Switch to English Language Passer en langue franηaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,283   Posts: 1,534,966   Online: 984
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua_G View Post
    I'm going to mix Mytol, probably also FX-37.

    I got the impression that Mytol, like Xtol, doesn't have long shelf life and may loose its activity all of the sudden, without prior warning.

    I also got the impression that mixing developers with alcohol, instead of water, prolongs their shelf life.

    First, are my above assumptions correct?

    Second, how is it recommended to mix developers in alcohol? Which alcohol?
    No, as psvensson wrote, alcohol is not a good sovent for most developing agents.



    Jordan's Instant Mytol Sock Solution mixed in a combination of Triethanolamine and Propylene Glycol, has an extremely long shelf life and it produces results that are a very good match for Xtol

    See: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum223/...ant-mytol.html
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Israel
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hoskinson View Post
    Jordan's Instant Mytol Sock Solution mixed in a combination of Triethanolamine and Propylene Glycol, has an extremely long shelf life and it produces results that are a very good match for Xtol.
    Thank you.
    How close the results are? What are the differences in results between Xtol and Instant Mytol. I prefer to hear from people who experienced both developers

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua_G View Post
    Thank you.
    How close the results are? What are the differences in results between Xtol and Instant Mytol. I prefer to hear from people who experienced both developers
    I have not had the time to do all of the required comparative sensitometric and densitometric testing - yet. I'll probably do it just to satisfy my own curiosity.

    However, Instant Mytol is a non-staining/non tanning developer.

    For my work (LF, MF and 35mm) I prefer staining and tanning developers.

    My current staining and tanning developer choice is Pyrocat-MC.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,132
    IMO,Mytol made with distilled water keeps OK in sealed bottles. I had some kept in a sealed bottle for 9 months and it poured out colorless and ,at 1+0, developed my test Delta 100 to EI 80 in 8min 68F,as would also be expected for Xtol.
    I have made Xtol fail by keeping a small amount in a bottle of air and recon the air is the cause of the sudden failure,so avoid it.If you can arrange to top up large sealed bottles from a selection of smaller bottles they can all be kept more or less full and I would expect Mytol kept like this to last some months.BTW my Xtol kept in sealed bottles lasted 22 months before it was all used up but that has dimezone-s instead of phenidone and is probably more resistant to hydrolysis.

  5. #25
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Glycol is not a photographic developer. It is a double alcohol. Propylene glycol is 1,2 propanediol. Glycerine is 1,2,3 propane glycol. You are thinking of glycin or glycine, I don't remember which.

    You can make the metaborate with sodium hydroxide and borax. There is a redundancy here. The metaborate and metabisulfite combine, if in the right proportions, to make sodium sulfite and borax.

    I can make recommendations, but you would not use them.
    Gadget Gainer

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Israel
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hoskinson View Post
    I have not had the time to do all of the required comparative sensitometric and densitometric testing - yet. I'll probably do it just to satisfy my own curiosity.
    I couldn't care less about any xxx-metric tests. All I care about is pictorial qualities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hoskinson View Post
    For my work (LF, MF and 35mm) I prefer staining and tanning developers.

    My current staining and tanning developer choice is Pyrocat-MC.
    Can you please describe in words why is it that you prefer staining and tanning developers over others?
    To your view (or taste), why do you prefer Pyrocat-MC over Pyrocat-HD?

    Quote Originally Posted by gainer View Post
    Glycol is not a photographic developer. It is a double alcohol. Propylene glycol is 1,2 propanediol. Glycerine is 1,2,3 propane glycol. You are thinking of glycin or glycine, I don't remember which.
    Indeed, my mistake, I confused Glycol with Glycin.

    Quote Originally Posted by gainer View Post
    I can make recommendations, but you would not use them.
    Right now I cannot see any reason for me not using advice for mixing Mytol for longer shelf life. However, when I ask about ways of mixing Mytol, I'm not going to use formulas containing Borax (which Mytol don't have). That is, unless some one will say something like: "In my experience, developer "X" (which may contain Borax) gives better something (fine grain, sharpness, acutance, compensation, wide spread mid-tones, smooth highlights, detailed shadows, film speed, pushing ability, or tolerance to exposure mistakes or scenes with high exposure range)".

    It's a different story when experienced photographer says something like: "I prefer "Y" developer, which is more to my personal taste". Since various experienced photographers prefer various developers – another's taste isn't a good enough basis for me to make my own choices upon, not without mentioning specific objective qualities of certain developer (if there is such a thing as objective qualities).

    Yet another different story is when people refer me to data in books and on the Internet (without their personal experience with the mentioned developer). My predicament isn't lack of information – it is too much information with too little data upon which I can make my choices. I read the books mentioned and the Internet links mentioned before posting here. I've read recommendations about more developers than I can try at this stage, with too little comparison of qualities of different developers.

    When I ask here about pictorial qualities of developers and people recommend certain developers for their low cost, or convenience – it makes my choosing process more complex. In the light the questions I'm asking myself right now – it is "white noise", or "useless data". Again, "white noise" only in the light of the questions I'm asking myself right now. At times I get the impression that some people reply their own questions, not the ones I asked.

    One day I may have the time (or may not) to try and experience myself each and every developer anyone mention. Right now, coming back to B&W processing after about 30 years, still working for living full time job, with very long hours, the only sound basis for me to make choices upon, is other's experience, related to mentioned qualities of developers, rather than personal taste and preference.

    All the above is with high respect to all people who dedicate time, for no material gain, to assist others.

    I do hope I made myself clear here, for I mean no offence.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    [QUOTE=Joshua_G;496737]I couldn't care less about any xxx-metric tests. All I care about is pictorial qualities.

    The xxx-metric tests are valuable tools for assessing the relative pictorial capabilities/potentials of film/developer combinations.


    Can you please describe in words why is it that you prefer staining and tanning developers over others?

    I contact print on Azo (silver chloride paper). At least until I run out of it - when that happens, I plan to switch to LODIMA silver chloride paper. There is also Platinum/Palladium and Carbon.

    Staining and Tanning developers stain and tan the emulsion proportional to the amount of exposure. These properties are useful to me as another element/factor methodology to employ in image printing density control

    To your view (or taste), why do you prefer Pyrocat-MC over Pyrocat-HD?

    I like all of the Pyrocat variants because of their ability to
    preserve fine detail in the highlights plus their high image acutance and their compensating ability (derived in part from the emulsion tanning properties of the Pyrocats).

    I have a slight personal preference for Pyrocat-MC over Pyrocat-HD since I believe that I get slightly higher acutance with the Pyrocat-MC with the films I am currently using.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    587
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua_G View Post
    Right now I cannot see any reason for me not using advice for mixing Mytol for longer shelf life. However, when I ask about ways of mixing Mytol, I'm not going to use formulas containing Borax (which Mytol don't have). That is, unless some one will say something like: "In my experience, developer "X" (which may contain Borax) gives better something (fine grain, sharpness, acutance, compensation, wide spread mid-tones, smooth highlights, detailed shadows, film speed, pushing ability, or tolerance to exposure mistakes or scenes with high exposure range)".
    You asked about mixing MYTOL in alcohol. Because only one or two of its ingredients are actually soluble in alcohol, this isn't possible, and so substitutions have to be made. Evaluating these on the basis of their ingredients only, as you are doing, requires you to look at salt forms, buffering effects and the roles of the different developer constituents, then consider what happens when you actually mix the ingredients together. Armed with that knowledge, I think you'll be more accepting of chemical substitutions like metaborate -> borax or triethanolamine and sodium ascorbate -> ascorbic acid.

    It's a different story when experienced photographer says something like: "I prefer "Y" developer, which is more to my personal taste". Since various experienced photographers prefer various developers – another's taste isn't a good enough basis for me to make my own choices upon, not without mentioning specific objective qualities of certain developer (if there is such a thing as objective qualities).
    There are such things as objective qualities in a developer -- you measure them using sensitometric tests, which you stated earlier that you aren't interested in.

    When I ask here about pictorial qualities of developers and people recommend certain developers for their low cost, or convenience – it makes my choosing process more complex. In the light the questions I'm asking myself right now – it is "white noise", or "useless data". Again, "white noise" only in the light of the questions I'm asking myself right now. At times I get the impression that some people reply their own questions, not the ones I asked.
    I think you may be misinterpreting the nature of APUG and photo forums in general. Everyone here is a hobbyist, and when we scratch-mix developers, we're doing it for fun. We can't tell you what to do, and just as you don't have the time or resources to try every developer and do detailed comparisons, most of us here don't either. We are trying to be helpful, but ultimately you develop your own film, using your exposure techniques, your agitation, your water supply, your thermometer, etc. so the most important opinion is your own.

