Microphen as standard developer?
Janne Rapola
I've given it up due to unreliability (two different batches went bad
despite adequate storage). But that's history.
I've just tested ID-11 1+1, and though my favourite film HP5+ does come
out really sharp, I am a bit disappointed because of the grain. It is OK
with 120 and sheet, but a bit heavy for 135 mm. Ilford says stock
solution is better for grain. Maybe so, but I use everything one shot
(JOBO) and prefer slightly longer dev. times, so dilution is preferable.
How much is grain affected by dilution with ID-11?
Then to the point: many people seem to use Microphen, and it has been
recommended to me by a couple of people. My question is, what is
Microphen like (1+1 or 1+3) compared to the same dilutions with ID-11?
Ilford says that Microphen is intended for push processing, which I am
not interested in, rather, a good combination of sharpness, tonality and
grain (in that order!).
I want to emphasize that I'm not afraid of grain, in fact I use Rodinal
occasionally, and like the look. With HP5+ though it gives a rather poor
EI and not very good contrast.
I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions (before I go back to
Ilfosol-S!)
-Janne
pwright
stronger action - good for pushing. I am particularly fond of Ilford
Perceptol,
either stock or 1+1. Both give minimal grain, good accutance and beautiful
tonality with Ilford films. Both dilutions are far superior to Ilfosol based
on my
trials.
Peter
Janne Rapola wrote:
--
Peter Lawrence Wright pwri...@SPAMcyberus.ca
Post Office Box 3,
Carleton Place, Ontario
K7C 3P3
--
Industry in art is a necessity - not a virtue -
and any evidence of the same, in the production,
is a blemish, not a quality; a proof, not of achievement,
but of absolutely insufficient work,
for work alone will efface the footsteps of work."
-- James McNeill Whistler, The Gentle Art of Making Enemies [1890]
Rick Schiller
using D76, especially with Tmax films. I believe D76 uses Metol, ID11
uses Phenidone which seems to be Ilford's equivelent of Metol. Both
also use Hydroquinone. I think for an overall balanced film developer,
D76 1:1 cannot be beat. It gives good accutance, nice tonal range,
smooth minimal grain and good shadow detail IF the film is rated
(derated) properly. I had good results with HP5 rated at 320 in D76
1:1.
Rick
In article <3675AC...@ktl.fi>, janne....@ktl.fi says...
John Hicks
wrote:
>Then to the point: many people seem to use Microphen
Microphen will be a bit faster, grainier, and give higher acutance.
For HP5+ I get EI 640 in Microphen 1:1.
Before you give up on Rodinal, try 1:40 w/50g sodium sulfite/liter,
9'/68F for EI 320. Use a minimum of 250ml/roll.
---
John Hicks
John's Camera Shop
SPECTRUM
wrote:
|>I thought I had found the "perfect" developer in Xtol. Sad to say but
|>I've given it up due to unreliability (two different batches went bad
|>despite adequate storage). But that's history.
|>
|>I've just tested ID-11 1+1, and though my favourite film HP5+ does come
|>out really sharp, I am a bit disappointed because of the grain. It is OK
|>with 120 and sheet, but a bit heavy for 135 mm. Ilford says stock
|>solution is better for grain. Maybe so, but I use everything one shot
|>(JOBO) and prefer slightly longer dev. times, so dilution is preferable.
|>How much is grain affected by dilution with ID-11?
|>
|>Then to the point: many people seem to use Microphen, and it has been
|>recommended to me by a couple of people. My question is, what is
|>Microphen like (1+1 or 1+3) compared to the same dilutions with ID-11?
|>Ilford says that Microphen is intended for push processing, which I am
|>not interested in, rather, a good combination of sharpness, tonality and
|>grain (in that order!).
|>
|>I want to emphasize that I'm not afraid of grain, in fact I use Rodinal
|>occasionally, and like the look. With HP5+ though it gives a rather poor
|>EI and not very good contrast.
|>
|>I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions (before I go back to
|>Ilfosol-S!)
|>
|>-Janne
You'll find that Microphen is a good developer that gives full
emulsion speed. But I don't particularly think of it as a fine grain
formula.
For $4.00 just buy a gallon and give it a try. You may also
want to add a little sulfite and shorten your development times. I
used to do this with 35mm as I always printed the image onto a G4
Seagull. The grain was minimal and you can usually get good 11X14's
from a 35.
Check out one such image at
http://www.spectrumphoto.com/Photographs/LOV2.jpg
Regards,
John S. Douglas
S p e c t r u m P h o t o g r a p h i c I n c .
W o r l d F i e l d P h o t o g r a p h e r s A s s o c i a t i o n
http://www.spectrumphoto.com spec...@adelphia.net
Richard Knoppow
>I thought I had found the "perfect" developer in Xtol. Sad to say but
>I've given it up due to unreliability (two different batches went bad
>despite adequate storage). But that's history.
>
>I've just tested ID-11 1+1, and though my favourite film HP5+ does come
>out really sharp, I am a bit disappointed because of the grain. It is OK
>with 120 and sheet, but a bit heavy for 135 mm. Ilford says stock
>solution is better for grain. Maybe so, but I use everything one shot
>(JOBO) and prefer slightly longer dev. times, so dilution is preferable.
>How much is grain affected by dilution with ID-11?
>
>Then to the point: many people seem to use Microphen, and it has been
>recommended to me by a couple of people. My question is, what is
>Microphen like (1+1 or 1+3) compared to the same dilutions with ID-11?
>Ilford says that Microphen is intended for push processing, which I am
>not interested in, rather, a good combination of sharpness, tonality and
>grain (in that order!).
>
>I want to emphasize that I'm not afraid of grain, in fact I use Rodinal
>occasionally, and like the look. With HP5+ though it gives a rather poor
>EI and not very good contrast.
>
>I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions (before I go back to
>Ilfosol-S!)
>
>-Janne
Microphen is essentially a D-76/ID-11 developer made with Phenidone
rather than Metol. The Phenidone gives it both somewhat finer grain
than D-76 and increases effective shadow speed of films.
