• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Advice on Ethol UFG Developer Substitute (since UFG is now discontinued)

Michael Larkey

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 11, 2015
Messages
4
Location
New York Cit
Format
Medium Format
Since Ethol UFG is now discontinued I am looking for a replacement that might reasonably be expected to produce similar developing results. That is what this post is about and all further ramblings by me beyond this point provides further information but need not necessarily be read.


I've been using Ethol UFG to process my film for about 6 years now and usually spend my spring-summer-autumn months shooting and binge process in the winter. Consequently I recently went to order some cans of UFG and discovered it has been discontinued. Since some of the film I shot this year is a continuation of an ongoing project that I would like to maintain the look of, my primary question is if anyone has any suggestions for a developer that will yield similar results? Obviously I intend to do some testing before settling.


Additional and potentially irrelevant info:
The only film I shoot is Fomapan 400/Arista Edu 400 and I had my system dialed. Once I took a roll to a local lab who does not do hand processing and uses Xtol but I was unhappy with the results. Negs came out too contrasty. That was a while ago before everything was dialed for me though and my home small hand tank processing may yield better results so I'm not opposed to trying Xtol, though chemistry wise it seems vastly different from UFG. I've seen some good looking Foma/Xtol results from forum users. I tried D76 years ago and was unhappy. The results seemed boring and even some of the images of Foma I've seen posted where D76 is listed as developer lack a certain punch to me. Fine negatives but perhaps not exhibiting any unique qualities of the film. Oddly Images I've seen from Ilford ID11 feel better though my understanding is they are essentially identical developers. As I say, this info is probably not relevant since my question is more specific to finding a replacement (as close as possible) for Ethol UFG to match an existing look.
I've seen an image on another forum of Foma developed in Rollei Supergrain that feels similar to what I would expect from the way I shoot my film. The poster mentions Foma's LQN as being equivalent to the Rollei but I don't see either available at any of the big suppliers here in the US. (Freestyle, adorama, bh) so perhaps there is a chemical in them that is restricted for import or there is just a lack of interest in importing. In that vain it would be somewhat great to settle on a developer that is reliable to exist for a while so I don't have to spend the time, energy, and finances testing replacements again. I've even considered ordering similar chemical components from photographers formulary and attempting to mix my own larkey UFG but that seems exceedingly intensive, however, if someone knows the chemical make-up of Ethol UFG (perhaps one of the factory chemists is reading this...)...


Anyway, I'm new to the forum, and would greatly appreciate any knowledge that might be helpful in finding a replacement. Since Ethol UFG was only recently discontinued I suspect there must be others going through, or about to go through, the same transition.
 
There are several choices in fine-grain general purpose developers. Three possibilities are Kodak Xtol, HC-110, and D-76 (also available as Ilford ID-11). I have a feeling that you are going to get MANY suggestions,
 
I wasn't aware UFG was discontinued. It was on my list to try.

I do use XTOL replenished and am happy with the results. Enjoying experimenting, I am also evaluating Diafine and Pyrocat-HD; so far I like them both. I think you would be hard pressed to find a "common" developer that wouldn't satisfy your needs. As others have recommended many times, it might be best to pick one and use it exclusively and learn its nuances.

I use LPD as my paper developer - should I be concerned that it is on the way out?? I looked at the Omega Brandess website and didn't find any mention of UFG. Perhaps it's been gone for a while and I am just a bit behind the times. I REALLY like LPD.
 
There I go again, sleeping on the job! Very good product with a very small following. I have two gallon sealed cans of developer and three 1 gal. cans of replenisher. Looks like I should probably get a couple more cans of the developer and I'll be set for life. Heck, I'm over 65 yrs. old and probably already set for life with what I have on hand. This is one developer I wish more folks would have tried, but oh well. John W
 
@Stephen T. - I couldn't find any mention of UFG being discontinued but nowhere had in stock and when I inquired with Freestyle they confirmed it is discontinued from manufacturer. I have no clue about LPD but hope it sticks around for you.

@JW Photo - I never used UFG with Replenisher but wish I had. I might have set myself up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes not surprised its going; a fine developer and the only thing close in look (but not quite) is Acufine formulated by the same fellow.
As well I do wish more people had tried it especially replenished and I've long championed it online.
Perhaps we can do a 777 plea for a small run.
I don't have much left but enough for a few more runs; it lasts a very long time replenished.
 
