Topic: Lifespan of your mixed developer (for printing)?

[Magnus]

Ok, newbie alert 

Here's a question about developing prints. As seen in this thread me and Britt have started a darkroom in our bathroom. It's really fun, but now all the questions starts piling up!

I would like to have some feedback about how long all you veteran printers use your developer? From reading different sources i gather that you should mix new developer for every print session. Is this true?

If I mix some developer and make a few prints, would that developer still be good to go a couple of days later?

I would like to maximize the usage of the developer (more prints=better understanding of what's going on), without getting weird results because it's depleted.

So I guess it's a question about how you all "actually" use your developer, rather than how you "should". Same question regarding Stop and Fix...

(Hope this makes sense...  )

[LT]

I use open trays for print processing, so I use fresh every time, otherwise the developer is oxidised by the time I get around to using it again. I understand that people who use slot processors keep the developer longer as it is less in contact with the air ... but not sure about that as I've never used them.

[Francois]

Well, since I use single tray processing, the chemicals last a very long time.
I usually re-use paper developer until it simply stops working.
Stop bath, I use Indicator Stop bath so I just re-use the stuff until the color changes. Even when diluted, it keeps good forever. If you use plain white vinegar diluted 50-50, you can use it single shot.
Fixer wise, I use Rapid Fixer. It too lasts a very long time. I usually time how long it takes to turn a piece of film clear and fix for double that. When it takes double the clearing time to clear a bit of film, they say we should dump it. But I also heard of people re-using fixer for so long that you can see silver precipitate in the trays... so it goes to show that the stuff can last a very long time.

[Magnus]

Thanks for the reply! I'm learning a lot here 
Since I use open trays as well I'll try keeping the developer fresh.

Francois, this "single tray" thing... I did a quick google on it and it sounds a bit cumbersome?
What's the benefit, apart from saving space? Preserving the chemicals would be one thing perhaps?

Are there any clear indications on the print that the developer is going downhill and that a new mix should be prepared?

[LT]

I can't get on with the single tray process - you either have an increased level of chemical carry-over between each stage - particularly between the stop and fix - over acidic fixer is an issue, or you have to wash out the tray between each stage, which is a problem in itself.

[CarlRadford]

Dev is relatively cheap - good papers are not.  Fresh dev will save you hours of heartache especially if repeatability of prints is important. 

[Francois]

Single tray processing, while being a drag if you plan for an afternoon in the darkroom, is surprisingly convenient if you plan on doing just one or two prints. As for washing the tray between prints, I've found the perfect lazy way to get them clean: I wash the print in the tray itself. That way I get a clean tray and a clean print at the same time

As for carrying over chemicals, it depends a lot on the tray design. Mine have some ridges that stick out to get liquid under the print instead of wells like on the Paterson trays. And if you're worried about carrying over too much, you can always do a quick rinse under the tap in between steps.

Also, using a single tray keeps the smell down like you wouldn't believe!

[LeonY]

i use open tray dev as well, keep my chems in sealed dark bottles, they last for at least months worth. if i do 3 print sessions. they obviously get weaker but its workable!

[LT]

as with Carl, I like consistency in my prints.  I print using time as the constant, (so I can control warmth/coolness of tones etc by dev dilution) so need my developer to work the same every time.  A weak and oxidised developer, or developer contaminated with other chemicals from a one tray method would cause all sorts of issues on this basis.

I've never really understood how people can develop prints by inspection? Does anyone here do that? The safelight always makes the prints look way flatter than they are, so I can not really get to grips with this idea.

[LeonY]

Leon, im one of those. I have never been to picky and learned to print on my own....its not the most consistent method but you have tonwork harder to get the same level of consistency in you prints.

Personaly i print allot on old paper stock, random stuff. I like the chosce but have to suffer to make good quality orints

[Francois]

I've never really understood how people can develop prints by inspection? Does anyone here do that? The safelight always makes the prints look way flatter than they are, so I can not really get to grips with this idea.

