highscore
Hi
A few questions about paper developer
Since I got back into the old technique, I’ve been using Fomatol P as my paper developer.
However, I’m a bit “alarmed” by how long this developer lasts.
I divided the 2.5-litre batch between three glass bottles (mid-October).
I always use propane/butane as the head gas.
I used the first bottle for about 2½ weeks.
The second for about 5 weeks. Until the maximum black intensity faded.
Then I wanted to find out for sure. So I wrote 11 December as the date on the last bottle, which was now two months old.
I discarded it today because of white spots on the prints. So after about 7½ weeks of use, about 3–4 times a week for three hours in the developing tray.
So
- how long should/can you use the paper developer (i.e. not necessarily right to the bitter end like I did)
- how long do different paper developers last after being mixed? I’m particularly interested in the difference between liquid and powder developers.
(I don’t want to switch at the moment, as I want to gain more experience with Fomatol P. But your recommendations could be very helpful for later)
- which developers do you prefer and why?
Based on my current, albeit limited, experience, I’ll probably use a 4–5 week cycle.
Let’s see if the developer runs out before then.
To the real pros
Don’t tear me to pieces straight away if you’ve had different experiences. ;-)
Thanks
Marcus
michael-kielgmxnet
My experience so far has been limited to Adotol Konstant (identical in composition to Calbe N113) and Moersch SE6. Adotol is a powder developer. My batch has always kept for at least a year, although I store it in Jobo-Weihals bottles without an inert gas atmosphere. It would probably have lasted even longer, but I always disposed of it as a precaution.
SE6 also keeps for quite a long time, at least a few months (the working solution). The concentrate turned slightly yellowish after a while, but this had no effect on the development parameters.
Urnes
It depends on the developer. Calbe N113 still works even when it’s coffee-brown. You can see that in Michael’s post above. I had similar problems to yours, which is why I switched to N 113. I’ve been using it for six months to a year without any issues. The undiluted solution has always lasted me several years in brown glass chemistry bottles with Teflon seals. However, as I said, the solution subjected to dilution lasts at least six months to a year.
Regards, Sven.
ThomasPauly
Darkrooms can therefore be a real endurance sport – at least for developers.
€
I prefer it fresh. For ages now, I’ve been using Neutol/Adotol Liquid WA in a 1:15 dilution and conducting development on a tray warmer at 25 °C. The thin solution is intended for single use and is poured away after each session. A litre of working solution then costs 67 cents, less than some sheets of photographic paper. In return, the development is always consistent. Together with Adox MCP, where I can’t detect any difference between batches in practice, the results are so consistently reproducible that I could practically weld the speed adjustment knob on the lab light meter in place.
€
A welcome side effect occurs during occasional forays into warm-tone papers. WA is, after all, specifically designed for this. Higher dilution, increased temperature and longer development times further enhance the warm-tone effect. With Fomatone (I use the RC version), you then achieve a wonderful image tone without any hint of olive. On top of that, when air-dried, the material has the best high-gloss finish of any PE paper I know.
€
Regards
€
tepe
TR
I know my developer and the exposure time of my paper. I can tell early enough when the developer is losing its potency. I’ve also considered using more highly diluted single-use solutions. However, with those, my baryta paper has an exposure time of almost a minute. That’s too long for me, as I need to make lots of test strips beforehand, all of which have to be developed in exactly the same way as the print.
A developer tends to become unusable when a lot of paper has already ‘soaked’ in it, rather than due to long storage.
Incidentally, in my experience, most positive developers produce very similar results. You don’t need to try them all. The paper itself is more responsible for a particular tone.
Tom-W
Hello everyone,
I recently carried out a test, as I had some Ilford Bromophen (powder) to hand in addition to my usual developer, Moersch SE 4 Neutral (liquid).
Result: Moersch SE 4 is the winner. After four weeks in the tank, Ilford Bromophen had clearly deteriorated in terms of maximum density and gradient. This surprised me, as people always say that powder developers last longer...
Best regards,
Thomas
Bonderer
I’ve been using almost exclusively liquid developer for ages. Saturday, or Saturday and Sunday, was lab day. After that, the stuff was thrown away.
My time and photographic paper were too precious to me to skimp in the wrong place. I could never tell when I’d have time again, so there was no point in keeping the developer.
Urnes
Powder developer lasts longer as long as it remains in powder form.
Incidentally, Jim Rakete attributed the look of his photos to the fact that he always left them in the developer a little longer, because he wasn’t sure whether the developer was still good or not. In the 80s, you still had to make do with what you had. :-)
Regards, Sven.
sputnik
I had no idea that Rakete's photos had a distinctive style back then.
Could you please post a link so I can see what you mean?
Urnes
Have a look at the photo book *Photographs 1970–1997*. The images all have very high levels of density, almost ink-like blacks. I’ve always really liked that. That’s why I bought the book – and, of course, because I was quite close to the artists featured in the book at the time. In the Arte documentary, he mentioned that it was simply because they left the prints in the developer for longer, just to be on the safe side.
Regards, Sven
sputnik
Something like that?
http://jim-rakete.deutsches-filmmuseum.de/img/pub_img.jpg
I’d say he just had loads of paper lying about in Grade 5 that needed clearing away. :-)
Nothing against Jim Rakete (I think he’s cool too), but I get the feeling he just talks a lot in various documentaries. :-)
Tandemfahren
You put that very gently :-)
If I were to put it in my own words, he’d sue me.
Frank
