Too little developer...?

[EthanFrank]

Hey, all.

I decided to develop two rolls this morning, around 7am. Far too early, as far as I'm concerned. Anyways, this was the first time I developed two rolls of film at once (I was doing one at a time before until I was confident in my technique). I popped my two rolls in, but used the usual 10oz of developing fluid.

I read my Paterson tank's bottom more clearly now, and it says each film uses 10oz!

And yet, my negatives look fine. What gives??

 

[Roger Hicks]

You gave enough agitation.

Most of the developer is there to wet the film evenly and quickly.

With the vast majority of developers, you don't come anywhere near exhausting the developing agents. Consider Polaroid 4x5, developed and fixed with a teaspoon of chemicals. Or do the sums for the amount of developing agent in a 2-bath developer.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Moriturii]

You gave enough agitation.

Most of the developer is there to wet the film evenly and quickly.

With the vast majority of developers, you don't come anywhere near exhausting the developing agents. Consider Polaroid 4x5, developed and fixed with a teaspoon of chemicals. Or do the sums for the amount of developing agent in a 2-bath developer.

Cheers,

R.

God damn, does this mean you could re-use your developer instead of pouring it away after you have developed after you know.. 12 mins or whatever.

And also, side-question. I remember I read that Garry Winogrand used to check his developing stage by taking his film out, while developing, and look at it under heavy green light to see if it was done or needed more dev. Is this safe to do?

I even read that some large format films you can pop the film out and check it out in normal light after developing to see if it's done or needs more developing? Fill me in Roger! Do you have an article dedicated to these facts?

 

[EthanFrank]

Good to know.

One more question, actually (that I feel like a proper idiot for asking) - why is my Arista Premium coming out purple?

Am I not fixing long enough? Should I pre-soak differently?

 

[Brian Legge]

Arista Premium / Tri X always has a purple base for me.some purple is normal - it doesn't wash out.

This film will have yellowish patches when under-fixed. I find exhauste fixer causes problems for Tri X sooner than any other film I use.

 

[EthanFrank]

Well, I feel a lot better, all, thank you! Now, if I could just keep dust off my negs...

Cheers 🙂

 

[nikon_sam]

I will say it just one more time...the purple will wash out...
Actually, what I do is let the film sit in water for 10-15 minutes...dump the water and refill again...let it sit again then dump it...do this until the purple/pinkish color is clear or you don't see it in the water when you dump it...don't waste water by letting it run...let the film sit in it...It works...Trust me...!!!

Hang the film in the shower...make sure you close the door too...if you have to, run the shower to knock down any dust in there...and don't forget the Photo-Flo...

 

[EthanFrank]

I'll give it a shot, Sam, thanks!

I assume this will improve the clarity a bit?

 

[Roger Hicks]

God damn, does this mean you could re-use your developer instead of pouring it away after you have developed after you know.. 12 mins or whatever.

And also, side-question. I remember I read that Garry Winogrand used to check his developing stage by taking his film out, while developing, and look at it under heavy green light to see if it was done or needed more dev. Is this safe to do?

I even read that some large format films you can pop the film out and check it out in normal light after developing to see if it's done or needs more developing? Fill me in Roger! Do you have an article dedicated to these facts?

Not necessarily. Oxidation/hydrolysis play a part, as does the build-up of hydrobromic acid. I am reasonably convinced that the latter plays as big a part in extending development times as does the exhaustion of developing agents, but Marty(Freakscene) will know more about this than I. Certainly, with dilute developers, it is often possible to re-use the developer after a (very) few hours, with an extended dev time to compensate for the hydrobromic acid build up (which is effectively a 'push', as the true ISO falls). I think Ilford has some recommendations about re-using DD-X.

Yes, development by inspection under INTERMITTENT, VERY WEAK green light is feasible, but I've never tried it, and no, checking development under 'normal' light (quotes because it's hard to define 'normal') wouldn't be a good idea. Development itself desensitizes the film dramatically (or you couldn't use green light) but even ortho film under red light requires fairly low light levels.

No, there's no article about it because I've never tried it and I don't like writing on the basis of theory alone. Sorry I can't be more help.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sevo]

Development itself desensitizes the film dramatically (or you couldn't use green light) but even ortho film under red light requires fairly low light levels.

Lith film at least can stand blindingly bright red light (to the tune of sixteen red-light 60W fluorescent tubes in the 100m² room I had screen printing classes in). Unfortunately the human eye is not very responsive to that wavelength, so it subjectively feels pretty dark nonetheless.

The weak green used for pan film requires a desensitizer (which might be hard to get nowadays), and is weak enough that I could barely make out the film wasn't blank - it takes a lot of experience with one developer/film combination in the same darkroom to be able to estimate the progress of development from the degree of faint darkening visible in these conditions.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Lith film at least can stand blindingly bright red light (to the tune of sixteen red-light 60W fluorescent tubes in the 100m² room I had screen printing classes in). Unfortunately the human eye is not very responsive to that wavelength, so it subjectively feels pretty dark nonetheless.

The weak green used for pan film requires a desensitizer (which might be hard to get nowadays), and is weak enough that I could barely make out the film wasn't blank - it takes a lot of experience with one developer/film combination in the same darkroom to be able to estimate the progress of development from the degree of faint darkening visible in these conditions.

Yes, but lith is 'ordinary' (halide-blue-only), whereas ortho is dye-sensitized, And I think I might fairly take you to task on 'blindingly' vs 'subjectively feels pretty dark'.

