Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 72,423   Posts: 1,596,721   Online: 859
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    US
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,060

    Develope Capacity for 2-sided Film

    Quote Originally Posted by BradS View Post
    I've been reading up on Willie Beutler's formula. It is posted here in the recipies area and gets mentioned quite often in conjunction with the "new Adox thin films" (ca. early 1970's).

    Looks like a simple formula that is inexpensive and easy to use, has good keeping properties, and produces consistently good results. So, what's the down side? Does it work OK with continuous agitation (i.e. in a JOBO) ?



    Willi Beutler's

    Part A:
    1000 ml water
    10 g metol
    50 g sodium sulphite

    Part B:
    1000 ml water
    50 g sodium carbonate (dry)

    to use, mix 1 part A + 1 part B + 10 parts water.
    Any readers seeing my handle keep popping up in conjunction with my trials and tribulations in experimenting with X-Ray film, I do believe I've hit on something I can run with. Now all I need to figure is working capacity. There's no need in wasting developer, so now I want to tailor my one-shot capacities to fit the film. X-Ray film is 2-sided. Would 30ml each of the above formula be sufficient for an 8x10 piece of film, or would I be under capacity? And if you think I'm making a nuisance or forum hog of myself, feel free to say that too. Thank you.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,206
    Quote Originally Posted by BradS View Post
    Does it work OK with continuous agitation (i.e. in a JOBO)?
    Willi Beutler in his book was quite adamant in his directions for using this developer. This also included agitation. Intermittent agitation 2 gentle inversions (5 sec) every minute. Off hand I would not personally recommend it for continuous agitation. In order to get the best results film exposure must be spot on. You want a thin negative that will print correctly on grade 3 paper. Time and temperature must be carefully maintained. This is not a developer for anyone whose technique is sloppy.

    The usual dilution for the Beutler developer is 1 part A + 1 part B plus 8 parts water. Some people misread inaccurate instructions given as a proportion 1:1:10 to mean 1+1+10.

    This developer is in the class of acutance developers. As such they do not produce fine grain. They depend on edge effects to give the illusion of higher resolution. This is the reason for developing to a thin negative. These developers are designed to develop the emulsion primarily at its surface. They do this by controlled exhaustion of the developing agent. Hence the very limited agitation. You do not want fresh developer to be constantly applied to the emulsion surface. Acutance developers are intended for 35mm or smaller films. There is little to recommend Beutler for MF or LF films except its economy.

    Solution A (Metol and sulfite) keeps for about 3 month in partially filled bottles. Solution B will last for about a year. The main problem with it is absorbing carbon dioxide from the air.

    Some people advocate adding a very small amount of potassium iodide to each liter of working solution. This was discussed by Geoffrey Crawley. Usually the amount is given as 2.5 to 5 ml of a 0.001% solution. Yes, you are reading this last statement correctly. The problem is that a plain iodide solution does not keep. The iodide tends to disproportionate to iodine and iodate ion.
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 09-11-2013 at 01:27 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,206
    To expand a bit on why dilutions should not be given in the form of a proportion. The notation 1:3 can be interpreted as 1 part concentrate diluted to make a total of 3 parts of developer. Or it can be equally read as to mean 1 part plus 3 parts water. This was discussed ad nauseam in an older thread. The plus notation 1+3 has only one interpretation and is the proffered way to prevent misunderstandings.

    If you go back to Beutler's book the dilution is 1A+1B+8W. This should also be obvious from the concentrations of the chemicals in the two solutions. They are designed to be diluted by a factor of 10 not 12.
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 09-11-2013 at 01:20 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    US
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,060
    All I have here is Aaron Sussman's Amateur Photographer's handbook, 6th edition 1962. The formula matches up with modern internet ingredient weights, but mentions only a 50 cc/each to 500cc water and used at 65 degrees no higher. 7-10' for Pan-X and KB14, 8-12' for PX and KB17.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,206
    A good write up here http://www.jackspcs.com/fdnb.htm. The writer gets it wrong in the first paragraph saying a kit make 12 liters of developer and then shows the correct dilution later.

