It's one thing if knowledgeable folks like those in Photrio use a somewhat questionable developing protocol with their eyes open, knowing the possible drawbacks. What worries me is beginners blindly doing it. They hear about ways they can purportedly save boatloads of money on developer, and then go overboard. They may use an inadequate amount of developer in the first place. Then they hear they can save money by diluting the developer but not increasing the volume of the working solution. Then they hear that they can reuse developer and start reusing the stock solution a bunch of times. If anything a beginner needs, it is consistency and the reduction of the variables to deal with in development. If reuse requires changing the developing time, I think that is an unjustified complication for a beginner. On other forums when people suggest ways to pinch pennies on developer, I never hear, a "Yes, but", I never hear them say what could be the drawbacks of doing one of those techniques, much less several combined.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with your thinking. (But I'm not sure how well inversion agitation would work without a large air bubble in the tank.)FWIW, with replenished X-Tol in my Paterson tanks I fill the tank with developer - both for rotary agitation, and inversion agitation.
I see no reason why one could not do that with C-41.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with your thinking. (But I'm not sure how well inversion agitation would work without a large air bubble in the tank.)
pinch pennies on developer
Developer is exactly the wrong thing to pinch pennies on. I can understand using questionable developer for questionable rolls but you still end up in the position that, if there happens to be something important there, you are not getting the best version possible (and it's too late to improve it).
Yes, but that's not the point of this thread. It's not about saving money or getting the best results. It's the spirit of experimentation, which to me is really the heart and soul of film photography these days.
I wasn't talking about the point of the thread. I'm all for any kind of experimentation. I was only talking about trying to save money on developer - when developer is far cheaper than film.
I consider the "heart and soul of film photography" the photos - from the taking of them to the printing of them. Experimentation is something that can aid in that in lots of different ways. But using depleted developer cannot give you better results. It can't even give you different results. It just makes your development unreliable.
...at least I know I will have something on the roll of film...
I scan and the scanner is always capable to get decent results.
As my single shot developers are always diluted one I also get a pretty good range of tones, the only thing to be afraid of is the negative to be thin. (And there comes the advantage of the scanner.) So my expectations do not have to be lowered.
... So my expectations do not have to be lowered.
If wanted strictly to take photos, I have a bag of digital cameras and lenses that will out do just about every single one of my film cameras sitting on my shelves. Photos will be perfect, no grain, shadow detail, razor focus.
Is that what makes a photo perfect?
Anyway, who wants "perfect" photos? They should be interesting. Impeding their ability to be interesting makes no sense. Even in the case where the film is free, the photo is what you want - or why are you touching it at all? Why go out of your way to get a poorer realization of what you apparently already consider poor? I guess that answers itself.
Nevermind, though. Like I said in my first comment, I can understand using worn developer on film that you don't trust to begin with. And I spent quite some time reusing D76 1:1 -- to the detriment of a lot of negative strips.
Which is why it's titled
Reusing one shot developer and other bad practices
It's not a good practice. It's a bad practice. I don't recommend it but it's worth discussing and exploring.
I did not mean to suggest that Photrio members are misleading beginners. That is why I referred to "other forums" where there are problems. There are statements made there as though they were gospel that would instantly be challenged in a Photrio forum.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?