ansco 130 as a split developer for film?

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by kwmullet, Apr 12, 2005.

  1. kwmullet

    kwmullet Subscriber

    Messages:
    889
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2004
    Location:
    Denton, TX,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I know ansco/PF 130 makes a good split developer for paper. I also know several folks here use ansco 130 (well... two or three) for film. Does anyone have any experience using ansco 130 as a split developer? I'm interested in a split developer that uses the same time regardless of temperature, and develops up to a certain point and stops regardless of how long the film's in the soup. Would ansco 130 fit the bill?

    -KwM-
     
  2. Paul Howell

    Paul Howell Member

    Messages:
    2,676
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Location:
    Phoeinx Ariz
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    There is an Ansco press formula which is a split developer, I used it as well as Dinafine and seem about same. I can't find Dinafine locally, but I used for a couple of years in the summer when my tap water is 90-95f, the negatives seem rather flat but correctable with higher contrast paper. Very good shadow detail in high contrast lighting. If you are interested I think I have a older text with the Ansco press formula and I will dig it out in a day or two.

    Paul
     
  3. jim appleyard

    jim appleyard Member

    Messages:
    2,131
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format

    Paul, do you mean Diafine? If you do, I agree. Diafine is usable over a wide range of temps and you soup the film in bath A for "x" minutes and bath B for "x" minutes. It is however, a speed increasing developer and that may suit your needs or not.
     
  4. kwmullet

    kwmullet Subscriber

    Messages:
    889
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2004
    Location:
    Denton, TX,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Actually, the bigger picture is that I've decomissioned my previous darkroom and my new one wont be up for several months.

    I've got a friend whose on the fence about doing darkroom work for the first time, and I'd like to show him the easiest film processing setup: basically, load reels in a changing bag, use chemistry that requires no temperature control, wash in the kitchen sink and hang to dry from the shower rod.

    Diafine is the other part of the equation -- I'd been planning on using it for my high-speed developer. Thanks for confirming that it doesn't care about temperature within reason. The other part I need is a conventional speed developer. That's what I'd be hoping I could do with a PF130 kit, mixed as a split developer, not as one stock solution.

    Hopefully, I'll be able to find that conventional speed developer and wow this friend into the ease of the very most basic film processing setup and draw him into the clan of the darkroom junkies.

    -KwM-
     
  5. jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    19,997
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    local
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    hi

    i did some split ansco 130 yesterday in a unidrum.
    it was roll film ( i don't usually process rolls in 130 because it can be kind of contrasty ) but i used 130 - dilute 1:8 for about 7 mins and at that point i drained and put black-stuff in there that was probably dilute 1:2. i have an image in the gallery that was done that way.

    i haven't done sheets like that yet, but probably will in a few weeks time.
    usually when i process sheets it is 1: 5 or so for about 7-8 mins. i've been processing everything from ilford fp .. tmax ( 100-400 ), tri-x and plus x like this for about 5-6 years. a few months ago i thought i would try something different instead. i bought and used xtol for a while, but i have gone back to 130.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 12, 2005
  6. Tom Hoskinson

    Tom Hoskinson Member

    Messages:
    3,879
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Location:
    Southern Cal
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    There is a difference between a 2 bath developer and split developing. Split developing typically uses 2 different developers. A popular example is split developing prints with a combination of Ansco 130 and Ansco 135.

    2 bath developers (like Diafine) use an A solution containing the developing reagents (plus preservative) and a B bath containing the alkali.

    Ansco 130 is a paper strength developer. When I use it as a film developer, I dilute it 20:1 with water.

    This is something to keep in mind if you attempt to split Ansco 130 into a 2 bath developer.

    The formulas for Ansco 130 and Ansco 135 can be found in the Paper Developer Section of the APUG Chemistry Recipes.
     
  7. kwmullet

    kwmullet Subscriber

    Messages:
    889
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2004
    Location:
    Denton, TX,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Not exactly what I'm after, and after further research and re-finding this thread:
    http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=11072

    I see the correct term is divided developer. I don't want to do split developing, I want to mix some of the ingredients for part "A" stock solution, some in part "B" and use in sequence.

    Actually, this post:
    http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?p=88221#post88221
    by Tom Hoskinson has the recipe for mixing divided Ansco 130.

    I'm looking now for anyone with experience using it for film. Maybe they divide it but use a greatly diluted part "A"...

    -KwM-
     
  8. kwmullet

    kwmullet Subscriber

    Messages:
    889
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2004
    Location:
    Denton, TX,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    hahaha... while I was linking to and looking up Tom Hoskinson's posts, he was posting to this thread. halarious. :smile:

    Thanks tom! I guess diluting part A 20:1 would be a good place to start. Any comments on times? Temp is not a factor, right?