Ilford published formula ID-68 is similar to Microphen.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Tim Shoppa
> Then to the point: many people seem to use Microphen, and it has been
> recommended to me by a couple of people. My question is, what is
> Microphen like (1+1 or 1+3) compared to the same dilutions with ID-11?
> Ilford says that Microphen is intended for push processing, which I am
> not interested in, rather, a good combination of sharpness, tonality and
> grain (in that order!).
>
> I want to emphasize that I'm not afraid of grain, in fact I use Rodinal
> occasionally, and like the look. With HP5+ though it gives a rather poor
> EI and not very good contrast.
I'm not sure about how available it is in Europe, but you ought
to give Acufine a try if you can get your hands on it. It's
a particularly high accutance developer, that gives a beautifully
sharp grain pattern with HP5+.
I've never used Microphen - would anyone who has compared it with
Acufine claim that the two are similar, in that they both
give a real increase in speed, high acutance, and clear
sharp grain? From what others are saying about Microphen, it
certainly sounds similar.
Tim.
SPECTRUM
<sho...@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
|>I'm not sure about how available it is in Europe, but you ought
|>to give Acufine a try if you can get your hands on it. It's
|>a particularly high accutance developer, that gives a beautifully
|>sharp grain pattern with HP5+.
|>
|>I've never used Microphen - would anyone who has compared it with
|>Acufine claim that the two are similar, in that they both
|>give a real increase in speed, high acutance, and clear
|>sharp grain? From what others are saying about Microphen, it
|>certainly sounds similar.
|>
|>Tim.
Different strokes for different folks ! I never found Accufine
to be a high accutance developer. It did give great film speed but
when I enlarged a 35mm Tri-X neg to 11X14, it completely fell apart.
Mush.
Just my .02 !
Bill Troop
that XTOL is said to be unreliable. I find this surprising and
disturbing. I've been away from the group too long and clearly
have missed something. I would have thought that, for a number
of reasons, XTOL would be much more stable than Microphen,
Acufine, or any PQ developer of that generation. Also, I would
expect XTOL to be much sharper, and to be much better able to
cope with water supply problems, due to a newer and better
sequestering agent. But I can't argue with users' experiences!
If there is a widespread problem keeping XTOL stable, I'd like
to know more about it. Does there seem to be a general manufacturing
problem, or is Janne's experience reasonably unique?
(in which case it would be interesting to try to track down what
the problem really is) - - - grateful for any information -- Bill
SPECTRUM wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:24:30 -0800, Janne Rapola <janne....@ktl.fi>
> wrote:
>
> |>I thought I had found the "perfect" developer in Xtol. Sad to say but
> |>I've given it up due to unreliability (two different batches went bad
> |>despite adequate storage). But that's history.
> |>
> |>I've just tested ID-11 1+1, and though my favourite film HP5+ does come
> |>out really sharp, I am a bit disappointed because of the grain. It is OK
> |>with 120 and sheet, but a bit heavy for 135 mm. Ilford says stock
> |>solution is better for grain. Maybe so, but I use everything one shot
> |>(JOBO) and prefer slightly longer dev. times, so dilution is preferable.
> |>How much is grain affected by dilution with ID-11?
> |>
> |>Then to the point: many people seem to use Microphen, and it has been
> |>recommended to me by a couple of people. My question is, what is
> |>Microphen like (1+1 or 1+3) compared to the same dilutions with ID-11?
> |>Ilford says that Microphen is intended for push processing, which I am
> |>not interested in, rather, a good combination of sharpness, tonality and
> |>grain (in that order!).
> |>
> |>I want to emphasize that I'm not afraid of grain, in fact I use Rodinal
> |>occasionally, and like the look. With HP5+ though it gives a rather poor
> |>EI and not very good contrast.
> |>
> |>I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions (before I go back to
> |>Ilfosol-S!)
> |>
> |>-Janne
>
> You'll find that Microphen is a good developer that gives full
> emulsion speed. But I don't particularly think of it as a fine grain
> formula.
> For $4.00 just buy a gallon and give it a try. You may also
> want to add a little sulfite and shorten your development times. I
> used to do this with 35mm as I always printed the image onto a G4
> Seagull. The grain was minimal and you can usually get good 11X14's
> from a 35.
> Check out one such image at
> http://www.spectrumphoto.com/Photographs/LOV2.jpg
>
Jesse Fiorino
Bill Troop wrote:
>
> I'm interested in this thread. I notice nobody seems to be surprised
> that XTOL is said to be unreliable. I find this surprising and
> disturbing.
I have to agree. I have learned my lesson with keeping microphen
around, i just cant seem to get it to keep, period. I use it right
after i make it.
As for xtol, other than a bad 1L batch i made, i have never had
a problem. I haven't used it as a push developer yet, i wanted to use
up my last few packs of microphen(as they are older).
Honestly Xtol and microphen are the only developers i use.
JEsse
John Hicks
<bill...@swanlake.com> wrote:
>I'm interested in this thread. I notice nobody seems to be surprised
>that XTOL is said to be unreliable. I find this surprising and
>disturbing.
Of the people I know of who are using Xtol or have used it, _very_
few have had any problems with it.
I know some failures have been reported here, and that Kodak had a
run of bad packaging for the one-liter size, but I believe the
failures are rather rare. Or iow, not having a problem isn't something
that many people are going to report. <g>
So I'm still happily using Xtol.
FWIW over the years I've had failures with badly-packaged/leaky
D-76, Microdol-X, Rodinal, HC-110, FG-7...well, you get my drift.
Sometimes it's very difficult to tell if a developer has gone bad in
its original packaging before losing some film to it.
SPECTRUM
<bill...@swanlake.com> wrote:
|>I'm interested in this thread. I notice nobody seems to be surprised
|>that XTOL is said to be unreliable. I find this surprising and
|>disturbing. I've been away from the group too long and clearly
|>have missed something. I would have thought that, for a number
|>of reasons, XTOL would be much more stable than Microphen,
|>Acufine, or any PQ developer of that generation. Also, I would
|>expect XTOL to be much sharper, and to be much better able to
|>cope with water supply problems, due to a newer and better
|>sequestering agent. But I can't argue with users' experiences!
|>If there is a widespread problem keeping XTOL stable, I'd like
|>to know more about it. Does there seem to be a general manufacturing
|>problem, or is Janne's experience reasonably unique?
|>(in which case it would be interesting to try to track down what
|>the problem really is) - - - grateful for any information -- Bill
Hi Bill ,
You may want to search through DejaNews on this one. There is
quite a bit of material on Xtol there .