As I say, I've not tried development by inspection, for precisely the reasons you give, but Ilford chums tell me that the desensitization that comes automatically with development will usually suffice -- once, as you say, you have the experience...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rob-F]

I remember I read that Garry Winogrand used to check his developing stage by taking his film out, while developing, and look at it under heavy green light to see if it was done or needed more dev. Is this safe to do?

I remember doing this as a kid. I had a Kodak developing kit that included Kodak MQ developer, shortstop and fixer; plus the aforementioned green safelight. I remember pulling out the film and seeing a creamy looking film with some dark areas that meant that something must have developed. I doubt if I really could tell if the development was sufficient (I was maybe 12 years old, if that). I'm not sure that I could now, either. It was however very exciting. I'm pretty sure the film was Verichrome Pan that I had shot in my box Brownie. I wish I still had the contact prints.

 

[sevo]

Yes, but lith is 'ordinary' (halide-blue-only), whereas ortho is dye-sensitized, And I think I might fairly take you to task on 'blindingly' vs 'subjectively feels pretty dark'.

At least I have got very poor vision in monochromatic light (and the way I've seen others stumble around darkrooms I don't seem to be unique). The ultra-bright darkrooms introduced in the print industry in the eighties (to comply to updated workplace lighting requirements) are very strange places - they can be so dazzlingly bright that I feel like needing sunglasses, while the light still is poor enough that I frequently screwed up evaluating test films and prints.

 

[Roger Hicks]

At least I have got very poor vision in monochromatic light (and the way I've seen others stumble around darkrooms I don't seem to be unique). The ultra-bright darkrooms introduced in the print industry in the eighties (to comply to updated workplace lighting requirements) are very strange places - they can be so dazzlingly bright that I feel like needing sunglasses, while the light still is poor enough that I frequently screwed up evaluating test films and prints.

Intriguing: presumably a form of colour blindness. Is it all monochromatic light, or only red? In other words, what are you like with sodium vapour? Or yellow LEDs? Frances uses red light because it's 'safer' than yellow (you can expose materials to it for longer) and she has no trouble seeing under it (and yes, she's heard all the jokes about working under a red light). The really interesting bit is that she finds that her eyesight is improved by working in the darkroom, i.e. when she comes out she can see better in normal light.

Cheers,

R.

 

[EthanFrank]

To side-track a little here, I'm a little bewildered and thought one of you might be able to explain something to me. From the 6 rolls I developed yesterday, about 90% were acceptable, but from one roll (in a tank of 3), I got about 5 negatives looking very strange. Blown out like crazy, very choppy looking. Any explanations?

Thanks.

 

[benji77]

To save cost, I reuse my Developer (DDX / Ilfosol 3). For example, I do two rolls of 35mm with (500ml), and immediately after that, another two rolls or one roll, depending on what I have pending.

This is regardless of the ISO rating for the second roll.

Doing this, I record about 29 rolls with 1 bottle of Ilfosol. Less with the DDX though 🙁

@EthanFrank, I think the shot you last posted could be 'underdeveloped'. Either that or its just overexposed.

 

[EthanFrank]

Perhaps I overlooked the meter on my M6...somehow ...

 

[Freakscene]

Not necessarily. Oxidation/hydrolysis play a part, as does the build-up of hydrobromic acid. I am reasonably convinced that the latter plays as big a part in extending development times as does the exhaustion of developing agents, but Marty(Freakscene) will know more about this than I.

Developers are a lot more complicated than most people think, but you don't need to understand how they work to have them work for you, luckily.

Autoxidation plays a big part in exhaustion especially with Rodinal. Some development by-products are inhibitory to development (those acidic bromides Roger mentions are among the most important) but also remember that most developers rely on superadditivity, where regeneration of the primary developing agent is completed by the secondary developing agent - but this can't keep happening indefinitely. Sulfite also regenerates some developing agents and return them to the pool of available developer.

Certainly, with dilute developers, it is often possible to re-use the developer after a (very) few hours, with an extended dev time to compensate for the hydrobromic acid build up (which is effectively a 'push', as the true ISO falls). I think Ilford has some recommendations about re-using DD-X.

This should read "strong" or "not excessively diluted" developers, not "dilute developers". The more dilute your developer is, the faster it exhausts and the sooner it will stop being able to develop. In my experience and opinion, this trial only worked because the Rodinal was quite strong (i.e. 1+50) and the agitation was adequate to spread the developer over the film. Rodinal autoxidises quickly once diluted and there just isn't enough developing agent in the high dilutions to develop more than 1 film per 250-300 mL of working solution..

Kodak also has instructions about re-using many of its developers.

Yes, development by inspection under INTERMITTENT, VERY WEAK green light is feasible, but I've never tried it, and no, checking development under 'normal' light (quotes because it's hard to define 'normal') wouldn't be a good idea. Development itself desensitizes the film dramatically (or you couldn't use green light) but even ortho film under red light requires fairly low light levels.

Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee teach development by inspection. I never saw the need, but have done it both with the dim green light and IR light and a nigh-vision like device on occasion. In one lab where I worked all films (except IR film!) were inspected under IR light prior to fixing, just to add a level of QA to the process. It's largely unnecessary if you're careful.

Marty

 

[Rob-F]

I'm trying to imagine how 10oz. could be enough to immerse two rolls at once. My little one-reel Nikor stainless tank already takes 8oz; and my two-reel Nikor is a 16 oz. tank. I wonder how Paterson accomplished this?

 

[Ronald M]

If you invert, the top will get some developer.

It may look ok, but I assure you it is not optimal.