Ansco 120/P.F. 130/P.F. Dr. Beers?
Chase Martinr
print developer. The LF images are of patterns of wood grain/saw
cuts, and I'm looking for a developer to help soften the tonality a
bit, but still have excellent rich blacks, and very sharp definition.
I've heard that Ansco 120 might do this, and there's two developers at
the Photographers Formulary that might give me what I'm looking for:
130 paper developer and Dr. Beer's paper developer. Has anyone had
any experience with either of these developers? For my last project I
used selectol soft and dektol (in combination) and would rather find a
more repeatable (simpler) solution.
Thanks for your help!
-Chase M.
ArtKramr
>From: Chase Martinr cma...@cox.net
>Date: 8/1/03 5:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Beer's paper developer. Has anyone had
>any experience with either of these developers? For my last project I
>used selectol soft and dektol (in combination) and would rather find a
>more repeatable (simpler) solution.
>Thanks for your help!
I wouldn't exactly call Dr Beers a "simpler" solution..
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Jim MacKenzie
"Chase Martinr" <cma...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4knkivsbniakeguis...@4ax.com...
> I've heard that Ansco 120 might do this, and there's two developers at
> the Photographers Formulary that might give me what I'm looking for:
> 130 paper developer and Dr. Beer's paper developer. Has anyone had
> any experience with either of these developers?
I haven't tried them, but 130 is probably a good one to give a whirl to. I
have ordered some and will be trying it soon. It is based on the Ansco 130
formula which you can mix yourself. A litre of developer stock solution
contains 2.2 grams of metol, 11 grams of hydroquinone, 50 grams of anhydrous
sodium sulfite, 78 grams of monohydrated sodium carbonate, 5.5 grams of
potassium bromide and 11 grams of glycin, so you can mix it yourself from
raw ingredients.
Jim
Jeff Novick
"ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030801095820...@mb-m24.aol.com...
mix up 5 gallon containers of it and then mix it as I needed it. I would
highly recommend this developer as you can change the tonality of the print
quite easily.
Michael Scarpitti
There are too many variables unaccounted for in your question, such as
paper and film type, enlarger/head type, whether a yellow filter was
used, etc., to say you're unhappy with your print developer. It's
extremely unlikely that merely changing paper developers would make a
significant difference. Paper characteristics are not that easily
changed, at least with most modern materials. I performed many
experiments with paper formulas over the years, and very little change
was ever noticeable.
If you want to fool around with paper developers, try DuPont 54-D or
52-D. I doubt that this is your problem, though.
Chase Martin
Scarpitti) wrote:
I am not a rookie at this. I am looking for a subtle change, as
described in my post. I can see a big difference between dektol and
selectol soft in my work. I'm simply looking for something in the
middle that is easy to mix up. I believe that most people overlook
their print developer when trying to match their visualization.
It's similar to Ordinal cs. D76, etc. I have no desire to "fool
around" with print developers. I am asking others for their
experiences with 130 and Dr. Beers developers.
-Chase M.
Richard Knoppow
Ansco/Agfa 120 is a metol only formula which will develop
more slowly than most other developers. It is similar to the
late lamented Kodak Selectol Soft.
Ansco/Agfa 130 is an active normal developer with the
addition of Glycin. It is otherwise very similar to
Dektol/D-72. Its advantage is better image color for warm
tone papers. 130 has less tendency to produce greenish or
olive tones. Its oly drawback is the current rather high
cost of Glycin.
The Beers formula is a combination of a developer much
like Ansco 120 and a standard developer like Dektol. While
it has a long history I doubt it has much real advantage.
Print contrast is pretty much fixed by the nature of the
emulsion. Prints are developed to "finality" that is, until
the blacks reach maximum (or approximately so). Negatives
can be varied in contrast because film is never developed
for its maximum density. In other words, film is seldom, if
ever, fully developed. The degree of partial development
controls the contrast.
If you try to reduce the contrast of a print this way you
wind up with grayed out blacks. It may be that soft
developers do have some effect on the relative sensitivity
of the emulsion but I doublt its much.
The way to vary print contrast is to use a different grade
of paper.
