In terms of dcy's problem, can anyone with the requisite experience say what a 25 minute immersion in developer and the subsequent lack of picture says about the the state of the paper?
25min is, if you read the OP, the EXPOSURE time.
And this is when I have to ask, can anyone with the requisite experience say what a 25 minute exposure time and the subsequent lack of picture say about the the state of the lens/light source used for the exposure.
I was simply checking in virtual disbelief that any paper might require 25 mins - even 25 mins in a developer seems like an almost impossibly long time to get what dcy got.
However dcy did seem to be able to produce a counter argument about the developer in that the times in the same developer from 45 secs exposure (multi-grade) to an almost infinitely worse print at 33 times as long look like chalk and cheese
I was simply checking in virtual disbelief that any paper might require 25 mins - even 25 mins in a developer seems like an almost impossibly long time to get what dcy got.
However dcy did seem to be able to produce a counter argument about the developer in that the times in the same developer from 45 secs exposure (multi-grade) to an almost infinitely worse print at 33 times as long look like chalk and cheese
I am not sure how many prints or how much time there was between the not very good print with MG paper and the much, much worse print with Foma but even taking this unknown into account I am surprised at the difference in the 2 papers.
Is it only me that is surprised by this? It's great advert for Ilford MG paper and a terrible advert for Foma. I have had much better prints from MG III paper, many years discontinued that dcy managed with Foma
pentaxuser
Again, OP never stated anywhere that he developed the print for 25 minutes.
I just happen to have faith in the method of asking open sometimes apparently "stupid" questions to get to a conclusion which the party with the problem can buy into.
The problem with this question is that it's only relevant if we (1) assume that 25 minutes of development somehow played a role and (2) we should be looking at the state of the paper to begin with. (1) was not the case as evidenced by the original posts and (2) is doubtful. So this diagnostic question is very tricky indeed as it bears a high risk of setting us off into the wrong direction to begin with.can anyone with the requisite experience say what a 25 minute immersion in developer and the subsequent lack of picture says about the the state of the paper?
This merely serves to eliminate an uncertainty that didn't exist in the first place, as the answer was already given in post #1. So the clarification sought doesn't add much to the party.I take it that "exposure " in the case that you mention is exposure to the developer and not under the enlarger?
There's likely nothing wrong with the OPs paper. I'm sure I could go downstairs and make a print on a variety of Foma papers successfully. An person new to darkroom work can make any number of fatal errors on the road to journeyman status.
Yes, he can and will make mistakes but it helps "solve" his problem if you can get the newcomer to buy into the answers you are providing by the way that the answer is provided to him in a way that gives him input via a dialogue
You mention "on the road to journeyman status" and I understand the analogy with "apprentice and master" but beyond the very basics of the trade there has to be a dialogue where the apprentice is encouraged to believe he has useful input or has helped to arrive at what he sees as his conclusion or a conclusion in which he has contributed
Most teaching is not a simple "I tell, you listen and then you tell me that my conclusion was right " or if is it perceived as being that then I suggest this may not be the way to produce the best journeyman
pentaxuser
Again, OP never stated anywhere that he developed the print for 25 minutes.
E-72 is not the best idea. If OP prefers mixing from scratch MQ or PQ is really the most reliable if the developer is going to be stored.
This will no doubt piss some people off but I think OP should just follow some Kodak or Ilford processing instructions and keep that part of printing simple (since messing with it really adds no value).
I never managed to dissolve 100% of the ingredients.
Partial Update:
Holy crap E-72 is hard to make! That stuff just doesn't want to dissolve. I spent HOURS on this last night and all I could manage was to make the E-72 concentrate, and that's being a bit generous. I never managed to dissolve 100% of the ingredients. So what I have is really a substance that probably mostly approximates E-72 but might be slightly less active.
I have some ideas for how to improve the process next time (use more water from the start and heat it to a higher temp). But for now, this is what I have.
I was surprised because even PC-TEA didn't give me this much trouble.
(edit: FYI, I do have a hot plate with a magnetic stirrer)
Aside from difficulty of mixing, what's wrong with E-72? Can you point me to a recipe for another paper developer I could make? I don't have hydroquinone and I would prefer not to buy it. I have metol, phenidone, (edit: and potassium bromide) and obviously stuff you can get at a grocery store like vitamin c, borax, and washing soda.
But this is just a preference. I can buy hydroquinone.
If the paper developer proves to be sufficiently troublesome, I will use commercial stuff. I like mixing my own chemistry at home. To me it's part of the hobby.
The reason why one paper may develop better than another under these conditions is that the paper on the left may have (more) embedded developer. IDK how much embedded developer there is in Fomaspeed; I guess there's some, but under the marginal conditions you're now using your papers, subtle differences may end up having big effects.
Also, given how rapidly your developer seems to be dying, there's reason IMO to review your choice of materials and way of working. It's really not normal for print developer to go belly-up this fast. I do recall your having said somewhere else (IIRC?) that you were working from a half-full bottle of developer concentrate that had already discolored significantly; is this correct or am I mixing up posts/people now? In any case, poorly stored and basically dead developer concentrate could be a very big part of the story here.
Which one(s) didn't dissolve entirely?
dcy, if you want to get to the bottom of the problem you described at the outset of this thread, going with a commercially available developer will likely be more successful. Introducing another variable....well
perhaps tell us more about your enlarger/light source set-up?
This has been quite common for decades, especially with RC papers. It's my best guess at this moment to explain the otherwise quite puzzling difference in rate of development you're seeing.I didn't realize the paper had developer in it.
Well, in any case, make sure to dissolve one chemical entirely before moving on to the next. At least this way you know what to look out for in mixing future batches and perhaps avoid the problem. But it also helps to estimate the impact of the undissolved stuff. For instance, if a small part of the ascorbic acid doesn't dissolve, this will not have a major impact. But if you see some specs of undissolved phenidone floating around, you may have a significantly weaker developer because there's so little phenidone in there to begin with and it plays such a big role. I'm asking specifically because phenidone can sometimes be difficult to dissolve. I prefer to make a stock solution of phenidone and then add that to a developer formula. This tends to be quicker, easier and more reliable in the end.Can't be 100% certain because they all look like white powders, but I would bet money that it's the ascorbic acid. It really really really didn't want to dissolve. At one point I thought it had finally dissolved, so I moved on to the next ingredient. But I should have done a more diligent test ---- I could have turned off the magnetic stirrer and waited a couple of minutes to see if anything precipitated.
Is there a reason why you don't use the appropriate bulb for your enlarger?
I will gladly buy something commercial today. That just means it'll be a few days shipping before I can test again. What's your favorite idiot-proof commercial paper developer that you recommend to new people?
--- preferably something budget-friendly with a long life.
The enlarger is a Dust C35. The two light sources that I have are:
(1) This LED light bulb --- This is my usual light source. It's the one that produced the nice results with MultiTone that I posted recently. With it I expose 5x7 MultiTone paper for ~15s.
(2) This halogen light bulb --- I hate using things thing, but I keep it because it gives me an option to test a broad spectrum source. With it I expose 5x7 MultiTone paper for ~45s.
Did you manage to get an acceptable test strip from the Foma paper?
Will have to wait till tonight to do a test.
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?