Replenish, how to do?

Xmas · Dec 17, 2013

If you are doing one 135 a day use D76 1+3 and discard.

If you are running a cine print machine 24/7 and fast processing, it is economic to replenish. and you are going to purge the whole machine regular.

You will need to check the pH, filter, etc.,... and a damaged frame not end of world.

D96 ( the cine developer) is real cheap to initialize and replenish cheaper than D76...

If you use a stock bottle for D76 with 135 one bit of film shard transferring from one film to another can make retouching real difficult. 1+3 is safer.

Deep tank for large format and prints maybe...

You need to be an organic chemist to design a developer and its replinisher the two are paired.

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 17, 2013

Buggs said:
Gerald,

Do you think in the case of a print developer where a significant quantity is removed with each print, bromide build up would be minimized?

thanX,
tim

I'm not Gerald, but I use replenished Ethol LPD for my prints, and I can share how I get around that problem and get consistent results.

The factory instructions are to mix up a gallon kit of LPD as usual. You take 1/3 of the gallon and mix it with water 1:2 for one gallon of working solution.
You take the remaining 2/3 and mix it 2:1 for one gallon, which becomes your replenishing solution.
For each Qty 30 - size 8x10 prints (or equivalent), you replenish 300ml.
At the end of the printing session, top up your working solution to fill your storage container completely.

When you run out of replenisher, you mix a new batch. But here is where I do it differently than what's recommended; I use the old working solution to mix the new working solution instead of water. So 1/3 of the fresh LPD is mixed with old working solution to make one gallon of fresh working solution.
I think I've gone through maybe 30 cans of LPD and I have continuously replenished the same LPD this way every single time, so there is some trace from the very first can in my existing working solution.

I honestly don't know how other replenished print developers work, if there's a specific replenishing solution, and so on. But that's how LPD has worked for me, and I really enjoy how it's working out for me. Very economical.

presspass · Dec 17, 2013

As far as I know, Xtol is the only developer that also serves as its own replenisher. For years, I used it that way in Kodak hard rubber tanks and it never went bad. Now I do less film and, for reasons that shouldn't be examined too closely, am using D-23. I'm now working on a liter bottle of D-23 that I've been replenishing since September. So far, so good. BTW, the Anchell and Troop Film Developer's Cookbook has formulas for developers and their replenishers.

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 17, 2013

presspass said:
As far as I know, Xtol is the only developer that also serves as its own replenisher. For years, I used it that way in Kodak hard rubber tanks and it never went bad. Now I do less film and, for reasons that shouldn't be examined too closely, am using D-23. I'm now working on a liter bottle of D-23 that I've been replenishing since September. So far, so good. BTW, the Anchell and Troop Film Developer's Cookbook has formulas for developers and their replenishers.

Edwal 12 works as its own replenishing solution too. I've kept a batch running for a few years, and it has been a remarkably stable and consistent developer.
Metol, Sodium Sulfite, Paraphenyline Diamine (PPD), and Glycin. Works a charm.

Gerald C Koch · Dec 17, 2013

Buggs said:
Gerald,

Do you think in the case of a print developer where a significant quantity is removed with each print, bromide build up would be minimized?

thanX,
tim

There are two problems with print developers other than bromide buildup. Their higher pH relative to film developers makes them more prone to oxidation and their constant exposure to air while in a tray compounds the problem. The result is much higher oxidation than for a film developer. The buildup of oxidation byproducts can cause print staining. I personally would never replenish an MQ print developer for this reason. A PQ print developer like LPD presents a somewhat more favorable situation.

MattKing · Dec 17, 2013

presspass said:
As far as I know, Xtol is the only developer that also serves as its own replenisher.

T-Max RS also serves as its own replenisher.

Mr Bill · Dec 17, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
A major bugaboo with MQ developers and their replenishment is bromide buildup. This effectively limits the number of times a system can be replenished unless a large volume of the developer (say 1/3 of the volume) is dumped periodically in order to bring the bromide level down.

