A fortified TCB developer for long shelf-life

Michael R 1974 said:

Tronds, you're taking this all too personally. These guys are just trying to help. You've made several assertions regarding the working properties of your formula without the evidence or scientific basis to back them up, so you have to expect to be challenged a little. Also, PE is one of the last people to ignore on APUG, particularly if you're interested in photographic chemistry.

Click to expand...

I don't care. So much incorrect information and hangups in spelling errors shows that there isn't really much information or help to get.
There are other places to get correct information.

mwdake said:

I stopped reading when it just got rude.

Click to expand...

That's ok by me, but you are still reading?

I am leaving this thread now.
You can still comment and discuss, but I don't care to keep discussing. The recipe is published and it is free for everyone to test it.
If someone can come up with a better result, feel free to comment on the blog.
Do your homework first. Run a test and have a close look at the results. Theory is fine, but it is the real results that counts.

Dismissing/ignoring PE would be a mistake. He's probably done more testing/product development than every APUG member combined. He freely offered his help, pointing out possible problems with your formula. You should seriously pay heed, instead of defensively rejecting his comments out of hand.

Photo Engineer said:

There is no synergy really mentioned here nor shown in the article to my satisfaction. He does, however, make a good case for AA being an effective antioxidant.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the elaboration.
It appears that AA is a good antioxidant, and that this function causes most of its supposed synergy with Phenidone. But it has storage issues. Are you aware of other effective antioxidants other than sulfite? Perhaps the AA could be replaced with something else that's more stable. Of course, if Kodak could have done this, they would have. And they didn't, so obviously they believed that AA was the best compromise.

Another paradox that I don't understand:
POTA is well known for its high fog level, but PC-type developers have relatively low fog. Why? Is AA also an anti-foggant or restrainer? Or is the high fog simply due to longer development time needed to attain reasonable density? Would continuous agitation help POTA reach desired density sooner and with lower fog? Many questions because I'm still learning about all this...

Mark Overton

Thanks all for your support. I would like to comment on some possible things going on with Gainers and others results.

1. If you get a result A with 10 g/l Metol and result ~A with 10 g/l HQ, then if you mix 5 g/l of each you should get a result close to A. If you get a result >>>> greater than A, then you have superadditivity or synergy!

2. If you mix .1 g of X with 5 g of Metol and get ~A, then nothing is going on, but if the developer lasts longer there is an antioxidant effect.

3. If you do 2 above and get >>>>> A then there is not any superadditivity provable yet. You first ask does the developer last longer. In the case that it does, then it may be an antioxidant or it may be superadditivity or it may be that one of them is an Electron Transfer Agent. You don't know yet. If it does not last longer, then it is not an antioxidant. If it does, you are stuck with 2 remaining answers. If you vary the low concentration ingredient, and if the development activity goes up and down rapidly with concentration, then this is probably an ETA, provided the keeping moves with the concentration of the less concentrated ingredient.

Since the opposite took place with Gainer's experiment, he and I conclude that AA is an antioxidant which is in-line with the OP. It is not indicative of synergy. Gainer's experiment does not rule out that there is an ETA in action. More experiments are needed. I have done those experiments.

See my posts on Liquidol!

PE

albada said:

Thank you for the elaboration.
It appears that AA is a good antioxidant, and that this function causes most of its supposed synergy with Phenidone. But it has storage issues. Are you aware of other effective antioxidants other than sulfite? Perhaps the AA could be replaced with something else that's more stable. Of course, if Kodak could have done this, they would have. And they didn't, so obviously they believed that AA was the best compromise.

Another paradox that I don't understand:
POTA is well known for its high fog level, but PC-type developers have relatively low fog. Why? Is AA also an anti-foggant or restrainer? Or is the high fog simply due to longer development time needed to attain reasonable density? Would continuous agitation help POTA reach desired density sooner and with lower fog? Many questions because I'm still learning about all this...

Mark Overton

Click to expand...

Mark;

I'm really not sure of the answer to this one. IDK what the ring-opened (decomposed) phenidone does to fog among other things. There are other antioxidants, but most of them have been applied to color developers. Hydroxyl Amine comes to mind as does di-hydroxy Acetone. There are others that I can come up with but not OTOMH. Sorry again.

PE

Tronds said:

Thanks for correcting me on that.
Very important.
Enligsh (US or UK variant) isn't my first language, so you have to live with that.

