Replenished developing systems

[Arvee]

I get a twinge every time I dump photo chemicals into the drain and have gone to a replenished system for all roll film (don't do LF anymore) and use good ol' white vinegar from Costco diluted for stop followed with a water rinse and TF4 for fix. This has reduced my pollution quotient significantly.

I presently use Tmax RS and am very happy with the results. I am aware of replenished D-76 but opted for Tmax RS instead.

These are the only two systems I am aware of and was wondering if anyone else out there is using a 'greenish' system and are there replenished systems in use other than those mentioned above.

Thanks!

-Fred

 

[Photo Engineer]

All photographic solutions can be replenished as long as you can work out the proper replenisher. This is impossible if you don't have the original formula, but not so hard if you have the original. Try comparing D-76 and D-76R for example to get an idea of how it works.

PE

 

[Arvee]

Thanks, PE!

 

[Photo Engineer]

I will have to hedge a bit. Not all solutions can be replenished and a good example would be a ferricyanide/hypo solution or something similar that is stated as being single use. You mix them and they are on their way to self destruction as soon as they are mixed. They are labeled or advertized as such.

PE

 

[srs5694]

FWIW, I use Dead Link Removed and the formula specifies how to make a replenisher, which I also use. This works well for me; after each printing session, I pour the developer back into its bottle and top it up with the replenisher. I've replenished as much as three times (that is, three liters of replenisher on a 1-liter original) with no noticeable effect on my prints. After that, I got nervous and ditched it and made up a fresh batch.

 

[Ian Grant]

You might consider Xtol. It works extremely well as a replenished developer and has the advantage that it doesn't need a separate replenisher. Also it's a more environmentally friendly "green" formula than many other developer.

I use the 5 litre (European) pack and when I make it up keep 2½ litres as my working solution and use the other 2½ litres to replenish it. My developing tanks take a maximum of 2 litres each so this works very well for my 35mm, 120 & 5x4 negatives. My replenished working solution keeps well over a year with no loss of activity.

Ian

 

[Mike Wilde]

an oddball one that I think replenishes nicely

After hearing of this formula, and reading up on it, I sourced the missing chems, drew most components from my on hand inventory, and mixed up a batch of 'Harveys 777' film developer.

While it is not the most environmentally benign (PPD- wear gloves) I do like the look of the negatives, and provided you feed it a film on a regular basis, it sems to keep on going for months, nay potentially much longer. Even the overflow from the bottle after the replenisher is poured in is saved, and used to 'season' the next batch, if too long an interval has lapsed since the stuff was last used.

 

[Arvee]

Ian,

Is Xtol as susceptible to 'sudden death' failure when used in the replenish mode? I have read about Xtol in replenish mode but don't feel comfortable with the developer as I had a sudden death failure using it in the conventional stock/dilution mode.

I have never gotten a satisfactory answer as to what was the root cause of the sudden death failures with Xtol other than it may have been a packaging issue or water quality issue with the 1L size. This is probably futile but does anybody know with certainty what the real culprit is here? PE?

Thanks, Mike, for your input on 777. I have read about it but the chemicals aren't exactly environmentally friendly so I'll stick with Tmax RS until something better comes along.

-Fred

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ascorbate developers are subject to sudden death syndrome and they often suffer from poor keeping or shelf life. Kodak had a packaging problem (from what I heard) that led to early death or death on mixing. I have avoided it myself for this very type of problem.

PE

 

[df cardwell]

After hearing of this formula, and reading up on it, I sourced the missing chems, drew most components from my on hand inventory, and mixed up a batch of 'Harveys 777' film developer.

If you mixed it yourself, it is absolutely NOT 777.

If you used the Unblinking Eye speculative formula,
it IS Germain's developer, which is the variation of the published Edwal 12 formula, that Germain modestly named after himself.

Ed Lowe (Edwal) intended a 'weak replensihment system' for his developer, which works very well once the solution has been seasoned
or had film run through it.

It is important to KNOW that this is NOT 777 for two reasons:

They are both very good developers,
and they are vastly different in their makeup and performance.

Ten points for inventiveness. Replensihed PPD developers, especially Edwal 12, can be wonderful and dependable.

Replenisher for 777 has NOT been made for sometime,
although using stock developer seems to be working for
photographers who don't mind a little drift and who pay attention to what they are doing.

 

[Ian Grant]

Kodak overcame that problem quite a long time ago, it only happened with the small amateur size packaging. I can only speak from my own experience & I've been using Xtol for about 8 - 10 years and so far haven't had a problem with it collapsing.

Ian

 

[srs5694]

Kodak overcame that problem quite a long time ago, it only happened with the small amateur size packaging.

I've seen posts from people who claim to have encountered the problem with the 5-liter packaging. (Sorry, I haven't saved any URLs.)

 

[Photo Engineer]

There are actually two problems here. One is the packaging which had some sort of fault, and the other is the sensitivity of ascorbate developers to catalytic decomposition. Many claim to have found ways to solve this problem. If you use DW and clean containers, you should have no problem. But, if you have some types of metal contamination, your developer can go bad fast.

PE

 

[Arvee]

PE, while I have your attention, what is the translation of the MSDS on the Tmax RS packaging? I take it that it is not a PQ or MQ developer.

How about an interpretation for the layman?

Thanks!

-Fred

 

[Photo Engineer]

Fred;

Give me a reference to it please. I have not looked at it for years (if ever) as I wasn't interested in ascorbate developers.

PE

 

[Arvee]

Part A:

Diethanolamine-sulfur dioxide complex, Hydroquinone, sodium bisulfite, 4-Hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidinone, Water, Pentetic acid, pentasodium salt,

Part B:

Diethylene glycol, acetic acid, 1,4-diphenyl-3-(phenylamino)-1H-1,2,4-triazolium hydroxide.

It is a 'Q' but that is all I could cipher! I couldn't find any references in A & T.

Thanks!

-Fred

 

[Ian Grant]

4-Hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidinone
Hydroquinone

PQ well rathe thats a relative of Phenidone, even Ilford who discovered & pioneered it now use other Phenidone like developing agents in some of their developers.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

HMMP or Dimezone-S is the current relative of choice over phenidone as phenidone can decompose more rapidly in alkaline solution than the above. HMMP is one of Kodak's internal informal names for 4-HydroxyMethyl-4-Methyl-1-Phenyl-3-pyrazolidinone.

The petetic acid is apparently a trivial name of the current sequestrant which prevents problems with hard water. It is diethylamine triamine penta acetic acid, or a compound very similar to EDTA.

I am not sure about the 1,4-diphenyl-3-(phenylamino)-1H-1,2,4-triazolium hdyroxide. Sorry.

PE

 

[Arvee]

Thanks for the pointer in the right direction. There was good information in A & T once I knew what I was looking for.

Appreciate the help, guys!

-Fred

 

[Photo Engineer]

Thanks for the pointer in the right direction. There was good information in A & T once I knew what I was looking for.

Appreciate the help, guys!

-Fred

Bill is ready and willing to write the second edition of this book. Let the publisher know that it is useful. That goes for the rest of you as well.

PE

 

[Larry Bullis]

I like to use MCM 100 for some of my work...

I wonder if any of you, PE, Df, Ian, or someone lurking unseen might have an idea how to replenish it. Sources suggest only that I increase development time (this option becomes impractical very soon). I'm wondering about simply using the fresh solution as replenisher at say, 3 oz./8x10 equivalent. I'm trying it, but haven't got enough data yet. Actually, I'm going to have to mix a new batch really to get good data since I've already developed a bunch of film with it.

It's a Meritol (pyrocatechin/ppd) formula using trisodium phosphate as the alkali; other constituents are the usual sulphite and a small amount of bromide. Sources demand it to be used at 65ºF, no higher.

Any input would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Nothing green about this one. Definitely brown.

 

[Photo Engineer]

AFAIK, any TSP based developer has a rather high pH and is hard to replenish and keep the pH constant unless the process is used continually. Ektachrome and Kodachrome are examples of this. Leave them idle and the high pH developers go bad.

So, unless you plan on using it constantly, the only recourse is to top it off and then adjust the pH with Sodium Hydroxide solution. That has been my experience, anyhow. If others can show a way, this might be useful to us all.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

I have the formula here in front of me, whats 3 oz We haven't used them in years in the UK No suggestions other than top up with fresh, but I'd prefer to use fresh each time.

Personally I'd reformulate a developer to use CD-2, along the line of the new Calbe-49. The Developing agent "N-hydroxyethyl-o-aminophenol" used in Agfa Atomal, and the Orwo version, also in Promicrol) was discontinued, and Calbe reportedly now use CD-2 in the new version. Alternatively Kodak had a CD-3 based B&W developer in a patent, so it might be worth trying CD-3 alongside Pyrocatechin.

PPD developers have always beenfar more popular in Europe, a few are still commercially available, I think this is because the culture of the "miniature" camera was greater in the 30's 40, onwards compared to the US.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

Good suggestions Ian.

I have another thought along those lines. You can often increase development rate and up contrast by adding some extra sulfite to the developer (not much - just a tad) or even better, add citrazinic acid to mop up oxidized color developer.

These force the reaction to the right of the equation speeding development and upping contrast (depending on the formula) and generally do no harm.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Thats cut & pasted to my notes already Ron

In fact most of the PPD formulae I have listed do use Sodium Sulphite in significant levels, most around 100g/litre, MCM 100 is 88g/litre, and only a Lumiere formula drops significantly lower.

Ian