That's not suppose to happen...

Akki14 · Jun 8, 2007

The cheapskate in me as been saving some working solution of Ilford Multigrade paper developer. I have a bunch of wedding photos to work through so I thought I'd see how it kept for a week... Still printed fine the next week. Worked the week after that too. Then I got busy with other things in life and the developer sat in a 2litre bottle (not totally full to the top)...
And sat there.
And turned a sort of dark amber colour.
Today I finally decided I'd do some more darkroom stuff and, heck, why not try the developer I mixed up in mid-April with just a tiny test strip. Set up the enlarger, exposed the paper for the same times I was using back in April for all the wedding photos. Developed it the same way as before.
It still works.

I'll scan in a print once it's dry. I'm using ilford RC multigrade paper.

jstraw · Jun 8, 2007

It still works, but as well as before?

Mix some fresh developer and set up the two batches in trays, side by side. Expose two copies of the same print, identically. Process them both exactly the same and compare them after they dry. If you can't tell them apart then there's nothing to think about. If you can, there is.

Rich Ullsmith · Jun 8, 2007

I think the liquids have a longer lifespan because there's not that initial mixing of powder, which introduces some amount of O2 into the solution.

I'm inclined to believe there is less O2 introduced by simply covering the tray with plastic, work the bubbles out to the sides, then place an identical tray on top to seal it. I've had amidol developer go for three days this way. Frugality has something to do with it, but it's nice to be able to put things down when you're tired.

gainer · Jun 8, 2007

I don't know about that. How many grams of oxygen can be in the bottle at atmospheric pressure? How many would it take to ewaken the developer significantly? There are other things that can happen, more to some developers than to others. Organic compounds can be unstable. You put a certain number of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms in a bottle of water. How many different compounds can be formed out of the same atoms? I guess it's in my nature. My Daddy used to call me a worry wart.

PHOTOTONE · Jun 8, 2007

A variable not mentioned, and I don't know if the Ilford paper you are using is developer-incorporated. If you were using developer-incorporated paper, then the developing agent built-in to the paper would be augmenting the developing agent in the semi-oxidized developer thus giving you the results you have.

fhovie · Jun 8, 2007

I am guilty of over using paper developer as well. - As long as I get the results I want, why not? BUT .... As cheap as PC-TEA paper developer is to make - I am a lot more ready to retire it at the first sign of decay. - As it gets weaker:
Enlarger exposures get longer (1/3 to 1/2 stop)
Development times get longer (for fb paper - a solid image at 20 sec - now 45 sec)
Ultimately, Blacks are less black.
Since darkroom time is at a premium and I want to be proud of my results, for a few pennies, I mix a new batch when I am suspect - I always notice the next print comes up faster and darker.

Akki14 · Jun 8, 2007

Yes it's still working the same way... well actually I think it works a bit faster if anything.

That's why I only did a tiny test strip using the same exposure settings (enlarger head hadn't moved, same lens/negs, etc) so it was a fair test for the developer. Blacks are still looking as rich as ever.

I don't know if the ilford paper is developer-incorporated. It probably is from what I've heard on other threads, there's not many non-developer-incorporated papers out there anymore.

nworth · Jun 9, 2007

I haven't had that good of luck. Although stock solutions last well, I've found I can not trust an open tray of diluted developer for more than about 36 hours, and sometimes, depending on usage, it last even less.

Akki14 · Jun 9, 2007

I did mention this wasn't left in an open tray; this was returned to a 2litre soda bottle every night. But I've been using this particular batch for 5-6hour stints for 5 days solid per week back in April for about two weeks before other things came up (crewing for am-dram production). So overall it must have had its 24hours out in a tray already.

Here's the test strip. Enlarging 35mm film to a little short of 8x10 (no overhang, leaving rough edges), lens stopped down two stops, 13second exposure, just like I was churning out in April.

jstraw · Jun 9, 2007

Akki14 said:
I did mention this wasn't left in an open tray; this was returned to a 2litre soda bottle every night. But I've been using this particular batch for 5-6hour stints for 5 days solid per week back in April for about two weeks before other things came up (crewing for am-dram production). So overall it must have had its 24hours out in a tray already.

Here's the test strip. Enlarging 35mm film to a little short of 8x10 (no overhang, leaving rough edges), lens stopped down two stops, 13second exposure, just like I was churning out in April.

For me, it's irrelevant that that well-used developer can be made to produce a satisfactory print unless it does so in a consistent manner. If it takes 3 minutes today with one type of filtration but another time/filter a week from now and yet another after that, that's no good to me at all. Developer is only useful to me as long as it's activity can produce the same results from the same procedure.

nworth · Jun 9, 2007

jstraw said:
For me, it's irrelevant that that well-used developer can be made to produce a satisfactory print unless it does so in a consistent manner. If it takes 3 minutes today with one type of filtration but another time/filter a week from now and yet another after that, that's no good to me at all. Developer is only useful to me as long as it's activity can produce the same results from the same procedure.

Very important, good point.

haris · Jun 9, 2007

I return paper developer after every printing work into bottle. After week or 10 days most I pour developer out and make fresh one when do next printing.

Akki14 · Jun 9, 2007

I have repeatedly pointed out that in this case, nothing has changed except for the age and colour of the paper developer. No difference in exposure or development times. Shrug.

That's not suppose to happen...

Attachments

haris

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency