What have I done wrong, and what options are there?

tonyowen34 · Aug 1, 2020

Exposed two 4x5 paper negatives both in excess of 1s.
Developed using PQ Universal - but only result is blank 'paper'
Variables -
1] using different paper than before
2] PQ has dark red colour, but Ilford state :-
"The reddish brown colour indicates the developer is becoming oxidised. Whether you wish to continue using it is of course up to you, if you're happy with the results, then there will be no other issues using.
Actual performance will vary depending on e.g. how much air it has been exposed to, storage temp etc... I can't really give you an estimate. Our guidance of 6 months is just an approximation."

Given the developer is exhausted, is there a developer option that has long shelf life after opening? My usage of developer is little {Jobo tank using 270ml] and far between in time.
regards
Tony

grain elevator · Aug 1, 2020

I'd start by testing the developer. Develop a bit of paper in room light, it should become black. One second exposure isn't necessarily a lot, were these measured or guessed exposures? Are you certain you had the paper loaded emulsion side forward?

tonyowen34 · Aug 1, 2020

grain elevator said:
I'd start by testing the developer. Develop a bit of paper in room light, it should become black. One second exposure isn't necessarily a lot, were these measured or guessed exposures? Are you certain you had the paper loaded emulsion side forward?

The timed exposure was one-second two second etc.
The apertures were f22 and f32
The paper I used prior was 10x8 Multigrade MGIV RC deluxe Pearl - cut to suit 4x5 DDS
The 'new' paper was 5x7 Multigrade MGC1M RC Cooltone - cut to suit 4x5 DDS
The [10x8] paper I rated at ISO6 - which has worked okay in the past.
Paper loaded correctly. But even if backwards I should still get something other than virgin white
I suspect the developer hence the question posed in my initial post regarding alternatives
regards
Tony

Donald Qualls · Aug 2, 2020

RC paper loaded backward would be so many stops underexposed (3-4) that only very bright light sources would show anything other than virgin white (slightly better if preflashed, but not much) -- but yes, if your exposure was metered at EI 6 you should still see something even if loaded backward. It might also be that the MGC1M is a lot slower than the MGIV -- I recall reading that MGIV is about the fastest enlarging paper you can buy (for B&W), and the newest version has gotten even faster than the original MGIV.

As suggested, try a drop of undiluted developer on a small scrap of paper, in the light. You should be able to see it turn max black in less than a minute -- if it doesn't, the developer has gone and didn't leave a note.

MattKing · Aug 2, 2020

IIRC, the RC Cooltone - one of my favourite papers - is also less sensitive/slower.

tonyowen34 · Aug 3, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
at EI 6 you should still see something even if loaded backward. It might also be that the MGC1M is a lot slower than the MGIV but yes, if your exposure was metered ..As suggested, try a drop of undiluted developer on a small scrap of paper, in the light. You should be able to see it turn max black in less than a minute -- if it doesn't, the developer has gone and didn't leave a note.

MattKing said:
IIRC, the RC Cooltone - one of my favourite papers - is also less sensitive/slower.

Thank you both
I've done a bit of reading and Cooltone , dependant upon the Ilford/Harman document, has the same or 3 times the recommended exposure time of MKIV!!!!
so the undiluted test on a piece of Cooltione is the next step.
Regards
Tony

tonyowen34 · Aug 3, 2020

Attached is an image of applying concentrated [albeit old] Ilford PQ Universal developer on a scrap of 5x7 Ilford Cooltone paper.
The colour of the developer can be seen from the kitchen towel, but the developer "seems" to be still active based on the tar-like blobs on the paper.
Any and all comment welcome
Regards
Tony

Donald Qualls · Aug 3, 2020

Now try the same test with another scrap of the RC Cooltone and a sodium carbonate or sodium hydroxide solution -- to see if the blackening is slower or about the same. Most Ilford papers are DI (developer incorporated) and will develop and image after exposure in a plain lye solution, probably even in a sodium carbonate solution -- just due to activating the developing agent incorporated into the emulsion.

