 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / May 2005[EXPERT] Finally My Modified Recipe For Developing
Hallo guys, after two months (and several rolls of film...) of testing I want to share with you my new recipe for film developing. It's still in variation but i'm at 90% satisfact. Only for my personal fun and I'm sooo haaaapy!! :D It's not a really true new composition but my personal variation starting from ID68-Microphen type developer. I hope that someone will have the time to try my personal variation and hope will post some suggestions, impressions and more. I choose microphen type developer because it gives fine grain, excellent midtones values, brilliant negatives, snappy contrast, and an increases speed, nominal value down one stop without lossing shadow details are ok. Plus, in my little experience, more changes in contrast and compensations are solely done with changing not the temperature but the dlution So, starting from this world known recipe I wanted to reach: - slightly more contrast, to suit better my diffusion enlarger - less developing time (i love to stick around 5-7 minutes) - slightly more acutance useful for my 120 negatives - preserve a quite fine grain useful for 35mm Ok. By variating some factors this is my recipe: Stefano Bramato SB2 recipe Water 750 ml Sodium Sulphite 60g Hydroquinone 7.5g Borax 12g Boric Acid 2g Sodium Carbonate 6g Potassium Bromide 1.0 Phenidone 0.2g Water to make 1 liter Absolutely no fog. I everytime used diluted 1+3 @ 24°C For a rule the thumb developing times are * half time at of Microphen suggested for 1+1 dillution @ 20°C or * about 15% more of HC110 dilution A @ 20°C. I.E: for Fp4 expose at 80ISO I found a good negative by developing the film using 5'15" @ 24°C diluted 1+3. Ciao, Stefano Bramato PS: thanks to everyone inthis NG that help to collect useful hints and suggestions. This recipe is dedicated to all of you that still loves to do a serious BW with happynes and joy of experimentation like me!! SAluti dall'Italia!! -- ed io imparo... > I everytime used diluted 1+3 @ 24°C What volume of solution do you use for the 120 and 35mm? Dan dan.c.quinn@att.net says ... > > I everytime used diluted 1+3 @ 24=B0C > > What volume of solution do you use for the 120 and 35mm? Dan Hi Dan, I have AP plastic tanks and they're not economic in using liquids as stainless steeel tanks do. For 35mm is required at least 375ml and for 120 is required at least 590 ml I always fill with more liquid my tanks for security, because the tanks during the agitations can leak some stock, ecc... BTW i use for 35mm: 100mm solution + 300ml of water format 120 I use: 150 ml + 450ml of water. I think that it can be used with further greater economy in 1+4, thus giving more acutance, because i added more borax and carbonate that gives a good buffering effect for higher dilution. It's worth a try. But times have to be accordly adjusted for 1+4. Will be my next tests. If you will do before me, let me know some impressions, i will be very very pleased. What i posted i think is a good starting point to work with. Ciao, Stefano Bramato -- ed io imparo... > Hallo guys, after two months (and several rolls of > film...) of testing I want [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > -- > ed io imparo... I am not surprized you are getting higher contrast with your formula since it will have considerably higher pH than ID-68. The Borax-boric acid buffer has much more borax in proportion plus you have added sodium carbonate which will run the pH well above the range the Borax-boric acid is capable of. My guess is that the grain is also larger than given by ID-68 although perhaps not by much. You talk about varying contrast by varying temperature or dilution of a developer, what happened to the usual method, varying time? Any common developer will produce negatives over a quite wide range of contrast values, perhaps + or - 2 or more paper contrast grades by varying time. The time ratio varies with the type of film but most conventional films (cubic crystals) will yeild a one grade contrast difference with about 30% change in development time. Tabular grain films, like T-Max change faster, about 20% to 25% time ratio being enough for one paper grade difference. Many developer can be changed in activity by changing the pH by varying the amount of alkali. Notable is D-76. The amount of borax in D-76 can be increased to 10 grams per liter at which point the development time for a given contrast will be about one third the time for the standard formula. Even more actitivey can be gotten eby using Kodalk (sodium metaborate) in place of the Brorax, again up to about 10 grams/liter. Of course, the grain increases. This method of controlling activity was used long ago in motion picture processing machings where changing development time independantly of other processing steps was difficult. It is probably not a good idea for general use. Most time-temperature charts, at least by Kodak are given for diffusion printing. Its more common to have to reduce negative contrast for condenser printers, Agfa gives diffusion times in some places and condenser or compromise times in others. Ilford has given a compromise time for several years now. The overall difference in contrast between a diffusion source and a common partly diffusing condenser source (like Omega, Durst, Besler, etc.) is about one paper grade. Negatives can be adjusted in contrast to print on a fixed grade of paper or the paper grade can be changed. Either will give identical tonal rendition. Diffusion negatives printed on a condenser enlarger require on lower paper grade but this will also tend to suppress the surface blemishes picked up by the condenser system. I don't want to discourage you from experimenting or seem to denigrate your work but I think a more careful examination of literature on developers may save you from a lot of extra work.  Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com Richard Knoppow says ... > I don't want to discourage you from experimenting or seem > to denigrate your work but I think a more careful > examination of literature on developers may save you from a > lot of extra work. Mr. Knoppow, i'm very pleased for the words you wrote to me. I well know your considerations about contrast and developing you wrote now to me, but my aim is to have an easier negative that suit my tastes only by a small and precise changes of dilution. And me is aiming to reach it in the developing stage with the fun of make from myself the soup. Every suggestions, also to improve my literature in photo chemistry and pure photography, is very very well accepted. And for this suggestions I thank you. I read a lot of your suggestions along usenet and inernet and for your reply to me i consider me as a lucky boy! Since i'm a young photographer and i shoot only since a ten years about, only now i'm trying to experiment. Please if you have any other suggestions to improve my photo literature or my work, or every other words be free to write me anytime! Thanks a lot. Ciao, Stefano Bramato -- ed io imparo... Richard, I've followed your posts over time in here and other forums and respect your experience and knowledge in the chemistry of photography. Could you share what you have settled upon for "go to" developers that you have tweaked or trust for your important images? I've been re-thinking some process and especially film developer issues of late and would be interested in what you have concluded for your own use. Thanks. >> Hallo guys, after two months (and several rolls of >> film...) of testing I want [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> sooo haaaapy!! >> :D Craig Schroeder craig nospam craigschroeder com > Richard, I've followed your posts over time in here and > other forums [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > concluded for > your own use. Thanks. I don't have a tweeked formula. I have experimented with a number of developers over the years and always fall back on D-76. This is far from saying its the best developer, it probably isn't. I've had the early failure problem with Xtol and am reluctant to trust it again. Ryuji Suzuki, who is a knowledgible chemist, has some variations of Xtol on his web site that look pretty good and do not seem to suffer from the early life failure. They are DIY so I have not tried them yet. Ryuji also has some good info on D-76 for those who mix their own. I have also had good results with Microdol-X. For A time I used it at 1:1 by accident. It seems to work well at that dilution with little loss of fine grain quality. Occasionally, for large negatives I use Rodinal at around 1:30 to 1:50, mostly for tray use on 8x10's. Rodinal gives good tone rendition but is very grainy compared to D-76. I also used Microphen for a time but found it had no great advantage over D-76. I shoot or have shot in the recent past (last ten or so years): Ilford FP-4 and HP-5 (HP-5 is an excellent film), Kodak Verichrome Pan (until I couldn't get it any more), 100T-Max, 400T-Max (a favorite for portraits), Plus-X sheet film, I still have a supply. Current Plus-X roll film (experimentally). Way back when the dinosaurs roamed I shot a lot of Super-XX both roll and sheet. I have not tried Fuji Acros yet but it looks pretty good. 55 years ago many films had thick emulsions and developed slowly. D-76 developing times were quite long for those films, on the order of 15 or more minutes for full strength developer. More active developers, like DK-were advantageous for saving time. Also, they just worked better for some films. Modern films are thin emulsion (even the multi-coated ones) and develop fast. So fast, that I use D-76 1:1 to get reasonable tank times (I like times on the order of 8-12 minutes) for uniform development without really fussy agitation. I have not used a Pyro or other exotic developer for so long that I am probably not qualified to comment on them other than general theoretical remarks. I think the secret of getting good negatives has much more to do with exposure and _amount_ of development rather than the use of a particular developer. I see complaints fairly often about contrast being wrong and what developer can make it right. The answer is that contrast is a function of the _degree of development_ and good negatives of appropriate contrast should be possible with any standard developer. Agitation is very important. The degree of development, and thus contrast, goes up with agitation. The difference in the time required to reach a given amount of contrast can be about 20% less when comparing continuous (tray) agitation against intermittant tank agitation. That is about one paper grade worth of contrast for T-Max films and maybe 3/4 grand for conventional films. Temperature is important but less so. A 6% rise in temperature (say 65f to 70F) will cause about a 1.33x increase in development. This is the equivalent of about one paper grade for some films. Since the time difference above is in percentage it has less effect per degree at higher temperatues. Temperature variation also varies with the temperature and with the developer. One has to rely on manufacturer's charts to determine the correct time for a given temperature. Control over the process is IMO much more important than the choice of a particular develper or even of a particular film. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com >> Richard, I've followed your posts over time in here and other forums >> and respect your experience and knowledge in the chemistry of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I shoot or have shot in the recent past (last ten or so years): Ilford > FP-4 and HP-5 (HP-5 is an excellent film), I like HP5 plus too, I also develop in D-76 diluted 1+1 and often use it for portraiture(Medium Format), for 35mm, I use FP4 plus. I have often considered making my own developer from the basic components but have never bothered to do so yet. May be one day I will. > Kodak Verichrome Pan (until I couldn't get it any more), 100T-Max, > 400T-Max (a favorite for portraits), Plus-X sheet film, I still have a [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Control over the process is IMO much more important than the choice of a > particular develper or even of a particular film. Lots of snipping---------------- > I like HP5 plus too, I also develop in D-76 diluted 1+1 > and often use it for portraiture(Medium Format), for 35mm, > I use FP4 plus. I have often considered making my own > developer from the basic components but have never > bothered to do so yet. > May be one day I will. Its not difficult. You need a good scale but they are available from many sources. Often police auctions have scales taken from drug makers. I have an ancient Ohaus Triple Beam Balance I got cheap because it was missing the internal counterweights (lead solder wire fixed that), and a large, 20 lb, kitchen type postal scale (with c.1958 parcel post prices marked on it). Actually, for compounding developers a postage scale will do. I use cupcake cups from the grocery store for holding the powders. You should also have a couple of good graduates, again available cheap with a little searching. The hard part is obtaining the chemicals. There are a couple of good sources for photographic chemicals and some others can be had at the grocery store or hardware store (sodium carbonate in the form of washing soda, sometimes Borax, Red Devil Lye, which is pure sodium hydroxide. With Borax and Hydroxide one can make Kodalk easily). Developing agents are probably the hardest thing to come by. Mixing your own is fun and not very hazardous if you avoid Hydroxide and concentrated acids. Actually Hydroxide is found in many drain cleaners, so, if you can handle those safely you can certainly use hydroxide for photographic purposes. I used to do a lot of DIY but have fallen away from it due mostly to lack of time. The advantage is that you can mix up all sorts if things, like special toners, which are not available in packaged form. So, if anyone is intrigued by home brewing of photo chemicals I encourage you to follow your curiousity. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > Ryuji Suzuki, who is a >knowledgeable chemist, has some variations of Xtol on his web >site that look pretty good and do not seem to suffer from >the early life failure. They are DIY so I have not tried >them yet. Ryuji also has some good info on D-76 for those >who mix their own. His DS-10 is my favorite developer with T-grain and Delta films. It's very predictable, has strong shadow detail and low fog. It's a bit of a commitment to make for initial testing if you don't have the raw materials at hand as it uses Dimezone-S and salicylic acid which aren't so typically seen in home-mix recipes. His statement of it being a stabilized variant of Xtol seems very accurate in actual use. I've read of good experiences by others with it, too. > I have not used a Pyro or other exotic developer for so >long that I am probably not qualified to comment on them >other than general theoretical remarks. After buying a film scanner, I was frustrated with traditional BW emulsion scanning. I've found that my scanner seems to like stained negatives, however. The smooth grain holds its acutance at the appropriate edges from the edge effect and it seems my scanner in color mode deals much better with the tonal transitions. I'm still a real newbie with the scanning and haven't really dedicated the time to truly sort this out but this has been a good short term 95% remedy for me. I've liked my results with Sandy King's Rollo-Pyro and Jay De Fehr's Pyro 510. I've been trying to get catechol based concentrate to work to have a better start on VC printing but haven't been able to shorten the toe so far. I love everything else about it, though. > Control over the process is IMO much more important than >the choice of a particular developer or even of a particular >film. I've found this out the hard way, especially 30 years back when getting into this.... Every session was a challenge with issues to overcome. Tempering and repeatable technique really smoothes out these things and makes the process go much more smoothly and is more gratifying than chasing your tail constantly! I had settled into a routine of D76 or FG7 for years. I've been tinkering with homebrew stuff over the last couple of years and for me, it's added a renewed interest in the darkroom. I certainly wouldn't recommend it to everyone but there is a certain satisfaction of doing it from scratch that has made it all more interesting again. Craig Schroeder craig nospam craigschroeder com >> Ryuji Suzuki, who is a >>knowledgeable chemist, has some variations of Xtol on his web [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > materials at hand as it uses Dimezone-S and salicylic acid which > aren't so typically seen in home-mix recipes. According to the Web site, DS-10 CAN be made with phenidone A, but at the cost of reduced shelf life of the stock solution. Phenidone B or Dimezone (as opposed to Dimezone S) may be used, but need to first be dissolved in something else, like alcohol, before mixing. Of course, this won't help with the need for salicylic acid. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking I got my salicylic acid from a friendly pharmacist. They keep it on hand as part of skin treatment (acne) mixtures. I was told that they throw away as much as they sell these days as it's hard to consume before expiration dates. I initially did test the DS-10 with standard phenidone with good results and then ordered the Dimezone-S. It isn't real easy to find but one source that I discovered while searching for it is http://www.techcheminc.com/index.htm They have proven to be a great source for many bulk chemicals. They are friendly, helpful, very prompt and I think their prices are quite competitive with most other sources I've used. They also sell some of their line of photo chemicals (developers, fixers, etc) and I believe they also do custom mixing and packaging for other brands and also service the X-ray industry. >> His DS-10 is my favorite developer with T-grain and Delta films. It's >> very predictable, has strong shadow detail and low fog. It's a bit of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >something else, like alcohol, before mixing. Of course, this won't help >with the need for salicylic acid. Craig Schroeder craig nospam craigschroeder com > I initially did test the DS-10 with standard phenidone with good > results and then ordered the Dimezone-S. It isn't real easy to find > but one source that I discovered while searching for it is > > http://www.techcheminc.com/index.htm Another source is Digital Truth: http://www.digitaltruth.com/store/rawchemicals.html The price is virtually identical -- $34.00 for 100 grams vs. $34.64 for 100 grams from Tech Chem. FWIW, this compares to $16.00-$18.00 for 100 grams of phenidone A from these two sources, so the Dimezone S is clearly pretty expensive by comparison. OTOH, it's used in such small quantities that it's not really that big of an expense on a per-batch-of-developer basis -- $0.05 of the $1.21 cost of a liter of DS-10, by my calculations, including shipping. On the gripping hand, it's a big up-front investment compared to many other chemicals. I don't know of any place that sells it in less than 100 gram quantities, and that 100 grams will make 666.7 liters of DS-10. You can get just 10 grams of phenidone from Photographer's Formulary for $5.95, which is less money up-front but more on a per-gram basis -- assuming you'd ever consume the whole 100 grams of Dimezone S! A possible future source is Frugal Photographer (http://www.frugalphotographer.com). They list Dimezone S as "coming soon," and their page indicates they'll have it in 25-gram quantities, but their page doesn't indicate a price. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking >> I initially did test the DS-10 with standard phenidone >> with good [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > quantities, but > their page doesn't indicate a price. Keep in mind that when buying small quantities of chemicals a large part of the cost is the handling and packaging. This will be the same for 5 grams, or even for only 1 gram, as for 100 so smaller amounts may not be much cheaper. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > with the need for salicylic acid. > > Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com > http://www.rodsbooks.com Salicylic acid is not needed. R. Suzuki makes use of it for the purpose of iron sequestration. I think he must have a problem with iron in his water supply. If you do, use distilled water. Dan > The amount of borax in D-76 can be increased to 10 grams > per liter at which point the development time for a given > contrast will be about one third the time for the standard > formula. > > dickburk@ix.netcom.com I'd have to see that to believe it. A 2/3 reduction in development time from an alkali, borax, which has a ph less than the very abundant sodium sulfite present in D-76. Borax has a ph slightly less than that of sodium sulfite. Borax's use in D-76 is for ph maintenance. Dan >> The amount of borax in D-76 can be increased to 10 grams >> per liter at which point the development time for a given [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Borax has a ph slightly less than that of sodium sulfite. > Borax's use in D-76 is for ph maintenance. Dan Borax has a higher pH than sulfite alone and its use in D-76 is to increase the pH. The information about the increase in Borax concentration comes from Kodak. It was included in mixing instructions for D-76 in Kodak chemistry bookletts for decades. The following is from the _Kodak Book of Formulas_ May, 1938. "A faster working developer may be obtained by increasing the quantity f Borax. By increasing the borax about 10 times the development time will be about one-half that of regular D-76. Maximum activity can be obtained by substituting Kodalk for Borax and using 20 grams per liter. With this concentration, the contrst of a negative developed for 5 minutes in the more rapid developer will approximate that obtained in 20 minutes in regular D-76." I can just about gurantee that the grain will be a lot greater. The pH of a developer will, in general, not be that of the alkali. Rather it is a result of all the ingredients. For example, the pH of Borax is 9.1 to 9.2, the pH of sodium sulfite is about 9.0, but the pH of full strength D-76 is 8.5. Partly, this is because Metol is an acid which must be neutralized by the basic substances in the developer. The activity of D-76 without the Borax is lower than with it by a significant amount. Essentially, D-76 without the Borax becomes similar to D-23. At the ph at which D-76 operates the Hydroquinone is nearly inactive as a developing agent but serves to regenerate the Metol. Other modern film developers, like T-Max, T-Max RS, and Xtol, have lower pH than D-76, around 8.2. This is in spite of Xtol containing Sodium Metaborate (Kodalk). Sodium Metaborate has a pH of 10.5 to 12 depending on concentration. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.