Buggs said:

Gerald,

Do you think in the case of a print developer where a significant quantity is removed with each print, bromide build up would be minimized?

thanX,
tim

Click to expand...

I think it needs to be pointed out that bromide CONCENTRATION is the important thing in a developing solution. And concentration can never by reduced by dumping part of the solution nor by the carry-out due to wet film or paper. Solution volume is reduced, but not concentration.

I'm not a chemist, my knowledge is more on the level of a tech or Chem E, but I have quite a lot of experience in replenished systems. Mainly in color neg/print going back to C-22, but a few low volume B&W machine lines such as Kodak Selectomat and Versamat developers. It is never my experience that a well-designed and operated replenished system needs to be periodically dumped. To be clear, my experience is mostly in machine processing, on a scale probably beyond the imagination of most members here.

I've never tried to replenish a tray system, though, so anything I could say about that would only be a semi-educated guess. This may not be obvious to everyone, but a tray has a large surface area compared to its volume. By comparison, a processing machine might be 3 or 4 or 5 feet deep, so the surface-area to volume ratio is improved on the order of about 100 times. So one expects the tray system to be worse on both oxidation and evaporation by roughly the same factor.

Gerald C Koch · Dec 17, 2013

Mr Bill said:
I think it needs to be pointed out that bromide CONCENTRATION is the important thing in a developing solution. And concentration can never by reduced by dumping part of the solution nor by the carry-out due to wet film or paper. Solution volume is reduced, but not concentration.

Bromide concentration is reduced when the volume is increased by the addition of replenisher which usually contains no bromide. If the amount of replenisjer per roll is small then it is important to periodically dump a large portion of the developer to bring the bromide concentration back to a satisfactory value.

Mr Bill · Dec 17, 2013

Gerald, you're not describing a proper replenished system. It sounds like some sort of variable system where the bromide level never stabilizes.

In a proper system, the bromide concentration should be stable, at a level defined by the formulator. If you were to process some unit of film, such as a roll, the specified volume of replenisher should be just right to maintain the bromide concentration. It shouldn't matter whether the tank volume is 1 gallon or 100 gallons, the film/replenisher relationships stay the same.

I've spent a fair amount of my life setting up and troubleshooting regenerated and replenished systems, so I'm not just speaking hypothetically. If you find that the bulk of your developer is running at a different concentration than your current input, then it's either not a proper replenished system or you have some sort of process problem going on.

Buggs · Dec 17, 2013

What is the negative effect of having a high concentration of bromide in a developer, paper developer in particular.

thanX,
tim

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 17, 2013

Buggs said:
What is the negative effect of having a high concentration of bromide in a developer, paper developer in particular.

thanX,
tim

It acts as a restrainer, so it holds back development. In some cases, and in limited quantity, this can be a much desired quality!
But too much of it, and you start to negate the effect the developer should be having, i.e. developing the film.

removed account4 · Dec 17, 2013

presspass said:
As far as I know, Xtol is the only developer that also serves as its own replenisher.

sprint film developer works as its own replenisher too

Buggs · Dec 17, 2013

thanX Thomas, that's exactly what I thought.

I'm thinking more about ansco 130 where I can directly observe the results of bromide build up. Shortly I'll be mixing up a fresh batch and plan on comparing prints with fresh and used developer. Then I should be able to make an informed decision about topping off my bottle of used dev.

tim

removed account4 · Dec 17, 2013

Buggs said:
thanX Thomas, that's exactly what I thought.

I'm thinking more about ansco 130 where I can directly observe the results of bromide build up. Shortly I'll be mixing up a fresh batch and plan on comparing prints with fresh and used developer. Then I should be able to make an informed decision about topping off my bottle of used dev.

tim

130 works great for film too, great developer to work with.

Gerald C Koch · Dec 17, 2013

Mr Bill said:
Gerald, you're not describing a proper replenished system. It sounds like some sort of variable system where the bromide level never stabilizes.

