gr00vemaster
I use ADOX Easy Print Polywarmtone PE with Eukobrom (if I don’t want the image tone to be quite so warm) and Agfa Neutol WA. How long do I need to leave the paper in the relevant developer? Unfortunately, a search here on the forum and on the Adox website didn’t turn anything up. Does anyone have any experience with this?
With other papers, I always use 90 seconds, but they usually already have developing agents integrated into the base…
huehnerhose
I always perform the development in Eukobrom 1+9 for between 2 and 2.5 minutes. I’m not personally familiar with Neutol WA, but as for warm-tone developers, I’ve used Fomatol PW, and with that I needed about 4 to 4.5 minutes.
Best regards
Sebastian
Gast
Ansel Adams’ rule of thumb for paper development times has proven its worth time and again: development time = exposure time × 6
If you develop for longer, the tone of the image becomes warmer.
Best regards,
Otto Beyer!
Gast
Hi Otto,
I’m actually curious to know if I’ve got this wrong,
The longer my prints sit in the developer, the cooler their tones become.
Warm-toned developers (at least the ones I use) are almost always slower.
In other words, although the prints stay in the warm-toned developer longer than in the cold one, the developer itself works even more slowly.
Best regards,
Martin
Gast
P.S.: because, on rereading this, I realise that my formulation is just as misleading:
If I adjust the developer so that the development takes longer (i.e. use a higher dilution), the image actually becomes warmer than with a stronger developer.
If I develop for longer in the same developer, the image becomes cooler...
heinrich
Hello,
I use the baryta version of Polywarmton. For the developer, I use Agfa Neutol WA with 1:11 dilution. Agfa specifies a development time of 120 seconds (with constant agitation), and I’ve always had good results with that. For PE, Agfa specifies 60 seconds (1+7 dilution) and 90 seconds (1+7 dilution). Certainly a good starting point. Agfa Neutol WA produces a pleasantly warm image tone with Polywarmton. It becomes even warmer (my subjective impression) with the Forte WTD developer, available from Brenner. Here I use the 1+9 dilution specified by Forte and process the prints for 120 seconds (baryta, also with constant agitation). Be careful with the Forte WTD; the stuff leaves unsightly discolouration in white photo trays that isn’t easy to remove.
Regards
Heinrich
SimonWeber
With the humble Ilford Multigrade developer, I get the feeling that even after 3 minutes there’s still ‘more to come’... but I haven’t actually tested it. I always develop for 4 minutes; with ADOX FB, I develop for 8 minutes.
Simon
heinrich
Hi Simon,
The longer you develop, the ‘darker’ it gets, or rather, you realise there’s still more to come. But is that what you want? Personally, I prefer to vary the exposure time and/or the gradient. I have a few homemade grey scales here (4x5 negatives, Zone 0 to X; the grey scales are the results of film testing, with one zone corresponding to one f-stop), developed to a gamma of ~0.56. If I print these at gradient 3 and bathe the prints in Neutol WA for 120 seconds, I get 8 shades of grey plus one pitch-black streak plus one paper-white streak. That is exactly what I want, or rather, how it should be. I don’t want to know what the print looks like if I bathe it for 8 minutes; then the first grey in Zone I will probably become just as black as Zone 0, and the paper-white areas will also take on a hint of grey, and everything else in between will become darker, because, well, there’s more to come. But that’s not what I want.
With negatives that are either affected by underexposure or overexposure, too hard or too soft, it seems much more sensible to me to either vary the exposure time and/or the gradient, or to selectively re-expose and/or dodge and burn. The result is much more predictable than if I were to stare at the highlights under red light for minutes on end in the hope that something might still come of it.
Best regards,
Heinrich
SimonWeber
I have a few homemade grey scales here (4x5 negatives, Zone 0 to X; the grey scales are the results of film testing, with one zone corresponding to one f-stop), developed to a gamma of ~0.56. If I print them at a gradient of 3 and bathe the prints in Neutol WA for 120 seconds, I get 8 shades of grey plus one pitch-black streak plus one paper-white streak. That is exactly what I want, or rather, how it should be. I don’t want to know what the print looks like if I bathe it for 8 minutes; then the first grey in Zone I will probably turn just as black as Zone 0, and the paper-white areas will also take on a hint of grey, and everything else in between will get darker, because there’s more to come. But that’s not what I want
Yes, best regards, but this is how I do it:
(1) I make a test strip.
(2) I expose a test print.
(3) I adjust the exposure and stop down.
Then I see: Oh, it’s a bit light in that corner, so I’ll leave it in a bit longer. Either I like the picture then or I don’t.
This isn’t meant as a personal attack, but you don’t have to approach the whole thing scientifically. Purely
based on gut feeling
, I don’t think my shadows will run if I engage in longer development; I tend to believe that once the shadows are there, they stay pretty much the same. The highlights, on the other hand, keep coming out for quite a while.
