Possible to Replenish BW Chemicals?

[RedSun]

This may have been asked, but I did not find any from searching the forum.

It appears most of the BW chemicals are not for replenishment. I know the T-max developer does and may be some more, but not many.

Can we just make some stronger strength working solution and mix with the old working solution? Or add some stock solution to the old working solution? I know it may be hard to exactly control the mix content. But for non-critical chemicals, such as paper chemicals, there is plenty room for the variation. For me, I'm already using some very old Ektaflo Type I concentrate (may be 20 years old) and 1.5 years old paper stop bath and fixer. Both tested fine. But the old paper developer is exhausted.

 

[jeffreyg]

I believe there have been/maybe still are chemicals that can be replenished. I always use fresh chemistry. Chemistry is probably the least costly part of the photographic armentarium and since I strive for consistent results fresh chemicals eliminate a variable.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think replenishment has often been overlooked because of how simple single shot developing is.

When you develop film and paper you get a build-up of bromides and other byproducts in the developer. Some developers are able to handle this with continuous replenishment, and others have to be refreshed every now and then.
I have used Kodak Xtol developer as replenished for about five years. After a short flirt with D76 I am now returning to it. During the five years I used Xtol I never had to start from scratch after mixing the first batch. My 2 liter working solution was replenished with 80ml stock concentrate for each 36exp roll (equivalent) developed. If I didn't develop film for a couple of weeks, I would replenish 80ml anyway. I went through a lot of 5 liter packages like this, and it worked like a charm. Stable, reliable, consistent. Never skipped a beat.
I've also used Edwal 12 this way, but only for about two years, and the replenishing rate was more like 70ml per roll.

If you use D76 or HC-110, for example, they must be replenished with a special replenishing solution that is different from the normal developer.

I also use Ethol LPD print developer as replenished, and it's a bit more complicated mixing wise, but still very easy. Everything is based on the normal stock developer without needing a special replenishing solution. Mix one gallon kit, subtract a third of the gallon and mix 1:2. This is your working solution. Mix the remaining 2/3 gallon with water to make a gallon. This is your replenishing solution. Replenish 300ml for every 30 8x10 prints (equivalent), and when you're done printing, make sure to top up your working solution to a full gallon, as needed.
When you run out of replenisher, just mix your new working solution 1:2 as above, but use the old developer instead of water.

I feel that the replenished developers give a nicer tonality, and the film developers (Xtol and E-12) yield sharper negatives that are also more fine grained, but you end up losing about 1/2 stop in speed, which isn't a big deal. This result is because of those byproducts that result from processing.
The beauty of Xtol and E12 used this way is that you also have the stock solution if you feel like push processing film in Xtol 1:1 for example (which is an ideal developer for that purpose).

EDIT: I should add that using developers in replenished fashion is, for me, not an economic endeavor. It's all about the resulting negatives and how they print. Film developers and paper developers are very inexpensive either way.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

As a general answer no. Some developers like D-76 can be used as a replenished system. This requires keeping two solutions, a working developer and a replenisher solution. You must keep track of the number of rolls put through the developer and its age. Some people who do this like the results that they obtain. However, others dislike the change in contrast and film speed that occurs with replenishment.

While some commercial photofinishers may replenish their tanks of stop bath and fixer it is not pracrical for the average user. Any fixer has a limited useful life. Remember that silver and other byproducts accumulate and must he removed in some manner usually by electrodeposition.The cost of chemicals is much smaller than the cost of film and paper. So any cost savings is small in comparison.

 

[Xmas]

http://www.lostlabours.co.uk/photography/formulae/developers/devD76_variants.htm

note I think ID68's replenishment is add more ID68

 

[fotch]

I think the benefit is more for the high volume lab. For low volume use, one shot is much easier, at least for me.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think the benefit is more for the high volume lab. For low volume use, one shot is much easier, at least for me.