The bromide concentration may stabilize but not at a level that is desired. For example with a developer like D-76 or D-23 it is impossible to return the replenished developer to its original state because the fresh developer contains no bromide whatsoever. All that can be done is to keep the bromide concentration at a useable level. Such systems usually require a large portion of used developer to be periodically dumped and fresh developer added. This problem also occurs with developers that do not have a separate replenisher like Xtol or HC-110 which are self replenished.

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 18, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
The bromide concentration may stabilize but not at a level that is desired. For example with a developer like D-76 or D-23 it is impossible to return the replenished developer to its original state because the fresh developer contains no bromide whatsoever. All that can be done is to keep the bromide concentration at a useable level. Such systems usually require a large portion of used developer to be periodically dumped and fresh developer added. This problem also occurs with developers that do not have a separate replenisher like Xtol or HC-110 which are self replenished.

But Gerald, that's why good labs were doing control strips, to keep things consistent and avoid pitfalls.

And frankly, whether you like the results from replenished developers or not is a matter of taste. From what I have observed, I see only positives, usually finer grain, sharper negs, and more pleasing tonality.

For the home user doing small batches it's all about keeping a critical eye on the process, and do as you say if bromide levels go out of balance or acceptable range.

Gerald C Koch · Dec 18, 2013

Thomas Bertilsson said:
But Gerald, that's why good labs were doing control strips, to keep things consistent and avoid pitfalls.

True but all the test strips tell you is how much replenisher to use and when you must dump some developer. They do nothing to obviate the problems I describe. IIRC correct Glakides devotes an entire chapter on replenishment. I will try and find my copy. I have nothing against people using replenishment but don't see it as being practical unless one is maintaining a large amount of developer and has a high and constant throughput. For the average person on APUG I think a one shot like HC-110 or Rodinal is a better choice. I don't like being in the darkroom. So I attempt to remove as many variables as possible from my system. Using a one shot I know exactly how my negatives will print.

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 18, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
True but all the test strips tell you is how much replenisher to use and when you must dump some developer. They do nothing to obviate the problems I describe. IIRC correct Glakides devotes an entire chapter on replenishment. I will try and find my copy. I have nothing against people using replenishment but don't see it as being practical unless one is maintaining a large amount of developer and has a high throughput.

Depends on the developer. Have you ever tried?

I just finished a five year stint maintaining not one, but two replenished developers for film, and am maintaining a replenished print developer since about eight years.
Not once have I had to dump and start over, and results have been way above expectation.

Gerald C Koch · Dec 18, 2013

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Depends on the developer. Have you ever tried?

Many years ago I tried Microphen with replenishment. It should have been a better candidate than say D-76. I was not impressed with the results. I switched to using HC-110 and Rodinal and never looked back.

At one time there was an article on the unblinkingeye website describing Harvey's Panthermic 777 developer which was used with replenishment. It described the need to periodically dump a portion of the developer. It was very seldom that the entire bath was dumped.

Mainecoonmaniac · Dec 18, 2013

Does anybody use test strips to monitor the strength of their replenished soup?

removed account4 · Dec 18, 2013

SNIP

Gerald C Koch said:
At one time there was an article on the unblinkingeye website describing Harvey's Panthermic 777 developer which was used with replenishment. It described the need to periodically dump a portion of the developer. It was very seldom that the entire bath was dumped.

the MYTHIC 777 !

we used to replenish DK50 for 1000 sheets ( maybe more ? ) take some out, put DK50R in
then when we made fresh we'd season it with 1/3 the previous tank.
made it mellow, and perfect ...

markbarendt · Dec 18, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
I don't like being in the darkroom. So I attempt to remove as many variables as possible from my system. Using a one shot I know exactly how my negatives will print.

The only "times" I ever had my replenished Xtol line give me any variation were: 1) When I was seasoning a fresh batch; 2) when it was teaching me something.

