Help with the mixing please.
"When you run out of replenisher, you mix your second gallon kit:
1. Instead of mixing the 1/3 of stock with water, mix it with the old developer."
Thomas, I like your replenishment method for LPD. Have not noticed any improved tones, but it is a very convenient way to manage print developer. Please clarify the directions above for your second can of developer. I am close to using up the makeup solution from my first can. I have approximately 1 gallon (128 oz) of working solution. Do you add the 1/3 gallon (43 oz) of new stock solution to the 128 oz of working solution, or on a ratio of 1:2, 1 part stock solution to 2 parts old working solution? I may have more working solution left than typical because the bulk of my printing is with RC paper which does not absorb as much developer.
BTW, I sent a note to Ethol requesting their directions, but no reply. Also, could not find anything on the web.
My experience is that you risk losing tonality if you save Dektol over a period of several days. Here is what Richard Henry had to say about aging Dektol. " A working solution of 1+1 will gradually lose potency but, up to 6 days, compensation can be made by increasing development time, with the exception that maximum blacks fall off somewhat after the second or third day." I prefer to keep everything consistent and therefore print with fresh developer.
Originally Posted by Loren Sattler
I also noticed with 130 bromide buildup can quickly change consistency and eventually produces the 130 glow/stain.
I'm resurrecting this thread to engage in a bit of necro-posting because of an experience I just had with LPD.
Due to various personal things keeping me busy I've been sorely limited in darkroom time for more than a year now, and when I have printed I've largely been on a warm tone kick with Ilford MGWT and Harman WT developer. This weekend I was printing and decided that, while the image I was working on was one I had pegged for warm tone, it might look good (and quite different) on a cooler tone and I'd like to compare. This isn't common for me - generally I will look at a given image and decide that it gets printed either warm or neutral (or cool if the new Ilford FB paper works out!)
So I had finished my MGWT prints of this image, put away the WT developer and rinsed the tray, and got out my MCC 110. This excellent paper is very slightly warm of neutral, nothing like MGWT, and goes neutral in selenium but isn't really capable of a true cold or cool tone (I am looking forward to trying the new Ilford FB Cooltone but don't have any, and only have part of an 8x10 25 sheet pack of MGIV FB and I was printing this image from a 6x6 negative at about 10 in. square on 11x14 paper.) I got out my LPD mixed stock solution, glanced at my label saying I had mixed it 5/2012 and briefly thought "nearly a year old, it's probably still fine." Then it hit me - this stuff was nearly TWO years old. I'm sure I printed with it during early 2013 but couldn't recall using it in at least eight or nine months.
Well I have another can of unopened powder but it was already after 11 PM Sunday night and I had to be up at 0600 and there was clearly no time to mix new stock from powder. "WTH," I thought, let's see... poured a bit in a graduate and the color was light amber, a bit darker than fresh mixed but not bad looking at all. Since I wanted a cooler tone AND suspected the developer I mixed up a tray full at 1+1 and tried it with the MCC 110.
Now I don't have comparable prints from fresh developer to compare to in either final result or needed exposure, but the prints look excellent. NO problems at all that I can see. I was able to closely (but not exactly) match the MGWT prints for density and contrast. MGWT, like many WT papers, is a good bit slower than MCC 110 (26 seconds at f/11 for the MGWT, 18 seconds at f/16 for the MCC 110) and there's a bit more than 1/4 grade contrast difference - I printed the MCC 110 with a grade 3 filter and got prints slightly more contasty than a 2.5 on the MGWT, while 2.5 was clearly softer. I think splitting 2/3s of the eposure on grade 3 and 1/3 on 2.5 would have matched extremely close but as I said it was late and Sunday night and I didn't have a lot of time. And of course the speed and contrast differences between two papers are nothing to do with the developers, just mentioned out of interest.
When I have time I'll mix fresh stock. I'm undecided about disposing of the nearly two year old stock on general principle or trying to make comparison prints with fresh stock as an experiment, but I certainly see absolutely nothing wrong with the MCC 110 / LPD prints I made Sunday night.
The stock was stored in the usual Delta brown plastic bottles with the air squeezed out. I had a tiny amount in a quart bottle and the rest came from the other half gallon bottle. (When I mix a fresh gallon it goes in one 1/2 gallon bottle and two quart ones. When both quarts are used up I transfer the half gallon to the quarts. It is much easier to squeeze all but, say, six ounces of air out of a quart bottle than out of a 1/2 gallon one.)
All prints from the sesion are still untoned. The MGWT ones are destined for brown toner, the MCC 110 for 1+19 selenium. They are interesting to compare, and show just how warm MGWT+Harman WT developer actually is, even untoned. It's not so apparent without the comparison print. The Ilford base is also slightly cream or off-white compared to the very bright white base of MCC 110, again something that is far from obvious without direct comparison but very clear looking at the borders of the prints side by side.
LPD is amazing stuff and I won't be going back to Dektol anytime soon. I like LPD for its shelf life and tray life. I had some in a try for three days and had no problem using it on the third day. I will add that I had the tray covered with saran wrap resting right on top of the developer. Being Dutch I had a little trouble paying the higher price, but I actually ended up saving money over the long run. I just received my chemicals from PF to make a batch of Ansco 130 and later this summer I'm plan on doing some serious comparison between LPD and the 130. I like the fact that you can run LPD as a replenished type paper developer also and I did just that with my last batch. Unfortunately that batch came to and abrupt end when good old me contaminated it. I haven't used that many store-bought paper developers so I can't comment on others, but I can say that LPD is one that I would have no problem picking if I had to pick just one developer to use from this time on. Your experience with it just adds to mine. Great stuff! JW
I've only been using it a few months now, replenished, but so far couldn't be happier. Reading about shelf life like that just makes me happier. I'm using it 1:2 and the tones are different from dektol. I suspect they might get closer if I tried it 1:1, but I like what I'm getting so no need. That can is going to make a lot of prints!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
LPD and shelf life?
I need to compare more dilute LPD to the Harman WT developer with MGWT to see if I could just standardize on LPD. The Harman stuff is excellent and lasts pretty darn well itself (once I learned the trick - the Harman bottle is no good once you open the foil seal. I now transfer the concentrate to two 16oz bottles, squeeze out air as needed and it lasts a long time, but not sure about this long.)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I did try some at 1:4, but never on a "so called" warm-toned paper. It gave a softer look, but not really a warm/brownish tone on the paper I tried it on. Once I went the replenished route I stuck with that. JW
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
You guys have talked this die-hard Kodak guy into buying some Ethol net time. Reading this reminds me of Jed Clampett's admonition that possum innards is (sic) just as good the second day.
Let us know how it goes. I've never heard of anyone trying LPD and having anything bad to say about it. The worst I've heard is that they like it no better than Dektol and it costs more (but as above, lasts a lot longer so really costs less to use.) Most people seem to love it. I settled on it as my standard print developer some time in the 1980s and each time I've come back to photography I've gone back to LPD for prints. My recent excursion into warm tones lead me to try the Harman WT, but other than that it's been LPD.
Originally Posted by Tom1956
Is there a recent MSDS available for this developer? I can't seem to find it.
EDIT: Here it is: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/ms...lpd_liquid.pdf