Hard developer for soft paper

[x-ray]

One word: developing to finality.

"Finality" implies "gamma infinity", the maximum possible contrast of which the emulsion is capable. Not since the early DIN standard has this been how films are developed (and then, only for the DIN standard, not for printing). This is why I think sevo is right and I was in my first post wrong.

Cheers,

R.

Fiber based and non developer incorporated papers do not necessarily go to completion for a desirable print. For example I print on Ilford MG FB most of the time and use LPD 1:3 for a warmer tone. I standardize on 3 minutes development. I adjust exposure and of course contrast for that time. 3 minutes is within the recommended time range. But, if I allow the print to continue developing for 4 or 5 minutes it goes farther and increases in contrast.

Continuing development doesn't improve the print IMO but rather creates a look I don't care for. Certainly I can adjust contrast for time that would yield completion in development but I still find the print unpleasing. My point is, within recommended times for development the print doesn't necessarily go to completion. Increasing times or decreasing changes the slope of the curve just like film.

Developer incorporated RC paper might be different there but I don't use RC and don't know.

 

[john_s]

For what it's worth, for some time I used Agfa Neutol WA (slightly warm tone, normal contrast sort of developer) at double strength in order to speed up paper development for a long run of prints, and apart from the development time being short I couldn't notice any increase in contrast. Despite his second thoughts, if you can get sodium hydroxide and hydroquinone, I would give Roger's first suggestion a go.

Another way of brightening up a print that looks a bit dull in the highlights is a light bleach after fixing. There are lots of posts around. I can look up the concentration that I use if you like. You need some potassium ferricyanide (not as dangerous as it might sound) a chem very much used in the darkroom. You could make the print a bit dark then reduce it in the bleach.

 

[Freakscene]

Another way of brightening up a print that looks a bit dull in the highlights is a light bleach after fixing. There are lots of posts around. I can look up the concentration that I use if you like. You need some potassium ferricyanide (not as dangerous as it might sound) a chem very much used in the darkroom. You could make the print a bit dark then reduce it in the bleach.

This is a good suggestion, but if you try this please bear in mind that Forte papers bleach VERY quickly, and that bleach increases highlight contrast much more than shadow contrast. Use dilute bleach and use a practice print first.

Marty

 

[bence8810]

Hi all,

Thanks for the great suggestions so far!

I went ahead and bought all the chemicals I need to mix my developer. I thought regardless of the outcome, it'll continue to bug me until I try so I might as well do now!

I have 3 different recipes so far and I am wondering what would the differences be?
I have one from Forte - the maker of the paper so they might have something others didn't know about. Another one is from Agfa and then one from Ilford which I found at a thread referenced above by X-ray (thanks!).

The Ilford one ID-14 uses a lot more chemicals from all the different components and I was wondering why would that be? What will a stronger concentration do? Faster developing time or a longer shelf life?

As a comparison, this is the ID-14 recipe and then the Forte.

ID-14

Metol 1.5 g
Sodium Sulphite (anh) 75 g
Hydroquinone 12 g
Sodium Carbonate (anh) 37.5 g
Potassium Bromide 2 g

Forte Hard Developer

Metol 1.3 g
Sodium Sulphite (anh) 22.5 g
Hydroquinone 6 g
Sodium Carbonate (anh) 30 g
Potassium Bromide 0.5 g

As you can see the Forte one has a lot less Sodium Sulphite / Hydroquinone / Potassium Bromide.

Why would that be?

Also - what is the shelf life of these mixed developers?
I currently only use commercial developers and I dilute them according to what's on the package. Recently have been using Chugai - a local developer here - and I dilute it 1:9. The mixed solution I reuse until it turns deep yellow - approximately I develop 50 sheets of 5x7's in a batch or if I don't print much for 2 weeks I just replace it anyways.

Thanks for all the help once again!
Ben

 

[bence8810]

Quick update - mixed the ID-14 developer last night to 1Liter and I'll be testing in a few hours.
I let the solution cool in the plastic pitcher I mixed it in but placed the whole thing into a dark bag.
Is this actually necessary?
How long will the solution be useable, what is the shelf life?

Will try to print the same negative in my usual off the shelf developer, in ID-14 1:0 and in ID:14 1:1 and possibly in 1:3

Any suggestions what I should try / test / be careful with?

Thanks,
Ben

 

[bence8810]

Posting back after having the test prints at hand and scanned.

You'll see three photographs below, they were all wet-printed at the same time using the same settings except the developer which was different in all three cases.

1. Chugai (off the shelf) developer in the manufacturer's strongest suggested dilution 1:9 and developed for 60 seconds.

2. ID-14 from Xray's link earlier in the thread - straight up with no dilution

3. ID-14 1:1

I don't see huge differences in contrast as expected but I do see a little difference. For one, the Chugai developer seems to develop into a darker overall image while the ID-14 takes longer but still produces lighter images.