I for one won't use Xtol as it has proven to be undependable
and as you know my work is commercially oriented and I can't have the
spectre of inconsistency hanging over my shoulder when I develop a
roll of B&W film.
Suffice it to say that I tried Xtol at both Kodaks expense and
mine as well and found that it delivered on all of their promises when
fresh and diluted only 1:1 but after aging just a couple of months and
using it at the 1:3 dilution I came away with negs that needed at
least 150cc magenta to be printed well and as you know the expansion
through contrast increase is a poor substitute for a properly exposed
and developed negative.
Here's a link to the search that I just ran which turned over
1600 hits.
Richard Knoppow
>Though ID-11 and good old D76 are similiar, I have found differences
>using D76, especially with Tmax films. I believe D76 uses Metol, ID11
>uses Phenidone which seems to be Ilford's equivelent of Metol. Both
>also use Hydroquinone. I think for an overall balanced film developer,
>D76 1:1 cannot be beat. It gives good accutance, nice tonal range,
>smooth minimal grain and good shadow detail IF the film is rated
>(derated) properly. I had good results with HP5 rated at 320 in D76
>1:1.
>
>Rick
Rick, is this a typing error? D-76 and ID-11 are nearly the same,
both MQ type developers. Microphen, which I think you may have meant
rather than ID-11 is a similar developer but using Phenidone in place
of the Metol.
Phenidone based developers generally give somewhat higher effective
film speed than similar developers formulated with Metol and have
somewhat greater capacity.
A developer similar to Phenidone is the basis of Xtol and is also
used in T-Max RS.
I believe Ilford Perceptol also uses Phenidone.
>
>In article <3675AC...@ktl.fi>, janne....@ktl.fi says...
>>
---
Rick Schiller
checked before giving such a scholarly post which now turns out to be
BS.
Rick
In article <367603f1....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
dick...@ix.netcom.com says...
Janne Rapola
in grain Microphen vs. ID-11. Some, like Richard below, says grain will
be finer, while some say it will be coarser. Could anyone shed more light
on this?
Second, a confession. Despite EI and N development testing, it seems I
have been overdeveloping with ID-11, which definitely may explain at
least part of my problem. I have exposed at 250 and 320 and developed in
ID-11 1+1 13 and 14 minutes. Though my tests were OK, the actual
negatives (portraits) were clearly too thick. I develop in a JOBO with
constant manual rolling agitation. It is possible that my rolling speed
has increased (I have recently bought a roller base for it). Maybe ID-11
(+HP5+) is especially sensitive to this? Or is ID-11 such that it should
be allowed to "sit" in contact with the neg for some time without
agitation? Ilford does recommend ID-11 for roller tank use, though. Oh
yes, and I do use a prewet (I always do, Ilford recommends against but
JOBO recommends for it).
I just developed a HP5+ in ID-11 for 11 minutes, and it is looking
better. 10 minutes may be right??
-Janne
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> >-Janne
>
> Microphen is essentially a D-76/ID-11 developer made with Phenidone
> rather than Metol. The Phenidone gives it both somewhat finer grain
> than D-76 and increases effective shadow speed of films.
> Ilford published formula ID-68 is similar to Microphen.
Peter Schelling
>Second, a confession. Despite EI and N development testing, it seems I
>have been overdeveloping with ID-11, which definitely may explain at
>least part of my problem. I have exposed at 250 and 320 and developed in
>ID-11 1+1 13 and 14 minutes. Though my tests were OK, the actual
>negatives (portraits) were clearly too thick. I develop in a JOBO with
>constant manual rolling agitation. It is possible that my rolling speed
>has increased (I have recently bought a roller base for it). Maybe ID-11
>(+HP5+) is especially sensitive to this? Or is ID-11 such that it should
>be allowed to "sit" in contact with the neg for some time without
>agitation? Ilford does recommend ID-11 for roller tank use, though. Oh
>yes, and I do use a prewet (I always do, Ilford recommends against but
>JOBO recommends for it).
>
>I just developed a HP5+ in ID-11 for 11 minutes, and it is looking
>better. 10 minutes may be right??
>
>-Janne
>
Actually i experienced the same problem: Times given in most common
data sheets give pretty lot of minutes for ID-11/D-76. For contrast
your permanent move may be a problem. Try to move smoother or less.
I found a table right now, were they indicate 11 Minutes by 20 deg. C.
for HP5 exposed at 400 ISO. With your 250 or 320 youm may be fine with
even 8 Minutes considerin the steady movement.
Peter
John Hicks
wrote:
> but after aging just a couple of months
Was this in the original package or mixed stock? I wouldn't expect
any developer to be any good a couple of months after mixing.
Dana H. Myers K6JQ
Bill Troop <bill...@swanlake.com> wrote:
> I'm interested in this thread. I notice nobody seems to be surprised
> that XTOL is said to be unreliable. I find this surprising and
> disturbing.
Early 1-liter packages had a problem in which 'Part A' of the developer
would become contaminated. While I've seen one report to the contrary [1],
Kodak says the 5-liter never had the problem, and I've used a number
of the 5-liter packages and never encountered it. Contaminated Part A
becomes gummy or even solid over time; however, I'm very suspicious that
contaminated Part A may actually not be obvious in some cases. There
have been reports where a given (1-liter) package of Xtol gives unexpectedly
thin T-Max negatives but develops non-T-Max films properly; while I don't
have firm evidence to prove this, I tend to suspect this is the result of
non-obviously contaminated Part A.
In October, Kodak issued a product return notice, which was even posted
on Usenet; see http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=406408787 for details.
In summary, affected 1-liter packages have date codes of 9711, 9717 and 9719.
