I have been reading about divided developers for film. Never tried it; looks promising though! Do any of you in this group have any experience with this approach? The reason for my interest is the fact that i live in the country and that my house disposes of waste water via a septic tank system. Hence, i want to minimise the amounts of photographic chemicals entering the tank in case they kill the microbes.
Below is a divided developer formula; a variant on D-76 where BATH A and B can be kept for a long time: A BATH Water at 125F 3 cups Metol 1/2 tsp Sodium sulfite 2 TBL Hydroquinone 2 tsp Potassium bromide 1/8 tsp Cold water to make 1 quart
B BATH Water at 80-100F 3 cups Sodium sulfite 2 TBL Borax 2 TBL Cold water to make 1 quart
Process 2-4 minutes in A BATH, and the same time in B BATH, both at 68F. Agitate for 15 sec initially, and for about 5 seconds every half minute. Stop bath is not recommended after B BATH, a quick 1 min rinse in water is enough. Fix the film in the usual manner.
A BATH will last indefinitely, and B BATH can be used for 20-30 rolls of film before any change in contrast or density should be noticed.
There is also a phenidone version of this formula to obtain increased film speed.
> I have been reading about divided developers for film. Never tried it; > looks promising though! Do any of you in this group have any experience > with this approach? The reason for my interest is the fact that i live > in the country and that my house disposes of waste water via a septic > tank system. Hence, i want to minimise the amounts of photographic > chemicals entering the tank in case they kill the microbes.
> Below is a divided developer formula; a variant on D-76 where BATH A and > B can be kept for a long time: > A BATH > Water at 125F 3 cups > Metol 1/2 tsp > Sodium sulfite 2 TBL > Hydroquinone 2 tsp > Potassium bromide 1/8 tsp > Cold water to make 1 quart
> B BATH > Water at 80-100F 3 cups > Sodium sulfite 2 TBL > Borax 2 TBL > Cold water to make 1 quart
> Process 2-4 minutes in A BATH, and the same time in B BATH, both at 68F. > Agitate for 15 sec initially, and for about 5 seconds every half > minute. Stop bath is not recommended after B BATH, a quick 1 min rinse > in water is enough. Fix the film in the usual manner.
> A BATH will last indefinitely, and B BATH can be used for 20-30 rolls of > film before any change in contrast or density should be noticed.
> There is also a phenidone version of this formula to obtain increased > film speed.
> -- > Regards / JCH
Not sure what to make of this, but at least A BATH will deteriorate with use and with time. The usual interpretation of "indefinitely" in "A BATH will last indefinitely" is misleading. The lifetime may be a little uncertain, but it will steadily deteriorate.
As B BATH becomes contaminated with A BATH it will at least look ugly.
Metol and Hydroquinone decompose in air. They are the more troublesome parts of your mix (although I don't necessarily recommend drinking a lot of borax). Unless you process a whole lot of film, you may be just as well served by letting the used developer sit in a tray for a few days before pouring it down the sink.
> I have been reading about divided developers for film. Never tried it; > looks promising though! Do any of you in this group have any experience > with this approach? The reason for my interest is the fact that i live > in the country and that my house disposes of waste water via a septic > tank system. Hence, i want to minimise the amounts of photographic > chemicals entering the tank in case they kill the microbes.
> Below is a divided developer formula; a variant on D-76 where BATH A and > B can be kept for a long time: > A BATH > Water at 125F 3 cups > Metol 1/2 tsp > Sodium sulfite 2 TBL > Hydroquinone 2 tsp > Potassium bromide 1/8 tsp > Cold water to make 1 quart
> B BATH > Water at 80-100F 3 cups > Sodium sulfite 2 TBL > Borax 2 TBL > Cold water to make 1 quart
> Process 2-4 minutes in A BATH, and the same time in B BATH, both at 68F. > Agitate for 15 sec initially, and for about 5 seconds every half > minute. Stop bath is not recommended after B BATH, a quick 1 min rinse > in water is enough. Fix the film in the usual manner.
> A BATH will last indefinitely, and B BATH can be used for 20-30 rolls of > film before any change in contrast or density should be noticed.
> There is also a phenidone version of this formula to obtain increased > film speed.
I used several divided developers in the past for 4147 Plus-X and 4164 Tri-X. I used D-23 or D-25 for Bath 1 and a solution of 2% Sodium MetaBorate and 2% Sodium Sulfite for Bath 2. I used up to 7 minutes in bath 1 and 3 minutes in bath 2.
The good part was the measured film speed went up one stop.
The bad part is that it worked the opposite of what people said. They said it would lower the highlight contrast while maintaining the contrast elsewhere. What I got was that it lowered the shadow contrast (even though it increased the film speed). The only way to control the highlight contrast was to reduce the time in bath 1, and that lowered the contrast everywhere.
When I switched films to the TMax series, it was even worse because all the sulfite made the sharpness very mushy. So I gave it up entirely.
-- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 06:55:01 up 48 days, 11:57, 3 users, load average: 4.13, 4.21, 4.10
Jean-David Beyer wrote: >> I have been reading about divided developers for film. Never tried it; >> looks promising though! Do any of you in this group have any experience >> with this approach? The reason for my interest is the fact that i live >> in the country and that my house disposes of waste water via a septic >> tank system. Hence, i want to minimise the amounts of photographic >> chemicals entering the tank in case they kill the microbes. > I used several divided developers in the past for 4147 Plus-X and 4164 > Tri-X. I used D-23 or D-25 for Bath 1 and a solution of 2% Sodium MetaBorate > and 2% Sodium Sulfite for Bath 2. I used up to 7 minutes in bath 1 and 3 > minutes in bath 2.
> The good part was the measured film speed went up one stop.
> The bad part is that it worked the opposite of what people said. They said > it would lower the highlight contrast while maintaining the contrast > elsewhere. What I got was that it lowered the shadow contrast (even though > it increased the film speed). The only way to control the highlight contrast > was to reduce the time in bath 1, and that lowered the contrast everywhere.
> When I switched films to the TMax series, it was even worse because all the > sulfite made the sharpness very mushy. So I gave it up entirely.
_____ Jean-David,
Thanks, that is excellent feedback. I was hoping for a universal long life developer solution. I found a 30 m bulk roll of ILFORD FP4, probably purchased around 1987, and stored in the freezer all this time. The price was C$28.69. I was planning to test the divided developer formula with this film.
I am getting back to wet, analog photography after 20 years. In the past i used a lot of Beutler and Acufine style developers. These formulations always gave my very consistent results. I wonder how well the Diafine formula would work? The latter is also supposed to be a divided developer.
> I have been reading about divided developers for film. > Never tried it; looks promising though! Do any of you in > this group have any experience with this approach? The > reason for my interest is the fact that i live in the > country and that my house disposes of waste water via a > septic tank system. Hence, i want to minimise the amounts > of photographic chemicals entering the tank in case they > kill the microbes.
> Below is a divided developer formula; a variant on D-76 > where BATH A and B can be kept for a long time: > A BATH > Water at 125F 3 cups > Metol 1/2 tsp > Sodium sulfite 2 TBL > Hydroquinone 2 tsp > Potassium bromide 1/8 tsp > Cold water to make 1 quart
> B BATH > Water at 80-100F 3 cups > Sodium sulfite 2 TBL > Borax 2 TBL > Cold water to make 1 quart
> Process 2-4 minutes in A BATH, and the same time in B > BATH, both at 68F. Agitate for 15 sec initially, and for > about 5 seconds every half minute. Stop bath is not > recommended after B BATH, a quick 1 min rinse in water is > enough. Fix the film in the usual manner.
> A BATH will last indefinitely, and B BATH can be used for > 20-30 rolls of film before any change in contrast or > density should be noticed.
> There is also a phenidone version of this formula to > obtain increased film speed.
> -- > Regards / JCH
Devided or two bath developers work on the principle that the emulsion soaks up the developing agents from the first bath and they are made active in the second. Since the amount of developer that the emulsion can hold is limited the amount of development is limited. In theory this can result in a consistent contrast with limited control and, for some films, for reduced development of the highlight areas since, presumably, the developing agents get used up faster there. In practice the system often does not work very well especially with modern films which have much thinner emulsions than those of the 1930's when most of these developers were devised. On your main point about polution: I think there will be little difference between the single bath and two bath type developers. To cut down on discarded developer it makes more sense to use a replenished system. When the developer eventually reaches the end of its life it can be disposed of at a recycling place. This takes quite a bit of time so it can be done even if you are out in the sticks. The real culprit for septic tanks is hypo. Hypo accumulates silver in a form which kills some types of bacteria. The bacteria in the tank are what causes it to break down the waste so you want them to be healthy. Kodak used to have an on-line pamphlet about photo chemicals and septic tanks, I don't know if its still there but its worth a look. Much of the silver in hypo can be recovered by simple methods. For instance, the silver will plate out on steel wool put into the solution. Use oil and soap free steel wool. It takes several days and the resulting hypo can not be reused but is environmentally friendlier. There are a number of developers available with replenishers or are self-replenishing. D-76, Xtol, and T-Max RS are examples.