Like any good tool, like the DD-X I use (and even re-use per Ilford's instructions), like the WD2D+ I play with one-shot here and there, like micro replenished LPD, like my micro replenished C-41 and RA work: when I strip away/analyze my results and failures, I invariably find the tool in question was doing exactly what it was advertised to do.

I'm not suggesting you start a replenished line, it is work to learn any new system, but there are real practical advantages to using one even for people shooting small volumes.

A great example of this is people who shoot say two sheets of 4x5 on a friend's portrait one weekend, and they only have a Nikor tank (or similar) to develop that film in, and it holds about a liter or so of chemicals. People like this have a choice; go one shot and dump a liter of chemicals that hasn't been fully utilized, or wait until they have a "tank-full" of film (tell their buddy it's going to be a few months), or spend 35ml of Xtol stock (or whatever #ml replenisher is in use) on a replenished line.

This scales up perfectly too. A portrait shop can do two sheets after each sitting (send the client out for a coffee while they wait) whether that's one a week or 5 a day.

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 18, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
Many years ago I tried Microphen with replenishment. It should have been a better candidate than say D-76. I was not impressed with the results. I switched to using HC-110 and Rodinal and never looked back.

At one time there was an article on the unblinkingeye website describing Harvey's Panthermic 777 developer which was used with replenishment. It described the need to periodically dump a portion of the developer. It was very seldom that the entire bath was dumped.

I see. Well, for those of us that have done replenishment on a steady basis, with small volumes, and make it work with no fuss, I simply beg to differ regarding the results and the amount of maintenance it takes to keep it up and running. There was absolutely no trouble doing it, and processing zero rolls for several weeks was not an issue.
The print developer does get radically recycled as the gallon kit gets reused, but I'm just following instructions. I have never tried to continue replenishing LPD without dumping most of the batch at the end of each gallon cycle.

I think we are at two flip sides of this coin, and I'm happy to agree to disagree with you.

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 18, 2013

Michael R 1974 said:
Yeesh. Please everyone read what Kodak has to say about replenishment. Perhaps it will add some perspective. It is a compromise for economy, not much more than that.

And sometimes results are better than with straight or diluted developers.

Terrence Brennan · Dec 20, 2013

Replenished Kodak D-23 & Ansco 17M

I had a batch of D-23 on the go for 2-1/2 years, replenishing with DK-25R; Kodak recommends replenishing for no more that 25 rolls/quart before dumping the developer. The developer was in a (nominal) 1-gallon glass jug, which actually held 4.06 litres when filled to the rim. I had processed about the equivalent of 75 rolls (of the approximately 107 which would have represented the maximum capacity) when I dropped the jug and it shattered! Before I made this mix I had previously been using a mix of D-23 for nearly four years, and had processed nearly the maximum amount of film. I only dumped the developer because when I pushed four rolls of film, with the developer heated to 100F, little bits of the emulsion came off in it!

The trick for replenishing, for me, seems to be to keep the developer jug filled to the brim and to not mix up too much replenisher at a time. I usually mix 500mL of DK-25R, which is good for about 22 rolls of 120 or 35mm 36-exposure film. D-23 has 100g/L of sodium sulfite, which may also explain why it lasts as long as it does. I pour the developer just used for processing into a holding container, add the replenisher to the developer jug, and top with the used developer; any excess I discard. I then cap and invert the jug several times to mix the replenisher in. With D-23 I get a sludge at the bottom of the jug which moves around when I invert the jug and settles back to the bottom in time. I have developed film with freshly replenished developer and I have never had problems (that I could see) with the sludge getting on the film. I expect that it is rinsed off, if it sticks to the film, in the stop bath and fix, and comes off totally in the wash. It can be filtered out, but I usually don't bother.

I use the same procedure with Ansco 17M. I use a derivative, which I has 2.5x as much sodium metaborate in the mix; the instructions allow for up to 10x the amount. It is in a plastic jug!

Replenish, how to do?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency