The big problem with both the Ilford & Kodak charts is they don't take into account dilution of ID-11/D76 or Perceptol/Microdol-X where the developers begin to behave quite differently at 1+3.
Ian
Printable View
The big problem with both the Ilford & Kodak charts is they don't take into account dilution of ID-11/D76 or Perceptol/Microdol-X where the developers begin to behave quite differently at 1+3.
Ian
Ilford do cite ID-11 diluted 1+3 as yielding the highest sharpness while Perceptol and Microdol-X also provide good performance at the same dilution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
I have tried all of those developers and I can`t see much, if any difference in grain between D-76/ID-11 1+3 and the extra fine-grain developers 1+3, although it might show with huge magnifications.
I find that D-76/ID-11 tends to compress the tonal range when diluted 1+3 while Perceptol and Microdol-X provides more sparkle at 1+3 with good sharpness. I use 1+1 with D-76, although I have not tried it 1+2 yet.
BTW, have you read the United States Patent Office number 3,161,513 (Patented Dec, 15, 1964)? Photographic developer compositions containing an antistain agent?
Good luck with your quest for a Rodinal substitute.
Yes, I've got that Patent amongst a heap of others. Example 4 & 6 are a very slight re-working of the Wellington & Ward Borax MQ developer and a side step in the evolution of D76 :D
Ian
Ray;Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Rogers
I know nothing about the data behind the chart nor its method of construction. I can infer how it was done, but that is just inference.
I can say that Dimezone-S is far better than Phenidone as an example of better all round developing agents.
PE
This is the seminal "Anti Dichroic Fog" patent among other claims hidden in it. It was one of Henn's major works and is cited by A&T in the FDC. This is not the answer to the real problem, nor does it correctly give the "secret" ingredient of Microdol X, which is also used elsewhere from what I understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
PE
You would not want to put Ammonium Bisulfite into a developer! It is great in fixers though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
PE
But then there's the original Phenidone and then Phenidone Z and various other derivatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Many companies have used commercial "Phenidone" - Ilford, May & Baker (Champion), Agfa, Orwo (Calbe), Paterson, Forte, Foton, Foma, Fotospeed and a whole host of smaller companies. Between them they have all produced a wide and varied range of excellent developers using Phenidone in combination with one or more additional developing agent.
Dimezone-S isn't an "all round" developing agent, nor is Phenidone, because unlike Metol, p-Aminophenol, Pyrocatechin, Hydroquinone etc they are not practical as sole developing agents except in very limited uses.
I don't know what form my original Ilford Phenidone was I'd guess Phenidone Z, I only finished it a couple of years ago, the date stamp was 1962, it has exceptionally good keeping properties :D
Ian
Ian;
I was comparing two developers with very similar structures under identical conditions in my thinking. Phenidone and Dimezone-S are basically cyclic hydrazine derivatives. In alkali, the Phenidone ring opens and becomes inactive much more rapidly than Dimezone-S and the activity is somewhat lower. For this reason, Kodak used Dimezone-S in the PR-10 pods due to the high alkali content and the need for quick development.
So, for a quick OTOMH answer, those are two to compare, and if you do, (and which I have done), the Dimezone-S comes out ahead.
PE
It might get a little stinky...Quote:
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Would potassium metabisulfite be less likely to be oxidized to a sulfate than potassium sulfite? Some extra KOH would be needed, but the combination might be less expensive to the hobbyist who makes relatively small batches. Or, can one of you tell me a source of relatively small amounts of the liquid concentrate?
I have what I believe to be an excellent Metol analog of Rodinal, but have only been able to test the sodium sulfite version. Even so, it seems to be capable of greater SBR and better shadow detail than any of the many Rodinal expedients I have tried.
The attachments are from scans of a 10X print of a 35 mm EDU 400 Ultra neg. That puts the detail at about 30X, enough for a 30"x45" print from the full width of the negative. The viewing distance for such a print for proper perspective would be about 54" (no grain sniffing allowed).