer. Both works for film and paper

 

[MattKing]

A link to the incredibly boring, but really effective Kodak Safelight Test: https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/KODAK-A-Guide-to-Darkroom-Illumination-K-4.pdf

 

[mshchem]

A number of comments have more or less convinced me of that already. As a negative developer I am fairly careful about not over stocking... using Rodinal helps!

Thanks!

I love Adox Rodinal it's so easy, makes brilliant negatives, not to soft not to hard. Cheap, easy, long lasting....... My personal paper developer is Ilford Bromophen, I've also used a lot of Dektol over the years.

Considering your location in the EU, I suspect that Adox and Foma (another great old company) should be able to meet your needs.

Ilford and Kodak products should be filling the shelves soon.

Printing is essential to my workflow.

 

[hoganlia]

If youd like to have low to no odour, I can recommend Fotospeed odourless stop bath and odourless fixer. Both works for film and paper

Thanks for the info. I use Bellini Indicator Stop Bath (odourless) for my negative developing and it is also ok for paper.

 

[hoganlia]

A link to the incredibly boring, but really effective Kodak Safelight Test: https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/KODAK-A-Guide-to-Darkroom-Illumination-K-4.pdf

When I was studying Town Planning at university one of my required texts was called "Sunlight and Shade in Australasia" so boring is not new to me.... hahaha.... I'll wallow in it.

Thanks

Actually, I have a personal light test. I am blind in one eye, in that I can see nothing apart from light... no detail, nothing, my pupil is stuck open so any light at all is "visable"... that's how I discovered that my guest bathroom is light free with the door closed. I got my wife to shine a torch round the mounting and sure as sure... no light found it's way in.

 

[hoganlia]

I love Adox Rodinal it's so easy, makes brilliant negatives, not to soft not to hard. Cheap, easy, long lasting....... My personal paper developer is Ilford Bromophen, I've also used a lot of Dektol over the years.

Considering your location in the EU, I suspect that Adox and Foma (another great old company) should be able to meet your needs.

Ilford and Kodak products should be filling the shelves soon.

Printing is essential to my workflow.

Adonal is simply a development of Rodinal, a little less grain for 35mm grainy films... I've grown to like it. I have both Adonal and Rodinal and the shelf-life is outstanding, so it seems. I do quite a bit of stand developing and Rodinal shines at that.

 

[hoganlia]

Signing off from the thread.

I have made my purchases taking into account the opinions and advice you have all taken the time to offer. I am truly indebted. I would like to think that once I develop some mastery in analog I will be able to do the same for other starting out.

In my "Internet" life I have been part of many forums, some of them in photography, but in few I have encounted such generosity and enthusiasm, which encourages me to move ahead in this fabulous passion we share.

My heartfelt thanks to you all.

Joe

 

[Buzz-01]

Good luck in the dark, and please let us know of your progress!

 

[MattKing]

You don't need to sign off - you can track your progress here as well!
Have lots of fun!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Not wishing to turn this into a competition between manufacturers but for 5 euros you get what appears to be 1L of developer.

What wasn't clear was how much this ís diluted, if at all, to make a working stock but there was no mention of it being diluted

On the other hand you can buy 5L of Ilford Multigrade developer which is diluted 1+9 so that 50L of working solution

You'd spend 250 Euros for the same amount of Adox

Yes I do not know how much it would cost to buy a 5L of Ilford Multigrade Develop in Spain but I cannot believe it would be as much as 250 Euros

It might be worth checking Ilford prices in Spain. From Fotoimpex the price appears to be about 58. 45 euros

pentaxuser

a home darkroom gives you a ton of flexibility. Consider mixing your processing chemicals from bulk, which increases your flexibility and allows experimentation and the option to always work with fresh chemicals as you only need to make as much as you need and possibly save some money. Getting into home brew is simpler than most think and a lot of fun.

 

[eli griggs]

I almost always recommend Ansco 130, though it might not make your requirements for an eco friendly developer.

The advantage of Ansco 130 is that, other than, Amidol, it seems to be the paper developer that gives the deepest blacks on papers, which, in my personal opinion, can be a great learning advantage, IF you develope the routine of processing your print to the maximum time recommended, something that you will need to adjust your enlarging time and F-stop to allow that maximum paper developer to reach its peek.

I believe this can be the foundation of sharp clean prints, true blacks and a range of greys that are the mark of a quality enlargement maker.

Standardized processes, the qualities of your craftsmanship, the elimination of variables that otherwise, change with every print or negative made, make the darkroom choices easer to arrive at and the resulting work more satisfying, IMO.

 

[koraks]

I almost always recommend Ansco 130

Glycin is really hard to get, especially in Europe. I wouldn't recommend Ansco 130 for this reason unless there's a very compelling reason to use it, and the alleged slight difference in dmax IMO does not qualify.

 

[eli griggs]

Photographer's Formulary Ansco 130 kit might be on the Euro Amazon site and once mixed, last years, and is not to dependent on precise temperatures in use, in fact some feel it's better at warmer than 20⁰C development.

 

[koraks]

Photographer's Formulary Ansco 130 kit might be on the Euro Amazon site

It isn't. Suvatlar does sell glycin, apparently, at roughly €1/g. I don't know whether he stocks it regularly.

once mixed, last years, and is not to dependent on precise temperatures in use

So quite comparable to many other, less arcane paper developers.
For instance, ID62 concentrate lasts easily a year in an open, half-full bottle, and also doesn't depend on strict temperature control. It can furthermore be replenished, and if we're on the topic of DIY-ing things anyway (which you'd have to do in order to be able to use Ansco 130 in Europe), the ingredients it's mixed from last indefinitely and are cheap.