salvaging a developer

True .. except where I live it's pretty remote. I'm not a city slicker. I
needed a developer and asked a stupid question (?) and got beat up for it.
This is senseless.

I wanted to try something and Mr Knoppow answered that with an intellegent
answer. I accept that so let it be!!


Bill



"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


? wrote:

Exhausted film developer is more costly than exhausted print developer,
you
only know when you wasted negatives.

But there in lies the answer. Cut off a couple of inches of unexposed
film
and seal in your developing tank as though it was a roll. Develop
normally.
A quick inspection should give you a clue whether you want to use that
developer on important negatives.

Oh fer crying out loud. Just use ***FRESH*** developer. It's like a few
extra
minutes out of your day to mix some up and you always get consistent
results.



--
Regards,
Dewey Clark http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Ebay Sales:
http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAP...ems&userid=dsc
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution

"br" wrote in message
...
I have a half gallon of Xtol, which I'm sure, will not give proper
development because it was made up about 9 months ago. (It's still
clear)
Is there any type of chemical that can be added to make sure of normal
development? I would like to experiment but not sure how to start.

(I heard that Xtol's life dimishes with age)

Bill

br wrote:

True .. except where I live it's pretty remote. I'm not a city slicker. I
needed a developer and asked a stupid question (?) and got beat up for it.
This is senseless.

Don't think you got beat up, but a rather good answer I thought. Also didn't
think the question was stupid, as some developers do have long shelf lives. But
it's legitimate to question why you just don't use/order fresh developer. What
I thought was "senseless" was someone making a simple question into 2
additional "BTW" threads.

But at some point you have to consider whether the amount of effort spent on
fooling with an old and likely oxidized developer is worth that effort,
especially in context of how important your images are vs. how important it
becomes to economize (in either time or money) on developer. I.e., I usually
keep freshly ordered developer on hand, then you can quantitatively test the
shelf life and activity of an old stock or concentrate by actually comparing
resulting densities against the fresh developer. But if important images, to
blindly use an old developer with a limited shelf life to begin with seems
hardly worth it.

I generally prefer concentrates (Rodinal, HC110 etc) as they have very long
shelf lives compared to stock solutions you mix from packaged developers. But
clearly, someone else has a preference for D76 :-)




I wanted to try something and Mr Knoppow answered that with an intellegent
answer. I accept that so let it be!!

Bill

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


? wrote:

Exhausted film developer is more costly than exhausted print developer,
you
only know when you wasted negatives.

But there in lies the answer. Cut off a couple of inches of unexposed
film
and seal in your developing tank as though it was a roll. Develop
normally.
A quick inspection should give you a clue whether you want to use that
developer on important negatives.

Oh fer crying out loud. Just use ***FRESH*** developer. It's like a few
extra
minutes out of your day to mix some up and you always get consistent
results.



--
Regards,
Dewey Clark http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Ebay Sales:
http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAP...ems&userid=dsc
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution

"br" wrote in message
...
I have a half gallon of Xtol, which I'm sure, will not give proper
development because it was made up about 9 months ago. (It's still
clear)
Is there any type of chemical that can be added to make sure of normal
development? I would like to experiment but not sure how to start.

(I heard that Xtol's life dimishes with age)

Bill

? wrote:

Aye matey, therein lies the rub. Who DID simply ask why he chose to "risk"
using old developer without being disparaging of his question?

The simple fact is, most of the responses were needlessly pejorative in
tone.

The "majority" of responses to this meager thread are to your two
needless and silly tangents. That says something -- like you don't know
posting netiquette...

If someone asks a question, it is likely the petitioner would like
information free of invective. If the parameters of his question are
unclear, it is more fruitful to ask to have his question further refined
rather than to simply assume he violates your personal ethic and to start
chastising him.

A little tolerance goes a long way. IMO, "BR" is capable of perceiving the
responses he received as he sees fit. I see no point in trying to prove to
he incorrectly interprets his own perceptions.

As nsgs go, this one is pretty tame as well as usually informative.
Noting the pejorative behavior of certain posters (i.e., acknowledging
them) only encourages them to reply with more invectiveness. So, along
with suggesting the OP use fresh developer, it's suggested if certain
posters have nothing to offer but smart asinine-ness, the solution is
simple: killfile.

Works for me.

? wrote:

I can't help but notice you are the main contributor to this silly
(pejorative term perhaps?) thread. Interesting that you should complain
about its existence yet act to prolong its life.

Prolong? Isn't that why you started this stupid subthread? To gain attention?

Feel free to take the last post, it would appear there is nothing left here
of interest to me.

Aye matey, therein lies the rub. Who DID simply ask why he chose to "risk"
using old developer without being disparaging of his question?

The simple fact is, most of the responses were needlessly pejorative in
tone.

If someone asks a question, it is likely the petitioner would like
information free of invective. If the parameters of his question are
unclear, it is more fruitful to ask to have his question further refined
rather than to simply assume he violates your personal ethic and to start
chastising him.