    -KwM-
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 12, 2005
  9. waynecrider

    waynecrider Member

    Messages:
    2,297
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    Floriduh
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Do yourself a favor and shoot part of any roll at rated speed and for a 1 and 2 stop push. Develop the film in Diafine, get a loop and look at it. While you do this have your friend there.
     
  10. kwmullet

    kwmullet Subscriber

    Messages:
    889
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2004
    Location:
    Denton, TX,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    excellent tip. we'll do that.
     
  11. kwmullet

    kwmullet Subscriber

    Messages:
    889
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2004
    Location:
    Denton, TX,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Divided Developer and A Darkroom in a Dairy Crate

    I thought I'd get some last words of advice before I dive into this in case anyone has anything else to add.

    I'm going to start off by shooting a step wedge on a light table with both Tri-X and FP4 at ranges from probably -3 to +3 of my anticipated exposure index in 1/2 stop increments.

    Am I correct in assuming that both Ansco130 and Diafine develop up to a point then stop, so the only variables I can control are what exposure index at which I shoot and the dilution of the developer, right?

    ANSCO 130
    jnanian mentioned he uses Ansco130 at 1:8. Tom mentions 1:20. The dilution affects the speed at which full development is reached, right? Does it also affect contrast and range? I assume the longer I develop, the higher b+f I get, and the higher the b+f, the lower the dynamic range for a given maximum density. (I can hear you all cringing as I slaughter the most basic ideas of sensitometry.)

    When I use ansco130 as a divided developer, am I correct in assuming that I only dilute part A and not part B? How do I know when part B starts to need replacing or refreshing?

    Let's say I do a series of 3 or 4 strips with ansco 130 1:20 and find the exposure index that gets me what looks to be the most number of steps on the step wedge as viewed through a lupe. What difference would I be likely to see in terms of development time and results if I were to half (1:10) or double (1:40) the dilution? I'm assuming capacity would likewise be halfed or doubled.

    DIAFINE
    Got this in the other day, but have never used it before and haven't cracked it open. Will I need to experiment with different dilutions here as well, or is there just one standard dilultion for this?

    This project has me thinking that it might be fun to write an article on "A Darkroom in a Dairy Crate" showing how someone could just have all the essentials for a darkroom to process film (& maybe do contact sheets) without having to mess with temperature control, exact timing or even a very dark room. I'll bet a fair number of apartment/dorm dwellers or folks who want to soup their film while on the road might see merit in such an article.

    thoughts? suggestions?
     
  12. Tom Hoskinson

    Tom Hoskinson Member

    Messages:
    3,879
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Location:
    Southern Cal
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    ------------------------------------------------------------


    Splitting Ansco (Ansco/American Agfa) 130 Paper Developer

    The A Bath:

    Water (125 F or 52C)-----------------------------750 ml
    Metol*-------------------------------------------2.2 grams
    Sodium Sulfite (anhydrous)------------------------50 grams
    Hydroquinone-------------------------------------11 grams
    Potassium Bromide---------------------------------5.5 grams
    Glycin---------------------------------------------11 grams
    Water to make-------------------------------------1.0 liter

    *Dissolve a pinch of sodium sulfite first, then dissolve the Metol.

    Dissolve the other chemicals in the order listed.

    The B Bath:
    Water (125 F or 52C)-----------------------------750 ml
    Sodium Carbonate (monohydrated)-----------------78 grams
    Water to make-------------------------------------1.0 liter

    You will need to experiment with dilutions of A and B.

    Using non-split Ansco 130 as a film developer, I found that with when I diluted 1 part Ansco 130 with 10 parts water, I achieved a DMAX of 2.78 with a Base plus Fog of 0.17 with Kodak TMY rated at 400. I developed for 16 minutes at 70 degrees F, with two gentle torus inversions per minute.
     
  13. Donald Qualls

    Donald Qualls Member

    Messages:
    1,845
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Location:
    North Caroli
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Don't dilute Diafine. Mix per directions on the box (one quart or one gallon, depending on the size, final volume of each solution). Use it full strength, pour back in the bottles when done. If you like, you can replenish the Bath A to original volume with fresh Bath A, then discard an equal amount of Bath B and replenish that with fresh Bath B. Take great care *never* to get even a *trace* of Bath B into the Bath A bottle, and your bath A will last many months, even years. And it doesn't hurt either bath to pick up some color...
     
  14. Maine-iac

    Maine-iac Member

    Messages:
    465
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Location:
    Island Heigh
    Shooter:
    Med. Format RF
    I believe this is correct. I've used it divided as a paper developer but never for film. If you're looking for an easier and less toxic paper developer formula to try for film (you don't need to buy glycin) try Ansco 125. I'd say you should be able to run 2-4 rolls through the B bath before exhausting it. If you have some Ph paper, just check it and make sure it's still sufficiently alkaline. You can use almost any alkali for the B bath, but depending on which one you use the activity (and therefore the length of time to develop to completion) will be different. There may also be a difference in grain size.