Is the purpose of developing film to make it easy, or to make the best negatives we can (and resulting prints)?

Replenishing can be done on small scale (think 1 liter working solution) very successfully, and there is nothing about it that's more difficult than mixing HC110 from syrup.

 

[analoguey]

Thomas, would this hold across temperatures? I did try a bit of replenished xtol (100ml) to new working solution - but havent really tried it enough to have it consistent, repeatable and to be able to rely on getting consistent results.
I definitely would prefer finer grained negatives that print better.
Is there a specific measured way that you arrived at the 80ml Top-up?

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Is the purpose of developing film to make it easy, or to make the best negatives we can (and resulting prints)?

I only wish that more people on APUG subscribed to this philosophy. But there are people who are even too lazy to invert a film tank at required intervals.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas, would this hold across temperatures? I did try a bit of replenished xtol (100ml) to new working solution - but havent really tried it enough to have it consistent, repeatable and to be able to rely on getting consistent results.
I definitely would prefer finer grained negatives that print better.
Is there a specific measured way that you arrived at the 80ml Top-up?

Sent from Tap-a-talk

The 80ml per film replenishment rate was arrived at by trying 70ml, and seeing a small drop off in density over time. So I increased to 100ml, and that would increase density over time. So I tried 80ml and that has been stable for me.

It probably depends on how dense you like your negatives how much you must replenish.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question about temperature.

 

[analoguey]

Hmm, right -how did you get to that figure of 70ml though? Going by specific dilution of the working solution, oxidation rates and temperature?

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Hmm, right -how did you get to that figure of 70ml though? Going by specific dilution of the working solution, oxidation rates and temperature?

Sent from Tap-a-talk

Kodak data sheet has instructions.

Go to Google and type in the following string in the search:
site:www.kodak.com xtol

That will bring up a link to the PDF. See bottom of page 4.

 

[RedSun]

70-80ml concentrate seems very high for one single roll of film.

I was mainly thinking about replenishing the paper chemicals. The papers are more forgiving and we have more controls over developing films.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

70-80ml concentrate seems very high for one single roll of film.

I was mainly thinking about replenishing the paper chemicals. The papers are more forgiving and we have more controls over developing films.

If you compare what you normally do with Xtol, at 1:1, you would end up spending between 125 and 250ml per roll.

I gave instructions above for how to use Ethol LPD paper developer replenished. I'm sure there are other paper developers that work similarly.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I only wish that more people on APUG subscribed to this philosophy. But there are people who are even too lazy to invert a film tank at required intervals.

Gerald, I agree.

However, have you seen Steve Sherman's work? He's got the standing development regime down to a science, and his results are pretty spectacular.

 

[analoguey]

Kodak data sheet has instructions.
See bottom of page 4.

Ah, I see!
I have that pdf - re-read it. Had ignored it thinking it was specific to large tanks and needed the starter thats described before it.

To check the densities though - you would always need a densitometer though, for comparison? Or did you inspect only visually to determine 80ml?


Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The only paper developer that I know of that advocates replenishment is Ethol LPD. This may be due to a special formulation such as the use of a phenidone type developing agent. Other manufacturers assume that their developers will be discarded after a print session. Metol based developers experience an increase in contrast as bromide builds up in the working solution. This affects its useful life. There is also the problem of oxidation of the developer in an open tray. Considering the high cost of LPD is there any real cost savings over say Dektol?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

However, have you seen Steve Sherman's work? He's got the standing development regime down to a science, and his results are pretty spectacular.

Do you have an url to some of his work. Would be interesting in seeing it.

My comment was directed to those that are just plain lazy. I have seen comments such as "I have better things to do than stand around." To which I want to reply "then go digital."

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Ah, I see!
I have that pdf - re-read it. Had ignored it thinking it was specific to large tanks and needed the starter thats described before it.

To check the densities though - you would always need a densitometer though, for comparison? Or did you inspect only visually to determine 80ml?