I don't do it... and can't understand why anyone would want to since paper developing is pretty much self terminating. After 1:30 on RC paper, pretty much all exposed silver is reacted... and between 1 minute and 1:30, not much is really going on. For me, pulling the print is pretty much a recipe for dull grays. If I did that every time a print darkens very fast in the developer to a point where it freaks me out a bit, I'd have very dull prints by the dozen. Density is so dependent on the level of safelight illumination, it's pretty incredible.

By the way, yesterday my developer started to show signs of weakness (blacks are not completely black). It was stored in an Air Evac bottle with a faulty seal. The batch has been pretty much sitting there since I made it last Spring. I'll have to get a better bottle and mix a new batch of PQ Universal. That batch has processed a few films (including some color film) and maybe a dozen prints.

[Jeff Warden]

I'll get about two months out of mine (and maybe 50 8x10s) before it turns a deep red and has to go.  I learned the hard way it's not worth trying to stretch it as the quality and repeatability suffers. 

[Francois]

Mine's pretty much the color of root beer...

[DaveMiller]

I’ve used most methods of developing prints, slot processor, open trays, orbital trays, single tray, and rotary drum to name a few. It is oxygen absorption that generally kills developer rather than overuse unless throughput is very high. The stop and fix can be monitored easily I always develop is to completion by timing the process.
Making a 16x12 print, using open trays takes a similar amount of fluids, around 2 litres, to a slot processor, whilst a rotary drum (Jobo 2840) will require about 100ml and a single tray will requires about 750ml.
Time and space need considering here too. If a large throughput in the shortest time is required and the space is available then 3 open trays may be best. If space is restricted then a slot processor will be the best option, but they are expensive unless brought second-hand. If space is restricted and time is not an issue then a single tray followed by a rotary drum will be the cheapest methods in terms of developer used. If the replenishment method is used with a drum then usage is about the same as for a slot processor at about 20ml per fibre paper print through absorption and carryover.
I now settled on the single tray method, it suits me best. I use a water rinse between each of the developing fluids to limit carryover.
Fluids keep best in a slot processor as the air contact is very limited; developer should be good for a month in these and the stop and fix longer. For the tray/drum methods decant the fluids into one litre glass bottles between sessions and use a gas over the developer to exclude as much oxygen as possible. Depending on dilution and make the developer may last a week; to try and push it further is, in my view, uneconomical given the price of wasted time and paper.
I hope that helps.

[Magnus]

Thank you all for some really good input 
Looks like it's a mixture of styles and preferences.

And I have been thinking of this single tray thingy... I might test it someday when I just want to try a print or two. That way all the chemicals would be back in their bottles when the print is being washed and the darkroom will be back as a bathroom in a snap (in theory anyway...)

[Karl]

I'm just about post-newbie...I've been using Paterson Acugrade which, in my limited knowledge, seems very good stuff. The advice is that it will print c. 70 10x8 prints. A busy print session for me might be 10 prints 
I got an email exchange going with a guy at Paterson and he said it would keep, but due to the variety of methods people use it's hard to give anyone a 'right' answer. However, he did say try keeping the dilute strength solution in glass bottles and see how it lasts. A test print at the start of a session should give you an idea if it's working OK. So far my system has been if I'm doing basic RC prints I'll reuse it up to a week old. Anything more than that and I mix fresh, esp for FB paper which takes more out of the developer. Another thing that makes me mix fresh is if I pour it out and see dog hair in it. My mutt seems to have it floating around the house and it settles in the trays! 

[LT]

I now settled on the single tray method, it suits me best. I use a water rinse between each of the developing fluids to limit carryover.

Thanks Dave ... and  I'm sure a quick water rinse between stages is highly practical when your darkroom sink looks like this (look at all those loverly taps):



Seriously, though, thanks for sharing your experiences.  Having used virtually all the the ways for dealing with darkroom chems, you are best placed to give advice.

[DaveMiller]

Karl, can I be pedantic and say that I don’t think fibre paper “takes more out of the developer” since this is not supported by any developer manufacturers information that I’ve seen. It would be true to say that fibre paper uses more developer since it can soak into fibre paper much more easily than the sealed surface of r/c paper. It is also true to say that the more dilute a developer the less time it will last, and more obviously the fewer sheets it will process.
Can I add that for 10x8 prints I use a Paterson Orbital tray on an electric base, an excellent space saver, although unfortunately now only available second-hand.

