Printable View
See the middle of the left column on page 6 of this document:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aron
It says (about Rodinal) "One-shot developer: with 500 ml concentrate about fifty films (135-36 or 120 roll-film) can be developed."
500 ml divided by 50 (80 square inch) rolls equals 10 ml. Confidence or crap shoot. :laugh:
I will use 1:9 with HP5+ but not for any other film. My experience with DD-X, and it is probably true with other similar developers is that the film grain gets a little more sandy in texture.
Another reason why I use DD-X at 1:4 is because I value my time.
Could the grain be sandy at a dilution of 1:9 because there is not the minimum amount of stock solution in the working solution, i.e. at least 61.5 ml of undiluted DD-X? Shouldn't the grain be sharper at a higher dilution?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken N
Wait, you're saying I need to get myself a 2.5mL dropper because 60mL will ruin my film? I've had nothing but consistent results using the method I described above. Is there something I should be seeing on the film which would be caused by the absence of such a minute amount of developer?
I guess my post wasn't clear. The info chart for DD-X states that a one-litre bottle will process 16 films at 1:4. A dilution of 1:4 means you get 5 litres of working solution from the one-litre bottle of DD-X. If you divide 5000 ml of working solution by 16 rolls of film, it means that you must have 62 ml of DD-X and 248 ml of water at the 1:4 dilution to process each roll of film. If you want to use a 1:9 dilution, you would have to use 62 ml of DD-X and 558 ml of water to process one roll. My query is this: what happens if there is not the minimum amount (62 ml) of undiluted DD-X in the working solution? (For example, if you use DD-X diluted 1:9 like this: 30 ml of DD-X in 270 ml of water.) Could this explain the "sandy" look of grain when DD-X is used at 1:9?Quote:
Originally Posted by 6x7
No, your post was clear. I am the one who is confused.
If Paterson recommends 58mL of developer per roll of 35mm for 1:4, but Ilford suggests 62.5mL, does such a tiny difference in the amount of developer used result in a discernible difference in the quality of the finished product? Using the amounts I listed in my original post, I am technically above the 58mL recommended by the tank manufacturer but below the 62.5mL recommended by Ilford, yet my results for both 35mm and 120 using a variety of films has been consistent.
So what numbers do you follow? Should you follow? Tank manufacturer or developer manufacturer?
|Like 6x7 I cannot believe that such a small difference in stock DDX represents a discernible difference in neg quality and can further say that when I used DDX at 1+4 I was using a 250ml Jobo tank for 35mm film so only used 50mls of stock DDX without any disaster and always got 20 films from 1L stock DDX.
Does Ilford actually give a minimum quantity of 62.5 mls to be used which must not under any circumstances be less than 62.5?
As 6x7 has said if 62.5mls is the minimum then I and anyone else shouldn't be using Jobo tanks as they only hold 250( 240mls actually to be accurate) and I then need to either increase the size of my tank to the Paterson 300mls or risk using the DDX at a ratio of less than 1+4.
Maybe Ilford are in league with the likes of Paterson to ensure that users will abandon their Jobo and Durst tanks :D
OK I have become silly about it in suggesting the above conspiracy theory but it illustrates my point.
pentaxuser
Any recommendation from a tank manufacturer is developer independent - it says nothing about the chemical capacity of whatever "soup" you are using, but rather deals only with whether or not the volume of your working solution is enough to cover the film and within the range that will permit the right sort of agitation and not flow over and out of the tank.
The developer manufacturers' recommendations deal only with the chemical capacity of the "soup" you are using, and are tank and reel independent. If you choose a dilution and prepare a working solution based on the minimum quantity of developer concentrate or stock sufficient to ensure appropriate chemical capacity, then the volume of working solution that results may be either:
a) too little to cover the films and ensure appropriate agitation,
b) appropriate for your tank, or
c) too much to fit into the tanks and ensure appropriate agitation.
When the numbers are really close, I would tend to increase the strength of the dilution slightly to make it work, but there is probably enough safety room built into (in this case Ilford's) the recommendations to protect you.
Use the recommendations from the developer manufacturer. He knows what's in the bottle.Quote:
Originally Posted by 6x7
Ignore information from any other source, like tank manufacturers, since the minimum varies with the developer being used.
- Leigh
Sadly, that means wasted developer if you use Jobo tanks. I've just bought my first bottle of DD-X and have been pondering the same question. I can either develop one roll in a two-roll tank or three rolls in a four-roll tank (35 mm). I believe in filling the tank for inversion agitation, otherwise the sloshing introduces a new variable. So my choice is like that of the person who posed the question - use less DD-X than Ilford recommends, or use the recommended amount and not get the aforesaid 16 rolls per liter.