If the overall contrast is OK but some area is too
contrasty or not contrasty enough you can try selective
printing of those area using variable contrast paper. Print
different areas using different filters. Sometimes you can
get the effect you want by simply burning and dodging but
the use of selective printing with VC paper allow you to
actually have different contrast for different parts of the
image.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dick...@ix.netcom.com
WB3FUP (Mike Hall)
to problem areas of the print. Your hand, or a
paper towel can be used to apply a non dilute
version of the developer, or developer at 90 to
100 degrees to accelerate development in certain
areas of the print.
The Dupont developers have also been mentioned.
Try them if you roll your own.
My favorite all time paper was "Varigam" but big
green lost the battle for the consumer market to
the Great Yellow Father that liveth in NY State
and we lost a great product to the operation of
the market place.
--
73 es cul
wb3fup
a Salty Bear
"Richard Knoppow" <dick...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in message
news:G2KWa.2373$jg7....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
WB3FUP (Mike Hall)
and we know how to spell duPont. Guess I should
fire a note off to Willy, even my spell checker
wanted to spell it wrong <VBG>
--
73 es cul
wb3fup
a Salty Bear
"Richard Knoppow" <dick...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in message
news:G2KWa.2373$jg7....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
JCPERE
I've found that the Formulary BW-65 seemed a little softer than 130 or Dectol.
You might want to try a bottle. Also Ilford Bromophen has a look that you
might like. I thought Dectol had better shadow contrast but the Bromophen had
nice highlights. 120 will give you something similar to the Selectol-Soft
you're used to. I assume you're working with cold tone papers and not
concerned with color shift caused by the developer.
Chuck
Michael Scarpitti
DeBeers is no longer considered viable for modern papers.
I do have some suggestions, though:
Try 55-D.
See:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~forbes/paper.html
http://www.pofig.net/photodb/viewChemistries.do?categoryId=4
Richard Knoppow
"WB3FUP (Mike Hall)" <wb3...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:bgfvhj$o85hd$1...@ID-134747.news.uni-berlin.de...
> You also can apply "straight" or "hot" developer
> to problem areas of the print. Your hand, or a
> paper towel can be used to apply a non dilute
> version of the developer, or developer at 90 to
> 100 degrees to accelerate development in certain
> areas of the print.
>
> The Dupont developers have also been mentioned.
> Try them if you roll your own.
>
> My favorite all time paper was "Varigam" but big
> green lost the battle for the consumer market to
> the Great Yellow Father that liveth in NY State
> and we lost a great product to the operation of
> the market place.
>
> --
> 73 es cul
>
> wb3fup
> a Salty Bear
>
duPont 55D is a good developer, somewhat less active than
Dektol. It was my standard developer when I was in
highschool. I am not sure it actually has much advantage
over Dektol other than developing a little more slowly. It
also has a lot of bromide in it and duPont recommended using
even more. That leads to warmer tones and possibly clearer
highlights. You can also add bromide to Dektol, which has
about the minimum in it.
I am not sure why duPont went out of the photo supply
business. duPont originally made motion picture film and
specialty products like X-ray plates. Both duPont and
Eastman Kodak had arrangements with the Defender Photo
Supply company to keep it in business. Defender made sheet
film and printing paper. In fact, Kodak made some of
Defender's films. Many of Defender's formulas are identical
to Kodak formulas. duPont supplied them with sensitizing
dyes and other components. Kodak's purpose was to insure a
third competitor (Ansco/Agfa was the other) to prevent
anti-trust action. Eventually, sometime in the mid 1940's,
duPont bought Defender. They maintained the Defender
trade-name and product line for quite some time. At some
point (and I don't know the dates) duPont discontinued the
manufacture of paper and sheet film and went back to making
only motion picture film, X-ray films, and other specialty
products. I think the company still makes X-ray film. The
Defender name was dropped when the products were dropped. I
also used alot of Defender Velour Black. This was a bromide
enlarging paper similar to Kodabromide, in fact, I believe
it was the first bromide enlarging paper on the market. The
name Defender comes from a yacht owned by one of the
founders which won an important race.
In the 1930's duPont called its motion picture film
"Superior" and advertised heavily in the trade papers. Kodak
took to running ads which read "Use Plus-X - NO SUPERIOR".