    Larry
     
  15. Tom Hoskinson

    Tom Hoskinson Member

    Messages:
    3,879
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Location:
    Southern Cal
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    There is very little difference in toxicity between Ansco 125 and Ansco 130. Both are Metol Hydroquinone developers and the Glycin component of Ansco 130 is not particularly toxic in comparison.

    You don't want to breathe the dry dust from any of these developing agents - or soak your skin in the solutions made from them either.
     
  16. kwmullet

    kwmullet Subscriber

    Messages:
    889
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2004
    Location:
    Denton, TX,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Well, now that I've got time, I've dug in on this project again. I shot three rolls of bulk-load Tri-X against a masked 4x5 21-step tablet on a light table, using my spot meter to read exposure from step 11: one at EI200, one at EI400 and one at EI1600. I pulled off about eight inches of the 200 and 400 roll and processed them at approx 80 degrees f as follows:
    - 1-2 minute presoak in tap water
    - 16 minutes of divided Ansco/PF 130 part "A" diluted 1:20 with distilled water.
    - 16 minutes of divided Ansco/PF 130 part "B" undiluted
    - 2 or 3 rinses in tap water
    - film dilution of PF TF-4 fixer for 6 minutes
    - tap water wash
    - dry in one of those previously-discussed cheap/effective/fast 4" PVC pipe/hair dryer film dryer.

    I'd misread or mis-remembered something from earlier in the discussion or my notes on searches of APUG and elsewhere to determine how folks were using Ansco 130 for film and diluted 1:20 instead of 1:10 or 1:8.

    The results were disappointing, and I was glad I only processed test strips. The part of each strip that was exposed to room light was 2-3 stops lighter than what I'd expect dMax to be. I was only able to see the writing outside the sprocket holes very faintly after holding the strips up to the window light. When I first pulled the film from the wash, I saw what looked to be particulate stuck to one of the strips, but had to run out somewhere so I stuck it in standing water and further rinsed it and put it in the dryer once I returned later that evening.

    After pulling it from the dryer, I saw that bits of emulsion were missing from the strip throughout its length. As I write this, I remember that when I opened up my tank, one of the strips had come loose from the stainless reel and was plastered against the side of the tank. Now that I think about it, maybe the missing bits of emulsion were due to the reels scraping against the strip during agitation.

    My next test, I'll increase the potency of my Ansco 130 "A" from 1:20 to 1:10, keep the time at 16 minutes, keep the Ansco 130 "B" time to 130 and the TF-4 to 6 minutes, unless I get some suggestion to the contrary.

    Does my "B" time need to be the same as the "A" time, or if I'm using a full-strength "B", would 3-4 minutes be sufficient?

    More as I get more data or to respond to replies.

    -KwM-
     
  17. Tom Hoskinson

    Tom Hoskinson Member

    Messages:
    3,879
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Location:
    Southern Cal
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    To establish a starting point for using Ansco 130 as a Split Developer:

    Use the A Solution I posted earlier in this thread WITHOUT DILUTION.

    DO NOT soak the film in water before soaking in the A solution.

    1. Soak the film in the A solution for 3 minutes with gentle agitation.

    2. Put the film directly into the B solution (WITHOUT DILUTION) for 3 minutes with gentle agitation.

    3. Rinse in water.

    4. Fix

    5. Wash
     
  18. kwmullet

    kwmullet Subscriber

    Messages:
    889
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2004
    Location:
    Denton, TX,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format

    outstanding. I guess I put two facts together that didn't belong. I did
    mix my "A" and "B" in proportion to your post (only I made a gallon of
    each instead of a liter).


    welll.... okay.. I'm a habitual soaker 'cause of superstition about
    uneven development, especially when there's short development times,
    and a belief (however irrational) that if I pre-soak the film it'll
    eliminate any reaction between the antihallation layer (washed off)
    and the developer as well as pre-saturate the emulsion with water so
    the development will be more even and there'll be less likelihood of
    air bubbles sticking to the emulsion.

    Once I establish a baseline, though, how does one accommodate pre-soak
    as well as developer dilution when doing additional tests?

    Alternately, am I just completely whacked in thinking that if I
    slow down the development by dilution, I might be more likely to get
    more recognizable steps in my strips as well as a tiny bit more edge
    definition?

