1st time printing with FF Liquidol

I’m trying out Liquidol (http://stores.photoformulary.com/liquidol-paper-developer) as an alternative to Polymax-T because I like the convenience of a liquid concentrate, but Polymax doesn’t keep well enough for me to get through a bottle before it starts to precipitate/crystallize.

It was an interesting printing session. What I noticed is:

• It seems very sensitive to agitation in the tray. Development time is only about 2/3 of Polymax, and I noticed serious artifacts on the prints if I didn’t agitate every 10s or so
  
• It seems very energetic, with the image appearing much faster than I’m accustomed to with Polymax. Makes sense with the shorter overall dev time.
  
• Print tone seems cooler than Polymax on the same paper. I won’t know for sure until the prints dry, but that’s my first impression.
  

I can’t say if I like it or not after 1 session. I feel like judging development by inspection will be harder with how fast it works. I may try a 1:18 rather than 1:9 next time to slow it down. I know that will cut the capacity, but I print so seldom that I use developer as one-shot anyway.

Anyone else have experience with Liquidol to share?

I don't think I ever had two different print developers at the same time.

I do have some Polymax-T, though haven't looked for crystals.

My darkroom is about 50F in the winter, and maybe 65F in the summer.

Cold means more crystalization. You might be able to warm it and redissolve them.

Otherwise, for me, I adjust the exposure based on the suggested development time and

how the prints come out. I wouldn't try using the same exposure as with a different developer,

mostly because, as above, I haven't had two at the same time to try.

Not sure why you're not agitating prints continuously in a tray. Who taught you to do otherwise?

Any print developing time briefer than about 90 seconds is too short for manual development. Many RC paper developers were designed for compatibility with RA machine times - 45 seconds development. For hand processing you should definitely dilute such developers further to get a sensible tray developing time. As long as you can get a full black from the developer in about 90 seconds @ 70F, then that's the 'right' dilution.

Bring back D-163! It gave the best tone of any print developer yet invented. Dektol maybe runs a close second.

As far back as I remember, the contact print papers, like Velox, were 60s, and enlarging papers 90s.

I still have the Yankee trays (red, white, and blue) that I started with 50 years ago. They have three

feet (bumps on the bottom) so that you can rock them by pressing down on one corner, for just

a little agitation. I have never known to have an effect which I attributed to insufficient

print agitation, but then maybe I just didn't know it.

There isn't much else to do while a print is developing, so at least move the tray around

just a little bit.

Not sure why you're not agitating prints continuously in a tray. Who taught you to do otherwise?

 

Any print developing time briefer than about 90 seconds is too short for manual development. Many RC paper developers were designed for compatibility with RA machine times - 45 seconds development. For hand processing you should definitely dilute such developers further to get a sensible tray developing time. As long as you can get a full black from the developer in about 90 seconds @ 70F, then that's the 'right' dilution.

 

Bring back D-163! It gave the best tone of any print developer yet invented. Dektol maybe runs a close second.

I learned basic darkroom technique >20 years ago, but was away from it for a long time. When I went back for a refresher maybe 2 years ago, the instructor taught developing RC for ~90 seconds with just a few agitations at 30 second intervals using Dektol. It seemed close enough to film agitation that I went with it, and I’ve been using Polymax with a similar regime. My results have been consistent and pleasing, so I didn’t give it much thought. Yeah, I feel dumb typing that.

At at any rate, Liquidol didn’t like that regime and produced prints with dramatically different density in different parts of the print until I wised up and started agitating a lot more.

 

(snip)

 

At at any rate, Liquidol didn’t like that regime and produced prints with dramatically different density in different parts of the print until I wised up and started agitating a lot more.

I was just posting to a thread on stand development of film. With stand, you develop for a long

time, with minimal agitation. (Maybe some agitation near the beginning, and then a long time without.)

It seems to me that you are accidentally testing stand paper development.

I don't remember ever having problems with Dektol, but then maybe I never did that little agitation.

I mostly remember gently rocking the tray.

Well, my usual system, which I believe I learned from my father, is to put the paper into the tray

face down, and then after a short time, turn it face up. The idea is that face down gets the whole

sheet wet fast, but I also now realize that it gives a good amount of agitation in the first seconds.

Paper development is different than film development, in that it is mostly to completion.

If done right, some additional development will make very little difference. I believe that

makes film more sensitive to insufficient agitation. Are you underdeveloping your prints?