Not long after introduction, Kodak revised the Xtol datasheets to specify
different processing times for Technical Pan, leading one person to
question the consistency of the formulation and/or Kodak manufacturing [1].
Several other people have reported that Xtol is not a very good developer
for Technical Pan anyway.
Kodak also revised the datasheets to included a minimum volume requirement;
regardless of dilution, at least 100ml of developer must be present for
every 80 in^2 of film. Using the highest recommended dilution, 1+3,
in a tank that holds a small amount of developer, some emulsions, not
all, may experience incomplete development.
One person has reported Xtol going bad on the shelf in a shorter time
than documented (Kodak says a full bottle may be stored for 1 year, a
partially empty bottle for 2 months). Note that this may be related to
the 1-liter packaging issue.
I've been using Xtol in the relatively economical 5-liter packages
since it was first introduced. I've never had a problem with unexpectedly
thin T-Max, and I've never had Xtol go bad in less time than the
documented 1-year/2-month period. I mix 5 liters, then store it in
5 1-quart bottles, which fill nearly to the top with 1 liter, then
squeeze the remaining airspace out.
My experience has been excellent with Xtol; as a general purpose
developer, it has been reported to work well with Delta, T-Max and
all popular conventional emulsions. Sharpness is excellent, grain
is reduced in apparence and film speed is maintained. Excellent
datasheets are available at http://www.kodak.com/ .
I believe that most, if not all, the reported issues are due to
a problem with packaging the 1-liter product at the time of product
launch. I simply have not had a problem with them.
[1] SpectrumPhoto's John has reported that Xtol, even in the 5-liter
package, was not stable.
--
Dana K6JQ
Da...@Source.Net
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Tim Shoppa
>
> On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 06:40:35 GMT, spec...@adelphia.net (SPECTRUM)
> wrote:
>
> > but after aging just a couple of months
>
> Was this in the original package or mixed stock? I wouldn't expect
> any developer to be any good a couple of months after mixing.
Actually, I've been quite surprised at what I have that keeps
well. (Especially in a sealed glass bottle in a cool place.)
I've opened forgotten bottles of Dektol stock after a year, and
discovered that it wasn't even slightly brown/black. When used
with Polymax II RC I wasn't able to tell the difference between
the year-old stuff and freshly-mixed stuff. (Is Polymax II
RC developer-incorporated, would anyone know?)
On the other hand, I've opened Kodak foil wrappers of Dektol
powder that I'd bought just a few months ago and discovered
that the stuff had turned completely black.
Process-control strips that I've used on six-month-old
Acufine and D-76 stock show no apparent change in activity after
glass-bottle storage. (I've done extensive replenishment
using both of these developers in the past, motivating me
to learn how to use process control strips.)
A very major difficulty with anecdotal testimony as to
storage lifetimes is that the reader has no knowledge as
to what storage quirks the material might have gone through.
Or the "tests" done to determine if the problems really
were due to storage problems and not to misunderstanding of
how to use the product or what should have resulted. There
are many places where even an experienced darkroom user can
screw up, and to lop the blame on storage is sometimes just
a way to deny that you screwed up somewhere else!
Tim.
Dana H. Myers K6JQ
p...@berlin.snafu.de (Peter Schelling) wrote:
> >
> >Second, a confession. Despite EI and N development testing, it seems I
> >have been overdeveloping with ID-11, which definitely may explain at
> >least part of my problem. I have exposed at 250 and 320 and developed in
> >ID-11 1+1 13 and 14 minutes. Though my tests were OK, the actual
> >negatives (portraits) were clearly too thick. I develop in a JOBO with
> >constant manual rolling agitation. It is possible that my rolling speed
> >has increased (I have recently bought a roller base for it). Maybe ID-11
> >(+HP5+) is especially sensitive to this? Or is ID-11 such that it should
> >be allowed to "sit" in contact with the neg for some time without
> >agitation? Ilford does recommend ID-11 for roller tank use, though. Oh
> >yes, and I do use a prewet (I always do, Ilford recommends against but
> >JOBO recommends for it).
> >
> >I just developed a HP5+ in ID-11 for 11 minutes, and it is looking
> >better. 10 minutes may be right??
> >
> >-Janne
> >
> Janne:
> Actually i experienced the same problem: Times given in most common
> data sheets give pretty lot of minutes for ID-11/D-76. For contrast
> your permanent move may be a problem. Try to move smoother or less.
You *always* have to find out if the table assumes you're printing
with a diffusion or condensor enlarger. Diffusion enlargers yield
prints about one grade lower in contrast for the same negative as
in a condensor enlarger. As I understand it, Kodak's chart assume
the use of a diffusion enlarger and Ilford's charts assume the use
of a condensor enlarger. Either way, you positively need to run a
few development tests to adjust the processing time for your technique,
equipment, materials and preferences. Adjust the processing length
10% at a time, longer to increase contrast, shorter to decrease
contrast.
If you have access to a densitometer, you could do a formal
speed/contrast calibration.
Kip Babington
> I believe that most, if not all, the reported issues are due to
> a problem with packaging the 1-liter product at the time of product
> launch.
Like Dana I began using Xtol in the 5 liter packages shortly after it
was introduced and never had a problem with bad powders in the original
packages. Nor did I have any problems with its keeping properties,
although I always kept it in full or collapsible bottles, and used it up
within about 6 months of mixing.
I've been using PMK Pyro more recently, but just last week decided I
needed to get some Xtol again. Didn't need 5 liters, so bought a 1
liter package from one of the large suppliers in town, and sure enough
the A package was bad. It felt "damp" through the plastic packaging (I
didn't actually handle it) and that part of it I dumped into water just
to see what it did turned the mixture orange juice orange. The store
swapped me for a new package without question (although claimed they'd
never heard of this problem with Xtol), and the new package was fine.
I didn't note the lot number on the bad package. But the bad stuff is
still out there. You may be able to tell if a package is bad just by
how it "shakes". The bad stuff is sort of the consistency of wet sand,
which means it's a bit squishy and won't shake evenly and fully to the
end of the package. It's hard to describe, but if you're buying the 1
liter size just try it in the store before you check out - hold the
package vertically by one end and gently shake it up and down to settle
the contents, then hold the other end and invert it without shaking.