-- --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickb...@ix.netcom.com
> with this approach? The reason for my interest is the fact that i live > in the country and that my house disposes of waste water via a septic > tank system. Hence, i want to minimise the amounts of photographic > chemicals entering the tank in case they kill the microbes.
Kodak does not recommend putting any photographic solutions into a septic tank. The chemicals breakdown naturally with aerobic bacteria found in municipal processing plants, but not with the anaerobic bacteria found in a septic tank.
Richard Knoppow wrote: > In practice the system often does not work very well especially with > modern films which have much thinner emulsions than those of the > 1930's when most of these developers were devised.
_____ Richard,
Have you personally tested the divided development process recently with the modern thin emulsion films? Any conclusions?
Jean-David B. reported: "The bad part is that it worked the opposite of what people said. They said it would lower the highlight contrast while maintaining the contrast elsewhere. What I got was that it lowered the shadow contrast."
> There are a number of developers available with replenishers or are > self-replenishing. D-76, Xtol, and T-Max RS are examples.
_____ OK, will look at those. Being a person who likes to experiment a bit, i will try to use the divided developer formula i posted (from the Zone V booklet) to see if i can duplicate Jean-David B's results.
>> I have been reading about divided developers for film. Never tried it; >> looks promising though! Do any of you in this group have any experience >> with this approach? The reason for my interest is the fact that i live >> in the country and that my house disposes of waste water via a septic >> tank system. Hence, i want to minimise the amounts of photographic >> chemicals entering the tank in case they kill the microbes.
>> Below is a divided developer formula; a variant on D-76 where BATH A and >> B can be kept for a long time: >> A BATH >> Water at 125F 3 cups >> Metol 1/2 tsp >> Sodium sulfite 2 TBL >> Hydroquinone 2 tsp >> Potassium bromide 1/8 tsp >> Cold water to make 1 quart
>> B BATH >> Water at 80-100F 3 cups >> Sodium sulfite 2 TBL >> Borax 2 TBL >> Cold water to make 1 quart
>> Process 2-4 minutes in A BATH, and the same time in B BATH, both at 68F. >> Agitate for 15 sec initially, and for about 5 seconds every half >> minute. Stop bath is not recommended after B BATH, a quick 1 min rinse >> in water is enough. Fix the film in the usual manner.
>> A BATH will last indefinitely, and B BATH can be used for 20-30 rolls of >> film before any change in contrast or density should be noticed.
>> There is also a phenidone version of this formula to obtain increased >> film speed.
> I used several divided developers in the past for 4147 Plus-X and 4164 > Tri-X. I used D-23 or D-25 for Bath 1 and a solution of 2% Sodium MetaBorate > and 2% Sodium Sulfite for Bath 2. I used up to 7 minutes in bath 1 and 3 > minutes in bath 2.
> The good part was the measured film speed went up one stop.
> The bad part is that it worked the opposite of what people said. They said > it would lower the highlight contrast while maintaining the contrast > elsewhere. What I got was that it lowered the shadow contrast (even though > it increased the film speed). The only way to control the highlight contrast > was to reduce the time in bath 1, and that lowered the contrast everywhere.
> When I switched films to the TMax series, it was even worse because all the > sulfite made the sharpness very mushy. So I gave it up entirely.
_____ J-D,
An off-topic question: i noticed that you run Linux. What distribution are you using these days? I started with Red Hat Linux about 1998, but now i run OpenBSD for the past couple of years.
sometime.photograp...@gmail.com wrote: > On May 5, 2:56 am, jch <j...@nowhere.net> wrote: >> with this approach? The reason for my interest is the fact that i live >> in the country and that my house disposes of waste water via a septic >> tank system. Hence, i want to minimise the amounts of photographic >> chemicals entering the tank in case they kill the microbes.
> Kodak does not recommend putting any photographic solutions into a > septic tank. The chemicals breakdown naturally with aerobic bacteria > found in municipal processing plants, but not with the anaerobic > bacteria found in a septic tank.
_____ Thank you very much indeed for this link. Looks like an excellent line of products. It seems that wet, analog photography is alive and well in a niche market.
