1927 Eastman Kodak Research - Fine Grain Developer

[Ian Grant]

Ian Grant submitted a new resource:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) - 1927 Eastman Kodak Research - Fine Grain Developer

From the 1928 British Journal Photographic Almanac, whether the unit of volume is UK or US isn't given.

Eastman Kodak Research Fine Gran Developer 1927

For Fine grain. - A developer recommended by the Eastman Kodak Research Laboratories for use when images of specially fine grain are required is as follows:-

Metol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 gr (2g)
Sodium Sulphite (anhyd) . . . . . . 400gr (100g)
Borax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 gr (2g)
Water to . ....

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[BradS]

interesting. I've used something like this with good results. My thoughts were to put both parts of the Stoekler two bath into one bottle.


Brad's "something like this" film dev.

Metol................................2.5g
Sodium Sulfite..................100g
Borax.........................3.0 ~ 10.0g
water to make...................1 liter.

Use d-76 times as starting points.

 

[Richard Wasserman]

Ian,

Would this be functionally different from D-76? To my uneducated eye it looks like D-76H. Interesting that it is from 1927.

 

[Ian Grant]

Kodak's D76h formula is quite different as it's a buffered version of D76 with 15g Boric Acid and Hydroquinoe.

Haist's version would be better called H76, it isn't a published Kodak formula and is obviously based on this early un-named EK formula and others like D103, DK76 etc. Haist would have been aware of all these variations when he suggested H76 as a Hydroquinone free version of D76.

It should behave quite similarly to D76/ID-11 when they are useed 1+1.

Ian

 

[Alan Johnson]

Richard Knoppow wrote that D-76 was disclosed in 1927 in a booklet relating to motion picture duplicating.So it is not entirely clear the formula given pre-dates D-76?
http://www.groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.darkroom/msg/f2c5c468b5332b48

 

[Richard Wasserman]

Thank you!

Kodak's D76h formula is quite different as it's a buffered version of D76 with 15g Boric Acid and Hydroquinoe.

Haist's version would be better called H76, it isn't a published Kodak formula and is obviously based on this early un-named EK formula and others like D103, DK76 etc. Haist would have been aware of all these variations when he suggested H76 as a Hydroquinone free version of D76.

It should behave quite similarly to D76/ID-11 when they are useed 1+1.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

Alan, the formulae would have been from the same team and both were published around the same time, this one seems to be for stills while D76 (at that point not named) was for Cine films, I have seen a copy of the Kodak piece for D76 from 1927. It's possible they were originally in the same research paper.

Ian

 

[CBG]

How does the formula for D103 above relate to the formula I have for Kodak D-103??? I suspect we have one of those one more of those single name/multiple formula train wrecks here.

What I have for Kodak D-103
metol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 g
hydroquinone. . . . . . . . . 5.0 g
sodium sulfite anhyd. . . . 100 g
borax (decahydrate). . . . 1.0 g
boric acid (crystalline). . . 15.0 g
potassium bromide. . . . . . 0.125 g
water to. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 L
This is said to be a developer intended for small scale development of variable density sound negatives.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

AFAIK, D-76 dates back to 1926.

 

[Ian Grant]

You're right Keith, but I'd guess so does this formula as it's in secondary souces by may 1927.

CGB that formulae you give is staed as a variant of D76a/h ( with 2g Borax) by Kodak, it has Hydroquinone, D103 has no Hydroquininone and is indeed a soft working developer for film sound tracks. Unfortunately there are a huge number of errors in US books all due to mistakes in Morgan & Morgan/Photo Lab Index publications. Only manufacturers data can be trusted.

Ian

 

[CBG]

.... CGB that formulae you give is staed as a variant of D76a/h ( with 2g Borax) by Kodak, it has Hydroquinone, D103 has no Hydroquininone and is indeed a soft working developer for film sound tracks. Unfortunately there are a huge number of errors in US books all due to mistakes in Morgan & Morgan/Photo Lab Index publications. Only manufacturers data can be trusted. Ian

Thanks. There are so many errors out there. So, accurate formula, completely wrong identification.

 

[Murray Kelly]

Ian, I'm confused.

Is the original formula 8gr/400gr/8gr/14 fl.oz?

My converter program leads me to a conversion of 1.25g/65g/1.25g/1L.

Correct? Not sure why the 2/100/2/1600.
Thanks for your patience.
Murray

Metol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 gr (2g)
Sodium Sulphite (anhyd) . . . . . . 400gr (100g)
Borax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 gr (2g)
Water to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ozs *** (If US oz 1600ml - UK 1540ml)

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

Murray, I've not converted to the 1 litre volume, rather to a more appropriate comparison with D76, D23, D25, D103 etc based on the 100g/litre Sodium Sulphite but either is valid.

I've seen D76 published by Kodak as 1g Metol, 50g Sodium Sulphite, 2.5g Hydroquinone, 1g Borax ans Water to 500ml. Sometimes in Patents etc developers seem strange until you find a factor to divide by, then all falls into place and you find perhaps quite a simple variant of a well known formula.

I prefer to compare developers in a spreadsheet, I'll often compare ratios of principal chemicals, which is why I chose that particular ratio.

Interestingly this way it's possible to trace how a Wellington & Ward Buffered Borax formula was taken by Kodak and became DK50, there must have been a D50 first, and then this (D50) evolved to D76 but along the way Kodak were experimenting with the ratios of M to Q, leaving the Q out etc, Agfa and Ilford of course have their own variations.

Ian

 

[Murray Kelly]

Ah! OK. I understand. The sulphite is the standard, here. Thanks.
Murray.