    [OBVIOUS DISCLAIMER]
    Clearly, I'm speaking way out of my expertise, here, and wanting to stand
    on the shoulders of giants (APUG variety) to accomplish what I want.
    Hope none of you giants mind being stood on.
    [END OF DISCLAIMER]


    A quick recap for those who have read this far and want to be saved the
    trouble of going back in the thread to see what the heck I'm trying to do.
    Caught, as I am, between the demise of the previous darkroom and the
    christening of a new one; having recently learned that a friend of mine
    might be interested in processing his own film if I can boil it down
    to the lowest-maintenance proceedure possible; and finally, wanting to
    have an "un-darkroom in a dairy crate" that I can take on road trips and
    process the day's film in a motel room, I've been trying to boil down a
    film processing workflow that uses very long-lasting chemistry, requires
    no temperature control and not very much time control, and can all fit
    in a diary crate, ammo box, or some other easily portable container.

    I've identified two developers, Ansco 130 and Diaphine, that aren't
    temperature finicky. I've previously read that Ansco 130 isn't even
    time-sensitive past a certain point when used as a separated developer
    for paper. Hopefully, that holds true for film as well.

    That brings the story forward to this test. Since I couldn't find
    archived discussion of advisable times to use with separated Ansco 130
    and film (in this case, Tri-X), I did the previously-mentioned test but,
    as you can see, put two and two together and got five.

    The "deliverable" I hope to come up with are my optimum exposure indexes
    and development times for Tri-X in Diaphine and Tri-X and a lower-speed
    film (probably fp4) in separated Ansco 130. No densitometer or
    sensitometer available.

    I actually typed up my reply yesterday, but had to run somewhere else
    and got paranoid about losing the contents of my textarea box, so I saved
    it in a gmail "draft" to myself. This morning, I've installed the mozex
    extension in my firefox browser so now I can use gvim (vi) to edit all my
    textarea text and happiness abounds. Now, let's see if I start getting
    good results on my strip tests.

    Tom and others -- Thanks VERY much for your wisdom and guidance
    throughout this process.

    -KwM-



    --
    Kevin W. Mullet

    "It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles.
    Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you,
    not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell."
    -- Siddhartha
     
  19. jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    19,997
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    local
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    kevin

    while i use ansco 130 all the time to process film, it is mostly sheet film that i use it for, and process very little roll film using 130. the rolls i have processed ( 120 + 135 ) still come out okay, sometimes a little contrasty, but never really a problem.

    as i have mentioned, i don't "split" it, but use it combined, and i always develop by inspection for sheet film and cross my fingers for roll film. i always use a water bath ( pre-soak ) for a minute or 2 for all my processing, and i always use a water bath after my development. the second water bath usually lasts at least a minute.

    i don't know if i am of any help ... but i figured i would add a little bit more to what i have already said.

    good luck with your tests!

    -john
     
  20. kwmullet

    kwmullet Subscriber

    Messages:
    889
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2004
    Location:
    Denton, TX,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format

    Thanks very much, John. All information helps.
    I hope to do the second round of tests this afternoon.

    -KwM-
     
  21. fingel

    fingel Member

    Messages:
    298
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisc
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hi Kevin,
    From my experiance using Diafine, don't presoak your film in water. The whole point of the two baths is for the part A to absorb into your film. Then the bart B is added to activate the A stored in the film. Once all the part A is exhosted in the film development stops. That is why it works at any temperature. Part A by itself does nothing. Part B alone also does nothing (useful anyway).

    If you presoak your film in water it will inhibit the absorbtion of the first bath into the emultion. The rusults that I got when I presoaked before using diafine was a mottled look, probably caused by uneven absorbtion of Part A (ie: some areas exhosted before others)

    Other than when using Diafine I presoak everything also, but learned the hard way not to do it with Diafine.
     
  22. kwmullet

    kwmullet Subscriber

    Messages:
    889
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2004
    Location:
    Denton, TX,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hrm.. that makes sense. This is one of the reasons why I closed up shop and am returning to get my BA (followed by MA, if I can pull it off) in photography -- so I can have a much better command of process (and art, but that's another topic) than I do now, and knowing just what's going on when I separate a developer, how to charge into sensitometric tests and make best use of my time and materials to quickly find out what I need to know and get on with taking pictuers and, ultimately, make the print in my hand reflect the image in my mind.

    Not pre-soaking on separated developers makes a lot more sense to me now.

    Thanks!

    -KwM-
     
  23. dancqu

    dancqu Member

    Messages:
    3,676
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Willamette V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Hear is another split. Perhaps it's been mentioned, the Ansel
    Adams split where the hydroquinone portion is a second solution
    and added to the metol + glycin portion to increase contrast.

    Interestingly Ansel's A solution is very similar to Crawley's FX-2.
    Likely Ansel's A will make a good film developer just as he has
    compounded it and FX-2 will make a good paper developer.
    Of course correct dilutions would need be made.

    For panthermic processing use a mild alkali for the HQ bath. Say!
    That may be a good idea! Remember, I thought of it first. Dan