A49 ageing phenomenon?

Gast · 2006-01-29T00:08:45+00:00

Hallo, ich habe seit einem halben Jahr den a49 angesetzt bei mir herumstehen, weil er mir nicht besonders zusagt. Jetzt hab ich hier im Forum die zeit 13 M...

Gast

Hello, I’ve had the A49 sitting around for the last six months because I’m not particularly keen on it. Now I’ve found the 13 min 1+1 developer for the A49 here on the forum and given it a go; the negatives are spot on, but after enlarging them it looks different – the negatives have a strange texture at 13x18, looking a bit like the grain of old colour films (ORWO NC21, for example). It’s definitely not the usual B&W ‘file-shaving grain’. Erwin

Gast

The film is Plus-X; I forgot to mention that.

Roman

Hello! With PlusX on A49 paper at 13x18, you shouldn’t actually see any grain or texture at all – are you sure it’s not wrinkled grain (caused by excessive temperature differences during development)? Perhaps you could post a sample photo? Roman

Oleksander

Erwin, The developer is too old; it’s a bit patchy, which is what happens when the developer is too old. It also depends a bit on the film; with Forte, for example, this happens very easily if the developer isn’t in perfect condition. I don’t know about Kodak; I always use fresh developer for that. Oleksander

Gast

Roman, Oleksander, I’ve tried scanning it, but it doesn’t come out very well (you can’t really see it properly on the scan); Oleksander is probably right – it’s a bit patchy, and certainly not normal film grain. If it weren’t Kodak film, I’d almost suspect a manufacturing defect. I also think it’s down to the developer; according to the data sheet, it’s only good for 4 weeks, not 6 months. It just surprises me that the images are actually fine like this; I’d always thought the developer loses its actual effectiveness rather than its properties. Erwin

Roman

Erwin, I don’t think it’s down to the developer being used up – if that were the case, the result would simply be a thinner, underdeveloped negative (or a very clear one…), but the grain structure shouldn’t change as a result. A year is actually a bit old, but I’ve used A49 that was four months old without any problems. Your description really sounds to me like ‘wrinkle grain’; have a look at this page and compare: http://www.chrzahn.de/Fotoseiten/Tipps/Runzelkorn.html - . With current tap water temperatures, this can happen if you don’t let the wash water come to room temperature in a container, but use it straight from the tap...

Gast

Roman,

With PlusX in A49 at 13x18, you shouldn’t actually see any grain or texture

as I’m not entirely sure, assuming a high-magnification lens and a double condenser with an out-of-focus medium-grey background – then you can just about make out some grain (if you want to see grain and have good eyesight), provided it isn’t microfilm or a flat crystal. Kodak and Forte have a rounder grain than Agfa, Svema, Foma etc.; efke lies somewhere in between. Roland

Roman

Roland, we were specifically talking about PlusX, i.e. a 100-speed film, in A49, a fine-grain developer that suppresses grain even with 400-speed film – if you can’t even make out a speck on a 13x18 print – full-frame from a 35mm negative that isn’t grossly over-developed (and with an old developer, the opposite would tend to be the case) – and you can’t even make out a speck without a magnifying glass, you’d probably be watching the grass grow too... ;)

MirkoBoeddecker

Regarding the actual question about signs of ageing: Yes, it may be that the developer still contains enough accelerator to process the negatives, BUT other substances have become inactive or have diffused through the bottle. Soft plastic bottles, for example, allow the buffer solution to ‘seep through’, and the developer gradually becomes a hardener. You can tell this is happening, for example, when the label falls off the bottle.... This may also alter its penetration properties, meaning it no longer produces a fine grain. However, we haven’t observed this happening yet. In short: prepare a fresh batch, test it against the original and see if it happens again. If not (under identical working conditions), it was down to the storage. Best regards, Mirko