    One day I may have the time (or may not) to try and experience myself each and every developer anyone mention. Right now, coming back to B&W processing after about 30 years, still working for living full time job, with very long hours, the only sound basis for me to make choices upon, is other's experience, related to mentioned qualities of developers, rather than personal taste and preference.
    Understood. Many of us work long hours too.

    I will finish by simply stating that if you are looking for a version of MYTOL that is mostly mixed in non-aqueous solvents, "Instant MYTOL" is about as close as you are going to get. I can assure you that the substitutions I made in this formula were done with a lot of consideration for the chemical properties of the developer. Working solutions of "Instant MYTOL" are nearly identical to MYTOL in the important parameters (developing agent and sulfite concentration, pH), and, to my eyes, give excellent results that are not significantly different from MYTOL.

    You are more than welcome to mix it, use it and provide your feedback here or on my site.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    [QUOTES=Joshua_G;496737]
    "I couldn't care less about any xxx-metric tests.
    All I care about is pictorial qualities."

    Tests comparing Xtol and instant Mytol: Perhaps Tom is
    implying that by instruments alone will differences be seen.

    "Right now, coming back to B&W processing after about 30
    years, still working for living full time job, with very long hours, ..."

    Why the Mytol fixation? Phenidone and ascorbic or ascorbate,
    two of not the easiest chemicals with which to work. Many who
    are processing film and paper do not have those two chemicals
    in their darkrooms; from off the shelf or home-brew. Hurdles to
    excellent results I see not to your needing.

    For some time I used a slightly modified 8 gram metol 80 gram
    sodium sulfite D-23; a one liter formula. For paper add carbonate
    and if needed, a little bromide. Two chemicals for film maybe four
    for paper. I believe D-23 is more popular than Xtol. The above
    formula is good for 16 rolls of 120 and makes for a low sulfite
    one-shot developer at that 1:7 dilution. Dan

  10. #30
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua_G View Post
    I couldn't care less about any xxx-metric tests. All I care about is pictorial qualities.


    When I ask here about pictorial qualities of developers and people recommend certain developers for their low cost, or convenience – it makes my choosing process more complex. In the light the questions I'm asking myself right now – it is "white noise", or "useless data". Again, "white noise" only in the light of the questions I'm asking myself right now. At times I get the impression that some people reply their own questions, not the ones I asked.

    One day I may have the time (or may not) to try and experience myself each and every developer anyone mention. Right now, coming back to B&W processing after about 30 years, still working for living full time job, with very long hours, the only sound basis for me to make choices upon, is other's experience, related to mentioned qualities of developers, rather than personal taste and preference.

    All the above is with high respect to all people who dedicate time, for no material gain, to assist others.

    I do hope I made myself clear here, for I mean no offence.
    The puzzle here is why you believe that the pictorial qualities many photographers are able to get depend on the developer. If that were so, all would be using the same developer. I am of the opinion that any good photographer will get the pictorial qualities out of any developer by hook or by crook. Developers are not magic potions. You want a version of Mytol that keeps for long periods in the belief that Mytol is the only developer that meets your requirements. The ingredients of Mytol as you list them contain redundancies, and in the long run, Mytol DOES contain borax as I explained. The metaborate, in the presence of any acid including ascorbic and the bi- part of bisulfite ot metabisulfite, will change to borax while changing the bisulfite to sulfite and the ascorbic acid to sodium ascorbate. You did not list the amounts of each, so I cannot tell anything but that the same results can be obtained by some mixture of phenidone or dimezone, sodium sulfite, ascorbic acid and borax. Phenidone or dimezone, whichever you choose, is regenerated by the ascorbate at low pH and becomes superadditive with the ascorbate at about pH = 10.

    The ingredients you put in are not necessarilly the ingredients in the solution. Reactions take place. It is often possible to put two different sets of ingredients together and have the same active ingredients in the solutions.

    Generally speaking, borax is easier to get and cheaper than metaborate. Ascorbic acid is cheaper than sodium ascorbate and lasts longer in storage. You want a mixture of sodium sulfite, sodium ascorbate and borax with a particular pH. Forget whether it is called Mytol , Histol, Hertol or Yourtol. If you can't get the pH where you want it, see if you can find some sodium or potassium hydroxide. Get some pH measuring strips too. You might learn something.

    Meanwhile, 1 gram of phenidone, 35 grams of ascorbic acid and 100 grams of borax in a gallon of water will get you a developer that will develop most films to normal contrast in 8 minutes at 68 F.
    Gadget Gainer

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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