Sandy, I can see subtle differences in tonality - a bit better tonal separation in the fine detail with the 8x10 negatives I am printing. In the deep blacks the MS Amidol prints also seem to yield a bit more detail than the Ansco 130.
The Ansco 130 prints are excellent, very close to what I am getting with MS Amidol. I want to try split development with the Ansco 130 and see if that will equal (or exceed) the Amidol.
BTW I am not toning the prints in this comparison.
Francesco uses split development (Moersch Catechol and Agfa Neutol WA) to produce wonderful Azo prints. I have examples of his images and I would be very happy if I could equal their tonal qualities with split 130.
I will try scanning examples and posting them to the Technical Gallery.
Everything is analog - even digital :D
Francesco uses split development (Moersch Catechol and Agfa Neutol WA) to produce wonderful Azo prints.[/QUOTE]
Tom or Francesco,
Can you tell us a bit more about this developer combination? Apparently I may have missed any previous discussions about this.
Up until now I haven't done my own testing but from my head and after reading and comparing a bunch of formulas and descriptions it boils down to two simple formulas.
Originally Posted by donbga
Take a hard working developer wich acts on the shaddows (i.e. low speed. Brenzcatechin, hydroquinone only or combined. No phenidon, no metol) as the first bath and tweak its tone by adjusting the restrainer (bromide/benzotriazol). Use Agfa 120 as a starting point, dilute less which will get you rid of the brown-tone effect, adjust the restrainer, try benzotriazol, replace half of the hydroquinone with brenzcatechin.
Use a metol-only developer as the second bath, Agfa 105 will be fine. Again, tone is adjusted by the restrainer.
Or get yourself the Moersch VGT-Kit, which allows you to taylor such combinations without weighing in raw chemicals and basically follows the above line of thought as far as I understood Wolfgang Moersch.
Originally Posted by skahde
Translation: "Brenzcatechin" is German for "Pyrocatechin". Just in case it confuses someone else as much as it did me the first time I bought my chemical suplies from Germany...
-- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
Re that GAF Universal Developer - when visiting the Foma factory shop in Prague three weeks ago
I shopped a packet of their kind of "Universal Developer". Itīs a bag of 220g, mixing up to 5l solution and
is designed for developing papers at stock strength and film when dilluted 1+3.
According to the package it contains Sodium pyrosulphite (whatever salt that is!), hydrochinone and phenidone.
The pack is labeled with "univerzalni vyvojka - univerzalna vyvojka - universal developer" and cost me
48 czech crowns, est. 1,50EUR.
No standard time for all films, though. Fomapan 100 is listed with 5min at 20°C, 200t at 3.5min, Foma 400 at 7.5min.
Look at www.foma.cz for the details and ask J and C or Fotoimpex if they can order it for you...
BTW - I bought just out of curiosity and because I read your message regarding that GAF developer few weeks earlier. ;-)
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by rjr
that is great news ... i'll check it out
"According to the package it contains Sodium pyrosulphite (whatever salt that is!), hydrochinone and phenidone."
Originally Posted by rjr
Sodium pyrosulphite Na2 S2 05 is also called sodium disulphite (bisulfite) or sodium metabisulphite (metabisulfite).
AFAIK the first Phenidone/Hydroquinone "Universal Developer" formulation was published by Ilford. It does not contain either Glycin or Metol and thus is not similar to Ansco 130. I started compounding it in the 1970's and used it for many years as a paper developer (I added benzotriazole). The results were very similar to Kodak Dektol, but with a longer shelf life for the concentrated stock solution.
Everything is analog - even digital :D
Tom, have you tried 130 with phenidone replacing the Metol yet? Why not? Ha. I may get a chance to mix up a batch and try it this weekend if the new hurricane leaves me alone. I learned last weekend that it's not really possible, at least for me, to shoot 8x10 in 50-60mph winds (and that's with a C-1 and regular Zone VI tripod).
thanks for the hint towards sodium bisulfite - I already considered that, but forgot to check it. It helps me with another "project" - a clearing bath for a reversal process.
All the best,
PS: Are you the one Tom Hoskinson participating on Kiev-Report, too?
I did some comparison tests today of AZO in Ansco 130 1:1 and Amidol using Michael Smith''s Amidol formula.
Data as below.
1. Paper = AZO #2 (old #2)
2. Exposure = 4 seconds with 65 watt R40 lamp, at 33" from print frame. Test negative was a Stouffer TR 45 step wedge.
3. Develop for two minutes at 72š F. Amidol stright as per MS's formula, Ansco 130 1:1, standard 130 formula.
4. Tone with Rapid Selenium 1:100 for three minutes.
5. Air dry.
6. Read densities and plot curves.
Conclusion. Results were virtually identical. Both developers gave the same exposure scale (ES) of 1.45, Dmax was identical at 1.99, and printing speed at two minutes of development was also virtually identical. The only significant difference was that Anso 130 1:1 has a slightly shorter toe, which results in a curve that is slightly more straight line than the curve of Amidol. Howver, if compared to the typical curves of silver papers other than AZO, the curves of AZO in both Amidol and Ansco 130 1:1 are much more straight line.
After evaluating the tests I made two real prints from a digital negative, exposing both for the same time. I developed one in Amidol, the other in 130. The prints are now dry and they appear to my eyes to be identical. For all practical purposes they are so similar that I can not tell them apart from visual inspection, even when observing them side by side in the same light.
I am attaching three images. The first shows both curves plotted together, the second is the Ansco 130 1:1 curve, the third is Amidol straight.
All of these prints were developed with constant agitation and timed to the second. No water bath was used, either for the test prints or for the *real life* prints.
Last edited by sanking; 09-11-2004 at 10:12 AM. Click to view previous post history.