Sent from Tap-a-talk

I made contact sheets to determine 80ml. Always the same film. Always the same settings for each contact sheet, which was always made with the same enlarger at the same column height, with the same lens, at the same aperture, with the same contrast filter, printed on the same paper I make enlargements on, developed in the same developer. Everything always the same.
Based on visual inspection I arrived at 80ml.

Just to be clear, none of the 70ml or 100ml negs that drifted from 'normal' are unusable. They just require a little bit of tweaking in main contrast come printing time. No difficulty getting normal looking prints at all.

 

[analoguey]

Thats about as consistent and as useful a testing method as one can get.

I'll try that to see how it works for me as well, thanks!

I got the part about the densities bit - negatives anyways are intermediates

I'll also be probably trying ektol as well soon, with my next order of chemicals.

One more thing - for the replenishing solution - did you control its temperature? Or mostly whatever was room temperature?

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[MattKing]

One more thing - for the replenishing solution - did you control its temperature? Or mostly whatever was room temperature?

Sent from Tap-a-talk

I still have some HC-110 replenisher, so I use HC-110 replenished to develop film. I too use visual inspection to adjust the replenishment.

I agree with Thomas about all the advantages of replenishment, but would add two more:

1) you no longer have to worry about wasting developer. Just use whatever works best for your tank size, as long as that amount isn't so small as to not provide enough developer activity (potentially a problem with rotary proccessing); and
2) when you use replenished developer, you can choose to always develop at room temperature. Just adjust time accordingly - much less concern about tempering solutions.

X-Tol and T-Max RS are simple to use replenished, because you use the developer to replenish itself. HC-110 is quite a bit more complex, due to the various dilutions, but it works as well, once you figure it out.

There is a thread here on APUG about using HC-110 to replenish, rather than the now discontinued HC-110 replenisher, but IIRC the results are inconclusive.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Just a quick note:
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/10191...W-Liquid-Film-Developer-Replenisher-1-Pint-to

I haven't used this myself, but have used both the Microdol-X and Xtol clones from Legacy Pro, and they work just like the Kodak stuff. I'll bet the L110R replenishing liquid would work just fine to replenish HC-110 developer, even though it may not be chemically identical.

I still have some HC-110 replenisher, so I use HC-110 replenished to develop film. I too use visual inspection to adjust the replenishment.

I agree with Thomas about all the advantages of replenishment, but would add two more:

1) you no longer have to worry about wasting developer. Just use whatever works best for your tank size, as long as that amount isn't so small as to not provide enough developer activity (potentially a problem with rotary proccessing); and
2) when you use replenished developer, you can choose to always develop at room temperature. Just adjust time accordingly - much less concern about tempering solutions.

X-Tol and T-Max RS are simple to use replenished, because you use the developer to replenish itself. HC-110 is quite a bit more complex, due to the various dilutions, but it works as well, once you figure it out.

There is a thread here on APUG about using HC-110 to replenish, rather than the now discontinued HC-110 replenisher, but IIRC the results are inconclusive.

 

[Ian Grant]

http://www.lostlabours.co.uk/photography/formulae/developers/devD76_variants.htm

note I think ID68's replenishment is add more ID68

ID68 has it's own replenisher ID68R - maybe the author should list the replenishers on the page you listed

ID68R

Sodium Sulphite (anhyd) 85g
Hydroquinone 8g
Borax 10g
Phenidone 0.22g
Water to 1 litre

Ian

 

[Xmas]

Hi Ian

Good spot but the link has 10gm and your post 8gm for the Borax who am I to believe?
But to tell the truth I was relying on memory for the ID68 replenisher.

Noel

 

[Ian Grant]

Hi Ian

Good spot but the link has 10gm and your post 8gm for the Borax who am I to believe?
But to tell the truth I was relying on memory for the ID68 replenisher.

Noel

Corrected and I'd forgotten I had listed some of the Replenishers on that page

Ian