WD2D+ stain

I made some testing exposures on Fuji Acros 100 roll film and developed them in WD2D+ developer. This was my first try of WD2D+. Resulting negatives are very thin without any noticeable stain.

Presoaking time was about 3 min in distilled water.
Development time was 7.5 min with agitation 30s initially, then 10s every 1min (FF recommends more agitation).
Developer (liquid) was mixed with distilled water and temp. was 20 deg C.
Stop bath - distilled water.
Fixer - Ilford Rapid fixer 5 min
Wash in tap water (around 20 deg C) 5 min, moderate flow.

After that, I made another try, this time using 1 sheet of Foma 200 4x5 film. I increased development time to 10 min and agitated per recommendation.
The negative seems to be properly developed, there is some yellowish stain, but it's a general stain, not the image forming stain.

I would be grateful, if folks who are experienced with this particular developer send some comments on that.

If the Ilford Rapid fixer has hardener in it, this could be the cause of you not getting much stain. Also, I have found (with WD2D) that I need to give a bit more developing time than on the chart. With staining developers, it is unlikely that you will block highlights from longer development. However, with that said, it is not what the "stain" looks like, but rather how the negative prints. How do your negatives print? My technique (for WD2D, not WD2D+) is to start the presoak for the film, and while it is in the presoak, I mix up the working solution of developer. Pyro developers have a very short life after mixed. I want to get the maximum activity, so I don't premix. I wait until the last minute. I use Kodak Rapid-Fix...without the hardener and it works just fine. The hardener component of the Fixing bath will bleach out the stain. Many people use plain Hypo (Sodium Hyposulfite crystals) for fixing Pyro negatives. The hardening of the emulsion occurs in the Pyro developer, thus you don't need any hardener in your fix. You can also increase the amount of Solution 'A' in your mix for the developer. That is the solution that contains the Pyro. WD2D (and I assume WD2D+) will give varying results depending on the film. The stain is not as intense as some other Pyro based developers, but the negatives print great.

First off, I use John's instructions to the letter. When in the presoak (not just distilled water), I make up my developer, pouring A into the water, dump the presoak, pour B into the developer, then right into the tank. Water stop, non-hardening Ammonium fix.

It's a 50% duty cycle on the developer for agitation. PITB for those of us who like to dream while processing but the negatives I have had so far are tremendous. Some films don't stain as well as others.

Across 100 no.
Fuji 400 OK.
APX100 a resounding yes.
Tri-X 120 yes
Tri-X 135 no
Pan-F no
HP-5 great
Fp-4 good
Foma films yes
Older J&C films yes
Efke/Adox 25 and 100 wonderful.

Most sheet films stain quite nicely.

As Phototone says... print them before making conclusions.

tim in san jose

I tried it for a quite a while, with HP5+ and Tri-X, but found it printed pretty flat highlights on variable contrast paper. I also got thin negs and ended up doubling the A and B amounts. My experience is that it can be good for some contrasty subjects, but not great for general landscapes. I gave up on it.
Jon

I used to use this developer, and I would say pay strict attention to the recommended agitation (ie: every 30 seconds) and get some T-4 fixer or something like it (alkaline) as any sort of acidic chemical after the development can undo the stain - or so I've always heard. Also, using distilled water to mix the developer helps keep the ph consistantly where it needs to be for this developer. The stain isn't real obvious, but if you compare it to negatives souped in non-staining developers you should notice a sort of yellowish haze, almost like the film has aged or something (that's the impression the effect givs me, anyway. Others might describe it differently).

I liked WD2D+ for contrasty landscapes and such, but could never get enough contrast out of it for portraits/street photography. Plus be aware that most films need more exposure than "box speed" calls for when using this developer, at least that was my experience. You'll have to do your own testing to see what works best for you - once you get the basic development issues dialed in.

Joe

I use another staining developer with Acros and FP4. The FP4 has a much more pronounced stain than Acros. The developer instructions also say to retain the spent developer and return the film to it for a couple of minutes following fixing unless a non-acidic fixer like TF4 is used. I suspect your developer reacts similarly.

Thanks, now I know, that Acros and WD2D+ will not match.

I made another try, with one sheet of Ilford HP5 on a subject with very bright highlights. This time things were much better, better than previous test with Foma 200. But a slight fog (yellow) is visible on unexposed areas, and it was there just after taking the neg out of the fixer. So it was not the washing method, that produced it.

I did not print it, just scanned it. Probably scanner reacts differently to the yellow stain (wasn't too much intensive though) than today's papers exposed by cold light sources. I gave up darkroom printing many years ago. I'm an amateur and just can't devote so much time to this laborious process any more.

Probably I will make some another tests with WD2D+, but this time on a subject which requires highlight compensation in the field (more natural situation than at home). I will also make two exposures - one for WD2D and another one for F76. Then I will decide, whether to keep these bottles, or discard them.

post fix developer

FirePhoto said:

The developer instructions also say to retain the spent developer and return the film to it for a couple of minutes following fixing unless a non-acidic fixer like TF4 is used.

Click to expand...

Hi Dan,

As a proponent of staining developers, the practice seems to have been modified by eliminating the post fix bathing in the used developer since this treatment increases the overall stain (just like fogging) rather than providing a stain in proportion to the silver. I stopped that practice when I found the film rebate was stained.... without any exposure/development.

Ken

John Wimberley built WD2D+ around Ilford FP4+. It's the only film he uses. At one of his workshops last summer, he displayed an example negative that had had the silver image bleached out, leaving only a yellowish mask. It was subtle but quite visible. I can't argue with his results -- his prints are spectacular.

Peter Gomena

pgomena said:

John Wimberley built WD2D+ around Ilford FP4+. It's the only film he uses. At one of his workshops last summer, he displayed an example negative that had had the silver image bleached out, leaving only a yellowish mask. It was subtle but quite visible. I can't argue with his results -- his prints are spectacular.

Peter Gomena

Click to expand...

I have seen only one of John's prints in person, it's in the Keeble & Shuate store in Palo Alto, Ca. Stunning. The best I have found is APX100 sheet film. Amazing results. I might just have to try some FP4 in 5x7. I do like the results in WD2D+ I get on 2x3 HP5 that I shoot in my rb67.

tim in san jose

A bit of stain in the rebate areas of the negative is not anything to worry about. Some films when developed in normal non-staining developers exhibit some density in the rebate. It is the overall tonal scale that is important..not how crystal clear the film base is. All staining developers produce different levels of stain with different films. Some combinations may be more to your liking than others. I have found that the original WD2D is not a "heavy" stain, but rather a subtle staining effect, but very nice for small format negatives.

When you test a stained negative on VC paper, be sure to use a blue or one of the high contrast printing filters before you give up.

gainer said:

When you test a stained negative on VC paper, be sure to use a blue or one of the high contrast printing filters before you give up.

Click to expand...

I'll second that. I had a few 35mm TRI-X negs I developed in PMK that printed rather flat until I accidentally printed one of them on Polygrade V through a cold light head with NO filter. I was very surprised a how good the print came out. Detail everywhere. These negs had a heavy yellow stain, and included areas of bright sunlight and shade. Grain wasn't too bad either.

Mike