Another alternative to Ansco 130 is PPPD - it's a Pyro developer for paper.
750 ml water
30 grams sodium sulfite
.34 grams of phenidone A in 20 ml of 91 % alcohol heated to appr 125 degrees to dissolve
10 grams catechol
10 grams pyrogallol
40 grams of sodium carbonate
3 1/2 grams of potassium bromide
5 grams of citric acid
water to make 1 liter
(add chemicals in order specified and make sure that each is fully dissolved before adding the subsequent chemical.)
over two hours and it was still active (emergence times still at 25 seconds after two hours) and it did not stain the paper. Still delivers a good dmax. Increasing the pyrogallol sets the blacks better.
This should give improved performance over the MAS Amidol for enlarging paper at a sizeable savings.
I have been reading this treat with a lot of interest.
But, I found the (slightly?) different formula's of Ansco 130 a bit confusing and I am left with a few questions.
What is Ansco 130 (Glycin) in the first place, a film or paper developer?
What is the ultimate formula for the actual Multicontrast papers?
Ansco 130 is mainly a paper developer but will work for film developing as well, as attested to by members of this forum. Beautiful glowing highlights and rich dark tones make this a favorite for many. I use it as my everyday developer along with LPD and Dektol. The difference is subtle, don't expect huge differences, allow yourself to get familiar with it and how it works in your darkroom with your papers and workflow.
The main formula is in the "recipes" section of the forum.
Because the 50/50 mix was too warm for my taste, I started mixing it using 20 grams catechol, no pyrogallol. Storage life was a nearly two weeks and the tone was entirely neutral.
In both mixes, PPPD allowed using a water bath for contrast control. The water bath capability of 130 is about the same. Neither developer gives as much water bath control as an amidol formula does.
I believe Ansco/PF 130 gives just as good development results as any amidol formula or PPPD. Having used all three, I like them all and don't favor one over the others. But, 130 has an incredibly long tray/storage life. It just never seems to give out. Its nice not having to mix developer from scratch for every session and this makes it very economical. That was the deciding factor for me. I'm well into my second year of using it as my only paper developer and don't have any plans for change as long as it stays available.
Thank you, PVia and Alex, for the swift answers!
Alex, I was thinking about Ansco 130 and its variations.
Till now I have worked a lot with E 72 (Eric Patton's formula) on FOMABROM variant III but, unless I give the print a KRST toning, the blacks are not 'deep' enough for me, even after 5 min at 22°C (1+1), the mid tones and highlights are good (the film is Fomapan 100 & -400/120 in Pyro-HD).
And once Selenium toned, to 'reinforce' the D-max, the Thiorea toning is not working as I would like it.
Hello, I am new to Ansco 130. I used it at 1+1 for two weeks now and compare to my ohter prints I would say again that the difference is very subtle. Overall the values in the print seem more open.
Though I have a question, I wonder if using a higher filter (ie:3 or 4) doesn't result in changing the tone in the print. Less subtle tones, more black and white. It might just be coming from the use of such a filter but then I have the feeling the developer is enhancing this. Should I not use a lesser dilution for 'weak'negatives instead of using filters? Do you have any feedback?
Hmmm...I always use it at 1:2 (so far)...and my negs are optimized (I can hear them laughing at me) for Grade 2.
One of the things I love about Ansco 130, is the way skin tones look, especially the very glowing tones you can get from natural window light.
Used 1:1 and with a Grade 4 paper (Slavich, Emaks). I'd like to see what it could do with some of my older, much thinner negatives.