Quote Originally Posted by Martin Althoff
In that sense, if you could look at this formula (source early in this thread) and a) make suggestions as what to add, remove or modify b) and, this is in line with my original intent of this thread, because Hydroxylamine Sulfate is considered too unhealthy and therefore difficult to get, how that can be substituted.
I'm not the person you're addressing, but on the issue of hydroxylamine sulfate, have a look at Dignan's NCF-41 developer. It lacks hydroxylamine sulfate. It also lacks any form of iodide, unless I've overlooked something, so if you wanted to follow PE's advice on this, you might want to experiment with adding a bit of it. NCF-41 is certainly not a "correct" developer in the sense that PE seems to be using the term, but it does produce color negatives that I've been able to scan. (I've not yet progressed to conventional color printing, though.)

I've just started with color processing, and I've tried both NCF-41 and Paterson Photocolor II developer. I've not done enough to be really confident of which one works better, although I've very tentatively identified some patterns: NCF-41 might be producing some color shifts in Konica-Minolta film, but not (or not as strongly) in Fuji or Agfa film. (My Konica-Minolta rolls happened to be tricky subjects, though, which might have thrown off VueScan's color tuning.) The one roll of Ilford XP2 Super (chromogenic B&W) I ran through NCF-41 also came out very thin, so either I screwed up badly and didn't realize it or these two aren't a good match. Maybe extending development time would help; at least you wouldn't need to worry about color shifts with XP2 Super. Photocolor II hasn't done anything suspicious, but I've run fewer rolls through it (and none of XP2 Super, as of yet). I'm going to run at least a few more rolls through both NCF-41 and Photocolor II; neither developer has yet done anything bad enough to make me want to pour it down the drain, although I don't think I'll be doing more XP2 Super in NCF-41.