Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,773   Posts: 1,484,412   Online: 1081
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: I Love Ansco 47

  1. #1
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,020
    Images
    38

    I Love Ansco 47

    If you want a very basic metol/hydroquinone developer for processing film destined for platinum printing, Ansco 47 is great.

    I have used it for years for my 8x10 stuff. Every now and then I get sidetracked by some packaged or fancier developer but when I go back to Ansco 47 I always love it. It gives you nice snappy negs that have sparkling highlights that need no restrainer or very little. It is great on skin and on white backgrounds. You mix it up easily and cheaply and a tray of it lasts a long time.

    Metol 2.25 grams
    Sodium Sulfite 67.5 grams
    Sodium Bisulfite 1.5 grams
    hydroquinone 4.5 grams
    Sodium Carbonate 9 grams
    Potassium Bromide 1.2 grams
    water to 1.5 liters

    The last few days I have been processing Arista EDU 100 (Foma) at 70º for 7 minutes and the negs are clean and unmottled and perfect for platinum printing.

    Just thought I would pass that along. Probably not for silver printing unless it is flat lighting..
    Denins

  2. #2
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,969
    Images
    148
    1.2 gms of Bromide is a significant restrainer

    Another case where Agfa Ansco 47 is different to the Agfa/Orwo formula which is an Amidol developer

    Devs like this went out of fashion when people switched to finer grain developers for miniature films 120 & 35mm, then LF users climbed on the same bandwagon.

    Ian

  3. #3
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,020
    Images
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    1.2 gms of Bromide is a significant restrainer

    Another case where Agfa Ansco 47 is different to the Agfa/Orwo formula which is an Amidol developer

    Devs like this went out of fashion when people switched to finer grain developers for miniature films 120 & 35mm, then LF users climbed on the same bandwagon.

    Ian
    Maybe Ansco 47 is grainy. I never noticed it but I tend to use finer grain films. The restrainer I refer to of course is Platinum printing restrainer.
    Dennis

  4. #4
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,969
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by dpurdy View Post
    Maybe Ansco 47 is grainy. I never noticed it but I tend to use finer grain films. The restrainer I refer to of course is Platinum printing restrainer.
    Dennis
    Makes sense, if you're contact printing grain is irrelevant anyway.

    Ian

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Westport, MA.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,040
    Nothing wrong with a bit o' grain. Forgive me for asking but, what would this stuff be similar to? It sounds neat.

  6. #6
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,921
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Devs like this went out of fashion when people switched to finer grain developers for miniature films 120 & 35mm, then LF users climbed on the same bandwagon.

    Ian

    I always wonder about this. There are so many formulae involving Metol, HQ and Sodium Carbonate...but, all seem to disappear from the books around the mid to late 1940's or so.

    I realize that this coincides with the advent of miniature formats and the relentless need / desire for fine grain but, I always wonder if there are good formulae that have been unfairly abandoned considering that one is shooting LF and isn't particularily concerned about fine grain.
    Last edited by BradS; 01-05-2009 at 03:59 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #7
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,020
    Images
    38
    you can see in the formula that it is pretty basic stuff. But it has a sparkle that I don't get with other developers. I have been shooting a series of still life photos for a few weeks and was using Rodinal and though I love Rodinal I couldn't get the kind of "snap" I wanted.. contrast I guess. I don't plot curves but I would guess this one has a pretty steep shoulder. The exposures I have been doing are complicated with bellows extension and multiple flash, so I can't comment on film speed.

  8. #8
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,969
    Images
    148
    Kodak, Ilford, Agfa etc had similar formulae, D61a comes to mind. It was a case of photographers switching from contact printing and enlarging.

    The professional LF users said hang on we can improve our quality too by using Fine grain developers too, and so everyone switched. many Pro's dropped down from 10x8 and larger to 5x4 cameras as a result. Only one of my professional friends continued to use 10x8 (& larger) but he worked for a large International catalogue company who shot everything on transparency to actual size for repro.

    My personal take is why shouldn't my 5x4 & 10x8 negs have the same sharpness, fine grain, tonality etc as my 35mm negs. However Platinum &n Alternative processes need very different negatives.

    ian

  9. #9
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,921
    I guess the question that always bothers me has to do with the compromise...are the fine grain developers really "better"? If I develop my 4x5 negs in d-76...am I missing out on something that I might have gotten in a MQ-carbonate developer of old? Speed comes to mind...but, what else?


    In other words, If I am projection printing a 4x5 negative (not alt process) and am willing to accept some grain, what can I get in return (by using an old formula)?

  10. #10
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,969
    Images
    148
    As films & processing changed so did the papers.

    So using older formulae for enlarging won't really be beneficial. The reverse of the problem is it's very hard to achieve the same qualities from 20's, 30's, 40's negs with modern papers.

    ian

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