    A quick search finds the incorrect dilution being specified on several sites. It is a pity that people don't think to go back to the original source (Beutler). Some twit gets it wrong and then people mindlessly copy his error. References to the more dilute developer did not exist before the internet. This is why I hate the internet.

    Using the more dilute solution may explain why some people complain that the developer produces low contrast.

    Some correct versions:

    Willi Beutler "Meine Dunkelkammer-Praxis" 1954
    http://photo.net/black-and-white-pho...g-forum/005yOZ
    http://www.pictorialplanet.com/advan...y/Beutler.html
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 09-11-2013 at 02:24 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    central anatolia, Turkey
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    425
    Images
    16
    http://leontaylorphotography.tumblr.com/articlesRead article no.5 which has interesting observations .

  7. #17
    Trask's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,169
    Images
    12
    [QUOTE=Gerald C Koch;1546297]To expand a bit on why dilutions should not be given in the form of a proportion. The notation 1:3 can be interpreted as 1 part concentrate diluted to make a total of 3 parts of developer. Or it can be equally read as to mean 1 part plus 3 parts water. This was discussed ad nauseam in an older thread. The plus notation 1+3 has only one interpretation and is the proffered way to prevent misunderstandings.

    I remember that long discussion, but I don't recall that the APUG members in the discussion ever approached a consensus. I wish that we could all settle on the 1+3 notation, which to my mind is the clearest of all possibilities. Perhaps if we APUG members unified our usage, we could show drive global usage toward unity.

    (Obviously I still haven't figured out how to include quotes from other posts...)

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,211
    Quote Originally Posted by dancqu View Post
    [QUOTES=BradS]

    I relate more so to the term resolution. Both films and
    lenses have resolutions. Can any of the other three
    terms mentioned be quantified? Measured? Dan
    Sharpness is a complex thing. The components can be quantified, but objective measurements require microdensitometry. Without that, evaluations are highly subjective and often increased graininess is seen as increased sharpness. That is typically the effect of developers using a Carbonate or Hydroxide alkali system (including staining developers). Edge effects are another important factor. But they depend greatly on the film.

    Attached is a primer which may help.

    If you want to wade through the following thread it may also help. It also includes some attachments I put together summarizing studies by Altman/Henn (Kodak) and Richard Henry on resolution, acutance, etc. My conclusion is essentially that with modern films, mostly when people call a developer sharp, or say it has sharp grain etc. what they are really seeing is increased granularity/graininess. Granularity turns out to be much more impacted by the choice of materials than actual edge sharpness.

    I'd suggest starting with the "definitions" attachment. The other attachments are in post #48 (Altman/Henn) and post #60 (Henry) in the thread below. Both studies include Beutler and "Beulter-type" developers.

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum48/1...e-effects.html
    Attached Files
    Last edited by Michael R 1974; 09-11-2013 at 08:24 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: typo

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,206
    One other point I would like to make. The Beutler formula and Neofin Blue are NOT the same. The Tetanal developer has gone through several different formulations since its introduction decades ago. This is evident if you trace the changes to the MsDS for the product. At times it has contained a second developing agent plus chemicals other than Metol, sulfite and carbonate. The now defunct Neofin Red did contain both Metol and hydroquinone but I am talking specifically about Neofin Blue. I mention this since a certain company that sells premeasured developer kits insists on maintaining this fiction in its catalog.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  10. #20
    GRHazelton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Jonesboro, GA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    407
    Back in the mid 50s my father and I mixed up Beutler from the raw ingredients and used it with good results on 35mm Plus X. The negatives were thin, but printed nicely on grade three paper, usually Luminos glossy, which was cheap. Air dried they were nice. I don't have the formula we used, but since my father was an old hand in the darkroom and given the date it was probably the original. We also liked the keeping qualities of the 2 solution soup, and the economy. At that time it was easy to find metol, etc, and as a chem engineer my father knew of sources which others might not have.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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