• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

reuseing paper developers

mitch brown

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
352
Location
Boston Georgia
Format
Multi Format
hi all
just a quick question. i have been reuseing my paper developer many times untill i have developed the max number of sheets recomend . as i tend to only develope for a short period of time and number of prints it may take me a month to develop 30 sheets. should i be doing this or useing new developer each time?
mitch
 
Probably false economy if you are working with a diluted paper developer like Dektol 1:2 or higher. It oxidizes quickly. You may want to consider a liquid concentrate or perhaps mix your own from scratch in small batches.
 
Yeah, RW is right. When you go by the number of prints thru the sauce, but spread it over time, you will not get good D-Max (maximum blacks) out of the prints. Print devs lose strength over the course of a few hours; 24 max. Print dev is best used in 1 longer-session deals.
 
When the prints lack contrast and development times become excessively long, it's time to dump it and start with fresh developer - with more energy.
 
I would recommend ANSCO 130 if you need a paper dev that lasts as working solution. It's an excellent paper developer and just keeps on going - even when it's dark brown. You can make it yourself or purchase it from the Formulary.

John
pictorialplanet.com
 
This is exactly the sort of problem that I have encountered, and is why I designed my own developer to counteract (as far as is chemically possible) this sort of deterioration. I've gotten formulas with 4x the capacity or longevity of Dektol or 2x the combined capacity and longevity.

But, with any developer you must be carful or your pictures will change from run to run and lose contrast and dmax. However, a properly designed developer will allow you to regain most of this by developing for a slightly longer time.

PE
 
Wager, for what it is worth, it takes me a week to proof a few rolls of film, usually in four or five short sessions (damn day job just gets in the way!) A half-liter Dektol at 1:2 seems to me to be as strong on day 7 as on day 1. I don't put the developer back in a bottle after sessions, I think the turbulence of pouring it in and out introduces oxygen; instead, some Saran wrap on the tray, in contact with the developer and sealed at the edges. Obviously, oxygen and use is going to deplete the developer, and I'm in no position to argue with more experienced folks, but I have never tossed a tray of Dektol because of weak blacks or extended development time. Just have not seen that.
 
Rich;

I have done tests on Dektol 1:3 in open trays and can see a difference rather quickly. If you make a print on day 1 and then every 24 hours afterwards, you can make a true comparison and actually watch the developer drop off in activity. I grant you that my test at 1:3 in an open tray is different than yours, but it is a very powerful test to make and yours is just as valid if you make direct comparisons.

Without such comparisons, it is difficult to say what, if any, change has taken place.

PE
 
JohnFinch said:
I would recommend ANSCO 130 if you need a paper dev that lasts as working solution. It's an excellent paper developer and just keeps on going - even when it's dark brown. You can make it yourself or purchase it from the Formulary.
Click to expand...

Second the recommendation for Ansco 130 or Formulary 130 if you want a developer with long life. I mixed a gallon of stock solution nearly a year ago and its still going. Even after dilution, it works well for several months.
 
PE, Alex, Et.al.
It seems to me that most MQ paper developers are pretty much the same. What do you think of just mixing up a gallon of Dektol, then adding glycin to it as a means of coming up with something similar to Ansco 130?

John, Mount Vernon, Virginia
 
Ethol LPD is a really long-lasting paper developer. I buy it in the powder form, mix a stock solution and then make working solution as needed, usually 1 liter at a time. The working solution lasts forever and there is no deterioration in performance, quality is superb, blacks are fantastic. I pour it back into a liter bottle and top it off with new solution as needed...absolutely fantastic developer.
 
Tim Rudman (not to single him out but I remember the recomendation from one of his books) suggests a factor method whereby you watch for the first emergence of tones and then knowing how long fresh developer takes to reach full development, keep the print in the bath for a safety factor after first emergence.

To figure the safety factor, watch the first print in the FRESH bath. Note the time for first emergence. Then assuming full development would occur at 2 minutes you find the ratio of 120 seconds to first emergence time. Example, tones appeared at 20 seconds so 120 / 20 = 6. For the next batch of prints, keep watching for the emergence time and then leave the print in the bath 6 times that long.

Pain in the butt and frankly I think it is easier just to use a big tray with plenty of developer and I change it out after I get between 1/2 and 2/3 the rated number of 8x10's through the bath. Not to tough to pre-figure that number and since I'm already counting prints through the fixer it isn't that much more work. For Dektol 1:2 the magic number is supposed to be 120 sheets per gallon (diluted), per my copy of the Kodak Darkroom DATAGUIDE. I try to have at least 1/2 gallon in the smallest tray so that says 60 sheets capacity, thus I try to change it at 30 to 40. Scale this up or down depending on print sizes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FWIW, I've been using the mix-it-yourself Dead Link Removed and the related commercial Silvergrain Tektol. When using DS-14, I've used the replenisher, which is the same as the main formula but minus one ingredient (potassium bromide). I've found that, used in this way, the stuff keeps for months with no noticeable change in prints. I've done test prints to verify this, which no change I could discern in detail, contrast, or d-max. IIRC, I tested a liter of DS-14 with replenishment that used up two liters of replenisher with no noticeable change in prints. The working solution did slowly darken, and after that much, I decided to chuck it just to be on the safe side, but this was just being (perhaps over-) cautious. I've also replenished my Tektol with the DS-14 replenisher, but I don't see any commercial Tektol replenisher being sold.
 
