GEVAERT G.33 Soft Developer

GEVAERT G.33 Soft Developer

  1. Kino

    Kino Member

    Messages:
    1,730
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Kino submitted a new resource:

    GEVAERT G.33 Soft Developer - GEVAERT G.33 Soft Developer

    Read more about this resource...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 6, 2016
  2. Kino

    Kino Member

    Messages:
    1,730
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Forgot to add; used .83 g of Sodium Bromide instead of 1g of Potassium Bromide as per substitution table in Anchell's DRCB.
     
  3. Kino

    Kino Member

    Messages:
    1,730
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Examples of neg scans in B&W darkroom...
     
  4. Kino

    Kino Member

    Messages:
    1,730
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    All films shot at rated ASA/ISO speeds.

    For Arista Edu 100 -- I suggest 14 minutes with 15 sec. agitation per min.

    For Artista Edu 400 and Ilford Pan F 50-- I suggest 12 minutes with 15 sec. agitation per min.

    Kodak TMax 400 -- not recommended

    The effects of extended development depend heavily upon the stock, but tend to work best on slower, old-style emulsions.
     
  5. Kino

    Kino Member

    Messages:
    1,730
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Ilford HP5 -- somewhere in the vicinity of 12 minutes -- YMMV
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 22, 2007
  6. titrisol

    titrisol Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Do you have a reference for this?
    I looked in the Gevaert manual and Taylor&Taylor photo lab-index but cannot find such recipe
     
  7. Kino

    Kino Member

    Messages:
    1,730
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Well, I will have to pile through my books again, but I DO know it is posted on the Digital Truth site in their formulas section online.
     
  8. titrisol

    titrisol Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I think there is something wrong in the numbering, film developers had numbering 210-230s, paper developers 250-260s. So it maybe 233?
    The only one I've found that is close is G212
    * Water, 125F/52C 750 ml
    * Metol 2 g
    * Sodium Sulfite (anhydrous) 25 g
    * Hydroquinone 1.5 g
    * Sodium Carbonate (monohydrate*) 35 g
    * Potassium Bromide 0.5 g
    * Cold water to make 1L

    Given the amount of Metol, this should be quite vigorous? or am I wrong?
     
  9. Tom Hoskinson

    Tom Hoskinson Member

    Messages:
    3,879
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Location:
    Southern Cal
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    There is a Gevaert GD-33 formula on page 84 of Morris Germain's Darkroom Handbook and Formulary, published by Ziff-Davis 1940.

    This Gevaert GD-33 formula is identical to the one posted by Kino.
     
  10. Kino

    Kino Member

    Messages:
    1,730
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thank you, Tom. I knew I wasn't crazy... well at least in that respect...

    I think mine came from a Focal Press book from the Mid to late 30's that I can't lay my hands on again to save my life. It is part of a two volume set; one is "Developing", the other, "Enlarging".
     
  11. titrisol

    titrisol Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks a lot!
    conundrum resolved :wink:
    Those Focal Press books were good, I gave mine away a couple of years ago.
     
  12. Kino

    Kino Member

    Messages:
    1,730
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Sorry, Tom; I did't see this posting for some reason...

    The experiences I have had (admittedly few) so far, are that it does produced denser than normal negatives, but the detail doesn't block up as much as say D76.

    I haven't had time to do a real controlled comparison, or to even print the negatives I have developed so far, so I am afraid I am not much help in this regard, Sorry!

    However, what I have seen from neg scans looks promising for subjects that can profit from a longer gray scale and diffuse grain structure.
     
  13. titrisol

    titrisol Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Well the amounts of metol and HQ are very low, and the re is more M than HQ so me was wrong in the initial asusmption.

    yes this shoul dbe very soft acing, with nice detail in shadows and highlights that do not block
     
  14. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,120
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I agree with Titrisol, there's definitely something wrong here. It needs checking in the Gevaert manual of photography.

    Kino, I think the books you are referring to are by Jacobson. I have them in the UK.
     
  15. eclarke

    eclarke Member

    Messages:
    1,972
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Location:
    New Berlin,
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    I have seen Germain ridiculed at times, don't know why, but his little book is one of my favorites..Evan Clarke
     
  16. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,120
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    There is 33 Gevaert Developer as Kino states in the first edition of Jacobson , Developing (1940). It's in table XV and is a fine grain developer roughly equivalent to D76 but it uses Rescorcin as well as Metol & Hydroquinon.

    Jacobson's number just means it's the 33rd formulae lised in the book, he doesn'y actually give the Gevaert formula number.

    Developing was the earliest Focal Press book to list any formulae, the company was only founded a year or so before and like the founder the two major writers Jacobson and L.A. Mannheim were all emigres from Nazi Germany.

    One problem is that prior to the 1930's formulae many were often published without a reference number by all companies.

    Ian