A little tolerance goes a long way. IMO, "BR" is capable of perceiving the
responses he received as he sees fit. I see no point in trying to prove to
he incorrectly interprets his own perceptions.
--
Regards,
Dewey Clark http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Ebay Sales:
http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAP...ems&userid=dsc
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution

I can't help but notice you are the main contributor to this silly
(pejorative term perhaps?) thread. Interesting that you should complain
about its existence yet act to prolong its life.

Feel free to take the last post, it would appear there is nothing left here
of interest to me.

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Ebay Sales:
http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAP...ems&userid=dsc
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution

"br"

All developers die if left to do so.
Test your may not yet be dead Xtol with a small print. Set
the Xtol aside and mix a new batch. Let it age 72 hours then test
it in the same way the old Xtol was tested.
If the two tests turn out the same, use up the old soon. Save
the new mix test print for comparison purposes. Who knows, the new
mix may be around a long time. IIRC, now days five liters is as
little as can be bought. Dan

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:15:24 -0500, "br" wrote:

True .. except where I live it's pretty remote. I'm not a city slicker. I
needed a developer and asked a stupid question (?)

No, you asked "Is there any type of chemical that can be added
to make sure of normal development?" in hopes of insuring the
capability of Xtol to develop your films. While my answer was curt, it
was in fact accurate. The only agent that you can add to a developer
to insure that it works is a developing agent.

and got beat up for it. This is senseless.

"Got beat up" ?

I wanted to try something and Mr Knoppow answered that with an intellegent
answer. I accept that so let it be!!

I concur.

Now, I suggest the following given your remote location.


Solution A

Elon 10g
Sulfite 100g
Water 1.0L

Solution B

Sod.Metaborate 4.0g
Water 1.0L

Mix A with very hot (130F) distilled water and I suggest storing
in 250ml glass bottles. Add a pinch of the sulfite to the water prior
to mixing the Elon in. The sulfite will absorb most of the free oxygen
in the water.

Mix B with warm (100F) water and also store in 250ml bottles.

For use simply mix 1A:1B:2 Water (250:250:500) to make 1.0L of
working solution. Develop the film as you would using D-76 diluted 1:1

Cost : 0.95/L of stock.

Elon .80
S.Sulfite .05
Metaborate .05
Water .05

Believe me, you won't have to worry about it going ten-toes
up.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

Thank you Mr. Douglas.

I think it's about time to order some supplies and mix my own and be sure
have fresh developer when needed.

My intentions was never cause such a ruckus over such a simple question and
any questions I may ask in the future, hopefully, will not cause such a
commotion. Believe me I have many questions and really would like
constructive answers as anyone else would.

What is this formula you gave me? I'm interested to know.

Bill


"John" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:15:24 -0500, "br" wrote:

True .. except where I live it's pretty remote. I'm not a city slicker.
I
needed a developer and asked a stupid question (?)

No, you asked "Is there any type of chemical that can be added
to make sure of normal development?" in hopes of insuring the
capability of Xtol to develop your films. While my answer was curt, it
was in fact accurate. The only agent that you can add to a developer
to insure that it works is a developing agent.

and got beat up for it. This is senseless.

"Got beat up" ?

I wanted to try something and Mr Knoppow answered that with an
intellegent
answer. I accept that so let it be!!

I concur.

Now, I suggest the following given your remote location.


Solution A

Elon 10g
Sulfite 100g
Water 1.0L

Solution B

Sod.Metaborate 4.0g
Water 1.0L

Mix A with very hot (130F) distilled water and I suggest storing
in 250ml glass bottles. Add a pinch of the sulfite to the water prior
to mixing the Elon in. The sulfite will absorb most of the free oxygen
in the water.

Mix B with warm (100F) water and also store in 250ml bottles.

For use simply mix 1A:1B:2 Water (250:250:500) to make 1.0L of
working solution. Develop the film as you would using D-76 diluted 1:1

Cost : 0.95/L of stock.

Elon .80
S.Sulfite .05
Metaborate .05
Water .05

Believe me, you won't have to worry about it going ten-toes
up.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:21:12 -0500, "br" wrote:

Thank you Mr. Douglas.

You can call me John. "Mr.Douglas" was my father ;)

I think it's about time to order some supplies and mix my own and be sure
have fresh developer when needed.

My intentions was never cause such a ruckus over such a simple question and
any questions I may ask in the future, hopefully, will not cause such a
commotion. Believe me I have many questions and really would like
constructive answers as anyone else would.

I understand. Unfortunately many of us don't have Richards
open-mindedness.

What is this formula you gave me? I'm interested to know.

Essentially a variation on D-76H. Metaborate instead of Borax
as Borax has solubility issues. In other words, it will come out of
solution relatively easily. Please let me know if you try it. I've
been meaning too but I've been rather busy what with having the 2
additions to the family and purchasing a new home.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email