Developer - stock vs diluted?

Hallsy

Hallsy

Messages
472
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys, i'm going to start developing my own black & white film at home.

I have bought all of my chemicals from Ilford. As I have some film I want to push, I have gone for Ilford Microphen.

I'm not sure about whether to use it as stock or dilute though. If I use it stock, Ilford suggest you can re-use it for 10 rolls - does a single 120 roll count as two rolls (same amount of developer as if doing 2 x 35mm), or it could be diluted 1:3 and be used for approx 6 - 7 tank fulls - is there any particular benefit in using one method over the other?

Also - any suggestions for storage for the mixed chemicals? Ordinary used plastic bottles ok, such as mineral water bottles?

Sorry for the newb questions, but you have to start somewhere!!
 
Last edited:
Firstly, one 120 film has same film area as a 36 exposure 35mm film. So when reusing stock developers they count the same. This also applies to working out how many films a mixed up volume of fixer can do.

Second, there are a number of pro's and con's to re-using stock or diluting and using as one shot.

a) Some developers work out more economical as one shot, but that can depend on the volume you need for the particular mix of film formats and tanks you use. You have to work that out and weigh against the other factors.

b) Consistency, re-use usually means having to change the developing time as the developer gets exhausted and the quality of the negs can change.

c) You can sometimes push more in stock developer.

d) Re-using stock keeps more or less the same volume to store so using a rigid glass bottle is ideal with perhaps a few marbles to top up and reduce air space. Dilution means having a flexible container. Avoid concertina bottles !! I use 500ml flat camping style bottles, they use same plastic as wine box liners and you can squeeze to exclude air.

There is good info on the Ilford website and more detailed info on the developers than comes with the packet.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/2008/product_id/708/



I'm sure there will be other considerations I've not covered, but breakfast calls.
 
Last edited:
All else being the same, the more dilute the developer, the finer the grain in the resulting negative. So, if grain size is important, use a more dilute developer. There is a price to pay, as always, and you will also affect tonality and contrast and you then find yourself in the midst of the zone system. You can make film developing as complicated as you want it to be.

Personally, I would not dilute (or not) for cost reasons. If using ID11 (which is my second favourite developer) I dilute 1:3 as that gives me the type of negative I like. Otherwise I use Rodinol diluted 1:50 which gives more grain but nicer tonality.
 
Thanks guys - still lots to consider!!

I can see benefits to both methods....re-using stock solution keeps the bottle full and so hopefully fresher for longer, but one-shot gives more repeatable development times.

As this is my first time developing i'm actually leaning towards diluted and consistent dev times, that way I may get more of a feel for what's going on with my exposures, push, etc.

I have read that although dilution ratios will effect grain size and sharpness, it is a subtle change?
 
How much Microphen have you got.
I'm not one for economy or faffing about with reusing chems, I even chuck the fix after one roll these days...lol.
Like..1litre of stock Microphen isn't conducive to that kind of workflow, I can't think of an economical way to try both stock and dilluted with one "portion".
I suppose you'd just have to sacrifice one shot of stock which will impact on its economy.
 
I have just bought the smallest Microphen packet initially, so it will make 1 litre.

I double checked the volume for one roll of 120 in my tank and it's 590ml, and around 650ml for 2x35mm. So diluting 1:3 I would get 6 rolls of 120 out of it, or 12 rolls of 35mm - I'm doing a bit of both, so will be similar economy whether using it 1:3 or stock. Although I suppose in practice you may get more than 10 films through the stock solution.

I suppose best thing is to just experiment and see what works out the best for me over time - gives me a good excuse to burn through a few rolls of film!!
 
seems like a lot for a small tank, 590 and 650
mine is 500 for either, and I don't think that is the most frugal of tanks.
never really thought about it before but despite a roll of 35 being equal in surface area to a roll of 120, you can do twice as much 35 in the same tank

*laments the demise of 220*
 
I agree about the demise of 220!!

That is just what it says on the bottom of my AP tank - I didn't get chance to have a go this morning, so hopefully tomorrow!! Still mulling over stock vs 1:1, vs 1:3 - one fly in the ointment is that I am reading conflicting reports on Tri-X pushed to 1600 in Microphen, for stock MDC suggests 12 minutes, but for 1:1 I have seen anything from 20 minutes to 29 minutes.

