Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,578   Posts: 1,545,735   Online: 917
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,276
    Images
    148

    1927 Eastman Kodak Research - Fine Grain Developer

    From the 1928 British Journal Photographic Almanac, whether the unit of volume is UK or US isn't given.

    Eastman Kodak Research Fine Gran Developer 1927


    For Fine grain. - A developer recommended by the Eastman Kodak Research Laboratories for use when images of specially fine grain are required is as follows:-

    Metol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 gr (2g)
    Sodium Sulphite (anhyd) . . . . . . 400gr (100g)
    Borax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 gr (2g)
    Water to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ozs *** (If US oz 1600ml - UK 1540ml)

    The developer works more slowly than those of normal formula. - A.P., May 25, p. 504.

    This seems to be one of the earliest published Fine Grain developer from Kodak.

    It's far more likely that the volume is US, particulary as the formula eminates from Rochestwe not Kodak Research, Harrow, but the difference is quite negligible. This formula pre-dates D76 and is quite similar to D103 and DK76 & DK76b, although more dilute.

    D103

    Metol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2g
    Sodium Sulphite (anhyd) . . . . . . 100g
    Borax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1g
    Water to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 litre

    Ian

  2. #2
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,056
    Images
    1
    interesting. I've used something like this with good results. My thoughts were to put both parts of the Stoekler two bath into one bottle.


    Brad's "something like this" film dev.

    Metol................................2.5g
    Sodium Sulfite..................100g
    Borax.........................3.0 ~ 10.0g
    water to make...................1 liter.

    Use d-76 times as starting points.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Wilmette,Illinois, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    728
    Ian,

    Would this be functionally different from D-76? To my uneducated eye it looks like D-76H. Interesting that it is from 1927.
    ___________________________________________

    Richard Wasserman

    http://www.richardwasserman.net

  4. #4
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,276
    Images
    148
    Kodak's D76h formula is quite different as it's a buffered version of D76 with 15g Boric Acid and Hydroquinoe.

    Haist's version would be better called H76, it isn't a published Kodak formula and is obviously based on this early un-named EK formula and others like D103, DK76 etc. Haist would have been aware of all these variations when he suggested H76 as a Hydroquinone free version of D76.

    It should behave quite similarly to D76/ID-11 when they are useed 1+1.

    Ian
    Last edited by Ian Grant; 12-06-2009 at 11:00 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: typos

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,145
    Richard Knoppow wrote that D-76 was disclosed in 1927 in a booklet relating to motion picture duplicating.So it is not entirely clear the formula given pre-dates D-76?
    http://www.groups.google.com/group/r...c5c468b5332b48

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Wilmette,Illinois, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    728
    Thank you!


    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Kodak's D76h formula is quite different as it's a buffered version of D76 with 15g Boric Acid and Hydroquinoe.

    Haist's version would be better called H76, it isn't a published Kodak formula and is obviously based on this early un-named EK formula and others like D103, DK76 etc. Haist would have been aware of all these variations when he suggested H76 as a Hydroquinone free version of D76.

    It should behave quite similarly to D76/ID-11 when they are useed 1+1.

    Ian
    ___________________________________________

    Richard Wasserman

    http://www.richardwasserman.net

  7. #7
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,276
    Images
    148
    Alan, the formulae would have been from the same team and both were published around the same time, this one seems to be for stills while D76 (at that point not named) was for Cine films, I have seen a copy of the Kodak piece for D76 from 1927. It's possible they were originally in the same research paper.

    Ian

  8. #8
    CBG
    CBG is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    894
    How does the formula for D103 above relate to the formula I have for Kodak D-103??? I suspect we have one of those one more of those single name/multiple formula train wrecks here.

    What I have for Kodak D-103
    metol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 g
    hydroquinone. . . . . . . . . 5.0 g
    sodium sulfite anhyd. . . . 100 g
    borax (decahydrate). . . . 1.0 g
    boric acid (crystalline). . . 15.0 g
    potassium bromide. . . . . . 0.125 g
    water to. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 L
    This is said to be a developer intended for small scale development of variable density sound negatives.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Plymouth. UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,401
    Images
    3
    AFAIK, D-76 dates back to 1926.

  10. #10
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,276
    Images
    148
    You're right Keith, but I'd guess so does this formula as it's in secondary souces by may 1927.

    CGB that formulae you give is staed as a variant of D76a/h ( with 2g Borax) by Kodak, it has Hydroquinone, D103 has no Hydroquininone and is indeed a soft working developer for film sound tracks. Unfortunately there are a huge number of errors in US books all due to mistakes in Morgan & Morgan/Photo Lab Index publications. Only manufacturers data can be trusted.

    Ian

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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