I was just wondering if Kirk had something specfic in mind.
1. Take 500 ml water. Add 1 gram p-aminophenol base. Load the developing tank and be ready to pour before adding 5.2 ml of a 10% KOH solution. The solution will turn very dark very soon after the KOH is added and stirred in. Developing time for HP5+ at 70 F is 18 minutes.
2. Repeat the above but add 15 to 20 ml of the 45% K3SO3 solution before adding the KOH. Developing time for HP5+ is now 9 minutes. This is not due to difference in pH but to the anyioxidant effect of the sulfite.
The attachments show that overall grain and acutance are not observably different with or without sulfite. The scans are from real photographic prints. I copied out the detail pictures before reducing the file size of the overall pictures so one should be able to see the detail in "The Silver Chalice." Also, there is an aluminum-framed window screen standing behind the armchair that makes a good measure of resolution. The virtue of adding a lot of sulfite to the stock solution will be mostly in preservation. Even the 384 grams/liter proposed by Ian produces only about 7.5 grams/liter in the working solution at 1+50 dilution.
I have not yet tried adding bromide or EDTA.
There is a substantial difference between 2 and 3 Patrick.
Let's do it this way. You tell me which of these had the sulfite. And if it seems vry obvious to you, remember that these are, if you view or print them to 10" height, 32 X magnifications of 35 mm HP5+ frames. Also, I intend to do other values of sulfite between 0 and 380 grams per liter to see if there's a break point at which the developer activity takes a jump.
After reading almost all 40 pages on this topic, I've learned a lot about Rodinal (my favorite developer, especially with rollei retro 100 of which I have lots).
Gainer, the left two crops in your last post look better to me (and picture nr 3 in your previous post). Seems like quite a bit of difference to me?!
Patrick, I am just commenting on the differences. The left of the two is higher in contrast or slightly lighter in the highlight areas and the one on the right is darker and lower in contrast. That makes comparison, for me, more difficult.
There is an artifice that will occur in periodic sampling such as digitizing when the original signal has frequency higher than the sampling frequency. The higher frequencies are folded back to the low end. The effect in a photograph with any amount of grain can make the grain look coarser than it would when viewing the photo directly. I was a bit sloppy in the post with the three images in that I did not get the same number of pixels per centimeter in both detail crops. I resampled the detail croppings at 2400 PPI for the most recent post. These are the same two negatives.