If you can't stand a few spelling errors, please stop reading my threads/comments.

You have now proved that you can safely be ignored.
Welcome to my ignore list!

Click to expand...

And welcome to MY ignore list Bozo!!!

albada said:

Thank you for the elaboration.
It appears that AA is a good antioxidant, and that this function causes most of its supposed synergy with Phenidone. But it has storage issues. Are you aware of other effective antioxidants other than sulfite? Perhaps the AA could be replaced with something else that's more stable. Of course, if Kodak could have done this, they would have. And they didn't, so obviously they believed that AA was the best compromise.

Click to expand...

Some years ago several companies, among them Kodak and Ilford, began replacing hydroquinone with ascorbic acid because of environmental concerns. Hydroqquinone is particlularly toxic to fish and their are strict laws particularly in Europe about its discharge. BTW, the simularity between hydroquinone and ascorbic acid is only superficial and their respective chemistries are quite different.

Sodium sulfite is not only an antioxidant but has other uses in a developer. For example, in D-23 it serves as an antioxidant, silver halide solvent and provides an alkaline medium for the metol.

The creeation of a good and useful developer is not a matter of throwing a bunch of chemicals into water. There are many chemical concerns and emperical facts that must be taken into consideration. Then there is the hard work involved with testing. Dickerson and Zawadski, the developers of Xtol, spent a year of hard work before they had even a tentative formula to propose to Kodak. There are many people on APUG who seek the holy grail of developers but the hard truth is that most of the concoctions posted are inferior to what is offered commercially.

eddie said:

Dismissing/ignoring PE would be a mistake. He's probably done more testing/product development than every APUG member combined. He freely offered his help, pointing out possible problems with your formula. You should seriously pay heed, instead of defensively rejecting his comments out of hand.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. I think PE has forgotten more- than the vast majority of us will probably ever know- about film and its processing.

@Photo Engineer: This post is really interesting. First, I am no chemist so I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. I often use a very simple developer with 20g/L borax + 6g/L ascorbic acid + 0.15g/L phenidone and I'm curious as to how/why it works. I did a few tests and found that neither borax + ascorbic acid or borax + phenidone showed any discernable activity (film clip tests) but once combined activity was obvious (I use this as a 7-8 min developer). I also have a liter of this that is many months old and works as new. Changing the amount of ascorbic acid does not significantly affect activity (up to a point) but changing the amount of phenidone does show significant changes.

Based on what's written above, it sounds like this is both superadditive and ETA ... I'm not sure. If you can explain this in layman's terms that would be greatly appreciated.

The simple answer here is following the links and have a look see at the results in already, with this developer, no matter what is said, the proof is in the pudding. He has pictures up on a web-sight, if your are to lazy to follow a link, then you have no business continuing the debate........

The results are very promising, to say the least.

What remains is to ascertain that the developer will keep in a bottle, after being used, or, if one need to keep it fresh in solution and used 1:1, for instance.

In my book this has to do with practical experience with this promising developer, not negative theoretical & refuting remarks. To make a comment in a discussion like this that commercial developers are a better alternative, borders on plain stupidity, where I live, commercial developers are gone, they have to be ordered in from one, maybe two sources, which is all the re is in the entire country, when these two closes shop - and that might well be next week, I will have to order out of country, and will have to combat strict EU and customs rules : in other words tat is no alternative.

It might seem far-fetched to you, but this will be your future too, Kodak is fast closing shop, Agfa is history already, Rollei, Ilford.... all of them will be history, and it will be less than a decade, because ALL or the world is going digital, and as the market continue to shrink, companies keel over and goes bankrupt, just like what happened to Agfa a little less than a decade ago....

If one will argue agaist pictures offered as practical experience, one need to come up with examples and practical advice, like "add 5 gram of XXXXX insteaf of 4 gram of YYYYY", to get awy with a far fetched theoretical link is to simple, I feel.

As to the spelling errors by ugly furinners : any discussion on the Net is instantly destroyed when the negative english-teachers arrive, lacking argument, just repeating over and over again what they probalay have done in a life-time, making their pupils life a gaulish time on earth......

Zathras said:

And welcome to MY ignore list Bozo!!!

Click to expand...

Thats a grown up remark!
Anyone else who feels like calling others "Bozo"?

If so, GROW UP!

Lukas_87 said:

OXIDATION, for Christ's sake!

Click to expand...