(Note that there is much more powder in the B package than in the A, so
if the A is good it should all settle below the level of the B powder,
which I gather is never a problem.) If all of the contents don't shift
to the bottom, and if you can still feel some powder above where the
bulk of the contents have settled, you may have a bad package,
especially if what you can feel inside is the least bit "squishy." Try
another one.
Hope this helps somebody avoid a trip back to the store.
Cheers,
Kip Babington
SPECTRUM
months in a partially filled container and one year in a full capped
bottle. I'm not sure but this might be down from the original estimates
which were in the J107.
And I've rarely had any problem with storing any developer in my
darkroom at 70 F for as long as 6 months in a partially filled glass
bottle.
I'd also imagine that any oxidation/degradation would be apparent in
the form of a coloring of the developer to at least tan.I noticed no
such discoloration.
Regards,
John
John Hicks wrote in message <36768632...@news.magicnet.net>...
>On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 06:40:35 GMT, spec...@adelphia.net (SPECTRUM)
>wrote:
>
>> but after aging just a couple of months
>
> Was this in the original package or mixed stock? I wouldn't expect
>any developer to be any good a couple of months after mixing.
>
>
>
Dana H. Myers K6JQ
Tim Shoppa <sho...@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
> A very major difficulty with anecdotal testimony as to
> storage lifetimes is that the reader has no knowledge as
> to what storage quirks the material might have gone through.
> Or the "tests" done to determine if the problems really
> were due to storage problems and not to misunderstanding of
> how to use the product or what should have resulted. There
> are many places where even an experienced darkroom user can
> screw up, and to lop the blame on storage is sometimes just
> a way to deny that you screwed up somewhere else!
Very good point. Sharing experience is valuable, but not always
easy or conclusive. I've read where someone says "this bad thing
happened to me twice!" as if this somehow proves they didn't make
a mistake the first time. This only proves they are consistent,
which could mean they're making the same mistake every time ;-)
John Hicks
ZorziM
In article <9TDd2.4556$961....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, "SPECTRUM"
<spec...@spectrumphoto.com> writes:
> According to Kodaks J109, Xtol should be good for at least two
>months in a partially filled container and one year in a full capped
>bottle. I'm not sure but this might be down from the original estimates
>which were in the J107.
> And I've rarely had any problem with storing any developer in my
>darkroom at 70 F for as long as 6 months in a partially filled glass
>bottle.
I've had the problem occur just recently with 2 month old Xtol stored in a
half full brown glass bottle. Possibly the problem shows up more quickly when
using the developer diluted: I developed one roll of 120 Delta 400 in a Jobo
2500 series tank diluted 1:1 (plenty of developer...) and the negatives were
very thin, but at least printable.
> I'd also imagine that any oxidation/degradation would be apparent in
>the form of a coloring of the developer to at least tan.I noticed no
>such discoloration.
Nope..that's part of the problem I guess. If the stuff had turned color at
all I would have tossed it.
Unfortunately, I like the stuff...but I think I'm going to mix a fresh
batch every time I use it to be safe.
Dana H. Myers K6JQ
zor...@aol.com (ZorziM) wrote:
>
> In article <9TDd2.4556$961....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, "SPECTRUM"
> <spec...@spectrumphoto.com> writes:
>
> > According to Kodaks J109, Xtol should be good for at least two
> >months in a partially filled container and one year in a full capped
> >bottle. I'm not sure but this might be down from the original estimates
> >which were in the J107.
> > And I've rarely had any problem with storing any developer in my
> >darkroom at 70 F for as long as 6 months in a partially filled glass
> >bottle.
>
> I've had the problem occur just recently with 2 month old Xtol stored in
a
> half full brown glass bottle. Possibly the problem shows up more quickly when
> using the developer diluted: I developed one roll of 120 Delta 400 in a Jobo
> 2500 series tank diluted 1:1 (plenty of developer...) and the negatives were
> very thin, but at least printable.
What did you mix the Xtol from? A 1-liter or 5-liter package?
Note that 2 months in a half-full bottle is the limit of storage
lifetime according to J-109, as mentioned above. I've had no problems
whatsoever with full bottles for at least 8 months of storage in one
case, and will not use a partially full bottle after two months,
since that's what the documentation says.
Bill Troop
I for one won't use Xtol as it has proven to be undependable
....
On the other hand, several other readers report OK experiences. If
this were the good old days, Kodak would send a team of researchers
out to everybody's darkrooms and try to find out why different users
were having different experiences. But that ain't likely to happen
now! Lacking that, is there anything in the world we can ourselves
do to help identify common factors among those who report
decent shelf life with XTOL, and common factors among those
who report failures in shelf life?
John has separately pointed out that there have always been
concerns in the literature about stability with ascorbates, and
he is 100% correct about this, but I had thought that both
Agfa and Kodak had managed to identify sodium isoascorbate
as a truly viable form. Here, we have not just ascorbate
to worry about, but the phenidone derivative. All phenidones
are notoriously subject to oxidation in DRY form. I wonder
if a common factor among those who report failures with
XTOL stock could be that the packets containing the phenidone
derivative had become sufficiently damaged to let in air for
enough time to damage the phenidone (this would not necessarily
be visible on the package, of course!) ... or whether some
contaminant was introduced in the manufacturing process?
ALSO: since I still (perhaps naively) believe that XTOL does have a
decent
shelf life as powder and as mixed stock _under ideal circumstances_
and I also believe all the failure reports referenced here, and since
these two beliefs are apparently contradictory, I wonder if there is
some simple darkroom contaminant that has a more damaging
effect on XTOL than it does on other developers. XTOL IS, after all,
different from other developers because of the ascorbate. (But so
is Neutol+ print developer -- which should also have similar
problems if ascorbate is the villain.) For instance, could XTOL
stock be more vulnerable to old residues left in storage containers?
Could it be vulnerable to some form of detergent or soap used
to wash out storage containers? Could it be more senstitive to
temperature than previously thought? (It would be interesting,
though quite unlikely, if we were to discover that everyone who had
bad experiences had hot darkrooms while everyone who had
OK experiences had cool darkrooms.) Could there be a water
problem? Water is the number one villain I look for when there
is a problem of any kind. So, for instance, do most of the people
who have problems with XTOL not use distilled or deionized
water? Because we have so little long-term experience with
ascorbates compared to the other agents, I wonder if there is
not some minute, trace contaminant that has yet to be identified
as a troublemaker with ascorbates?
If this (probably preposterous) ascorbate-contaminant theory
of mine were to play out, I would expect Neutol+ users to have
similar problems. There is an Ilford developer that uses ascorbate,
but also PQ, so if the ascorbate bombed out in that developer,
you might not notice!
Sorry to run on at such length with only questions, no answers!
William Laut
:
: All phenidones are notoriously subject to oxidation in DRY form.
:
This raises a question: What signs, if any, does Phenidone exhibit as it
oxidizes in its dry form? I understand that Metol turns a tan color, and
eventually produces dark "spots," and Glycin turns a dark brown (along
with producing a putrid stench) as these agents oxidize.
I'm also curious about the expected longevity for Phenidone when it is
stored in tightly-sealed brown-glass jars. I'm wondering about this
because my two-year-old stock of Metol has turned a tan color, even while
being stored in a glass jar; while my stock of Phenidone has shown no
visible signs of aging, even though it has been stored in the plastic "egg
shell" bottle that the Formulary shipped it in.
While we're on the subject, what about Catechol? What are the signs that
it has oxidized while in dry form?
Bill
ZorziM
In article <75920g$vi7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Da...@Source.Net (Dana H. Myers
K6JQ) writes:
>What did you mix the Xtol from? A 1-liter or 5-liter package?
>
>Note that 2 months in a half-full bottle is the limit of storage
>lifetime according to J-109, as mentioned above. I've had no problems
>whatsoever with full bottles for at least 8 months of storage in one
>case, and will not use a partially full bottle after two months,
>since that's what the documentation says.
>
>
It was the 1 liter package. It really wasn't quite two months and the
negatives were quite severely underdeveloped. My suspicion is that the
activity of this developer decreases suddenly and precipitously and doesn't
give you any warning by discoloration.
Dana H. Myers K6JQ
Oh, it was the 1-liter package, you say? My. Too bad you've probably
long-ago tossed out the plastic bag with the date code; it would be
interesting indeed to know if it was one of the early packages
(9711, 9717 and 9719).
I've been using Xtol in 5-liter packages since it came out, and haven't
had a problem like this. I've stored full liters for up to 8 months,
and partially empty bottles for 2 months, no problem. They've never
suddenly gone bad on me.
As I've mentioned before, I'm strongly suspicious that most of the
reported Xtol problems are directly linked to the bad Part A problem
in the early 1-liter packages. Even if it doesn't look bad, it
may be degraded, and I suspect some films (T-Max especially) are
more affected than others.
trei...@netimage.com
Phenidone, supposedly, has a long shelf life .... My experiences seem to
support this claim ... albeit unscientifically. I've seen Metol "go tan" and
Glycin go brown, as well. Yet, I've mixed and used Phenidone that was pretty
old with no bad effects. One thing that I have noticed, though, is the
developer that I mix, which is from Vestal's or someone else's book, is a
Phenidone-equivalent to D-72, but it tends not to exhibit an extended shelf-
life. Go figure. Again, unscientifically, I've noticed that with some papers
(sadly no longer available) Phenidone yielded higher densities. YRMV.
Cheers,
TomR
Janne Rapola
> On the other hand, several other readers report OK experiences. If
> this were the good old days, Kodak would send a team of researchers
> out to everybody's darkrooms and try to find out why different users
> were having different experiences. But that ain't likely to happen
> now!
Definitely not. I've heard people ask Kodak about it and no answer. My
fotodealer has tried to ask our local (Finland) K dealer, but has gotten
no answer. This sounds like they KNOW something is wrong???
> shelf life as powder and as mixed stock _under ideal circumstances_
> and I also believe all the failure reports referenced here, and since
> these two beliefs are apparently contradictory, I wonder if there is
> some simple darkroom contaminant that has a more damaging
> effect on XTOL than it does on other developers. XTOL IS, after all,
> different from other developers because of the ascorbate.
My wife thinks I'm crazy because I wash all containers, bottles, trays,
etc. so many times and so carefully. If Xtol were sooo sensitive to
contamination, I believe there would be a whole lot MORE reported
problems.
> problem? Water is the number one villain I look for when there
> is a problem of any kind. So, for instance, do most of the people
> who have problems with XTOL not use distilled or deionized
> water?
I used deionized water for my 5 l stock that went bad. I have never
encountered a problem with ordinary tap water either, which is very high
quality around here anyway (though I usually boil it first).
Actually, with my first stock that went bad, there was the slightest
discoloration towards brown. It was very very light and didn't alarm me,
since I have used Rodinal, Ilfosol-S and Neutol, all of which turn DARK
brown with time and still work perfectly.
Like I said, I really liked Xtol, and if I developed more and especially
more regularly, I probably would still use it. But my (amateur)
photography is very irregular, so my chemicals will just have to tolerate
it. Back to Rodinal, it seems?
-Janne
Risto Kauppinen
> Second, a confession. Despite EI and N development testing, it seems I
> have been overdeveloping with ID-11, which definitely may explain at
> least part of my problem. I have exposed at 250 and 320 and developed in
> ID-11 1+1 13 and 14 minutes. Though my tests were OK, the actual
> negatives (portraits) were clearly too thick. I develop in a JOBO with
> constant manual rolling agitation. It is possible that my rolling speed
> has increased (I have recently bought a roller base for it). Maybe ID-11
> (+HP5+) is especially sensitive to this? Or is ID-11 such that it should
> be allowed to "sit" in contact with the neg for some time without
> agitation? Ilford does recommend ID-11 for roller tank use, though. Oh
> yes, and I do use a prewet (I always do, Ilford recommends against but
> JOBO recommends for it).
