Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,499   Posts: 1,543,228   Online: 1036
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51
  1. #1
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,264
    Images
    148

    High Acutance Develper

    In his book "Photographic Processing Chemistry" (1974 Focal Press), L.F.A. Mason lists a typical High Acutance Developer.

    This may possibly be the formula for Hyfin, which was Ilford's High Acutance developer, available from 1961 until the early 1970's. Mason calls it a typical formula:


    High Acutance Developer

    Metol 0.5g
    Sodium Sulphite (anhyd) 5g
    Sodium Carbonate (anhyd) 5g
    Water to 1 litre

    Development times 15-25 minutes
    Requires a minimum of 600ml of chemistry per 35mm or 120 film.

    Mason notes that additions to the formula have been proposed, either 0.1g/litre Potassium Bromide or 5ml of 0.0001% Potassium Iodide solution. (He may be referring to other similar formulae like FX-1 etc)


    Hyfin was sold in packets containing 5 sachets of developer each one making up 600ml of solution. I have two packets of Hyfin & will weigh the contents of a scchet next time I'm in the UK.

    Hyfin instructions were:

    Pan F & FP3 - 18 minutes @ 20°C
    Continuous agitation for the first 10 seconds then 5 seconds every minute.
    Gives 1 stop more effective film speed



    In the early 60's there were 3 High Definition devopers availabe in the UK, lford's Hyfin, Kodak's High-Definition Developer & Johnson's Definol.

    It's no co-incidence that Hyfin & HDD are very similar to Beutler's High Definition developer, sold as Neofin Blue, and another similar developer is Crawley's FX-1 formula.

    The major differences are that Beutler has 1g Metol/litre & Crawley's FX-1 only 2.5g Carbonate + 15ml 0.0001% KI, compared to the formula above. The decrease in the Metol level compared to Beutler is likely to increase the edge effects & acutance further.

    The addition of Potassium Iodide is likely to have little or no effect now as most modern films contain far higher levels in their emulsions, particularly Tmax & Delta films. It may have been more important with certain films Crawley speculates that it was needed in HDD for Pan-X

    Mason would have known Crawley and his work, Ilford began manufacturing his chemistry for Paterson around 1963.

    Ian
    Last edited by Ian Grant; 08-02-2009 at 05:32 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: add

  2. #21
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,005
    Images
    65
    Ok, here goes the chemistry.

    If you add a tiny amount of iodide to a developer which uses a low level or no iodide, then the iodide goes onto the grains instantly, but then is released imagewise proportional to development. It therefore concentrates in areas of high development and causes edge effects.

    With a high iodide emulsion, the iodide is already there in the emulsion ready to be released imagewise to do the same thing, but additional iodide acts to supresss this effect, kind of like buffering the iodide ready to be released from the grain. Also, todays emulsions vary in iodide content, and so it is hard to choose the level of iodide appropriate for use in a developer and so results (accentuation or supression) might vary from film to film. In addition, it is important to remember that some modern emulsions are core shell with iodide in the core but not on the surface. These react in a totally different manner.

    So, there is no one answer except to say that adding iodide is a bad idea as a general rule. It may work, it may not work at all, or it may work counter to expectations. It is therefore considered best left out with modern emulsions.

    That is why I have said before that older developer formulas may not be best for modern emulsions and vice versa don't use modern developers on old style emulsions.

    Does this help?

    PE

  3. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Norfolk, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,881
    Images
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post

    That is why I have said before that older developer formulas may not be best for modern emulsions and vice versa don't use modern developers on old style emulsions.

    Does this help?

    PE
    Does 'old style emulsions' include FP4 Plus, HP5 Plus, Tri-X etc. or are you referring to the Efke type films?

    Tom
    Last edited by Tom Kershaw; 08-03-2009 at 07:08 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: correcting grammar

  4. #23
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,005
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Kershaw View Post
    Does 'old style emulsions' include FP4 Plus, HP5 Plus, Tri-X etc. or are you referring to the Efke type films?

    Tom
    Tom;

    I hesitate to guess. Try it yourself and let us know.

    PE

  5. #24

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Norfolk, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,881
    Images
    62
    Anecdotally Agfa Rodinal would seem to be a reasonably popular choice for developing T-max type films, however this developer was originally formulated in when, the 1890s? Your comment would suggest Rodinal may possibly be best suited to films such as FP4 Plus or CHS100, or are your comments more directed towards developers such as FX-1? According to A&T (FDC): Stock solution A: metol 5g, sodium sulphite anhydrous 50g, potassium iodide 0.001% 50ml, water to make 1 lt. Solution B: sodium carbonate anhydrous 25g. water to make 1 lt

    Tom

  6. #25
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,005
    Images
    65
    Tom;

    IIRC, Rodinal has no iodide and lets the emulsion determine the resultant imaging characteristics. This is probably best under the circumstances. The lack of Iodide is probably in Rodinal's favor and was the result of understanding the ideas put forth in my post above.

    PE

  7. #26

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Norfolk, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,881
    Images
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Tom;

    IIRC, Rodinal has no iodide and lets the emulsion determine the resultant imaging characteristics. This is probably best under the circumstances. The lack of Iodide is probably in Rodinal's favor and was the result of understanding the ideas put forth in my post above.

    PE
    - And so Rodinal exposes the true characteristic of the emulsion?

    Tom.

  8. #27
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,005
    Images
    65
    Tom;

    I am not a big Rodinal user so I would have to run extensive tests to give a definitive answer. Why don't you try some tests yourself and see what you come up with.

    PE

  9. #28
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,264
    Images
    148
    In a way Rodinal must bring out the true nature of the film, it's such a simple developer. Kodak made their own version Kodelon, as did Ilford, Johnson's etc.

    Ian

  10. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Shropshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    829
    Images
    7
    My own experience of FX1 with the Iodide solution was that with FP4+ and HP5+ it seemed to do.... nothing.
    Nothing bad happened, but the developer didn't seem to behave any different to a similar metol based developer without the Iodide.
    Ditto with FX2
    I never tried them with Pan F, maybe that was the one I should've tested?

    So, my humble opinion is that FP4+ and HP5+ do not respond like 'old emulsions' to these old acutance developers.

    The only developer that I found that seemed to increase the acutance of FP4+ to any noticeable extent and give some prominent edge effects, much more so than dilute Rodinal, was Paterson Acutol. I'd love to know the formula for that, especially now it is no more...

    One day I am going to give FX1 one last go and dunk some ADOX 25 in it.
    Steve

  11. #30
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    This is pretty much exactly what I was getting at with my "modified D-23" post. Very little metol, very little sulfite. I think I will try it out. I just need to get some sodium carbonate. I guess the sodium carbonate is to take the place of the sulfite's role in D-23 as an activator. Thanks for posting this.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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