If the reaction is about the same in a solution of sodium carbonate (likely similar pH to the developer you're using) then the developer is probably bad (try a clip test on film to confirm; film doesn't have DI).

removed account4 · Aug 3, 2020

Do a test strip using sunny 11, and the dark slide. Use iso 6 as your start point and open hour lens 1 stop Each exposure...

Nathan Graves Tuttle · Aug 20, 2020

I've been shooting a lot of paper negs this summer with no issues using:

Ilford Multigrade Paper Devo
Ilford Ilfostop
Ilford Rapid Fix

In that order, just as I would develop a print from my enlarger.

I shoot all my paper negs at ISO 3, if there is a lot of details in highlights I'd like to capture I underexpose half a stop if possible.

There are some examples of my website

www.ngtart.com/paper-negatives

Good luck,
NGT

tonyowen34 · Aug 23, 2020

Nathan Graves Tuttle said:
I shoot all my paper negs at ISO 3,

I use ISO 6

Problem of no images on develop paper Solved - it was the PQ developer.
I used some very old, but still sealed, Multigrade developer [ colour of weak urine], but got images on the paper
Data for those interested:-
Ilford PQ Universal 500ml , purchased June 2019 -- date code 73 [01/2019, 10/2010, 07/2002, 04/1994]
Ilford Multigrade developer 250ml , given-- date code 67 [07/2018, 04/2010, 01/2002, 10/1993]

Regards
Tony

pentaxuser · Aug 23, 2020

tonyowen34 said:
I use ISO 6

Data for those interested:-
Ilford PQ Universal 500ml , purchased June 2019 -- date code 73 [01/2019, 10/2010, 07/2002, 04/1994]
Ilford Multigrade developer 250ml , given-- date code 67 [07/2018, 04/2010, 01/2002, 10/1993]

Regards
Tony

So does that mean that PQ developer purchased in June 2019 was dead but MG developer which was at least a year older and might have been much older was OK You have given us dates for both developers but appear to know the purchase date of the PQ only. Is this right? You cannot be sure of the purchase date of the MG developer?

By the way fresh MG should be the colour of water. Once it begins to go a straw/urine colour it may still work to an extent but will not do its job properly Your paper will not have the full range of tones. A print developed in such MG developer will have a kind of grey veiled look about it

pentaxuser

tonyowen34 · Aug 23, 2020

pentaxuser said:
So does that mean that PQ developer purchased in June 2019 was dead but MG developer which was at least a year older and might have been much older was OK You have given us dates for both developers but appear to know the purchase date of the PQ only. Is this right? You cannot be sure of the purchase date of the MG developer? By the way fresh MG should be the colour of water. Once it begins to go a straw/urine colour it may still work to an extent but will not do its job properly Your paper will not have the full range of tones. A print developed in such MG developer will have a kind of grey veiled look about it pentaxuser

Yes, the PQ quickly became useless after being opened for less than a year. Yes, the Multigrade developer, unopened for an unknown number of years, successfully [???] developed Multigrade paper negatives. I purchased the PQ developer [hence the date] whereas the Multigrade developer [from Jessops - long defunct] arrived with a pile of film related bits and pieces. In addition the Multigrade paper used has the date code 09 [ 09/2013, 06/2005, 03/1997, 12/1988], again I've no idea of purchase date as I was given it.
Regards
Tony

tonyowen34 · Aug 23, 2020

tonyowen34 said:
Yes, the Multigrade developer, unopened for an unknown number of years, successfully [???] developed Multigrade paper negatives.
image of developed paper negative attached albeit reduced in size and altered in type to suit this forum's specs
Regards
Tony

Andrew O'Neill · Aug 23, 2020

Red developer means it's time to discard and start with fresh. I transfer
over Ilford liquid developers to 500ml plastic drinking water bottles. Squeeze the air out each time you use it. Stock developer will not oxidise as rapidly.

tonyowen34 · Aug 23, 2020

Andrew O'Neill said:
Red developer means it's time to discard and start with fresh. I transfer
over Ilford liquid developers to 500ml plastic drinking water bottles. Squeeze the air out each time you use it. Stock developer will not oxidise as rapidly.