> I just developed a HP5+ in ID-11 for 11 minutes, and it is looking
> better. 10 minutes may be right??
This has been a very interesting thread. I develop my films
in a spriral tank, so my experinces are not useful for those of you
who use roller tanks.
I have gradually decreased my development time of HP5 Plus
(EI 250) with ID-11 1+1 @ 20 degrees Celcius (68 Fahrenheit)
from the recommended 13 minutes to 10 minutes
(plus a one minute pre-wet). This gives me
nice, sharp and not too grainy negatives, with a
gamma of 0.56 (measured at Zone V exposure).
I print with a 35mm condenser enlarger (at least I think it is an
condenser enlarger but there is a diffusing plastic over the
negative holder) and I am very pleased with the results.
What puzzles me are the results I get with Microphen 1+1:
For a gamma of 0.56 I have to develop for 11 minutes
(at 20 degrees Celcius, plus a pre-wet). The pics are lovely
with a good sharpness and nice grain. The bad news is
that I only get an EI of 320. Ok, so it's better than with
ID-11 1+1, but it's only a 1/3 stop better and it's not
even the nominal speed of HP5 plus (ISO 400/27).
My agitation cycle is 10 secs (four inversions) per minute.
Am I doing something wrong or is this just because I
develop for such a relatively low gamma? Usually EI 320
is quite sufficient for me (I prefer to shoot wide open
with fast lenses) but after reading some of the comments
in this thread I began to wonder if I could do better.
Somebody even said that he gets an EI of 640 with
Microphen and HP5 Plus.
Risto
--
Risto Kauppinen po...@NOSPAM.iki.fi http://www.helsinki.fi/~rkauppin/
No god we trust.
ZorziM
In article <759lui$he5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Da...@Source.Net (Dana H. Myers
K6JQ) writes:
>> It was the 1 liter package. It really wasn't quite two months and the
>> negatives were quite severely underdeveloped. My suspicion is that the
>> activity of this developer decreases suddenly and precipitously and doesn't
>> give you any warning by discoloration.
>
>Oh, it was the 1-liter package, you say? My. Too bad you've probably
>long-ago tossed out the plastic bag with the date code; it would be
>interesting indeed to know if it was one of the early packages
>(9711, 9717 and 9719).
I doubt it, but I do think I bought another 1 liter package at the same
time. I bought it from Hunt's, a large Boston area retailer with a big
turnover, and the batch that went bad recently was probably bought around late
September, early October. I'll check the package that I have not mixed up yet
though!
John Hicks
<rkau...@NOSPAMscience.Helsinki.FI> wrote:
>Am I doing something wrong or is this just because I
>develop for such a relatively low gamma?
For HP5+ I get EI 160 in D-23 1:1, EI 320 in Rodinal 1:40, EI 400 in
Xtol 1:1, EI 400 in Acufine and EI 640 in Microphen 1:1, all developed
to about the same gamma.
So you're in the ballpark. I believe you may be seeing low speed
because of low gamma, but otoh because of differences in light meters,
their calibration, shutters, processing procedures etc you may not get
an exact match with someone else's specs.
Janne Rapola
I've been going through books looking for different development times.
One book, "The Practical Zone system" recommends EI 320 and 9 minutes
@20C for HP5+ in id-11 1+1, normal inversion agitation. So this is very
close to what you are doing, and pretty close to my latest guess. The
most extreme recommendation I saw yesterday in a swedish darkroom book,
where they recommended N development for HP5+ at iso 250 6min in D-76 1+1
@20C ^^^^
I have done testing for my own procedure. I'll have to repeat it, though,
since my original test results did suggest development times very close
to Ilford recommendations but in practice I have gotten clear
overdevelopment.
Janne
Risto Kauppinen wrote:
> This has been a very interesting thread. I develop my films
> in a spriral tank, so my experinces are not useful for those of you
> who use roller tanks.
>
> I have gradually decreased my development time of HP5 Plus
> (EI 250) with ID-11 1+1 @ 20 degrees Celcius (68 Fahrenheit)
> from the recommended 13 minutes to 10 minutes
> (plus a one minute pre-wet). This gives me
> nice, sharp and not too grainy negatives, with a
> gamma of 0.56 (measured at Zone V exposure).
>
> I print with a 35mm condenser enlarger (at least I think it is an
> condenser enlarger but there is a diffusing plastic over the
> negative holder) and I am very pleased with the results.
>
> What puzzles me are the results I get with Microphen 1+1:
> For a gamma of 0.56 I have to develop for 11 minutes
> (at 20 degrees Celcius, plus a pre-wet). The pics are lovely
> with a good sharpness and nice grain.
What is the grain like compared to what you get with ID-11?
The bad news is
> that I only get an EI of 320. Ok, so it's better than with
> ID-11 1+1, but it's only a 1/3 stop better and it's not
> even the nominal speed of HP5 plus (ISO 400/27).
> My agitation cycle is 10 secs (four inversions) per minute.
> ...
> Risto
>
SPECTRUM
trei...@netimage.com wrote in message
<75arnr$f9s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <7595rd$3...@alpha.delta.edu>,
> wl...@alpha.delta.edu (William Laut) wrote:
>> Bill Troop (bill...@swanlake.com) wrote:
>> :
>Phenidone, supposedly, has a long shelf life .... My experiences seem
to
>support this claim ... albeit unscientifically. I've seen Metol "go
tan" and
>Glycin go brown, as well. Yet, I've mixed and used Phenidone that was
pretty
>old with no bad effects. One thing that I have noticed, though, is the
>developer that I mix, which is from Vestal's or someone else's book, is
a
>Phenidone-equivalent to D-72, but it tends not to exhibit an extended
shelf-
>life. Go figure. Again, unscientifically, I've noticed that with some
papers
>(sadly no longer available) Phenidone yielded higher densities. YRMV.
