Q. How much working developer per sq inch is too much?

[swmcl]

How much working developer (in ml per sq inch) is too much for you ? Is there an absolute limit ? Would you give up on LF photography if you had to use a certain amount of developer per sq inch ?

I would very much like to persue this conversation privately with a number of you if I may. Please indicate in your response if you would help me out by answering a short questionnaire. I would send the questionnaire via PM or email if you would consent. It would be good to have a range of respondents from the newbies to the seasoned 'old salts' (and please don't tell me LF only has old salts !!!)

Cheers,

Steve

[Maris Rusis]

When I develop film each square inch of that film "kills" about 1.1 ml of developer. Or to put it another way an 8x10 sheet of film in a one litre tray of Xtol ( my standard dev) requires a replenishment rate of 90ml per film. Last time I checked the cost of the developer consumed it was 27 cents per 8x10 film processed. If the cost was double I wouldn't feel it. Double again and I still wouldn't care. Questionnaire? PM me.

[Nigel Smith]

Does not even enter the equation.

[Tin Can]

This is not a concern unless Rodinol went up 10 times in price. Then I would make it. PM me anytime.

[Liquid Artist]

I develop no more than 3 sheets of 5x7 film in 1200ml of HC-110. Any more and I can really notice the difference.

[Michael R]

How much working developer (in ml per sq inch) is too much for you ? Is there an absolute limit ? Would you give up on LF photography if you had to use a certain amount of developer per sq inch ?

I would very much like to persue this conversation privately with a number of you if I may. Please indicate in your response if you would help me out by answering a short questionnaire. I would send the questionnaire via PM or email if you would consent. It would be good to have a range of respondents from the newbies to the seasoned 'old salts' (and please don't tell me LF only has old salts !!!)

Cheers,

Steve

You can PM me if you'd like. I'm not clear on what's driving the question though.

[Donald Qualls]

I can make Parodinal for about a nickel per 8x10, Caffenol C for a few cents more, and D72 for printing for under a dollar per darkroom session with purchased metol and hydroquinone. Chemistry cost is never likely to be a deciding factor in LF or other film photography.

[Tin Can]

How much working developer (in ml per sq inch) is too much for you ? Is there an absolute limit ? Would you give up on LF photography if you had to use a certain amount of developer per sq inch ?

I would very much like to persue this conversation privately with a number of you if I may. Please indicate in your response if you would help me out by answering a short questionnaire. I would send the questionnaire via PM or email if you would consent. It would be good to have a range of respondents from the newbies to the seasoned 'old salts' (and please don't tell me LF only has old salts !!!)

Cheers,

Steve

The question is odd, he asks for fluid amounts not cost.

[Winger]

My time is much more rare than the money for the materials. The last thing I'm thinking when I finally get to shoot, develop or print is how much it's costing me. But this is a hobby for me, not my living. I wouldn't mind getting money from it to balance what goes in, but I do it for the love of it.

[jbenedict]

If you mean the amounts that I use for processing:

I used to use a tube tank big enough to hold two sheets of 8x10 and two gallons of fluid. I would need the entire two gallons when doing high dilution compensating developing. After developing, I would dump the developer out, remove the film and finish it off in 11x14 trays for the stop and fix. I think I used about a gallon in the trays. That was a lot of fluid to flop around so I went to a smaller tube which i used for one sheet at a time. It was a tube made of 4" PVC with window screen material lining the inside. I used rubber caps on the ends.

I also have 3.5 gallon rubber tanks which can hold 10 sheets of 8x10 in hangers and quite a few 5x7 or 4x5 sheets in hangers. Never used them in a smaller size. If I was running a commercial lab where I would process upwards of 50 sheets of 8x10 daily, I would consider using these tanks and replenishing the chemicals. For the amount of film I process, that is severe overkill.


If you are talking about the amount of money I spend on chemicals including developer, I don't really think about it. Chemicals are cheap. Time is expensive. Don't lose your investment in time by cheeping out on chemicals.


Photographers who need to follow strict budgets in order to make a sufficient amount of profit are shooting digital.

[Jerry Bodine]

All my 4x5 & 5x7 film is developed in trays with HC-110 and specific dilutions from concentrate, agitation by shuffling six sheets at a time, except 8x10 is brush developed one sheet at a time for best results. For me it's a hobby and chemistry cost is almost irrelevant, so I don't even consider replenishment. Each development method dictates the depth of working solution needed in each tray. Knowing the depth required makes it easy to determine the amount of concentrate + water for the desired dilution. The resulting amount of concentrate allows me to figure how many sheets can be developed, based on HC-110 capacity info from Kodak (converted to ml per sq.in.). I did all the careful calculations for setting up my trays with my usual dilutions and put all the answers in a spreadsheet to hang on the darkroom wall. It beats doing all the calcs at the start of each session (error prone especially if done in haste).

[swmcl]

Maris,

I think I'll refer to you as Mr Liquid Polaroid because I think there is more liquid on a Polaroid than what you use !! :-) You have it down to a fine art for sure.

My inclination at this stage is that you all value the end product too much to really worry about the the consumable costs when processing the film. It is true you have to do this. It is part of the denial in LF !!

The volume of working fluids is the question - not costs per sq inch - because if volumes are restrained then the costs are up to you. You can use something like an expensive 2-part one-shot or you can use a DIafine or Accufine or replenish like Maris does ... If the volumes are not restrained then regardless of your choices in chemistry, the costs will be higher than they need to be to get the job done.

Thanks to you all for participating, more responses are welcome. I'll look into PMs next. I won't PM you unless you've indicated otherwise.

The PM is a questionnaire to gain some insight into market needs ahead of a product development phase in a little project of mine. I need to gain around 20 respondents from across the spectrum from beginners to seasoned salts.

Cheers,

[Drew Wiley]

Although you can calculate necessary amounts for hypothetical square inches of surface area, in the real world you also have to factor in solution volumes needed
for evenness of development per you specific technique, that is, specific equipment and agitation pattern. And in certain cases, a certain threshold volume might
be required in order to sustain an exact solution temperature, although that pertains more to color development than ordinary black and white work. I always considered replenishment per se as a game for commercial labs continually running a helluva lot of film and paper, and not worth the fuss otherwise.

[Liquid Artist]

Like others have said our time is worth more than the chemistry, but the other thing we also look at is the cost per sheet.
One ruined sheet because you want to save $0.25 worth of chemistry doesn't make sense. Then there are times when we'll never be able to go back and get the shot again.
I've messed up most of a good friends wedding photos when I pushed my chemistry too far, and never plan on risking that again. I'm just greatful that I wasn't her official photographer.