I am trying to read and write in you language.
It seems that it isn't good enough for you, so I will continue in my language.
You are welcome to read and write in Norwegian.

Siden du kjefter på meg fordi jeg har en liten skrivefeil, så skal du få muligheten til å lese og skrive et fremmed språk.

Du må dessverre regne med at om du gjør en liten skrivefeil, så vil jeg kjefte på deg. Om du uheldigvis er uheldig og skriver noe som kan tolkes som uhøflig, så vil jeg ta det i verste mening og betrakte det som meget uhøflig, og følgelig kjefte på deg for det.

Jeg vet at dette er et engelskspråklig forum, men for at dere skal få litt innsyn i hvordan det er å lese og skrive et annet språk, så har dere muligheten nå.

Jeg regner med at dette er greit siden dere ikke klarer å overse en skrivefeil på engelsk.

Jeg kommer også til å fortsette å skrive norsk når jeg omtaler fremkallere og hva jeg har oppdaget i den forbindelse.
Er dere interessert i å lese det, så må dere dessverre lære dere å lese og skrive korrekt norsk.

I think "Bozo" was uncalled for, and inappropriate. I think your English is fine, successfully transmitting your message.
I do admire your attempt at developing your formula. I do take issue with your "NOT" comment, regarding PE's knowledge. The guy's spent most of his life on this stuff, has been a wealth of information to members of this site, and rejecting his comments has made a few people defensive.
There is the potential for interesting discussion on why you're getting the results your getting, but some of your responses have been a bit flippant.

MichaelMadio said:

@Photo Engineer: This post is really interesting. First, I am no chemist so I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. I often use a very simple developer with 20g/L borax + 6g/L ascorbic acid + 0.15g/L phenidone and I'm curious as to how/why it works. I did a few tests and found that neither borax + ascorbic acid or borax + phenidone showed any discernable activity (film clip tests) but once combined activity was obvious (I use this as a 7-8 min developer). I also have a liter of this that is many months old and works as new. Changing the amount of ascorbic acid does not significantly affect activity (up to a point) but changing the amount of phenidone does show significant changes.

Based on what's written above, it sounds like this is both superadditive and ETA ... I'm not sure. If you can explain this in layman's terms that would be greatly appreciated.

Click to expand...

I think that your observations show that the AA is probably acting as an Electron Transfer Agent for the Phenidone. The phenidone thus acts as if it were at a higher concentration and the development is kicked off. But, more tests would have to be run to see if it is so, or if it is just a superadditive effect. Gainer himself posits that superadditivity is possible here, but his conclusion (that I posted above) is silent on this and the data he shows is inconclusive. You will probably see good keeping for a while and then a sudden cessation of activity when the AA acting as an antioxidant is consumed, if indeed this even happens. The loss of AA can be sudden, but sometimes it does not take place, and that is the problem that we have heard of over and over. Why did my AA developer go bad!

Now, I must continue and add that I did not criticize the original post or the developer at all. I commented on subsequent posts regarding phenidone and Gainer's tests. Since the original developer contained no phenidone, then you can see that my comments are not referring to it. I must also add that I have experimented extensively with AA, HQ, Metol and others in mixtures with Phenidone, Dimezone and Dimezone S. My goal at that time was a print developer and I found a very good sweet spot for ETAs and keeping! I am going to work on a similar HA (High Acutance) film developer as soon as the book is done. So, I am not without experience in this area, as you must be aware.

As for writing in another language, I avoid it because I think it would be difficult for others to read my rendering of their native tongue. Go for it. But, if you get a correction, don't take it hard. At one time I could speak and read 4 other languages which through disuse have just about vanished. When I gave talks in French and Japanese, I accepted corrections graciously from my audience. At a lunch with some Japanese, I was asked what was in the soup and how it was made. When I got to chopped carrots, I use the homonym which meant husband. So my soup, to the woman who asked me the question heard "add chopped husband". Now that got a laugh. So, don't be too sensitive or too critical. BTDT on all sides of that argument.

PE

analog what is that? said:

........It might seem far-fetched to you, but this will be your future too, Kodak is fast closing shop, Agfa is history already, Rollei, Ilford.... all of them will be history, and it will be less than a decade, because ALL or the world is going digital, and as the market continue to shrink, companies keel over and goes bankrupt, just like what happened to Agfa a little less than a decade ago.......

Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons many of us to mix our own developers. But if these companies go out of production, the lack of film and paper will be the problem. At that point, having chemicals won't help much.

eddie said:

I think "Bozo" was uncalled for, and inappropriate. I think your English is fine, successfully transmitting your message.
I do admire your attempt at developing your formula. I do take issue with your "NOT" comment, regarding PE's knowledge. The guy's spent most of his life on this stuff, has been a wealth of information to members of this site, and rejecting his comments has made a few people defensive.
There is the potential for interesting discussion on why you're getting the results your getting, but some of your responses have been a bit flippant.

Click to expand...

I am not impressed with photo enigineers that don't know of superadditivity between phenidone and ascorbic acid.
Even I know that after a few weks reading about photo chemistry. I have been deevlping my own films for more than 30 years, but haven't looked into the details of chemistry before this autumn. In that short time I have learned a lot, but I am not an expert in any way.
I have worked at a large (in Norway) photo finishing lab for an extended time, but didn't work with the chemistry in any other way than mixing it from prepackaged bags with powder. Contents was unknown to us. Kodak secrets etc....
I learned a lot about using the chemistry though, in addition to running continous film developing machines. It is rather amazing how many things that can go wrong and make havoc with the process.

Threading film to be developed in full light with nightgoggles on is one option. You won't know the differnece when you are in a hurry. The customers will know the difference when they get their damaged films back processing though.

That was a digression.

I am not impressed with people that asks me to present som pictures when I have posted a link to data and pictures in the initial posting.
Asking them do to their own tests seems to make them angry. Why? The pictures are there. I posted them before linking to them in the initial post. If that isn't enough, what do I have to do? Make them a visit bringing several hundreds of negatives from the testing of the developer?

When they still are saying "nay, it wont work" they are just "naysayers" to me. They are not able find the images I linked to, much less run a test to find out if this developer works or not.

Arguments about "Fenton is going to oxidize" is just BS. Fenton is dead, and has been for many years. The Fenton reaction on the other hand might come into play here, but as far as I have read, it requires the pH to be below 6.0, so how much damage it will cause is another question. I might be wrong about this, but the fact is that ascorbic developers with large amounts of sulfite does work for a lot longer than several days as some think.
Tests have been done on the longevity of phenidone-ascorbic developers with sulfite and they didn't loose the strength before 27 weeks. XTOL lasted a bit longer though. That is of no intrerest here, since the local photoshops haven't had any kind of developer in store for several years. I simply cant go to my local store and by ANY commercial developer. All commercial developer has to ordered by mail from remote shops. We have a couple of them in thsi country today, but next week ther may be none. Then I have to buy from overseas. You are going to face the same problem when the shops stops selling developers and film.

I shoot mostly digital, but I develop a lot more than 12-15 films during that 27 weeks. When the developer is exhausted after 15 films or so, I simply pour it down the drain and mix a new batch.
If someone develops less than 12 films or so in half a year, mix a PC-glycol or Parodinal batch and use it one-shot.

I am not trying to make a better developer than commercial products. I don't think anyone can do that without some financial backing. Making a working devloper that can be mixed from available ingredients is another matter.

Geez, and I don't like being misquoted or having my comments distorted to fit some idea of what they think that I am saying.

I have spent about 60 years in the field of photography in one way or another, and I have met and know many of the people you guys talk about. Give me some credit for knowing what I am doing.

Liquidol was developed (excuse the pun) with no financial backing.

Oh, and I don't block anyone. I consider every comment by every person to be of some value to me in one way or another. I have learned, it my rather long life to appreciate what others have to say and I have learned not to criticize until I have tested or worked with what they are talking about.

PE

Michael R 1974 said:

You're basing this on a few scanned images? All that shows is the developer forms an image. It tells us nothing about speed, contrast, grain or acutance. There are a million home brew formulas out there that will develop film. Image characteristics are another matter entirely.

Click to expand...

Exactly. If you have access to commercial developers you are better off using them as a lot of time has been spent in exhaustive testing. For those not so fortunate then you must mix yor own.

Originally Posted by Michael R 1974

You're basing this on a few scanned images? All that shows is the developer forms an image. It tells us nothing about speed, contrast, grain or acutance. There are a million home brew formulas out there that will develop film. Image characteristics are another matter entirely.

Gerald C Koch said:

Exactly. If you have access to commercial developers you are better off using them as a lot of time has been spent in exhaustive testing. For those not so fortunate then you must mix yor own.

Click to expand...

