Paper developers

[jwarren116]

I'm in need of some guidance in the paper developer department! I'm a college student working in a college darkroom where they use Lauder paper developer (roughly the same as Dektol) and Lauder Rapid Fix.

I shoot 4x5 FP4+ and develop in PMK. I've pretty much ironed out everything on that side of my system. And it seems pointless to go to all that effort and do nothing to perfect the printing side of the darkroom. It's been recommended that I stick with the Lauder Dektol developer, but also use Selectol-soft. I'm going to start using TF4 fix, as the Lauder seems to bleach highlights. I poked around and I'm intrigued by Amidol, but turned off by the short shelf life. Photo Formulary's F130 seems like a nice alternative.

Again, I'm using FP4+ in PMK, and printing on Ilford MGIV Fiber paper. I'm pretty much looking for a developer that will allow some smooth midtones and highlights, but still give me those occasional intense blacks. I think that covers the logistics.

Can anyone throw me some recommendations or suggestions? I'd love to just go on a buying spree and test a ton of developers, but the college thing kinda puts the finances in a pinch. I think I'm already favoring the F130. Has anyone compared F130 and Dektol/Selectol-soft?

Thanks guys and gals,
James

[Darren Kruger]

Can anyone throw me some recommendations or suggestions? I'd love to just go on a buying spree and test a ton of developers, but the college thing kinda puts the finances in a pinch. I think I'm already favoring the F130. Has anyone compared F130 and Dektol/Selectol-soft?


Try some regular Kodak dektol first at 1:2 and then maybe 1:3 and see how it compares to the lauders. Should be easy to find.

I have some friends who really like Edwal LPD (and the fact it has a really long tray life.)

-Darren

[Mark Woods]

Does anyone use the Amidol? And what are your experiences?

Thanks.

[PViapiano]

Another vote for LPD...lasts forever and great results! Foolproof!

[CG]

....as the Lauder seems to bleach highlights....

Is it possible you are fixing for too long, maybe waaaay too long? I don't know anything about Lauder Fix, but acid fixers can bleach out highlights if the print is left in too long.

Is Lauder fix an acid fix? That's the first thing I'd investigate before looking for new developers.

C

[jwarren116]

Lauder is an acid fix, and I don't over fix. I'm pretty careful with my timing. I'm pretty sure our lab tech actually adds hardener to the fix. That might be the culprit?

[steve simmons]

I a a fan of LPD and Ansco 130. The Photogrpaher's Formulary has a version of the 130. Glycin is the key ingredient. With a PMK neg and 130 you can get a very nice, long scale print with wonderful high values.

steve simmons
publisher, view camera magazine

[John Bowen]

Bruce Barlow's www.circleofthesunproductions.com has free pdf files of the "Great Paper and Developer Shootout" articles he wrote for View Camera. You can get Bruce's impressoins of your favorite paper using about 12 different commercially available developers.

[Donald Miller]

Does anyone use the Amidol? And what are your experiences?

Thanks.

I use Amidol exclusively for my paper developer. In my experience, it gives wonderful deep blacks and excellent tonal separation.

[Brook Martin]

If you print more than a few prints in a session, amidol is not too bad in terms of economy. It mixes up quickly, lasts through a longs session without losing stregenth, and is very flexable in terms of being able to use water bath development to fine tune contrast. And there is the deep blacks and tonal seperation.

Remember, dektol and equivalents will start to weaken after 20 8x10's per liter of working solution.

[Doremus Scudder]

I am not familiar with the Lauder print developer, but if it is "like" Dektol, it should be a good standard developer. (Formulating a basic MQ or PQ print developer is not difficult, so I would imagine it would be more than adequate for basic developing). I would recommend that you get to know it well before doing a lot of switching around.

As far as using Selectol Soft or another soft-working developer in addition to the standard, higher-contrast developer goes, you would only need such split-development techniques if you need to achieve an intermediate paper grade on graded paper or if you print with VC paper and filters. However, if you have a color head or some other kind of continuously variable light source, you can simply "dial in" the intermediate contrast grades.

I use graded paper almost exclusively and use the Hard/Soft developer combination often. I find that having two trays works better than mixing the two as some recommend (this latter is similar to the Beer's variable contrast developer, which you might research).

I find that I can get many different nuances of contrast by varying the time the print is in the different developers: a soft-working developer by itself can be just the thing, as can using just the harder developer. However, if an intermediate contrast is desired, split the developing time between the soft and hard developers. Always use the softer developer first to prevent contamination and optimize the contrast control.

I usually start with splitting a three-minute developing time in half and adjust from there. If more contrast is needed, the print spends less time in the soft developer and more in the hard. There are infinite variations on this, and it is a good tool for fine-tuning contrast. I find that if I use both both developers on a print that the minimum time in either should be longer than 30 seconds with agitation to prevent mottling. Again, you really don't need to do this if you have a continuously variable light source.

When I worked in a public darkroom, I found it fairly easy to mix up a small amount of Selectol Soft or Ansco 120 in a separate tray and work as above, using my personal soft developer and the community standard developer.

As far as fixer bleaching your highlights goes: any fix used properly will not bleach the highlights. Acid fixes can bleach highlights with extreme overfixing. If your fixer is visibly affecting the highlights, check you dilutions and times and adjust accordingly (again, basic fixers are not hard to formulate, so I doubt that the chemicals themselves are at fault). TF-4 is a good product, but I found it to be more expensive and a bit smellier than the normal, non-hardening rapid fixer I use (Ilford Hypam or Rapid Fix at print strength, two-baths for 2 minutes in each bath for fiber-base prints. I don't like the economy or the rapid exhaustion of the fixer with the stronger dilutions recommended by Ilford.)

Many use different developers to subtly change the tone of the print, others are searching for that "deep black," etc. I have found, however, that a clean-working MQ or PQ print developer will deliver all the density a paper has to offer as well as give a good tonal range as long as the negative is tailored to the process.

As far as image tone goes, this is where you may want to experiment some with different developers. That said, I find that the papers themselves have more and greater variations in tone than the developer usually lends, plus, I tone my prints. For me, finding a paper that tones to a color and contrast I like is more important than the tone the developer itself gives. (An aside here: softer developers are usually "warmer" than standard ones since most contain only Metol as the developing agent. You will see the difference if you try controlling contrast with a combination of soft and hard developers.) I have found that some glycin developers prevent or hinder the toning of prints in selenium.

Hope that the above helps a bit.

Best,

Doremus Scudder

[paulr]

I've used amidol, ansco 120, and ansco 130 pretty extensively. my favorite has been 2-tray development with 120 and 130, when using graded chlorobromide papers (like fortezo). on these papers you can get a whole range of contrasts and curves by changing development. amidol produced a different image color and slightly richer blacks ... so slight that with most images it made no significant difference. not enough to justify the expense, toxicity, staining, short tray life, etc.

With modern variable contrast papers like MG, i've found that changes in paper development have a much, much smaller effect. it's worth testing, but i doubt amidol would be worth it with this paper. I'd start with testing changes in dilution, and move on from there.

[Brook Martin]

I too doubt that exotic developers are going to make a noticable difference using MG IV. This stuff is pretty set in term of what you can do to manipulate the subtle stuff.

[Bruce Barlow]

Amidol's lovely, but the cost per tray is gruesome. See Michael Smith's formula if you're interested. Easy to mix and long-lasting.

Dektol's consistently very good, and a "Best Buy." Buy gallon packets, mix stock and decant into 16 oz plastic bottles, leaving no air. One bottle fits in the backpack and diluted 1:2 makes a good 8x10 trayful of working solution for a printing session. Small bottles of stock last practically forever.

Ansco 130 is warm, wonderful, and lasts forever in the tray, making it affordable. I used to pour working solution back in the bottle and reuse it next session. I had some stock solution in a plastic bottle for three years, and it was still wonderful when I used it. No air in that bottle during that long storage, by the way. Finally, experiment with dilutions - is 1:3 that much different than the recommended 1:1? If not, it becomes even less expensive per-tray.

I'm deliberately steering you towards the less expensive stuff for a student's budget. That said, Dektol's the house favorite here. Amidol for Azo.

[CG]

Lauder is an acid fix, and I don't over fix. I'm pretty careful with my timing. I'm pretty sure our lab tech actually adds hardener to the fix. That might be the culprit?

I guess it's academic if you're switching fixers and have moved to solve the issue. Presuming you end up with no more issues with bleaching in highlights, why not take the next step and just buy component chemicals, and mix your own pring developers?

These five: metol, hydroquinone, sodium sulfite, sodium carbonate, and potassium bromide are all you need to create a huge range of formulas. You could go a lifetime trying out the possibilities of those.


The next round of aquisitions - since you will be motivated to try more - should maybe be aimed at particular developers since the less standard chemicals are legion.

C

[paulr]

These five: metol, hydroquinone, sodium sulfite, sodium carbonate, and potassium bromide are all you need to create a huge range of formulas. You could go a lifetime trying out the possibilities of those.

That's true.

The annoying flipside of this is that among off-the-shelf formulas there are dozens under different names and by different manufacturers that are practically identical. So you can waste a lot of time testing clones against each other and not getting anywhere!

[Geary Lyons]

Working in a common use DR is always a challenge. Quite honestly, you never know where the issues lie, simply due to the fact that you do not have control over the environment. Not that you would be a problem, but there are just too many opportunities for contamination throughout the process.

There are no "silver bullet" soups. Most any developer commercially available today is going to work well, if chosen for the appropriate purpose. That being said, I am a big fan of Ansco 130. I like the results produced by glycin. I mix it myself and stock the necessary chemicals, so I am not subject to the whims of the market and/or the diminishing selection of retailers. I also occasionally use Amidol, mostly with fixed grade papers.

Interestingly, a few years back, I hosted a Per Volquartz printing workshop in my DR. We tested several developers, including Ansco 130 and Amidol, with a variety of papers available at the time, (Oh...the good ol' days!), including Azo. Quite honestly everyone's favorite two soups were the Ansco and the Amidol. There was virtually no difference in the blacks and a bit of difference in the tonal range, that is until selenium toning. After toning there really was no difference on the VC papers and it was most difficult to see any differences on the fixed grade.

If you have the luxury of using your own chemicals in the common DR, I would encourage finding those that you enjoy and sticking with them until you know their characteristics intimately and are unconsciously competent in their use.

Cheers,
Geary

[BradS]

Dektol or its homebrew equivalent, D-72 both work very well with MGIV.
I've not tried Lauder's papre dev but, I love thier rapid fixer. It's the only fixer I use now.

[CG]

....among off-the-shelf formulas there are dozens under different names and by different manufacturers that are practically identical. So you can waste a lot of time testing clones against each other and not getting anywhere!

All the more reason to make up one's own!

C

[Erich Hoeber]

It's easy to overthink print developers IMHO. Currently I'm using P20 which is extremely consistent, fairly cheap, and convenient to mix.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I am with Erich, Clayton P-20 is great and convenient.

[Michael Graves]

I used Amidol for a short while, but switched to Ansco 130. The hassles of Amidol with its short tray life weren't worth the negligible (to me anyway) difference in print quality. I think the Ansco by Photographer's Formulary is a quantum leap above Dektol.