a Trial at posting formulas

[phfitz]

Hi all,

it seems that the only way to post developer formulas is in columns and rows of a web page BUT cannot post HTML code here, it would mess up the site. I had already made the web pages SO I converted them to .pdf format and attached below. They may be printable BUT they are in 'custom' size pages. If this works out well, it may be the easiest way to post formulas.

Enjoy

 

[cmacd123]

hydrazine dihydrochloride? (in the kodak list, is that related to the stuff satalites use as self-igniting rocket fuel?

BTW, you can get the formulas for D 94A, D 95 D-96 and D97 at:
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uplo..._en_motion_support_processing_h2415_h2415.pdf
D 94A is a first developer for reversal films (90 seconds at 20C) using the latest process. It is slightly changed from d-94, when they changed to the R-10 Potassium Permanganate bleach a couple of years ago.

 

[Photo Engineer]

D-94A uses a more modern technology.

Hydrazine Dihydrochloride is a powerful reducing (fogging) agent that can fog an emulsion. It is not all that dangerous as long as it is kept from a strong oxidant. It is hypergolic (self igniting) and therefore will virtually explode in the presence of red fuming nitric acid which is the oxidative opposite of hydrazine.

UDMH (Unsymmetrical Dimethyl Hydrazine) and TETROX (Nitrogen Tetroxide) were the fuels used in the Titan II rocket and which achieve super high energy specific impulse in the engines. Of course, this spewed N2O4 all over the cape and you had to take cover or be burned by the droplets.

PE

 

[cmacd123]

BTW2: Kodak recommends 5 minutes at 21C for Plus-x 5231 and 7 minutes for Double-X 5222 in D-96. Note that the gamma is lower than is generally used for stills.

 

[Photo Engineer]

As an afterthought, I should comment that Hydrazine and Hydrazine Hydrochloride are quite safe in the lab with proper handling. It is the UDMH and RFNA and TETROX that are the probelms. I used a variety of hydrazines in the lab to create organics with 2 nitrogens in a row. I never had a serious problem.

PE

 

[phfitz]

"Of course, this spewed N2O4 all over the cape and you had to take cover or be burned by the droplets."

So that's what ate the ozone layer, was wondering.

Well I'm glad people can read the files, they're a lot cleaner to read this way, too bad the links don't work.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, NASA had plans to use HF (Hydrogen Fluoride) by combining H2 gas and F2 gas for high energy until someone pointed out how toxic it would be. I guess NASA needs more chemists.

Maybe someone should point this out to Patrick Gainer.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

At a first glance there are a few mistakes.

D76h is a buffered borax developer with Hydroquinone same as D76x except D76x never had an official Kodak formulae designation and it is D76h with 0.125g Potassium Bromide, D23/25 Bisulphite isn't Kodalk, DK93 Kodelon is p-Aminophenol Hydrochloride (or oxalate) not the free base. D76H is not a Kodak formula.

Agfa 70 is a different formula, you have Agfa Ansco 70, some German Agfa formulae differ to Agfa Ansco/GAF of the same number
Agfa 79 uses Pyrocatechin, again you have the Agfa Ansco forula
too many to check

Defender 6 is D76/ID-11

Tipo Microphen is an Axford/Kendall (Ilford) PQ version of ID-11 sold as a commercial D&P developer it's not Microphen, there are two different replenishers so it's most likely Autophen,

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

And, as Ian would probably agree, this is one reason why deciphering old formulas begins to become a pain. Formulas are wrong, have duplicate or similar names and etc. That is a compelling reason to doubt old formulas across the board. And, the bottom line is that there is no silver bullet in developers that gives you a beautiful photo. You do that in the camera and then develop the best you can. Most off the shelf developers do that for you.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

d-19 is wrong

Yes that's supposed to be D19b and still wrong then.

A major problem with 3rd party sources of Formulae is people often don't state what form of Sulphite & Carbonate. Not helped by the fact that the Photo Lab Index's are full of errors,

Then there are revisions in Formulae, some companies tell you, (Agfa Ansco) others change the number D19 - D19b.

Ian

 

[Anscojohn]

And, as Ian would probably agree, this is one reason why deciphering old formulas begins to become a pain. Formulas are wrong, have duplicate or similar names and etc. That is a compelling reason to doubt old formulas across the board. And, the bottom line is that there is no silver bullet in developers that gives you a beautiful photo. You do that in the camera and then develop the best you can. Most off the shelf developers do that for you.

PE

*****
Amen, brother!

 

[phfitz]

Hi all,

Yes, I agree with all the above BUT there are no typos, that was how they were published in the 30s, 40s and 50s.

The point was HOW to post the formulas in a way that is crisp, clean, fully scalable for eyesight and safe for the site, .pdf files seem to be the answer.

.zip file can contain ANYTHING
.html files can run java scripts or Active-X controls, css styles can clash with the site
tab-delimited files do not display correctly, very hard to read

.pdf files seem to work, very large pages in very small files and everyone can read them, Windows, Mac, Linux, os/2, ect.

 

[Ian Grant]

What we actually need people to see is formulae that are fully traceable back to the original sources, whether that be Agfa, Agfa Ansco, Kodak, Ilford etc.

There are too many incorrect versions of formulae floating around the internet. Sites like Digitaltruth already do a good job of listing formulae and John will quickly correct a mistake if it's spotted and you can provide some corroborating evidence, there's a couple of other sites doing the same.

Unfortunately not all sites will correct blatant errors, Silvergrain is the worst.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have to agree with Ian. In fact, that was the gist of my previous post.

PE