The reason why Kodak papers had dev-inc. in them was not for the Ektamatic Processors--the original activator/stabilizers rapid processors. Those machines were pretty simple, and ran very fast--like 15 seconds--required no running water etc. They used that Ektamatic SC paper--a single weight paper, so like th epost above explains--they absorbed the chemistry, and came out slightly sticky, they'd later dry and be sorta waxy...
That was the Ektamatic machine--the *other* kodak activator processor had a much longer run in terms of usage. It was the Royalprint 417. They made this machine for at least 15-20 years and supported them up until about 5-6 yrs ago. It was a big floor model machine, configured sorta like an ektamatic (but bigger) up front--followed off with tanks for rapid fix, wash and a dryer. The neat thing about the Royalprint though, was the preview. The preview was a gate that could be raised or lowered before the fixer. If it was set right, the prints woluld come up out of the machine in the middle--after about 15 seconds. Most labs (including one near where I work) had a small inspection light on a snooted tube aimed down at this point, with a footswitch. In a gang darkroom, you ran your print through, did a quick check and then flipped the paper over and ran it back through the rest of the process.
The Roylaprint could only use dev-incorp papers. They used Polycontrast mainly, although you could use MG III Rapid, or the other one--the faster version, which oddly enough, I think Ilford still makes. I thought gthis was gone, but that recent announcement of Kodak--Ilford compatibility lists this paper for the machine processing....
So that's the Royalprint--I think this is probably the real reason why Kodak stuck with the dev-inc papers. They had another machine towards the end, the Dektomatic, but it was a different type of processor. They didn't have near the widespread usage as the Royalprint though. Our lab, like a few more in the system, went with an Ilford machine (for better or worse, pick a day, could be one or the other).
The Ilford machines ran at higher temps (95) and faster. They used a pretty standard dev & fix and require no dev-incorporation. We run MG IV alongside Polycontrast and there's virtually no difference. They process in the dev in about 15-20 seconds. The fix is about the same, and is follwed by a quick wash and dryer--runs in 60 seconds dry to dry. The prints last pretty well, if the chemistry is fresh and the wash tank is fresh.
The lab with the Royalprint just got a new machine--a Colex, basically an RA4 machine with a footprint the same as the Royalprint. It's slower though, but uses a more standard chemistry--they use polymax RT now. This would be almost identical to Ilford's old 2000RT. So, now they can use Ilford paper if they wish to do so--before, they were locked into Kodak. This Colex though, apparently is the same model used in one of the smithsonian labs as well. They were pretty much designed to install where a royalprint was....
when Kodak discontinuted their papers--that was the nail in the coffin for the royalprint. probably not that many are in use anymore, but if anyone wants one....check out state surplus in few months. fwiw--I used the ektamatics and the royalprint as well in newspaper darkrooms for years.
Does that sentence make sense? "reusable" and "fresh
Originally Posted by Donald Qualls
developer with each sheet"?
I'd use the monobath paper developer one-shot. For
starters I'd try an Ansco/Beer's A mix used less dilute
and hope the very dilute fix I use is not to fast. Dan
That last paragraph should have read, Ansco 120/Beer's A.
The two are the same save for recommended dilution.
The both are very similar to FX-1 and Beutler's
film developers. They are all of metol, sulfite, carbonate,
composition and are with or without a bit of bromide.
Add Beer's B for VC results from Graded papers.
B requires hydroquinone. Good VC results in a well lit
graded paper darkroom. Dan
Well, I was referring to a simple strongly alkaline fixer as a monobath for DI paper. In that situation, the "fresh developer with each sheet" is that in the paper from the factory, which accounts for the appearance of the image in a few seconds in an alkali solution (like 2% sodium hydroxide). And the "monobath", in this situation, is really just fixer and there's no reason not to reuse it, at least within a session. Given reports of full development in a few seconds, I wouldn't think fixer being too fast would be a big issue.
After all, this thread was originally about very rapid development of DI papers in connection with stabilizer processors, not about mixing conventional developers with fixer.
Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.