Michael Scarpitti
> You also can apply "straight" or "hot" developer
> to problem areas of the print. Your hand, or a
> paper towel can be used to apply a non dilute
> version of the developer, or developer at 90 to
> 100 degrees to accelerate development in certain
> areas of the print.
>
> The Dupont developers have also been mentioned.
> Try them if you roll your own.
>
> My favorite all time paper was "Varigam" but big
> green lost the battle for the consumer market to
> the Great Yellow Father that liveth in NY State
> and we lost a great product to the operation of
> the market place.
When Velour Black was discontinued, I just about died. Gallerie is
good, but not quite the same thing.
Richard Knoppow
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:2fd2ff8c.03080...@posting.google.com...
One of many good papers which are gone now. Agfa/Ansco
Brovira was another.
VC paper is much cheaper for manufacturers; they have to
produce only one paper rather than several grades for each.
Since photographic materials are perishables anything that
moves slowly is a potential (and probably actual) looser.
ArtKramr
>From: "Richard Knoppow" dick...@ix.netcom.com
>Date: 8/2/03 3:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <GQWWa.2001$jp.723@newsread
> I am not sure why duPont went out of the photo supply
>business. duPont originally made motion picture film and
>specialty products like X-ray plates. Both duPont and
Simple. Kodak needed a plastic film base and agreed to buy it from DuPont if
Dupont stopped making consumer photo products, The deal did not include X-ray
and graphic arts materials..
Jim MacKenzie
"Richard Knoppow" <dick...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:G2KWa.2373$jg7....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> more slowly than most other developers. It is similar to the
> late lamented Kodak Selectol Soft.
I have an unopened package of this in the darkroom that isn't all that old.
I wonder if it would be worth selling. It was purchased out of curiosity,
not for a specific purpose.
Jim
Jim MacKenzie
"JCPERE" <jcp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030802064506...@mb-m03.aol.com...
> I've found that the Formulary BW-65 seemed a little softer than 130 or
Dectol.
> You might want to try a bottle. Also Ilford Bromophen has a look that you
> might like. I thought Dectol had better shadow contrast but the Bromophen
had
> nice highlights.
I concur about Bromophen. In theory it should be similar to Dektol and it
is; it uses Phenidone instead of metol. (This is good for people that are
sensitive to metol.) But it does have a slightly different character. I
have grown to prefer it over Dektol for my fine-art prints.
Jim
Richard Knoppow
"Jim MacKenzie" <j...@dusykbarlow.sk.ca> wrote in message
news:3f2fcd71$1...@news3.accesscomm.ca...
more neutral tones, i.e., less olive, on many papers. This
is partly the Phenidone and partly the presence of
Benzotriazole, which is a blue tone agent as well as an
anti-foggant.
I think much of the discussion of characteristics of
different but very similar print developers comes from
wishful thinking as much as anything. Dektol/D-72 has become
a pretty much standard formula. Every maker of developers
has a similar formula, usually varying only in small amounts
of the ingredients. This probably shows mostly how tollerant
most of these formulas are of variation.
I've commented earlier in this thread about the affect on
paper contrast of the developer, in short, don't expect
much.
Here are some formulas for those interested in the
developers under discussion.
Ilford ID-62 This is essentially the same as Bromophen
Stock Solution
Water (at 125F or 52C) 750.0 ml
Sodium Sulfite, anhydrous 50.0 grams
Hydroquinone 12.0 grams
Sodium Carbonate, dessicated 60.0 grams
Phenidone 0.5 grams
Potassium Bromide 2.0 grams
Benzotriazole 0.2 grams
Water to make 1.0 liter
For use dilute 1 part stock to 1 part water or for enlaging
papers 1 part stock to 3 parts water.
Kodak D-72 Identical to Dektol
Stock Solution
Water (at 125F or 52C) 500.0 ml
Metol (Elon) 3.1 grams
Sodium Sulfite, dessicated 45.0 grams
Hydroquinone 12.0 grams
Sodium Carbonate, dessicated 67.5 grams
Potassium Bromide 1.9 grams
Water to make 1.0 liter
(If monohydraded carbonate is used increase the amount to 79
grams)
For use dilute 1 part stock with from 1 part water to 4
parts water. Normal dilution is 1:2
More bromide can be added for warmer tones.
