Green Developer?

 ID11 used with Fomapan

In the normal run of things the colour of your developer as you pour it out at the end of the developing period is nothing out of the ordinary. You just get on with the next stage of the process. That is until it comes out emerald green!. What was just another film processing session has just thrown up a number of questions of doubt, or has it? This is possibly the first time for quite a while that you have taken any notice of what colour the used developer was supposed to be. So what changed? Your film make?

Basically what you are seeing, if you have not used a pre-soak, is the anti-curl and/or the antihalation coatings, washing off in the developer. It has no affect on the developing process which is the first thought most of us have when presented with something out of the ordinary. Different developers can present varying colours depending on which film manufacturer you use.

RO9 used with Fomapan

Why add these dyes?

The halation dye is added to the back of the film base to stop reflections coming off the backing (Acetate or Polyester) into the emulsion, causing exposure affects, usually visible to the eye as halos around areas of brightness. Sometimes the halation coating is sandwiched between the film base and the emulsion or added to the film base itself giving it a slight tone. This in no way alters the way the film acts with the printing process.

So which film developer combination gives you this wonderful Green?

Fomapan is responsible for the green tinting of the used developer. The developers I have used - ID11 and RO9 have produced this colour, so suspect that this film may affect other developers. Although Foma produces the most striking colour, other makes also add a tint to varying degrees to the developer during the process.

Dogs Dinner.

Well not quite, a dogs water bowl! There is no chance of it falling in his dinner because his head is in the bowl before it hits the floor. The film was more likely to become a chew.

I noticed that two film containers were sitting on the kitchen table. Thinking they were empty I picked them up to throw away, to discover that they were not. I opened one and out dropped a roll of exposed colour film. Butter fingers here managed to drop the roll of film! The consequence of these finger fumbling, was splash! straight into the dogs water bowl. My wife said that she had not seen me move that fast since my superman days. I need reminding, what superman days?

After a bit of dancing around to shake the water out, it was off to the local supermarket for development. An outlet we had not tried before. The film was also long out of date - nearly a decade. If it had not been for the fact I was on my way out I would have blacked out the darkroom and removed the film for drying. These things always happen when you're short of time.

As it turns out the water had destroyed nearly half the frames on a film of twenty four. The up shot of this was we only had to pay half the normal fee. There was also colour shift on some of the prints. This I put down to the water damage.

Am I disappointed? No! Not really, but I am with myself for the butter fingers, but not with the results we have, as neither of us could remember who, what, when or which camera was used in the first place. The big disappointment is with the quality of the processing and paper used. 

A mistake comes good

Developed normally

In a recent chat I had with another photographer, there was a lamenting the fact that he had not noticed a problem with his new pinhole camera; well not the camera but a bit of kit he was using with it. He is not the only one not to notice the little tell tail signs that things are not going well. I had the same sort of thing with the lith 200 process I was trying out for the first time. It was not until I started to use different makes of paper that the fault struck me. Up to that point I thought it was part of the process. It turned out that the box of Kentmere paper had been light contaminated (fogged),but when I could not remember.  At this realization two things crossed my mind, what a waste of a box of paper and dam! it is not a peculiarity of the process.

lith 200 Kentmere paper

I changed to a different paper and continued to produce prints. Using the

negatives I had selected for the trial with the lith 200. While I was doing this I had the idea that maybe the fogged paper could be used to creative affect. I chose some of the negs that may lend themselves to this and processed them accordingly. As the first result appeared in the developer, I started to question this creative wisdom as it looked rubbish, but then my perception changed when the photograph of the bottles on the window sill appeared. It did not look out of place, in fact it added to it a sort of early twentieth century feel. Maybe my idea wasn't such a bad one after all!.

lith 200 Forma paper

What I'm getting at is just because it has gone wrong there is no need to throw the baby out with the water so to speak! With a little lateral thinking creatively you can turn things round. Some of you may think I'm talking a load of rubbish ( I'm being polite) but it is surprising how often a mistake can come good.

lith 200 Kentmere paper