Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,971   Posts: 1,558,562   Online: 1141
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    raucousimages's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Salt Lake
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    825

    Hyfinol film developer

    Anyone have any info on Ansco Hyfinol film developer? I can't find anything and I just found several sealed cans.
    DIGITAL IS FOR THOSE AFRAID OF THE DARK.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    I have used it as GAF Hyfinol (maybe another developed with a similiar name), the Air Force bought some in the early 70s, I don't know what the formula was, but I recall it as a fine grain developer with good tones, I used it with 35 and MF.

    Paul

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    I just an odd hit for GAF Hyfinol on a State of NY tax site, it was from 1979 and listed all of the products listed by both Kodak and GAF. GAF is still in business making Roofing Materials, just maybe they have an archive.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,670
    I have always considered Hyfinol to be Ansco's version of D-76.

  5. #5
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald Koch
    I have always considered Hyfinol to be Ansco's version of D-76.
    I used it quite a lot when Ansco Super Hypan film was the fiest to have a box speed of 500. I don't think it was equivalent to D-76. The instructions on the side of the can said a quart would do 25 rolls without replenishment, And I seem to remember putting that to the test. I thought perhaps it used phenidone and an excess of hydroquinone. The excess of hydroquinone would assure a working mixture of P-Q, and phenidone is less sensitive to bromide content than metol. Anyway, it was a good developer. Try it and see if what you got is still good.
    Gadget Gainer

  6. #6
    raucousimages's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Salt Lake
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    825
    Thanks.
    I think start as if it were d-76 and go from there.
    DIGITAL IS FOR THOSE AFRAID OF THE DARK.

  7. #7
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by raucousimages
    Thanks.
    I think start as if it were d-76 and go from there.
    You have more than one can. Mix one and use it as you would D-76, which these days means diluted and one-shot. Mix another and try it full strength using times for D-76, but save it. I often shoot a whole roll of the same subject and use short pieces of this roll for developer tests. You will find that Hyfinol keeps well and will do more rolls of film full strength than diluted. Even if you use an 8 ounce tank and dilute 1:1 you can only do 4 rolls per quart. You can, of course, compare the quality of diluted vs full strength and make your decision on that basis.

    Either way, I guarantee that if it is good to start, it will not die suddenly without ample warning.
    Gadget Gainer

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by gainer
    I don't think it was equivalent to D-76. The instructions on the side of the can said a quart would do 25 rolls without replenishment, And I seem to remember putting that to the test. I thought perhaps it used phenidone and an excess of hydroquinone.
    I doubt that it contains Phenidone as Hyfinol may predate Ilford's Microphen and Ilford had a patent on Phenidone. Remember Kodak was forced to patent its own phenidone derivatives Dimezone and Dimezone-S in order to market a PQ developer HC-110.

    I do remember the cans were the same size as Kodak's cans for D-76 so whatever the formula it contained at lot of sodium sulfite.

    Kodak states that D-76 will do 16 rolls per gallon (4/qt) at full strength. This is assuming no prolongation of development time with use. Ansco's claim of 25 rolls per quart may be based on the system then in use of extending development time by 5 to 10% for each roll developed or it may just be marketing hype. Some really fantastic claims were made those days for various developers.

    I wish that manufacturers would be kind enough to publish the formulas for their extinct products. So much knowledge is lost.

  9. #9
    fhovie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Port Hueneme, California - USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,247
    Images
    92
    Reusing developer can be really ugly business - When I use D76 - (usually for IR film) I figure for 500ml stock solution - Roll one and two are at standard development time with roll 3 at +5% and roll 4 at +10%. If I use it 1:1 as a one shot, I get 2 rolls done. This is actually preferable to me because 1:1 usually gives more pleasing results anyway. It seems i got the same life out of color developers - except they had an increase each roll.
    My photos are always without all that distracting color ...

  10. #10
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald Koch
    I doubt that it contains Phenidone as Hyfinol may predate Ilford's Microphen and Ilford had a patent on Phenidone. Remember Kodak was forced to patent its own phenidone derivatives Dimezone and Dimezone-S in order to market a PQ developer HC-110.

    I do remember the cans were the same size as Kodak's cans for D-76 so whatever the formula it contained at lot of sodium sulfite.

    Kodak states that D-76 will do 16 rolls per gallon (4/qt) at full strength. This is assuming no prolongation of development time with use. Ansco's claim of 25 rolls per quart may be based on the system then in use of extending development time by 5 to 10% for each roll developed or it may just be marketing hype. Some really fantastic claims were made those days for various developers.

    I wish that manufacturers would be kind enough to publish the formulas for their extinct products. So much knowledge is lost.
    There was no requirement for extending development time with each roll. That and the claim of 25 rolls per quart are why I remember it so vividly. I was using it in the 1970's and I'm sure phenidone had been invented. It was not long after that I made my own concoction of phenidone, hydroquinone and sulfite that I could use until it got to looking so bad I couldn't stand it. It never let me down.
    Gadget Gainer

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