Agfa/Ansco 130 General Purpose Paper Developer
Stock Solution
Water (at 125F or 52C) 750.0 ml
Metol 3.0 grams
Sodium Sulfite, dessicated 50.0 grams
Hydroquinone 11.0 grams
Sodium Carbonate, monohydrated 78.0 grams
Potassium Bromide 5.5 grams
Glycin 11.0 grams
Water to make 1.0 liter
For use dilute 1 part stock to 1 part water. Softer results
will be had at 1 part stock to 2 parts water.
Agfa Ansco 120 Soft-Working Developer (very similar to Kodak
Selectol-Soft)
Stock Solution
Water (at 125F or 52C) 750.0 ml
Metol 12.3 grams
Sodium Sulfite, dessicated 36.0 grams
Sodium Carbonate, monohydrated 36.0 grams
Potassium Bromide 2.0 grams
Water to make 1.0 liter
Dilute 1 part stock solution to 2 parts water.
Agfa suggested using in two tray development with a standard
contrast developer such as 130 or Agfa 125 (virtually
identical to Kodak D-72) as the high contrast developer.
Defender (duPont) 55-D Portrait Developer
Stock Solution
Water (at 125F or 52C) 500.0 ml
Metol 2.5 grams
Sodium Sulfite, dessicated 37.5 grams
Hydroquinone 10.0 grams
Sodium Carbonate, dessicated 37.5 grams
Potassium Bromide 4.0 to 13.0
grams
Water to make 1.0 liter
If monohydrated carbonate is used the amount is 44.0 grams
Defender recommended liberal use of bromide, even in excess
of the amount above.
For use dilute 1 part stock to 2 parts water.
Defender's equivalent to D-72/Dektol was 53-D, which is
_exactly_ identical.
-
Note the great similarity among D-72 (Dektol) Agfa 130,
and Ilford ID-62 (Bromophen) other than the difference in
developing agents. Bromophen replaces Metol with Phenidone
and 130 adds Glycin to Metol and Hydroquinone. The primary
difference in results among these three is the image color,
both the Phenidone and Glycin tending to suppress a tendency
towards greenish tones in some papers.
Benzotriazole can be added toeither D-72 (Dektol) or Agfa
130 to shift image color somewhat towards blue. It is
necessary in ID-62 because Bromide is not an effective
anti-foggant for Phenidone. There is bromide in ID-62
probably because it is very effective in suppressing
Hydroquinone so the presense of some bromide in the fresh
formula will tend to minimise the difference as bromide is
accumulated from processed paper.
Defender 55-D is a somewhat softer working developer than
the standard formulas, falling somewhere between them and
Agfa-120/Selectol Soft. It also produces warmer tones on
warm tone paper partly because of the lower activity and
partly because of the large amount of Bromide.
There are a great many proprietary paper developers who's
manufacturers make strong claims for them. Most, if the MSDS
or ingredient list is consulted, turn out to be not much
different than the conventional and well-known formulas.
Another note: Most RC papers have a developer incorporated
in them, usually in a separate layer under the emulsion. For
the most part this consists of Hydroquinone. Its purpose is
to enable these papers to be used in rapid access
"activation" processors. These processors have an
"activator" consisting of a strong alkali solution with
sulfite in it, which activates the developer and develops
the image. The advantage is that each sheet brings fresh
developer with it so the capacity of the system is
relatively great. Fixing is done in a rapid fixing bath
which is in another compartment of the machine. Very short
dry to dry times can be gotten. The disadvantage is that the
maximum black is usualy not as good as is gotten with
conventional development.
A standard developer also activates the incorporated
developer. This results in very rapid first appearance of
the image and relatively short total development times. It
also results in less control of the degree of development
and less variation of image tone by the developer. Any of
the above formulas work with this paper but the differences
among them will be partially masked by the incorporated
developer.
AFAIK Ilford is the only company who makes
non-developer-incorporated RC paper. NO fiber base paper has
developer incorporated in it although in the past some did
(for stabilization machines).
If you want to compare results do it after the prints are
dry and try to make some arrangement so you can't tell whcih
is which from the front. Look at the prints when they have
had a chance to dry-down and in the same light. Comparisons
made of wet prints in the darkroom are notoriously
misleading.