Two bath developers - usable life

[andreios]

Some time ago I started mixing my own developers, venturing into the world of Stoecklers, Thorntons and similar developers.
One question that still bothers me is this - what is their usable life? I mean - how many rolls (or sheets) of film one can develop in once mixed solution?
Do you use them as "one shot" or make some sort of replenisher or increase times in subsequent developing sessions?
Thank you for any advice.

 

[rover]

I am not knowledgable of the world of home brews, but have used Diafine quite a bit. A whole group of us at RFF mixed up batches of Diafine a few years ago and the first reports of failure of those initial mixes was at about 18 months of use. With Diafine you reuse the solution, simply pouring it back into the jug and shaking it up for the next use.

 

[presspass]

I've been using variations of the Stoeckler/Thornton 2-bath developers for just over two years. Typically, I use each bath for about a month and then discard it. I don't replenish, etc., and I can't see any difference between negs developed at the first of the month and those done at the end. I usually shoot two to four rolls a week, with one of them at ISO 1600 and done in either Diafine or D-23 1:1. The rest get the two-bath treatment. The A bath does change color after use, but that doesn't seem to affect its strength. The B bath can be either metaborate, borax, or a combination, depending on what I happen to mix.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Half way to forever. Certainly, many months with no replenishment or adjustments to development time.

The developing agent is used up very slowly, because most development takes place in the second bath, and as long as the second is alkaline, that works too. I used a 2-bath extensively in the 70s, but see no advantage in it today.

Cheers,

R.

 

[shadowfox]

PM Steve (user name: dazedgonebye in RFF).
He has lots of experiences with two-bath developers.

 

[dazedgonebye]

PM Steve (user name: dazedgonebye in RFF).
He has lots of experiences with two-bath developers.

I've got experience, but little knowledge. I've been told about 15-20 rolls through a 1 liter mix of Barry's. I kept track for awhile of how much film I was developing, but that was hard to keep meaningful because of the different formats I was using. (How do you compare a roll of film to 6 sheets of 4x5 as far as developer consumption is concerned?)
Over the course of more than 15 rolls of mixed film types, I never noticed a difference in results. That may be because I'm not incredibly discriminating...I don't know.
Now, as a practice, I toss the formula when bath #2 starts to smell like the gym socks you forgot in the back seat of your car on a Summer weekend.

...and that is the limit of my scientific investigation and my conclusions.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've got experience, but little knowledge. I've been told about 15-20 rolls through a 1 liter mix of Barry's. I kept track for awhile of how much film I was developing, but that was hard to keep meaningful because of the different formats I was using. (How do you compare a roll of film to 6 sheets of 4x5 as far as developer consumption is concerned?)
Over the course of more than 15 rolls of mixed film types, I never noticed a difference in results. That may be because I'm not incredibly discriminating...I don't know.
Now, as a practice, I toss the formula when bath #2 starts to smell like the gym socks you forgot in the back seat of your car on a Summer weekend.

...and that is the limit of my scientific investigation and my conclusions.

By area. Assume 1 roll 35mm = 1 roll 120 = 1 sheet 8x10 (= 4 sheets 4x5). Any inaccuracies are within an acceptable range of experimental error.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dazedgonebye]

By area. Assume 1 roll 35mm = 1 roll 120 = 1 sheet 8x10 (= 4 sheets 4x5). Any inaccuracies are within an acceptable range of experimental error.

Cheers,

R.

Sounds easy...nah...I'm still too lazy to bother. 😀

 

[Calzone]

So far I have had to mix a second pair of quarts of Diafine to make up for lost volume due to wetting the film factor (loosing part A) and accumulated small spillage. At this point I likely have developed over 100 rolls of 120 since Thanksgiving 2010.

I do see an economic advantage to using Diafine because it allows me to process a lot of film for very little money. I use to use ID-11 1+1 and pour a liter of developer down the drain everytime I did a tank of 4 reels. I also feel that with use the Part B gets "seasoned" by slight contamination of Part A. IMHO the developer gets better and smoother as displayed in the midtones and fine detail.

Another advantage is less time developing; another is long pour times are not so critical; and another is neither are temperatures as long as all solutions are above 70 degrees F.

The profound compensating effect isn't for everyone, but I have learned to compensate for the sometimes flat negatives by boosting contrast with filters on my camera and taking advantage of a boost in film speed.

Cal

 

[andreios]

Thanks everyone.
I would not take Diafine into this - I am not an expert but I think it is sort of special thing, not quite comparable to two bath D23, Thornton or Stoeckler developer.
I am also mixing formats and my approx. counts were similar to Roger's, counting 4 tortilla developed sheets of 4x5 as one roll of 120.

As for the actual "point" in using this sort of developer - again, I am not an expert, but I think it proper while using old or odd films - it works very well e. g. with the cinematic 5231 plusX or with the cheapish chinese 4x5 ERA100 emulsion..

 

[kxl]

Half way to forever. Certainly, many months with no replenishment or adjustments to development time.

I've always accepted that it would outlive me... :angel:

 

[StenSture]

Just check the pH. It must be well over 7. Check the color of the developer, so it does not get too dark. It darkens because it oxidizes. You might want to add some fresh solution after a couple of rolls.

 

[Tom A]

I often use 2 bath developers, D76 divided, Stoeckler, TD 201 etc.
Some years ago I decided to test D76 Divided, mixed up a gallon of A and a gallon and a gallon of B and proceeded to see how many rolls I could process in it. The time span was about 3 month and I did 90 rolls of trix in it.
You loose between 5-8 ml/roll in the A bath and by the tim you hit 1/2 way of the gallon - that soup is a bit "rank" - brown to black - but with no loss of speed or contrast. The B-bath I usually dumped after 25 rolls and refreshed.
The Stoekler can give you about 30 rolls in a 2 liter of A and B. It is a slightly lower contrast - though that can be boosted by using Kodalk as B bath (mixed up fresh for each run of 5 rolls).
The TD 201 is similar. You can push about 40 rolls through a 2 liter batch of A and B.
Both the TD 201 and the Stoeckler works bets with continious agitation. For T-grain films (Tmax 100/400) this is the best one of the divided.
The Stoeckler and Divided D76 need a bit more time in B - add about 2 minutes (6-7 min) to get the contrast right on the Tmax films.
I have also used Divided D23 - works well in contrasty light - holds down the highlights a bit and still gives good shadow details.
I find that the continious agitation works very well with just about any of the split developers - though you should test before committing important negatives to it.
A developer like the Split D76 is truly economical. I did calculated my Developer cost to about $0.08/roll - based on 90 rolls!!!!
It is critical that you filter the A and the B on a regular basis. Crap does accumulate - particularly in the A bath (dust, loose threads from felt traps, chips of film).
Once you got it down pat - it gives you a consistent result for a long time.
TD 201 slows down after about 4-5 weeks - you need to add a minute to A. The Stoeckler holds up well - consistent for 40 rolls or a month. Probably due to the fresh B bath for each run. The divided D23 I dump after 4 weeks - probably would still hold up - but I usually only mix it as 2 liter batches and 30-40 rolls - you lost 300-400 ml of A and I use 1500 ml Paterson tanks - so this avoids the stuff at the bottom of the bottles.

 

[andreios]

Tom, thank you very much! I think this is exactly the answer I've been looking for.. 🙂