So if I had a print earlier where I’m missing highlight detail after 5 minutes of development, I’ll do the same exposure again and then develop for 8 minutes. Then it might work out.
It’s clear that you can do it differently –
more correctly
, if you like. But for the non-technical user, this information might be interesting:
yes, with this paper, you get more highlight detail with a longer development time.
With Ilford Multigrade, for example, I’ve never experienced such an effect.
Otherwise, I didn’t really want to say anything at all about whether something works correctly or incorrectly, with or without measurement.
Simon
(Please don’t take this the wrong way – this isn’t a personal attack)
heinrich
Hi Simon,
First of all, I need to apologise – my post was a bit harsh, sorry. I know that things can still happen in the highlights during longer development times, even with multigrade processing, but then you have to leave them in the bath for a loooong time. I just find that the process isn’t very controllable that way; it works better by adjusting the gradient whilst performing the exposure on the highlights at the same time. If the highlights are finally defined and the rest is a bit flat => use a harder gradient; if the image is too harsh overall => use a softer gradient.
Best regards,
Heinrich
cfb_de
Guys,
This whole discussion is just going round in circles. Development of the paper needs to be complete. And that simply takes longer with one emulsion than with another.
PW, in particular, is a paper that likes to soak for a bit longer. And MG IV, thanks to the developer it contains, prefers a shorter soak.
Whereas with MCP (I no longer use MG IV) absolutely nothing happens after 90 seconds in my process, with PW there’s still plenty going on. That’s why PW can stay in the developer for longer. But after 4 minutes, even that’s enough.
Best regards,
Franz
Gast
Ilford MG IV RC does not contain any embedded developer substances.
Best regards,
Otto Beyer!
cfb_de
Hi Otto,
Well, I had no trouble at all developing my last batch of MG IV in NaOH solution. It came out pretty rock-hard.
It may be that things have changed over the last five years. I haven’t used that paper since.
Best regards,
Franz
Gast
Heinrich,
Now I’m the one who needs to apologise – I didn’t actually take offence at your post at all. I’m sorry if it came across that way... I just wanted to share my own personal experience.
That’s always the problem with forums: it’s so hard to convey the actual tone in writing.
Well, that’s why we have those ‘clickable funny little faces to insert into the text’: :) :blink: :huh: :)
Simon
gr00vemaster
Thanks for the replies; there’s some useful information in there for me. I found the tip about exposing the paper with a grey scale very useful; I was planning to test two films and a developer soon anyway, so I’ll make myself a mini grey scale, print it out and then measure it with the densitometer. But based on my subjective impression, the development time of 2 to 2:30 minutes in Eukobrom matches the time specified by huehnerhose.
Gast
Franz,
I’m happy to take your word for it. Mr Schneege’s (formerly of Ilford) statements on this matter are contradictory. First he said: “Multigrade IV RC contains no embedded developing agents” (4 September 2003). And later: “MG IV contains only very small amounts of the developing agent phenidone; its sole purpose is to make the paper more resistant to ageing; it has absolutely no effect on the actual development kinetics.” (7 July 2004).
So, now we know where we stand.
Best regards,
Otto Beyer!
MirkoBoeddecker
"MG IV contains only very small amounts of the developing agent phenidone; its sole purpose is to make the paper resistant to ageing, and it has absolutely no effect on the actual development kinetics."
...I consider this to be a rumour.
The paper is machine-compatible and Rapid Access-capable.
Ilford sells the appropriate strongly alkaline machine chemicals tailored to the paper and has even marketed its own developing machines.
Without the phenidone in the emulsion, the specified throughput speeds in the machine could not be achieved. Naturally, it must be activated with alkali – so it does not develop on its own. Phenidone tends to make the image tone warmer. It mixes with the developer used and thus alters its imaging effect.
Furthermore, it reduces the paper’s lith suitability.
I consider it problematic to claim that the paper contains no embedded developer, because users might then try to use it for lith printing etc. and end up with failures.
Having developer substances in the emulsion is not an absolute disadvantage. After all, it ensures consistent and clean operation in the machines and still develops fully even when the developer is almost exhausted.
In any case, an ADOX Easy Print comes out of the 2000 process completely mushy and underdeveloped.
There’s no need to hide that.
Regards,
Mirko
Petzi
Franz,
I’m happy to take your word for it. Mr Schneege’s (formerly of Ilford) statements on this matter are contradictory. First he said: “Multigrade IV RC contains no embedded developing agents” (4 September 2003). And later: “MG IV contains only very small amounts of the developing agent phenidone; its sole purpose is to make the paper more resistant to ageing; it has absolutely no effect on the actual development kinetics.” (7 July 2004).
[right][post="7329"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]
The opposite is true. The developer substances incorporated into the paper significantly reduce its storage stability (i.e. before processing), but as far as I know, the durability of the prints (after processing) is not affected.
