A Universal Developer?
(Before anybody says it, I know the answer is to test it but there are people here with TONS more experience than I with different developer formulas!)
I don't know if the following developer is close to any existing ones...I came up with it because I wanted a glycin developer that performed like Ansco 120. I've been very happy with it as a paper developer and have recently been wondering if it has potential as a negative developer. I call it;
Hot tap water..................................... 750 ml
Metol............................................. .... 12 gr
Sodium Sulfite (anhydrous).................... 36 gr
Sodium Carbonate (anhydrous)............... 30 gr
Potasium Bromide (10% solution)............ 15 cc
Glycin............................................ .... 15 gr
Water to make ................................... 1 litre
I dilute it 1:3 for a three minute development time for Ilford Multigrade IVFB. What do you think?
If you are talking Ansco 130, I think John Nanian (sp?) is using this for film and paper, he posts here pretty often. For film beleive the ratio he used is 1:5 for about 8 minutes, I tried it and it worked relatively well (I use the photographer's formulary kit), but I have stuck with D76 and Diafine for film so far.
Not at all. Ansco 130 (Adams variation) has more than double the Potassium Carbonate, 11gr of glycin and only 2.2gr of metol.
Originally Posted by Chaska
12/15 is a gentler beast than Ansco 130.
This is not Ansco 130 (the proportions are wrong and there is no Hydroquinone).
What Murray has done is modify Ansco 120 by addng 15 grams of Glycin. Also, he used 12 grams of Metol rather than 12.3 grams (per the official Ansco/Agfa formula of 1939). I doubt if the .3 gram causes a noticeable difference in the results, BTW.
Hey, if it works, why not?
I've also used diluted Ansco 130 as a film developer with good results and I've used a Metol/TEA Paper developer of my own (highly diluted) as a film developer as well.
Results are in various APUG threads.
Everything is analog - even digital :D
You nailed it (and 3cc less of Potassium Bromide)
Originally Posted by Tom Hoskinson
The whole point was to match Ansco 120, but also gain the long shelf life qualities of glycin. The difference is that 12/15 is mixed 1:3, unlike Ansco 120 which is usually mixed 1:2.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
OK, here's the whole enchilada...
For over 20 years I've only used 4x5 Tri-X developed in HC-110. Due to Kodak's recent d_g_t_l seduction I've decided to divorce myself from all things produced by The Great Yellow Father...there's NO WAY my hard earned money is going to finance their change to d_g_t_l!
Today I received my first 75 sheets of 4x5 Ilford HP5+. Has anybody had experience with HP5+ (or any other film) in a similar developer?
Hp5+ and HC110 worked well together the few times I tried. Dil B is around 7.5 min at 68 for a condenser enlarger.
At EI 100 use 5 min at 68 for nice compression. Still B dil.
I was using hangars and went in and out two times around once per minute, then rest 45 sec.
Have you printed with 130 or Adam's Variation ?
Reason being, you can safely omit the bromide from Adam's version, and in one swoop match both amidol's blacks, 120's whites, in a pleasant color.
Also, you may substitute Pot Carb, and get a warmer ( ebony/cocoa blacks ) than Sod Carb.
Having used Adam's 130 for 20+ years, and never trying your version, I'm breaking my first rule in speculating. But here goes:
1 Good concept.
2 I worry there is no need for the restrainer ( for paper at least ) and the presence of the restrainer will cripple the magic. Adams advised adding it only as needed. I've seldom needed it at all.
3 The 2.2 metol / 11 glycin of 130 works really well. Metol is fast, glycin is slow.
And they are NOT super additive. Increasing the metol will ( I imagine ) make an ultra soft image, and the glycin will have no effect.
From my own experience, frightening as I remember it, a simple metol developer is all that is need for today's films. The glycin, to me, is redundant: I'm usually fighting to hold back the highlight densities, and metol lacks nothing on it's own.
Between D23 and FX1 you have a world possibility using the stock chems for this developer. But I'd save the glycin for printing.
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
Universal developers do indeed work but there is a tradeoff. In order to develop paper the pH of the developer must be fairly high. Even when the developer is diluted 1+7 or 1+9 (typical dilutions for universal developers for use with film) the developer is still very active. Don't expect anything like fine grain. Universal developers work best with large and possibly medium format.
Yes I did try Adams variation of 130 (although I used the full amount of Potassium Bromide) and found it had too much *snap & sizzle* for my images taken in the moist atmosphere of a temperate rainforest - a function of the 67gr of Sodium Carbonate?
You've given me much to ponder, as if I'm not pondering enough as it is...thanks , I'll try reducing the Potassium Bromide and see what happens when I next mix up a batch in about 8 months.
While 12/15 is softer than 130, it lacks nothing in the base notes and is a good deal crisper than Selectol Soft. I've also found that extending a prints development time beyond completion of the highlight values proportionally effects the lower values more, leaving the high values almost unchanged. Willing to speculate what effect this property will have on a negatives shadows?
I have next week off, so it should be entertaining!