What's wrong with my Foma RC paper?

[brbo]

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.

 

[Don_ih]

If that finished off your bottle of developer, there's a great chance the developer has been nearly dead for a while. You may be startled to discover what happens when you use a good, properly working developer. Nearly dead developer may be coaxed to give decent black (by overexposing the print) but will not give proper contrast. Fomaspeed paper is actually fast - normal exposure of that paper at 5x7 size should be 2-5 seconds at f11 (depending on the negative and light source).

 

[Milpool]

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). Reddit, Photrio, youtube etc. and you end up running into problems that shouldn't come up.

 

[pentaxuser]

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 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

 

[brbo]

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

Again, OP never stated anywhere that he developed the print for 25 minutes.

 

[GregY]

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

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. A person new to darkroom work can make any number of fatal errors on the road to journeyman status.

 

[pentaxuser]

Again, OP never stated anywhere that he developed the print for 25 minutes.

No I never said he did say that. I put a ? after my sentence that began with "I take it that ...

I was simply trying to approach the issue without any assumptions about what dcy said and yes that means asking for his clarification to what others see as obvious

If I was wrong to ask questions of him to which the answers were obvious then here's a mistake I admit I made. I mentioned Ilford Multigrade paper when Multi-tone( his paper) is made by Inkpress. It is not an Ilford paper so do we know Multi-tone is a developer incorporated paper and definitely know that his Foma paper is definitely not a developer incorporated paper? If the Multi-tone definitely is developer incorporated and Foma is definitely not then that may be enough to explain the difference between the 2 prints which I admit is a pretty stark difference

Matt King mentioned Multi-tone being more sensitive but it's not clear to me what this might mean in practical terms Might it mean what we see in dcy's 2 prints? Matt seems to indicate even this difference in sensitivity may not be enough to explain it

Finally as late as about 6:00am this morning( BST time) dcy seemed to be still far from convinced that exhausted developer is the cause of the problem or certainly not the sole cause

We can either end the matter by declaring that we have given him the complete answer and there it ends as far as we are concerned or we try to ask open questions and let him draw conclusions which we think are the correct ones

In all cases of threads that are about an issue/problem, it is usually the case that the OP starts with the belief that he believes he has done nothing wrong or at least cannot explain to himself what may have gone wrong from what he says he did

We can either tell that person our conclusions and end the matter or provide a route that that helps him get there to a conclusion that he is happy to have reached - largely by himself

It's akin to solving a person's problems to that of feeding him. We can either give him a fish each time he says he is hungry or be more patient and take more time to teach him to fish after which he can feed himself more often and is less reliant on us giving him a fish

He may even become a contributor when others' problems are discussed

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.

pentaxuser

 

[mshchem]

Are you using any contrast filtration?

I would take a strip of the Foma and give it a couple seconds of room light and develop it.

Do you accidentally have a red safety filter 8n the light path? Some enlargers have a built-in red filter.

Have you considered inkjet

The prints you have from the other day look pretty good, don't get too frustrated, you'll figure it out!

 

[koraks]

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.

That's fine in principle - but how often has this worked out the way you intended it to?

Let's go along with the approach though and have a look at the questions you asked:

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?

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.

I take it that "exposure " in the case that you mention is exposure to the developer and not under the enlarger?

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.

So neither of the questions actually gets us ahead. This is not to say you shouldn't ask them or that it's undesirable or anything. I'm just pointing out that the utility is also quite limited and that these questions seem mostly designed to clarify things that you personally seemed to be confused about - not necessarily other people. Again, the intent of helping is really appreciated, don't get me wrong. And sometimes you do hit the spot with some of your questions.

What does work at least in my experience is to formulate some kind of concrete expectation/hypothesis that might explain the situation and then ask probing questions about that. Perhaps even a couple of conflicting hypotheses; that would be swell. Then design the questions to differentiate between them. I sometimes try to do that - although I admit I might be doing it more often. Then again, I find there's usually also utility in directly putting the hypothesis out there and see if it triggers any conflicting evidence. Either approach can work OK.

 

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[GregY]

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

You're likely right pentaxuser, though I was not addressing the issue in such depth.
Although your statement: "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" ........ I don't think, that particularly in this case, you can deduce the quality of the enlarging paper from the prints or the process in question.

 

[dcy]

Again, OP never stated anywhere that he developed the print for 25 minutes.

Indeed. In my post I said that I exposed the Foma paper for up to 25 min, and that after developing for 2 min there was just a hint of a tonal change, and that in the end I extended the development time to 6 minutes.

 

[dcy]

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)

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.

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.

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).

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.

 

[GregY]

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?

 

[koraks]

I never managed to dissolve 100% of the ingredients.

Which one(s) didn't dissolve entirely?

 

[Milpool]

If you want to make print developers at home you would be best served getting hydroquinone. The vast majority of general purpose print developers are super-additive combinations of either metol with HQ or a phenidone with HQ. Substituting ascorbate for HQ is fine as far as the developer goes, but the stock solution is not guaranteed to have a good shelf life (if that is a goal) because of the susceptibility of ascorbate to premature oxidation in the presence of iron/copper impurities (which can be present in other solid ingredients, not just water). The way around this is to use a strong chelating agent - usually DTPA.

Since this is a print developer it's not a big deal if it dies on you. Worst case you lose a sheet of paper. But if your goal is to store it and have relatively known keeping properties, and don't have DTPA on hand, it's just easier to use HQ. MQ is the easiest to mix but PQ works every bit as well. There are many, many published formulas and they will all do virtually the same thing. I'd suggest D-72 but any number of developers will be just as good.

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.

 

[dcy]

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.

I didn't realize the paper had developer in it.

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.

That sounds like me. Yes, a half-full bottle of developer concentrate sitting for a year. I'm not sure if it is discolored (I don't recall the original color) but I did say that there is some nasty crusty residue in it (mainly on the cap).

From everyone's comments, it really looks like the developer is the culprit. Well, the good news is that that bottle is in the trash now and won't show up again, and my focus now is to try again with fresh developer.

 

[dcy]

Which one(s) didn't dissolve entirely?

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.

 

[dcy]

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

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.

perhaps tell us more about your enlarger/light source set-up?

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.

 

[koraks]

I didn't realize the paper had developer in it.

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.

Your story about a half bottle of concentrate reminds me of when I started to print. I had pretty much the same thing happening; I recall it had me scratching my head for a minute. Btw, having some crud around the cap of a developer concentrate bottle isn't too worrying in itself. But a half-empty bottle of concentrate that has been sitting around for many months is a bit of a liability, depending on the formulation.

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.

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.

Either way, I hope that some testing with a new developer will bring some clarity to the matter!

 

[Patrick Robert James]

What aperture are you using on your lens? 45s is an obnoxiously long exposure for a small print.

Is there a reason why you don't use the appropriate bulb for your enlarger?

 

[dcy]

Is there a reason why you don't use the appropriate bulb for your enlarger?

It is not manufactured anymore. I didn't save the link, but there was a discussion in Photrio / APUG about this some years ago.

 

[GregY]

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?

 

[dcy]

Did you manage to get an acceptable test strip from the Foma paper?

Will have to wait till tonight to do a test.

 

[GregY]

Will have to wait till tonight to do a test.

....so you made the print on Foma using the aperture/exposure settings for Multitone?