Germain's and the basic 12 will be virtually the same ! Whatever the name is, it is a splendid formula
I can't back my claims up scientifically, but I've been an avid Edwal 12 user for the past couple of months processing about 50 or so rolls of film in that time span, and it really is a wonderful developer. I'm still getting used to it, though, but I love how it works on my negatives. Printing 9x9" prints from medium format Tri-X 400 I'm having a hard time finding grain in the grain focuser, while maintaining good film speed and soaringly beautiful highlights.
The curve in Don's post reaffirms the look that I like from it with very crisp and brilliant highlights, but not over the top and blocked up. The curve also suggests that you have control by reducing agitation if you don't like the highlights too bright.
I find it most impressive in portrait work, but have found it beneficial in other types of work also.
If Edwal 10 is similar to Edwal 12, but with coarser grain, then you can pick and choose what you like!
Seek and ye shall find, indeed. Thanks DF and PE and everyone else. I remember using Edwal 12 some years ago and at the time I thought it was a bit relentless of a developer. The main reason I'm interested in Edwal 10 is to see what effect the glycin has. I'll still make up some Agfa 8 so I can see glycin "unsullied" by metol, but for now I'll try the E-10, and report back.
Saggy curve ...
SAGGY CURVE ?????
(based on my numerical data, the curve is a little saggy,
but Iím a photographer, not a numerologist, or whatever they are, and my Kodak Step Tablet isnít linear,
and so I think my curve is a little lumpy and saggy and in reality the negs are really kinda wonderful.)
I was only 16 back in 1968, but got to work with my teacherís Portrait Pan, and in my youthful naivety, thought that all you had to do was have your subject stand by the window or in an open doorway and Kodak magic would make the picture come out. Well, thatís why portrait films were made, right ? That was all it took back then.
Compress the shadows, expand the highlights. Fantastic. Magic.
The only 2 reasons Iím not using the stuff now are that Kodak doesnít make it for 35mm.
And because Kodak stopped making it 40 some odd years ago. When it got canned, Paul Strand was really pissed off, too !
You can almost get the same thing with TXP, if you coddle it, and if you shoot 120, which I donít.
So I got good at shooting TX and then TMY (for the last 20 + years) and then burning in the shadows with a #1 filter, which I knew was a waste of time, and then one day, until I realised that I was wasting my time.... I could fix the bloody curve !
I mean, if Zakia said I could do it, that made it OK, yes ?
So I did. I fixed it !
So I used a plain old glycin developer, that cost me two stops and made the highlights plot like a rocket launch.
In time, I remembered E10 and 12, and worked with them a little, and PRESTO !
Good old Kodak Portrait Magic, once again, on super adaptable TMY, with the help of a good old midwestern photochemist. Iíve got Portrait Pan again, except it is 400 EI, not 125, and 35mm instead of sheets.
But an 8x10 print looks like it came out of my RB Graflex.
Even if my curve is saggy, the pictures are WAY cool.
And when I want a straight line, its XTOL all the way. :)
Ian, what would be the conversion for using Phenidone in Edwal 10? I have more of that on hand than Metol and besides, have a slight Metol intolerance so I try to not use Metol whenever possible.
Before you dried the film, they were SOGGY curves in addition to being SAGGY! So, now they only sag!
:D I said, if it works, its good and lo, you have found it good, therefore it works. (that equation goes in both directions).
I seriously enjoy both saggy and soggy curves and the observation that Edwal 12 is a RELENTLESS developer. This is what it is known for. I was lead to believe and expect that if you wished to expand a rather flat scene, Edwal 12 was right for the job. True, it seems to be. However, lest it be casually denied that one can contract with E12, take a look at the example below. Ilford delta 3200. Edwal 12. I'd look into E10 but I'm more interested right now in shooting what I have working for me, and E12 definitely is giving me what I'm looking for right now. As a veteran MCM 100 user, I am not put off by PPD. Yes, I know it causes cancer in laboratory animals in the state of California.
By the way, I also started with Germain's version, and it, too, is great. Not significantly different from Lowe's version. I suspect that you could use Lowe's recommendation about replenishment for it as well. You could also use it one shot as Lowe suggests for E12, dilute 1:9 and develop twice as long.
If by chance the example doesn't load (I don't see it) here's the url:
df -- 1968, and I too was sixteen, and shooting pictures for the high school yearbook. Microdol ruled, but I didn't like my Nikkorex F very much. Now I'm at bit older, which different toys, but still enjoying the magic of film development. Anyway, can you provide a few time/temp statistics so I can adapt your techniques to my present film (APX100)? Thanks!
Looking at the Phenidone/Glycin formulae I have it's 1.75g of Phenidone to 50 Glycin, so using the same ratio in Edwal 10 would indicate you need o add 0.525gms Phenidone in place of the 5 gms Metol.
Hope that helps