Leon, I wish my darkroom had remained as clean and well ordered as your picture shows, but sadly not.

[Karl]

Karl, can I be pedantic and say that I don’t think fibre paper “takes more out of the developer” since this is not supported by any developer manufacturers information that I’ve seen.

Dave, you may. I had 'assumed' that fibre papers had a) a more open structure to the paper surface, and b) a higher silver content and that would exhaust developer slighly faster than RC papers. I guess it doesn't really change how I use the developer given the print quantities and time between sessions.

I am finding RC papers faster than FB. Why is that? You'd think the more 'open' structure would mean it should be the other way around. Or am I wrong and RC is in fact a better receiving foundation than FB.   

[DaveMiller]

Good point Karl, my understanding is that whilst the emulsions of r/c and fibre papers are basically the same – given the same make and type - I believe most r/c papers incorporate a developer accelerator since r/c paper was originally intended for machine processing where processing speed is required. My comment was based simply on the information given on the bottles of Agfa Neutol WA and NE developer I have in stock at the moment that show equal processing ability for both paper types; however checking Ilford’s technical information sheet shows that their developers will only process about half the area of their FB paper compared to their R/C products. Could this be that they are assuming that the developer will have the assistance of the incorporated developer whilst Agfa do not? In any case it would seem that you are certainly correct with regard to Ilford products, I’ve learnt something today. 

[DaveMiller]

As a follow on to my last post I found this information on the Foma website concerning their R/C paper.

"FOMASPEED VARIANT III features a very rich half-tone scale over all contrast
grades, a shining white paper base and saturated blacks. The paper is
manufactured using silver chlorobromide emulsion that gives neutral-to-medium
warm tone to the silver image. Developing agents incorporated into the emulsion
layer facilitate rapid machine processing and a shortening development times in
manual processing to 60 - 90 seconds at 20 oC. Due to the resin-coated paper base
and a thin emulsion layer, the time necessary for development, fixing, washing and
drying is considerably shortened and the comsumption of processing baths and
washing water is reduced.
FOMASPEED VARIANT III is manufactured on an RC paper base in a glossy and
matt surface."

[Karl]

Dave, this all sounds useful to me. I've checked with my Acugrade notes and Ilford materials. Acugrade suggests same developing time of 1 minute for RC and FB papers. I think I will run a test the next time I am in the darkroom to see how each come out after 60 seconds. The point about accelerators seems to make sense and it would appear then that it's the type of paper that is the source of the issue rather than developer.

[DaveMiller]

Dave, this all sounds useful to me. I've checked with my Acugrade notes and Ilford materials. Acugrade suggests same developing time of 1 minute for RC and FB papers. I think I will run a test the next time I am in the darkroom to see how each come out after 60 seconds. The point about accelerators seems to make sense and it would appear then that it's the type of paper that is the source of the issue rather than developer.

I think running such a test will be a wise course of action, let us know what your results are.

[Dave Elden]

Dave, this all sounds useful to me. I've checked with my Acugrade notes and Ilford materials. Acugrade suggests same developing time of 1 minute for RC and FB papers. I think I will run a test the next time I am in the darkroom to see how each come out after 60 seconds. The point about accelerators seems to make sense and it would appear then that it's the type of paper that is the source of the issue rather than developer.

Re test, I'd suggest fogging some small strips of paper then processing them for various times, say with 10s increments.  Wash & dry them and arrange in line and see at what time there is no more perceptible increase in Dmax.  That gives you a minimum dev time.  Use fresh materials for this.
Save those test pieces as a visual reference; you can run a test at min time periodically as your paper dev ages and detect when you are losing Dmax, this is probably time to mix new developer.  (Those bits of paper are useful to have when printing, you usually want to see some areas of maximum black in a print and they will give you a reference as to what that is.)
Or you could just follow the manufactur's data sheet info - as someone else pointed out paper dev is way cheaper than paper...

PS, to actually answer your question I use paper dev (Ilford Multigrade, 1+9) for one shift (8 hours) max whether for personal printing or at work.  Only problem I have ever had is if it is too cold (probaly below 15degrees C) then get weak blacks.