Reusing one shot developer and other bad practices.

[bluechromis]

Another problem with beginners is that will develop one or more rolls, then store the working solution for any number of days, and then reuse it. My understanding is that most developers, when diluted for a working solution, have a poor shelf life.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

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.

 

[Mr Bill]

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.)

Back in my photofinishing days we'd often be making slight adjustments to the replenishment rates, based on control strip results. Typically these would be in increments of 10%, which for the most part were fine enough. It would be pretty rare to have to go more than 20% off. So even without process monitoring an average user would likely be within 20% of aim.

But without control strips, or some other method of judging the amount of development, one doesn't know if an adjustment is due. So I think this is necessary for professional-grade processing when replenishment is used.

But when someone is greatly extending their color developer usage (to save chem costs) AND is still satisfied with the results, then I'd guess they would be well satisfied with a LORR replenisher system, even unmonitored. Provided that they can prevent excess developer oxidation.

 

[MattKing]

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.)

The modern Super System IV Paterson tanks have a moderately sized air reservoir at the top in the pouring funnel, and when you invert them you you feel and hear a satisfying gurgle and tumble of fluid.
When I'm trying to help new people with film development, I share that sense of gurgle and tumble to help them understand what sufficient agitation can mean.

 

[Don_ih]

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).

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

 

[Don_ih]

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.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

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. No need for bags or chemicals or worrying about cost of anything. Pure photography, just the facts ma'am.

In my case developer is more expensive than a lot of the film I'm using. And if the film and the cameras are already unreliable why not just throw the development in there for the hat trick?

 

[faberryman]

...at least I know I will have something on the roll of film...

I have higher expectations after I have gone to the time and effort of shooting a roll of film and processing it. What do you do with your negatives after you have processed them?

 

[faberryman]

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.

Do you under-develop your negatives the first time you use the developer so you get thin negatives for ease of scanning for those rolls too.

 

[Vaughn]

... So my expectations do not have to be lowered.

And they are not high, obviously. Which is cool...decent results is a reasonable target. And the experience is good to build from if one ever decides to create exceptional results.

 

[Don_ih]

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.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

Technically yes.

Realistically the only one who can say a photo is perfect if the one who took it. If I think it's perfect then it is. It might be technically poor but that doesn't bother me.

I've not yet shot a perfect photo in any format.

 

[Vaughn]

As high as I can...

Ah, perfection...sometimes in one's life one can get pretty close, but the harder one tries, the easier it slips away.

 

[bluechromis]

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.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

Yes. Correct.

A lot of crazy info out there.