Red yes, but there are many shades between 'fresh' developer concentrate and 'Red'.
Presently, the developer concentrate is a yellow/pink straw colour, darker than lager, very much lighter than red.
You say you use plastic drinking water bottles - over here they are clear, are yours, and if so how does the transparency of the plastic affect the life of the contents?
You refer to 'stock developer', I use a one-shot system, so my concern is how to extend the storage life of an opened container of developer concentrate.
Suggestions have been made of decanting 1L containers into 500ml and 250ml vessels.
Regards
Tony

Andrew O'Neill · Aug 23, 2020

In Canada the bottles are clear. I only store stock, not working/diluted solutions. I've been doing it this way for many years. Stock solutions keep much longer then if kept in opened bottles they the product came in. I've got half a bottle of Ilford MG at school darkroom, been sitting in cupboard since early March. Was in there last week. No signs of oxidising. My Pyrocat-HD solution A is going on 18 months and working normally. Just squeeze the air out. Keep in a cool dark space.

pentaxuser · Aug 23, 2020

Thanks Tony. So the differences between the two developer were: The PQ has been opened several times but the MG while never opened until very recently was indeed very old if it was bought from Jessops. I don't know how much developer is needed each time for a paper neg but it will make sense to do one of two things I feel: 1. Decant the developer into winebags in boxes that you can buy from homebrew shops or 2. Buy glass bottles of the minimum size needed for each negative, fill the bottles to the top and use each bottle as required.

I use bags that has had wine in it but of late these bags that hold wine seem to have changed into ones that does not allow you to prise out the dispenser from the bag and then re- install it once the bag is full which is why I mention the homebrew bags as they are designed to allow this to be done so they are re-usable

A winebag full of developer may not keep as well as many small bottles depending on how long it will take you to finish say 5L of developer but in my experience a winebag is good for at least a couple of years and maybe longer.

pentaxuser

tonyowen34 · Aug 23, 2020

pentaxuser said:
I don't know how much developer is needed each time for a paper neg pentaxuser

I use 27ml diluted 1:9 in a Jobo tank with a recommended volume of 270ml. This will develop four or six 5x4 paper negatives. Once this newly opened, but ancient, Multigrade developer is used or goes bad then I'll buy a 1L bottle, partially decant it into one 500ml and one 250ml vessels which gives me in total 4x 250ml of concentrate. eg use the remaining 250ml in the 1L container, then the 250ml container then split the 500ml into two 250ml amounts. Hopefully the shelf life of the decanted volumes will exceed the less than on1 year I 've just experienced with the PQ developer.
My usage of paper/film is very low hence I quickly outlive the claimed life of the developer concentrate. I had been told by Ilford that even when 'red' the developer should have some active ingredient, but my experience disputes this.
regards
Tony

tonyowen34 · Aug 25, 2020

Andrew O'Neill said:
I only store stock, not working/diluted solutions.

Andrew, sorry to be thick, but what exactly do you mean by stock - is the concentrate that you have decanted into small vessels OR do you mean diluted mixture [concentrate & water] that has been transferred to smaller vessels.
To me 'stock' means ready for use.
Regards
Tony

Andrew O'Neill · Aug 25, 2020

tonyowen34 said:
Andrew, sorry to be thick, but what exactly do you mean by stock - is the concentrate that you have decanted into small vessels OR do you mean diluted mixture [concentrate & water] that has been transferred to smaller vessels.
To me 'stock' means ready for use.
Regards
Tony

Stock is the undiluted developer decanted into bottles and is then either used straight or diluted as a working solution.

What have I done wrong, and what options are there?

tonyowen34

grain elevator

tonyowen34

Donald Qualls

MattKing

Moderator

tonyowen34

tonyowen34

Donald Qualls

removed account4

Nathan Graves Tuttle

tonyowen34

pentaxuser

tonyowen34

tonyowen34

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

tonyowen34

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

pentaxuser

tonyowen34

tonyowen34

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

What have I done wrong, and what options are there?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency