REPLENISHER, HOW TO MAKE A GENUINE DEVELOPER OF IT?

While tiding up my darkroom, I found about 15 bags for making 5 liters of AGFA REFINAL REPLENISHER, but only 2 packs (5l too) of the developer as such.
I know that replenisher holds parts of the developer for which it is intended, but it also lacks parts so to be a fully working developer.
I don't want to dump these as it would be a pity harming the environment with a non used product, doing it with a used product is already bad enough, and being a waste of resources too...

So I would like to know what to add to the replenisher to make a developer of it.
I couldn't find the formula.

I did a search and found very little real information. I did notice that you asked the same question in 2011. In that thread someone said Refinal was very like Microphen, so maybe you could look at the formulas for ID-68 and its replenisher and work backwards from there. For example, dilute it a bit and make it a bit less alkaline.

Yes I asked that question before and forgot about it and now discovered that old stock again, and the same question came up.
If my memory is not tricking me, I recall trying the ID-68 way but it didn't work, perhaps I did it wrong...
So, I hope that somebody can help me now.

Philippe-Georges said:

but only 2 packs (5l too) of the developer as such.

Click to expand...

That should not be a problem.
This Agfa document (which you probably have on your shelf):
states (p.11, my emphasis)

There seems to be no limit of principle to the amount of regeneration for one initial 5l of developer. Another question is how long it will take you to use (15+2)x5=85 litres of developer; but maybe you are a very productive photographer.
Better have a can of Butane at hand.

bernard_L said:

That should not be a problem.
This Agfa document (which you probably have on your shelf):

https://philografia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/quc3admicos-agfa-bn_francc3a9s.pdf

states (p.11, my emphasis)

La régénération continue des révélateurs ATOMAL FF,​

REFINAL et REFINAL M garantit l’obtention des résultats​

réguliers pendant une période de temps prolongée. On a ainsi​

une bonne exploitation régulière de la sensibilité et une​

gradation constante. Théoriquement, les révélateurs peuvent​

être régénérés presque indéfiniment. Dans la pratique, la​

préparation d’un bain frais n’est nécessaire que lorsque le​

contenu de la cuve est souillé par des restes d’adhésif, de la​

gélatine ou de la boue argentique, par exemple.​

There seems to be no limit of principle to the amount of regeneration for one initial 5l of developer. Another question is how long it will take you to use (15+2)x5=85 litres of developer; but maybe you are a very productive photographer.
Better have a can of Butane at hand.

Click to expand...

Thank you Bernard,
Yes I knew about the almost indefinite regeneration.
But, alas, I am no more a professional photographer having a that lage production.
Wat I was hoping for is that by modifying the replenisher, I could use it, by dilute it, as a one shot developer, like I am used to do with D-76 and XTOL.
By this that stock could still find a 'smart' use...
And for Butane, I use Dust-Off.

I'd suggest an alternative route: mix the replenisher and accept that it's more active than the original Refinal developer. Then determine the appropriate development times for your film of choice using just the replenisher as if it were a stand-alone developer. The working characteristics will be subtly different from Refinal as such, but I doubt you'll notice the difference if you (1) use fresh film that has low fog; otherwise add an antifoggant of your choice such as potassium bromide or benzotriazole, and (2) you do in fact determine suitable development times, which will be shorter than for original/replenished Refinal.

Philippe-Georges said:

I know that replenisher holds parts of the developer for which it is intended, but it also lacks parts so to be a fully working developer.

Click to expand...

Usually, a B&W developer replenisher will be an overactive developer; if you mix it, what you can usually expect compared to the working strength developer is the following:
* Higher concentration of developing agents
* Higher pH
* Lower concentration of restrainers, in particular halides (typically bromide and/or chloride)
As such, a developer replenisher will work on its own. It'll just be (significantly) more active than the intended developer.

If you want to try and coax the replenisher into behaving like the original developer, try the following:
* Dilute it with a little more water than recommended for mixing the replenisher. I'd start with 25% or so more water.
* Reduce pH using acetic acid to the level of the original developer. Use a pH meter or pH test strips.
* Add a restrainer, e.g. potassium bromide, to further tame it a little. Optional; personally I'd just test first without adding this.