I have developed and scanned several hundreds of negatives during this process. Clearly I can't post all of them.
Posting a triplet of images that represents the average of triplets from a film, where this is just about equal to other films in the series of films developed, tells a lot about what the developer does and doesn't.
No adjustment of contrast, brightness, gamma or sharpness is done.
This is much closer to the truth than the doctored images others are presenting to us as "straight from the developer".

But please do as I already have said, if you doubt the reults, read the recipe, mix your own batch and run some tests.

About the access to commercial developers, I have access to a few of them today, but maybe not next week.
Do you suppose that all development is to be put on hold until we can't buy any commercial developers anymore?
What do you intend to do when you have to present some pictures from film and you can't get any commercial developer? Just put anything on hold and work with it under pressure?

That's a great way to burn yourself up.

It seems that the line of naysayers is endless, but please do what is best for yourself. I prefer to work and do something positive and create a good negative. Got that? Comments like "that isn't going to work", and "Fenton is going to oxidize" isnt any helpful. Contructive positive inputs has always been welcome, but waht I have seen in this discussion is that almost none has anything positive to come up with, Almost everyone is saying "nay".
Someone is even attacking me for making spelling errors! F***ing lowlife!
Prøv før faen da å skrive i et fremmed språk hvis dere tror det er bare helt enkelt!


I am not going to sit on the fence and wait until I can't get a commercial developer anymore, but if you want to do so, please do.

I have learned that if I can make this developer better, I won't present it here. I will keep it for myself. Sharing information is nothing I want to do in the future.
It is no need to share information with the "real experts" and "photo engineers" who know all and do not need any new input.

This reminds me of the guy who gave away the complete encyclopedia. He didn't need it anymore, since his wife knew everything and was always right.

I feel about the same way here. You know everything, and I obviously don't know anything.
Great!

I am NOT going to share information with you anymore. It isn't needed. You know all and doesn't need to learn anything new. Even if it already well known.

Michael R 1974 said:

But Tronds, the onus is kind of on you here. You proposed a formula and made claims about keeping properties, sharpness and graininess, some of which would appear to conflict with what is known about how these ingredients work in combination. YOU have to show the results, not just say it's good stuff and tell others to do their homework and tests.

Click to expand...

Do you have any problems with your browser? isn't it able to follow links outside this fourum?
Are you not able to follow the link in the initial post?
Didn't the images show up in your browser?

Are there any other problems? Do I have to show up at your doorstep with several hundred negatives? I can do that, but you have to pay the expenses.
An easier way is that you mix your own batch and run some tests. I have presented the complete recipe with instructions on how to mix it and a starting time for development.

What do I have to do? Mix a batch and ship it to you? Come to your home and develop your films?

If you doubt the results and aren't satisfied with the images presented, you either have to mix a batch and do some testing or just forget about it.
It's that simple.

Which, if any, post said "this isn't going to work"? It's obvious to everyone that you're getting printable negatives from your formula. It seems to me that the real chemists, here, are questioning some of your claims about why you're getting these results.
Rather than being so defensive, you might want to learn more about the things the real chemists have mentioned. It may help you improve your formula.

Real chemists? Who??

Something was uttered about smokescreen and handwaving, the one that said that had just proved he did not understand what is the subject here, and did not know how to ask a simple question on how to enlighten himself.....

Seems to me somebody is envious, and suffers from the NIH-syndrome, instead of grabbing the opportunity to try this for oneself, and be a positive force, pitching in with testing this with all kinds of film types, and maybe also offer expert advice on how to improve on things, in case that would be possible.

But that would include a dirty word of course : "work".......

analog what is that? said:

Real chemists? Who??

Something was uttered about smokescreen and handwaving, the one that said that had just proved he did not understand what is the subject here, and did not know how to ask a simple question on how to enlighten himself.....

Seems to me somebody is envious, and suffers from the NIH-syndrome, instead of grabbing the opportunity to try this for oneself, and be a positive force, pitching in with testing this with all kinds of film types, and maybe also offer expert advice on how to improve on things, in case that would be possible.

But that would include a dirty word of course : "work".......

Click to expand...

They don't know how to run a test. They don't know how to shoot triplets exposed -1EV, +-0EV and +1EV. They don't know how to scan three neagtives in one scan. They don't know how to NOT adjust brightness and contrast before presenting the picture, and besides that, thay don't know how to work in the metric system, just teaspoons and other varying volumteric units. Don't be so hard on them, please!