problems with self mixed paper developers

[phritz phantom]

i've now tried a few times, but i can't get the paper developers that i have mixed from scratch to work. i've tried ansco 120, 103 and just recently the pyro plus paper dev. all my negative devs (also mixed from scratch) work fine, just the paper devs make trouble.
with all three i had the same problem: severe underdevelopment. there's not a hint of black in the prints. the image looks fine otherwise, just way too bright.

now comes the strange part:
this is except for moersch sepia fb paper. the developers work fine with it (that is with ansco 120 +103, haven't tried the pppd yet). i got ok results with foma rc paper too. both of them don't have any incorporated developing agents.

now i normally don't use those papers, my main papers are kentmere fineprint vc fb and maco multispeed rc and my developers don't work at all with those two, nor with ilford multigrade. all three of those should have incorporated dev. agents (although i'm not sure about the ilford).

is there a known problem with self mixed developers and incorporated developing agents?
or has someone else experienced similar problems?

 

[Nick Zentena]

Are you developing long enough?

Are you exposing long enough?

Assuming your chemicals are fresh it's likely one or the other or a combination of the two.

Try developing a sheet exposed to white room light.

 

[Zathras]

i've now tried a few times, but i can't get the paper developers that i have mixed from scratch to work. i've tried ansco 120, 103 and just recently the pyro plus paper dev. all my negative devs (also mixed from scratch) work fine, just the paper devs make trouble.
with all three i had the same problem: severe underdevelopment. there's not a hint of black in the prints. the image looks fine otherwise, just way too bright.

now comes the strange part:
this is except for moersch sepia fb paper. the developers work fine with it (that is with ansco 120 +103, haven't tried the pppd yet). i got ok results with foma rc paper too. both of them don't have any incorporated developing agents.

now i normally don't use those papers, my main papers are kentmere fineprint vc fb and maco multispeed rc and my developers don't work at all with those two, nor with ilford multigrade. all three of those should have incorporated dev. agents (although i'm not sure about the ilford).

is there a known problem with self mixed developers and incorporated developing agents?
or has someone else experienced similar problems?

This is a wild assed guess, but it occured to me that there may be a paper speed loss with the developers you mixed from scratch because the homebrewed ones use metol as one of the ingredients, as opposed to the Ilford developers, which are formulated with phenidone. Before anybody flames me for this, I'm just throwing this one out there for consideration since phenidone supposedly produces higher emulsion speeds than metol. If this is a probable cause, try increasing your exposure times.

Another thing to check; what is the color of your metol and hydroquinone powders? metol should be white to very, very light tan and the hydroquinone should be white. If either of these is brown, that chemical is oxidized and useless. (As I was previewing this post I remembered that Ansco 120 uses metol as the only developing agent and does not contain hydroquinone, so a check on the condition of the metol is especially recommended.)

Yet another thing to check; what form of sodium carbonate are you using as an accelerator? In the Ansco Formulas, the preferred form is sodium carbonate MONOHYDRATED. If you are using anhydrous sodium carbonate, you need to reduce the amount of carbonate in the formula, as the anhydrous form is more potent. If you are using crystalline sodium carbonate, you need to use more of it, since it is less potent. Unfortunately, I do not have the conversion factors handy so if some kind soul knows the factors, would he or she please post them?

If you post the formulas you used to mix the 120 and 103 developers from and the mixing method you used, other readers of this thread can check for errors you may have made. Ansco 120 and 103 are excellent developers when mixed correctly from fresh good quality ingredients. In fact, I prefer Ansco 103 to Dektol or D-72. The formula for Ansco 103 is only slightly different from D-72 (or Dektol) and the difference in the prints is subtle, but one that I notice and prefer.

One last thing, what are your developing times and temperatures? I find that I get my best results from the Ansco formulas when I develop my prints in these developers from 3 to 5 minutes at 20C.
Hope this helps,

Mike Sullivan

 

[phritz phantom]

thanks. especially zathras.
sometimes i have to ask stupid questions before i can motivate myself to think/test myself. my ansco 103 does work, at least with the maco rc. it just needs a lot more light than my usual combination (seems to be normal with self mixed devs).
my chemicals should be fine, since i bought them only 2 or 3 months ago. and they do look like you described.

it seems when i tried the developers the first time, i was already biased because i knew the time/aperture combination and therefor expected it to be only a little bit below or above. and yesterday i tried the pppd dev and again the same problem, so i thought this is a problem of incorporated dev agents, since it worked with the moersch paper (maybe it has a faster emulsion).

so, the pppd still doesn't work, but this seems to be a different problem...