The million dollar question is of course: how much of all this? You're pretty much on your own here. You may be able to work something out based on a safety data sheet if you can find one (I searched briefly, but couldn't fine one) or a specification of the target pH of the working strength developer (should be available somewhere, but again, a quick Google search didn't turn it up for me).

I did find this document: https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/agfa/agfa_film_chem.pdf
Sadly, it's not very specific on things like target pH - if I were to hazard a guess, I'd aim for pH 8.5 or so.

A final option is to not bother with it and put it up for sale. Maybe someone has a need for it. It'll free up precious time you can spend making photographs instead.

koraks said:

"...A final option is to not bother with it and put it up for sale. Maybe someone has a need for it. It'll free up precious time you can spend making photographs instead..."

Click to expand...

Thanks Koraks, I find the last part of your answer the most relevant!
So, yes, I will sell it (I don't know what to ask for it yet).
And now I will wait for the rain to stop and go out to make photos (nice clouds)...

Philippe-Georges said:

And now I will wait for the rain to stop and go out to make photos (nice clouds)...

Click to expand...

Yeah, I did that yesterday. Missed two good exposures by literally a second because the light changed so fast. This was around 6pm, sun was low, interesting clouds, quite a bit of wind high up in the sky so clouds moving fast. Made 3 8x10 negatives; I'm now exposing the first one as a carbon transfer to see what I got. Poor compositions, but still, some of the clouds may work out OK.

So yes...spend time in a way that adds value! And I'm sure someone would be happy with that developer of yours. Win-win! Sorry, no clue about a reasonable asking price...

koraks said:

Yeah, I did that yesterday. Missed two good exposures by literally a second because the light changed so fast. This was around 6pm, sun was low, interesting clouds, quite a bit of wind high up in the sky so clouds moving fast. Made 3 8x10 negatives; I'm now exposing the first one as a carbon transfer to see what I got. Poor compositions, but still, some of the clouds may work out OK.

So yes...spend time in a way that adds value! And I'm sure someone would be happy with that developer of yours. Win-win! Sorry, no clue about a reasonable asking price...

Click to expand...

8x10 format is to cumbersome for me, I prefer my smallish Silvestri 6x9, very light and practical. And affordable for "playing" with different contrastfilters: yellow, dark yellow, orange, dark orange, light red and dark red, hence looking for the clouds...

And with modern film (thin emulsion), 6x9 is good for traditional printing, on FB paper ofcourse.



A hastily reproduced FB print...

6x9cm is a beautiful format, indeed. It strikes a great balance between portability and image quality.

I'm kind of stuck with larger formats because I like carbon transfer printing and that's a contact printing process. I've tried 'digital' / inkjet negatives, but for me, that defies the purpose and I dislike the digital artefacts, so it's a non-starter. I like 4x5", too, but it's a bit small, so I've bought an Intrepid 8x10 which is a reasonably lightweight option.

PS: I really like the light meter I purchased from you; I now use it all the time!

koraks said:

6x9cm is a beautiful format, indeed. It strikes a great balance between portability and image quality.

I'm kind of stuck with larger formats because I like carbon transfer printing and that's a contact printing process. I've tried 'digital' / inkjet negatives, but for me, that defies the purpose and I dislike the digital artefacts, so it's a non-starter. I like 4x5", too, but it's a bit small, so I've bought an Intrepid 8x10 which is a reasonably lightweight option.

PS: I really like the light meter I purchased from you; I now use it all the time!

Click to expand...

Before the Silvestri, I was very found of my Hasselblad, but doing lateral (vertical) shifts with the Flexbody and the 50mm was rather hard to do, not to say almost impossible.
And the SWC, one of the finest wide angle cameras ever made, had its limitations for architecture because not having the shift possibility.

Anyway, I think, just like Nobuyoshi Araki, that one should once in a way change camera's just to change the way of working/thinking.
I worked with Hasselblad since 1981 as my main bread and butter camera (now I mainly shoot standard to longer focal on it, it is still the same camera).

The Linhof is for sale...

I am glad you like the lightmeter!
It was lying in a drawer because I have a Pentax Digital spotmeter too, which I use less than before and I don't know why, but use the Digipro F even more.
I think that Gossen always made the finest light meters, and still does!

I just published the sale of the REFINAL lot...