>
>Cheers,
>
>TomR
Hi Tom,
Just a little corroboration here as I find that the shelf life of
Phenidone is very good when dry but decreases significantly when in
solution. And it doesn't seem to matter whether the solution is acidic
or basic. The old Zone VI film developer used a split stock Phenidone
formula and the "A" bath was acidic and contained the Phenidone. About 6
months after opening it was shot. I was somewhat surprised at this as
Metol will keep pretty well in a bisulfite solution. I had some divided
D-25 on the shelf for years and had no problems with it. Same with
Hutchings' PMK Pyro formula.
Regards,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John S. Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc. - http://www.spectrumphoto.com
Website: Portraiture, Wedding Photography, Darkroom Tech.,
World Field Photographers Association, FAQ's & More!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Hicks
<mcca...@one.net.au> wrote:
>I learned many years ago that standardisation is the secret to success.
How true. I have my old standards that I use when results must be as
expected, but I do like to experiment with other materials and
processes.
The important thing, though, is don't use new unfamiliar stuff for
anything important until it's become _standard_.
>I believe the greatest factor that affects grain size is 'wet-time'.
Richard Henry touched on that; citing a couple of other authors, but
it wasn't clear whether he was referring to total wet time or just
development time.
Anyone know of anything else in the literature about granularity and
wet time and grain migration?
John Sparks
I remember reading an article about this back when I was in college
(around 1980). I have no idea where it came from. I made one test of
this where I developed two rolls of Tri-x together until the wash stage.
I pulled one roll at about 5 minutes of wash and the other stayed in the
washer for about 20 minutes (this is all from memory so the times are
not exact). Anyway, the 5 minute wash roll was noticably finer grained
than the 20 minute roll (I was using water from a temperature control
unit so there should have been no signficant fluxuations in wash temp).
At some point more recently, I repeated this test (probably around 92)
with Tmax and could tell no difference in grain. I don't know if this
would be true with current Tri-x, but would guess that Tri-x today has
harder gelatin than what was used 20 years ago. Tmax definately has
harder gelatin than Tri-x of 20 years ago. Seems like I remember
something in Dr. Henry's book about grain vs wet time, but a quick
look through the index didn't turn up anything.
John Sparks
Keith McCarron
...
>Actually, with my first stock that went bad, there was the slightest
>discoloration towards brown. It was very very light and didn't alarm me,
>since I have used Rodinal, Ilfosol-S and Neutol, all of which turn DARK
>brown with time and still work perfectly.
>
>Like I said, I really liked Xtol, and if I developed more and especially
>more regularly, I probably would still use it. But my (amateur)
>photography is very irregular, so my chemicals will just have to tolerate
>it. Back to Rodinal, it seems?
>
>-Janne
Janne,
A few thoughts,
From the various threads in these notes I see people using different
products, infrequently, and trying to get the best results, but changing one
or more of the factors when the results don't match the intended outcome.
I learned many years ago that standardisation is the secret to success. If
you like D-76 and T-max, then use it. If you like Microphen 1+1 and FP-4
(as I do) use it, but be consistent. With all the possible things that can
affect the outcome... slow shutter in camera, inaccurate iris in lens,
lighting contrast in subject, brightness range of subject, method of
determining exposure, how chemistry was mixed (oxidisation, impure water, pH
of water, etc) shelf life of chemistry, type of enlarger used to print
picture, if you do not standardise you cannot eliminate each factor, one
at-a-time, to achieve an incremental, predictable improvement in your
results.
At the risk of teaching you to suck eggs, may I offer this - remembering
that negative density is (primarily) a function of exposure and that
contrast is a function of development time (yes and temperature), if you
standardise the material you use and the method of mixing and using the
chemistry, you should be able, over time, to derive a set of numbers that
work for you. Remembering that ASA/DIN/ISO really is only a guide, you can
select an exposure index, test it and refine it until you determine one that
works consistently for you.
Similarly with contrast... change the development time and you change the
contrast. So if you shoot a roll in low contrast lighting conditions of a
low contrast range subject, you can alter the development time to change the
contrast to suit your printing method.
GRAIN SIZE
I believe the greatest factor that affects grain size is 'wet-time'. That
is one reason that Kodak and others don't recommend pre-wetting before
processing. The longer a film is wet, magnetic attraction of silver
particles can cause 'clumping' as a result of silver migration in the
negative. So, minimum processing times, consistent with archival processing
requirements, leads to finer grain negatives.
SHARPNESS
Films like Kodalith rely, during processing, on intermittent agitation to
achieve sharp edges. Basically, if you look microscopically at an area of
film where two adjacent tones are developing, one black and the other white
(clear film), the developer action on the fully exposed area of film will
exhaust quickly while the developer where the film is clear will retain some
potency... while the film is not agitated. The transition from one tone to
the next appears sharper (specifically edge sharpness) because of this
effect. I believe the same principle is true for continuous tone film too,
although the effect may not be as dramatic. For this reason I prefer to use
intermittent agitation of films during processing, rather than a continuous
action as during an automated (JOBO type) processor.
For consideration.
Keith McCarron
John Hicks
>I remember reading an article about this back when I was in college
>(around 1980).
I vaguelly recall an article by Bob Schwalberg, probably the same
one you're thinking of.
> Anyway, the 5 minute wash roll was noticably finer grained
Interesting. I never ran a test, just kept times short mostly
because I needed to.
Risto Kauppinen
Janne Rapola <janne....@ktl.fi> wrote:
> Risto Kauppinen wrote:
>> What puzzles me are the results I get with Microphen 1+1:
>> For a gamma of 0.56 I have to develop for 11 minutes
>> (at 20 degrees Celcius, plus a pre-wet). The pics are lovely
>> with a good sharpness and nice grain.
> What is the grain like compared to what you get with ID-11?
I'd say that it's slightly more pronounced with Microphen,
but not very much. However, the H&D curve shape is a little
different, with ID-11 1+1 there seems to something resembling a
shoulder (around zone IX) whereas Microphen 1+1 gives me an almost
straight line, all the way to zone XII.
Risto
--
Risto Kauppinen po...@NOSPAM.iki.fi http://www.helsinki.fi/~rkauppin/
hölmöt soittakoot suitaan, hölmöilkööt vaan,
pian tulee teurastaja: tulee teurastamaan (YUP)