Please let me know your thoughts. I am copying below all 3 images and the cropped comparison shot. All 3 paper were put on the scanner's bed at the same time and scanned - later cropped into individual images for easier sharing.
The only variables were the developer I used and the times I kept them in.

Ben

Chugai developer 1:9 for 60 sec

ID-14 1:0 for 105 sec

ID-14 1:1 for 150 sec

Crop comparison

 

[bence8810]

Just to bump this thread, a few days ago I also mixed up the Forte hard developer I earlier mentioned and tried developing with it in various different conditions.

You'll see the below image, I've exposed these images at f16 from 10sec to 20sec and developed them from 30sec to 90sec. Obviously the images I overexposed (ex. 20sec) I developed for a shorter time and images I underexposed (ex 10sec) I developed for a longer time.
While I am sure there are some differences in the mid tones I can't quite make it out even looking at the images close by. The only difference I see is that some are darker than others but no change in contrast.

I also had an image I developed in an off the shelf solution (Chugai) not shown here and there was no difference. This makes me believe that mixing my own developer and going through the trouble of buying and portioning up chemicals is just a waste of time.

All in all, my conclusion was that there's pretty much nothing I can do to alter the contrast - at least not to the extend I'd like to.
If I were to talk grades, the paper is perhaps 2 or just slighly under and none of my trials managed to reach 2 1/2 even.
What worked best - and also what Ned mentioned in another one of my threads - is that the negative needs to be contrasty in order to get an image out of this paper with higher contrast.
I think I'll be using Rodinal for a while and see how I get on with the high contrast but grainy negatives.

 

[x-ray]

Something you might consider but there is risk involved is a intensifier for the negatives. Some formulas simply build even density on the film to correct for under exposure and others build contrast. The catch is they may increase grain and once you do it it can not be undone. Mistakes are perminate. You would need to look in a photo lab index or may find a formuls on line.

Kodak made a chromium intensifier but don't remember if it built contrast or density or could be mixed for either. In the old days we used a Mercury intensifier. It worked great but was extremely toxic.

 

[bence8810]

Something you might consider but there is risk involved is a intensifier for the negatives. Some formulas simply build even density on the film to correct for under exposure and others build contrast. The catch is they may increase grain and once you do it it can not be undone. Mistakes are perminate. You would need to look in a photo lab index or may find a formuls on line.

Kodak made a chromium intensifier but don't remember if it built contrast or density or could be mixed for either. In the old days we used a Mercury intensifier. It worked great but was extremely toxic.

Thank you for this - yes I found a reference to such solutions earlier in my Darkroom books but to be honest I wouldn't want to mess with my negatives.

The whole story is that I have this lot of 5x7 Forte Grade 2 paper which I love but somehow my photography (or my taste) suits higher contrast prints. Anyways, I learned a lot from this experiment and now have enough chemicals to last me a few years of printing so I shell turn into a caveman!

Ben

 

[x-ray]

I happened to think of something that might help. If you're ok with intensifying your negs do an experiment using concentrated selenium toner. Soak the negative in water until the emulsion is wet and soft as it would be during processing. Emerse the negative in concentrated sellenium toner and observe the change. It may take several minutes. I think you'll get more buildup of density in the more dense areas ( highlights) than in the thinner shadow areas. Do this on a net you don't care about damaging. I've done this to gain contrast for platinum printing. It won't give 2 grades but you should see a bump up in contrast. This along with the hard print developer might do the trick.

 

[bence8810]

I happened to think of something that might help. If you're ok with intensifying your negs do an experiment using concentrated selenium toner. Soak the negative in water until the emulsion is wet and soft as it would be during processing. Emerse the negative in concentrated sellenium toner and observe the change. It may take several minutes. I think you'll get more buildup of density in the more dense areas ( highlights) than in the thinner shadow areas. Do this on a net you don't care about damaging. I've done this to gain contrast for platinum printing. It won't give 2 grades but you should see a bump up in contrast. This along with the hard print developer might do the trick.

Hello,

Selenium toning is something I was thinking of trying - albeit on the paper and not so much on the negative.
I will eventually run out of this Fibre paper stock and will most likely start using variable grade papers which means I can then play with the contrast again freely. Therefore I don't really want to cause permanent change to my negatives that were already developed.

I am currently looking at buying some selenium toning agent for paper but not sure which to get.
One store in Japan that sells Adox Selenium Toning agent has this example image on their website.

The top portion was soaked in diluted toning agent for about 30 minutes.
The middle portion has no toning what so ever
The bottom portion was soaked in diluted toning agent for 2-3 minutes.

As you can see the top portion is properly toned (brown) and the bottom has just an increased contrast. Now I don't know if I'll be getting the same effect but will surely try 🙂