Developing film in print developer?

[southampig]

Hi,
Can anyone tell me if using print developer (Jessops econoprint) with FP4 film will be ok? what length of time should I use if so?

Thanks
John

 

[Torus34]

No. It's not OK.

Film developers are designed to be slow acting and to partially develop the image. [Don't think that's true? Process a properly-exposed roll of film with the time doubled.]

Paper developers are designed to be fast acting and to fully develop the image. [Don't think that's true? Process a properly-exposed sheet of paper with the time doubled.]

 

[southampig]

Thanks for the quick reply Torus34, it`s mainly because I found a bottle and thought it might be worth a go but I don`t want to waste the film.
I`ll use the right stuff!
Cheers
Southampig

 

[Torus34]

If you're new to b&w processing, check the series of articles on this site. They form a step-by-step 'cookbook' which will get you well under way. I'm familiar with them and can answer questions you might have. Just PM me. I'll reply.

[See? We Yanks out here in the colonies are good for something, even if we can't hold a cricket bat properly.] ;-))

 

[Jay DeFehr]

John,

With apologies to Torus34, you can use print developer to develop film. While it's true that film developers are optimized for film development, and print developers for prints, they are not as different as one might think.In fact, there are many Universal developer formulae for film and prints, including Kodak D72 (Dektol), and Ilford Universal developers. It's true that print developers are typically more active than film developers, but either type will develop a film or a print to completion. Print developers can be diluted to bring film development times into line with film developers. The biggest penalty for using a print developer is likely to be increased grain in the negative. Print emulsions are inherently very fine grained, so print developers are not formulated with grain in mind. That being said, modern films like FP4+ are so fine grained that they can tolerate some abuse by the developer, and your results are not likely to be significantly grainier than the same film developed in Rodinal. The most important obstacle in your case would be determining a good dilution and development time. It is almost sure to be more practical to just buy some film developer. Good luck, and enjoy!

Jay

 

[Torus34]

Jay;

Right! And right!

Jim

 

[Derrel]

I have in the past developed Kodak RC and fiber-based paper in used Kodak HC-110 Dilution B developer. Results were "okay".

 

[Jay DeFehr]

I think the biggest problem with developing prints in film developer is capacity/ expense. It takes a lot of developer to develop all that silver in a print, and film developers are not formulated for that, so one has to replenish frequently and at considerably greater expense than a typical print developer. If one compounds one's own developers, then all bets are off. I've committed every sin known to man or beast in my darkroom, and learned a few lessons in the bargain. For instance, a clean working, staining film developer also makes a fine direct toning print developer, although I admit I cheat in its compounding for the respective uses. I even formulated a universal developer I liked very much. I called it, "DeFehr Rapid Universal Developer for Film and Prints" as a play on the hilarious product names from the era when universal developers were popular, but few got the joke, and some ridiculed me for naming the developer after myself (as if it were a real product!). The developer resulted in my use of a few stock solutions made up in different proportions to make a developer for either film or prints. I decided it would be fun and potentially educational to try to come up with one formula that worked for both. I was very happy with my solution to the problem, but it did involve some unorthodox quirks; in print strength, it developed most films to normal contrast in about 70 seconds! My oldest son, who was new to darkroom work and hadn't yet formed any prejudices about how long it should take to develop film, loved it, and wondered why anyone would want to develop their film for longer than 70 seconds. Used with Superfix in my Jobo ATL3, I could process film from start to finish in about 3 minutes. When I published my formula with development times, I met with all the expected objections: it would produce huge grain, poor gradation, and uneven development, and the short development times would demand too much precision in timing. None of these objections had merit. Grain was similar to D-76 1+1, gradation was very good (I used it for portraits), I never saw any evidence of uneven development (even with stand development!), and my novice son had no trouble with the timing. Granted, we were printing on VC paper, which afforded us considerable latitude, but who doesn't print on VC paper? It was a valuable learning experience, and a lot of fun!

 

[southampig]

Thanks all, I might give it a go when I have more time, meanwhile I used ID11 and the film (and camera) turned out great. The camera was the main reason for the test, it`s an Ensign Speed Twenty box camera from the 1930s. It takes quite sharp pictures. I`ve also now tried out a Kodak Junior 1 and the negs from that look good too. I`ve got to get a darkroom sorted now...

 

[Danny_Dulieu]

Hello,

I used to process BW films in print developper. It gives you a "special" results, meaning wery high contrast. I got samples if you want.

But for "normal" results, this is not recommended.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Hi,
Can anyone tell me if using print developer (Jessops econoprint) with FP4 film will be ok? what length of time should I use if so?

Thanks
John

You could do it, but you would have to dilute it considerably. Probably on the order of 1:20 or perhaps even more, for decent results. Print developer is much more active than negative developer. It uses sodium carbonate as the alkali, in a large amount. D-76 uses borax as the alkali, and in minute amounts.