>>Anscojohn PE, Alex, Et.al.
>>It seems to me that most MQ paper developers are pretty much the same.
>>What do you think of just mixing up a gallon of Dektol, then adding glycin
>>to it as a means of coming up with something similar to Ansco 130?

Putting Glycin into Dektol is a noble concept but will probably not have the advantages you want (longevity). You may however, find some great new properties

Agfa Ansco did all the ground work for us when they designed 130 all those years ago. Adams used it and even modified it a little (I like the original better though). so why not just use that? It is a superb paper dev and lasts forever.

John
pictorialplanet.com
 

Ansel Adams used the same technique and called it Factorial Development.

I used it pretty religiously when I developed with Dektol. I still keep loose track of emergence times but I found the factor wasn't very useful with developers like PF 130, Amidol, and Neutol. They are more active than Dektol and develop more rapidly. However, knowing what the typical emergence time is gives a good indication if your exposure is sufficient and if the developer is still active enough.
 
All developers are not the same. A very simple example is to consider a single use developer that goes bad almost as you watch it after you mix the two parts. There are many examples that last only 24 hours, 48 hours, and etc in the open tray test or even a closed tray test.

A high pH developer will lose power faster than a low pH developer. This is easily demonstrated and can be logically reasoned by the fact that our air is acidic (carbon dioxide) and will cause a more rapid pH drop the higher the pH.

The higher the reduction potential of the developing agent, the quicker it goes bad due to oxygen in the air. Another factor is the amount of sulfite in the developer.

I have been testing print and film developers for years now (nearly 40) and can categorically state that all developers vary in some regard wrt stability (keeping) and capacity. Glycin is no magic bullet nor is anything else. The best that can be done is to optimize things for Carbon Dioxid, Oxygen, and use.

PE
 
Seeing Alex's comment reminds me that the 'first emergance' method does not always work. I have specific examples.

PE
 
Paper developer is cheap. I use Zone VI powder developer and divide the stock solution into 4 x 1 liter bottles. The stock has a good shelf life. I dump the developer after each print session. No stained storage bottles or worrying about how long I have had it. Always fresh developer. Costs about $1.25 per gallon of working solution.

If you want to reuse anything, save fixer and monitor capacity.
 
Photo Engineer said:
Seeing Alex's comment reminds me that the 'first emergance' method does not always work. I have specific examples.

PE
Click to expand...

Agree. It also depends very much on the paper and its basic emulsion type.
I got away from Dektol a few years ago, but I still think its response is very predictable and also very linear. The faster developers follow exponential curve with respect to time and development, just based upon observations.
 
While I would be willing to bet that "factorial development" doesn't work reliably as a whole but the reason I've never been religious about it is that it seems like such a pain in the butt. I admit I do loosely track the emergence time but really only to be sure I didn't load the easel backwards! I have one RC paper that for the life of me feels the same front and back and the low sheen matte almost fools me.

Just tic off the sheets on a bit of scratch paper as I run them through.

Like I said, Dektol (and Ansco 130 for that matter) is cheap and fresh is better. Maybe once I finally use up all the Dektol (actually it is Arista's house branded D72 powder) it is time to play with Ansco 130. Like I don't already have enough things on the TO DO list. More like WISH TO DO!
 
I still have some Agfa Multicontrast. IIRC it's really intended for machine use and replenishment. I replenish but use trays. It keeps almost forever in a closed bottle. It's a high capacity developer with a rating of around 100 8x10s to 1 litre of working solution.

I don't remember if somebody took over Agfa's chemical business.
 
Agfa Neutol WA

I have been using Agfa Neutol WA liquid developer for several years now, with good results in keeping a used working solution in a closed-top plastic storage tub, and will 'replenish' it with a splash of fresh liquid concentrate when it starts to go weak. I really like the longevity of this developer, both in liquid concentrate form and mixed as a working solution. And the price is great, too.

I do this mainly for my paper negative pinhole work. For actually making contact and enlargement prints, I'll usually mix a fresh batch, for better print-to-print consistency, then after the print session I'll keep it stored as paper negative developer. Since paper negs can be developed by inspection under safelights, a partially exhausted batch of developer helps to retain midtone values and allows me opportunity to pull the neg before the contrast gets too high.

~Joe
 
Hi PE,

What method do you use to determine FB paper development time ?
Factorial Development ?

When you write "by developing for a slightly longer time", do you do this by eye or by formula ?

rgds
Peter

 
I have had long experience in judging proper development time by inspection using B&W and even color paper (under the correct safelight). If a developer, through aging, requires a longer development time, I use this method to judge by matching it with an already completed print.

Of course nothing is perfect and that is why I compound my developers to have great longevity.

PE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register