Switch to English Language Passer en langue franÁaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,956   Posts: 1,522,969   Online: 1173
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #1
    Trask's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,050
    Images
    6

    Edwal 10 -- formula, anyone?

    I've seen a few references to Edwal 10 as an interesting Glycin developer, but cannot find a formula. Anyone have one at hand? Thanks for posting it!

  2. #11
    eclarke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Berlin, Wi
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,940
    Images
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by df cardwell View Post
    Lowe wrote wonderful documentation for his formulas,
    including how to use variations of the basic formula,
    and when to use them. Germain made an trifling adjustment in Lowe's work, and claimed it as his own.

    Thank goodness we are untroubled
    by such ruthless self-promotion in our era !
    I'm not well schooled on the dynamics of these authors, I just found the Germain formula in his little book, had the chemicals, made it and like it so have never ventured from it. I will read my Lowe and try the Edwal 12. Thanks for the info, Don...Evan Clarke

  3. #12
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Germain's and the basic 12 will be virtually the same ! Whatever the name is, it is a splendid formula

  4. #13
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,168
    Images
    291
    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!
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  5. #14
    Trask's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,050
    Images
    6
    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.

  6. #15
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    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.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails TMY-saggy-vs-Portrait-Pan.jpg  

  7. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    703
    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.

  8. #17
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,929
    Images
    65
    Don;

    Before you dried the film, they were SOGGY curves in addition to being SAGGY! So, now they only sag!

    I said, if it works, its good and lo, you have found it good, therefore it works. (that equation goes in both directions).

    PE

  9. #18
    bowzart's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Anacortes, WA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,217
    Images
    15
    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:

    http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...0&ppuser=26530

  10. #19
    Trask's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,050
    Images
    6
    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!

  11. #20
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,211
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by RidingWaves View Post
    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.
    The ratio of Phenidone instead of Metol varies depending on the exact formula but generally the Phenidone should be between 1/6th and a 1/10th the weight of Metol needed. Most formulae it's closer to 1/8th-1/10th.

    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

    Ian

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  ó   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin