Quote Originally Posted by zumbido View Post
Is it possible that they aren't specifically incorporating developing agents, but that some of the other chemistry happens to carry a medium (or weak, or whatever) development effect? Not that it matters, I'm just curious.
Very likely, Ilford have stated very clearly that MGIV isn't developer incorporated. It cn't be processed in an Activator solution.

Quote Originally Posted by Ray Rogers View Post
PE & zumbido have beaten me to the send button... (see below for clarification)

Ian, could you describe this "base fogging"... Did the reverse side brown?

It sounds like what Ian and Robert describe are better called Stabilization Papers...
PE noted before that one Ilford paper "passed" his "ID or Not" test... to which Simon of Harman clearly stated no Ilford (Harman) paper had ID... PE described his test, some thought too strong a pH was being used and the topic died down... there was never any clear resolution as far as I remember, other than a hint that something other than ID might be responsable....

I am curious to hear about Ian's base fogging in this context, but in any case, for actual use to get development without a tradtional "developing solution", I don't see why a pH any higher than that of a normal developer should be needed in ID testing... unless the agent incorporated, had a poor developing potential, which might have a certain usefulness....

Another disadvantage might have been the stability of such papers.
For high speed processing Activators use Hydroxide and a high pH, typically developing in a few seconds, I think my Ilford machine took under 15 seconds seconds to process a print, about 3-5 in the activator

The fogging came from having no restrainer or a sulphite and was a base gray chemical fogging, commercial activators contain Sulphite & usually bromide, but my first test were with plain NaOH.

But for normal tray use then a lower pH is of course fine.