I read a thread on rangefinder forum where a guy developed Tri-X @ 1600 for 29 minutes in 1:1 Microphen and the results looked great, read another report on another forum for same development and the results were awful!!! As much to with metering as development I guess, but 29 minutes does seem like a long time!
 
29 minutes sounds like stand development where you do not agitate at all. It is a very uncontrolled method which is useful for unknown or awkward films. I use it for very out of date films (is 40 years past use by date).
 
You will get more predictable and consistant results using developer diluted, then discard.
You will also get slightly sharper results and better shadow detail. If you do not over agitate.

Used full strength you will have to increase the development time the more films you develop in it...
You will also lose a percentage of developer every film you process.

Used developer does not keep as well as unused stock.
 
In the end I used stock solution as I couldnt find too much info for pushing tri-x to 1600 with diluted microphen. I used the suggested timing from massive dev chart and the negs seemed to come out OK. They are usable at least!!

I was quite surprised to see a difference in contrast and grain across the roll, shot in similar conditions - although that could well be down to my inaccurate exposures!!

I have a related question - i metered some tri-x at 1000asa as that was the highest the meter went on my electro 35. Dev chart has 11 minutes for 800, and 12 minutes for 1600 in microphen stock - should i just add 20 seconds to the 800 time or is that too simplistic?

It seems odd that there is only 1 minute different between 800 & 1600 develoment times, considering the suggestion is around 6 minutes for 500asa iirc.
 
Almost all the development occurs in the first minute or so. After ten minutes, most of the developer is used up, the silver already forming the image is inhibiting further development as are the other products of reaction. That last minute or so is just finessing contrast.
 
Hallsy said:
I didn't realise it happened that quickly!!
Click to expand...

I would say that it does not... it is progressive in most instances. Though does slow down in very dilute developers as they become exhausted.

Line film developers are an exception, as they are all or nothing extreme contrast and start slowly, and then turn black in rhe flick of an eye.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I would say that it does not... it is progressive in most instances. Though does slow down in very dilute developers as they become exhausted.
Click to expand...
The rate of reaction is proportional to the concentration of the reactants. The concentration of these drops as the development proceeds - in particular the undeveloped silver halide as this is not replaced by agitation. The rate of reaction is also inversely proportional to the products of reaction - in particular the metallic silver as this is not removed by agitation. The result is a logarithmic rate of development rather than a steady one.
 
I had understood that development slows down with time....just that 1 minute difference for 1 stop seemed quite a small amount.

Especially as the times for stock microphen on massive dev chart as follows:
500asa = 6 minutes
800asa = 11 minutes
1600asa = 12 minutes
3200asa = 25 minutes

It does make me wonder if the 1600 development time is a little short maybe - but this is my first attempt so far too inexperienced to tell of my negatives looked under developed.

They all developed well enough, some a little under exposed and some lacking the contrast i expected from tri-x pushed 2 stops - but 2 shots stood out - so I put it more down to my exposure being off!!
 
The massive dev chart is a collection of times, concentrations, that different people have found to be useful. It is not 'official' times from film makers or developer makers and the different times for different speed ratings will have come from different people.
 
I appreciate that John, but when you have zero previous experience - you have to start somewhere!!

The only official time from Ilford is for 500asa, so that's an educated starting point at least.
 
Last edited:
Hallsy said:
I appreciate that John, but when you have zero previous experience - you have to start somewhere!!

The only official time from Ilford is for 500asa, so that's an educated starting point at least.
Click to expand...

That is the whole point of the massive dev chart - working starting points. If you follow the mdv, you will end up with usable negatives. Then you can adjust for yourself with future films.
 
I think I might just start from the Ilford time for 500 and go with the general guidelines for pushing with compensating developer (1 stop = 1.4x, 2 stop = 1.85x, 3 stop = 2.5x) and see how I get on.

So I have metered at 1000asa, Ilford recommend 6 minutes at 500, so I'll give 8.4 minutes a go :)
 
Last edited:
I bottled it and went with the mdc suggestion for 800asa and added 15 secs or so to account for the extra 1/3 of a stop I needed.

I ended up looking through Flickr and found lots of examples of tri-x @ 800 in Microphen for 11 minutes, which looked good, as well as some that had been developed for 15 minutes.

Looking forward to scanning them tonight - sadly there were some problems with the negs, but not sure if it's light leaks or a development problem :(
 
Share your scans with us and I am sure we can identify the problems for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top