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

i've now tried a few times, but i can't get the paper developers that i have mixed from scratch to work. i've tried ansco 120, 103 and just recently the pyro plus paper dev. all my negative devs (also mixed from scratch) work fine, just the paper devs make trouble.
with all three i had the same problem: severe underdevelopment. there's not a hint of black in the prints. the image looks fine otherwise, just way too bright.

now comes the strange part:
this is except for moersch sepia fb paper. the developers work fine with it (that is with ansco 120 +103, haven't tried the pppd yet). i got ok results with foma rc paper too. both of them don't have any incorporated developing agents.

now i normally don't use those papers, my main papers are kentmere fineprint vc fb and maco multispeed rc and my developers don't work at all with those two, nor with ilford multigrade. all three of those should have incorporated dev. agents (although i'm not sure about the ilford).

is there a known problem with self mixed developers and incorporated developing agents?
or has someone else experienced similar problems?

Did you try Nick Zentena's suggestion and develop a small piece of your enlarging paper with the room lights (white lights) on. The paper should turn black if the developer is working. If it turns black, time how long it takes it to turn a deep black.

Try the same room light test with a fresh piece of paper, but use a sodium carbonate solution instead of developer (dissolve 3 or 4 teaspoons of sodium carbonate in 300 - 500ml water). If the paper turns black in the sodium carbonate solution, developer is incorporated in the paper.

Please run these two simple tests and post the results.

 

[phritz phantom]

tom,
thanks for your reply. your suggested test is something should have thought of and done before opening my mouth. i was confused by different errors having the same consequences.
my ansco problem is solved. it was indeed a matter of too little light/ too short development.

 

[dancqu]

... kentmere fineprint vc fb ... maco multispeed rc ...
ilford multigrade. ... all three of those should have
incorporated dev. agents...

I can't think of any reason any of those three should
have emulsion incorporated developing agents. I've tested
the Fineprint by the carbonate test and have found it has
none. Ditto Forte's Polywarmtone. Tests made by myself
use somewhat less carbonate than Tom has suggested.
Amounts are in keeping with the more than usual
dilutions I employ. Dan

 

[phritz phantom]

when i tried the ansco devs for the first time, i checked all the datasheets.
kentmere:
"This is covered with a gelatine supercoat which protects the emulsion from stress fogging and physical damage and also contains a small amount of developing agent."
http://www.kentmere.co.uk/sheets/data_sheets.htm#

i can't remember where i got the info on the maco papers. maybe it was only because i couldn't lith print with them.

the multigrade is a thing of its own. i think most people assume it has inc.dev.agents, because it has such a stable image tone. i think ilford says it hasn't any, but there are accelerators in the emulsion...

the moersch sepia and the foma rc can't have any, because they're lithable.

since i can't remember where i got the info on the maco paper anymore, i will do tom's test the next time i'm doing darkroom work.

 

[Maine-iac]

i've now tried a few times, but i can't get the paper developers that i have mixed from scratch to work. i've tried ansco 120, 103 and just recently the pyro plus paper dev. all my negative devs (also mixed from scratch) work fine, just the paper devs make trouble.
with all three i had the same problem: severe underdevelopment. there's not a hint of black in the prints. the image looks fine otherwise, just way too bright.



is there a known problem with self mixed developers and incorporated developing agents?
or has someone else experienced similar problems?

Assuming your metol and HQ are not oxidized (and if they've been stored well, they really shouldn't be), I can say that you'll always have problems getting a strong black with Ansco 120. It is inherently a soft-contrast developer similar to Kodak Selectol Soft. Ansco 125 is a normal contrast developer similar to Dektol or D-72.

I have used Ansco 125 successfully for years with all sorts of papers. Ansco 120 also when I was using graded papers and wanted a softer contrast than the paper alone would give me.

So, check your chemicals for potency, but there's no reason any normal contrast developer shouldn't work well with a variety of papers.

I'm currently using a variant of E-72 which uses Phenidone instead of Metol, along with HQ and Sulfite. I mix it in a concentrate, leaving out the alkali until I'm ready to use it. Keeps forever, gives bright, good contrast results. See my article in the chemistry recipe section.

Larry

 

[dancqu]

[QUOTES=phritz phantom;434750]
"kentmere: "This is covered with a gelatine supercoat
which protects the emulsion from stress fogging and
physical damage and also contains a small amount
of developing agent.""

Not the only paper with a small amount of developing
agent in the supercoat. What agent and it's effect if
any I do not know.

About three years ago Freestyle assured me that none
of their Graded papers had a DI emulsion. Since then they
have added Arista EDU.Ultra Graded which does have a DI
Emulsion: IIRC, for the purpose of speeding along the
processing in class instruction. Still it needs a
developer to finish.

"... i will do tom's test the
next time i'm doing darkroom work."

There is no point in using any more carbonate than
would be in the same volume and dilution of developer
for which the test is to be made. Using just that amount
will produce a higher ph more activated solution than if the
other developer ingredients were included. Or more simply,
mix up a volume of working strength developer minus
everything but the activator; usually carbonate. A
tough test which can be made tougher by
extending the developing time.

I do my testing using a step tablet exposed paper. At the
least do a some covered paper test. DI supercoat effects
may show up although not markedly. Dan