Incorporated Developer Papers

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Norman Worth - 02 Jul 2004 05:11 GMT

I've been using Polycontrast III recently, and I've been surprised at its
quality. The other day I decided to do the development tests suggested in
Adams's "The Print" to determine the optimum development time. I developed
identically exposed sheets of a step tablet for times varying from 45
seconds to 3 minutes in Ilford Multigrade developer. To my surprise, all
the results were identical. (Well almost - the 45 second had a very
slightly less dense top highlight step.) My guess is that the incorporated
developer in Polycontrast III dominates the developing process and makes the
development time uncritical. I'd like to hear an explanation from someone
with more technical knowledge of these things.

Reply to this Message

John - 02 Jul 2004 12:45 GMT

>My guess is that the incorporated
>developer in Polycontrast III dominates the developing process and makes the
>development time uncritical. I'd like to hear an explanation from someone
>with more technical knowledge of these things.

For the most part print emulsions develop completely. Again,
for the most part. The one area where a print image can be most
dramatically affected is the initial stages of the silver reduction
process and of course that is when a developers composition (that is
to say the developing agents, any restrainers and to a rather minimal
extent the alkali chosen) can play a significant part in how the
image starts to form. By including the developing agents in the
emulsion, manufacturers have at least strongly influenced if not in
fact determined what the final product will look like when processed
according to their recommendations.

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

Reply to this Message

Dan Quinn - 02 Jul 2004 22:21 GMT

> My guess is that the incorporated
> developer in Polycontrast III dominates the developing process...

Are you sure that is a DI emulsion? If it is it may be old stock.
It's my understanding that there are no longer any DI emulsion papers
being produced.
Search this NG for, di , then by date. Dan

Reply to this Message

Norman Worth - 03 Jul 2004 00:26 GMT

I checked the Kodak website. Both Polycontrast III and Polycontrast IV have
incorporated developer.

> > My guess is that the incorporated
> > developer in Polycontrast III dominates the developing process...
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> being produced.
> Search this NG for, di , then by date. Dan

Reply to this Message

BertS - 04 Jul 2004 15:04 GMT

> I checked the Kodak website. Both Polycontrast III and Polycontrast IV have
> incorporated developer.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>being produced.
>> Search this NG for, di , then by date. Dan

Easy to test for. Add some borax or carbonate or Kodalk to some water and dip
a piece of exposed paper into it. If it darkens it has developer incorporated.

Bert

Reply to this Message

Donald Qualls - 03 Jul 2004 04:37 GMT

> I developed
> identically exposed sheets of a step tablet for times varying from 45
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> development time uncritical. I'd like to hear an explanation from someone
> with more technical knowledge of these things.

I'd be more inclined to think it just means development was 90% or more
complete at 45 seconds -- testing at 40, 35, or 30 seconds might well
have revealed a loss of contrast due to underdevelopment (as well as
considerable unevenness and inconsistency from one print to the next).
Even without incorporated developer, I used to develop Kodabromide and
Polycontrast (around 1975) in Dektol 1:1 in one minute; no need to go
longer, because nothing more happened in the next minute.

Little is to be gained by testing for contrast vs. time with paper in
any case; it's effectively impossible to "snatch" paper to control
contrast without diluting the developer so much capacity becomes a major
issue, and in any case it's much easier to control contrast with
filters, or by opening a different box in the case of graded papers --
or, for extremely subtle changes (like half a grade or less) changing
developers (Dektol contains hydroquinone; Selectol Soft, now
discontinued, did not, and Adams wrote that the difference was close to
half a grade, other factors equal).

Signature

I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Reply to this Message

Dan Quinn - 04 Jul 2004 09:47 GMT

> My guess is that the incorporated
> developer in Polycontrast III dominates the developing process
> and makes the development time uncritical.

I would not be surprised if the ID did not dominate. Why guess?
Test the paper with a little carbonate, sulfite, and if it fogs,
a trace of bromide. Dan

Reply to this Message