UFG was one of the first PQ developers on the market. It featured good grain characteristics (but was not particularly fine grained) and a significant increase in speed for some films. It also developed most films in 3 to 4 minutes, which is quite fast. It was often used to push Tri-X. Ilford Microphen came out around the same time and was often compared to it. Ilford ID-68 is often compared to Microphen. ID-67 is a somewhat more active PQ developer which might be of interest. My personal choice would be Crawley FX-37, which is well renowned for its quality. I've used it, and it is outstanding. A similar commercial product is FX-39. UFG's main competition in the early days was D-76, which is a fine grained MQ developer. As I recall, various comparisons between the two came out pretty much a toss up. D-76 may have somewhat better grain and UFG may be a tad sharper. Most people think Xtol is a bit better than D-76, but you can mix D-76 yourself.
 
I have no way to confirm this but the smell leads me to think UFG also contains HQ and Glycin.
 
I've recently bought UFG at Macodirect (in plastic can), haven't used it yet. 2 years ago i bought last stocks of Ethol UFG at macodirect and that time it was in metal can.
It was the best developer for high speed films for me (tri-x, Hp5+, rollei RPX), I've used it with replenisher but anyway developer died in 7 months. I've moved to Acufine, but as already has been mentioned before they were not the same and Acufine has more pronounced grain with high speed films (neon 400, hp5+) but still an excellent developer for pushing Tri-x. If your main film is Tri-X, than Acufine is a good substitution.

Here is an example with Tri-x @1600 in Acufine

 

Thanks for the info. I do remember that when I tried D76 the development times were similar but I wasn't too happy with it though. This might have been before I had figured out my system and how to rate the film so perhaps it deserves another look.
 
IIRC UFG contained chlorhydroquinone as one of its developing agents. It never contained Phenidone or Glycin. When chlorhydroquinone became unavailable the formula was switched to a fairly standard MQ developer.


http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/msds/Ethol_UFG_MSDS.pdf

There is still one developer that uses chlorhydroquinone and that is Edwal FG-7 liquid. However if you look at the MSDS you will not see it specifically listed. It is however made by combining quinone (p-benzoquinone) with hydrochloric acid. Any excess acid is then neutralized with sodium hydroxide.

http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/msds/Edwal_FG-7_MSDS.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Are you sure Acufine is from the same people?

EDIT: I checked the MDSD and though the brand names are different they look like the same company. I just so hope the loss of UFG, which I am sorry about for those who used it, does not mean bad things for LPD or Diafine (or Acufine.)

I never tried UFG but I LOVE LPD and would be really upset if I lost it. I like Diafine a lot for certain things too and would be upset to lose it, but apparently something "close enough" can be home brewed for that. Not sure about LPD which is a great print developer.
 

FG7 has been discontinued for some time now. There are threads here about it.
 
Roger Cole said:
FG7 has been discontinued for some time now. There are threads here about it.
Click to expand...

Roger,
My heart skipped a beat when I read Gerald's post about FG7. I thought maybe he knew something I didn't and FG7 might have been resurrected, but alas, you broke my bubble. FG7 was the first developer I tried when I broke away from the instructor's "one" developer rule in college. I liked it very much and my prints looked better too. I can get by very well without FG7 and UFG for that matter, but I sure will miss them. I wish the recipes would go "open source" when the developers go off-market. I know, but it's just a wish. John W
 

Well from what I've read the FG7 would be difficult or impossible to reproduce on a small scale. Not as sure about the UFG but I suspect the original version might fall into the same category.

I'm the same way about LPD and Diafine. I COULD get by fine without them, but I sure don't want to. Diafine does something with Tri-X that nothing else does (it did even better with the older versions of Tri-X) and was positively magic with Plus-X, alas. LPD is just a very clean non-staining, VERY long lasting and versatile print developer. It's great. There are others I could use and I'm sure my prints wouldn't show a significant difference. But they wouldn't last as long, and wouldn't be versatile for small changes in print tone. If phenidone based they probably would at least avoid staining everything within a meter, which is my big complaint besides tray life about Dektol. (I've posted here before about how I used a bottle of tightly capped working strength LPD that I was thinking was a year plus old but then realized was over TWO YEARS old, and it worked fine. Maybe a half grade less contrasty than fresh but otherwise indistinguishable. I don't normally let working strength developer sit that long but life happened and trying to save an ultimately doomed marriage took priority over darkroom work and photography. (And still has and now that the divorce is done getting back in the darkroom is definitely on the agenda.)

I only use Diafine for a minority of shooting, Tri-X at EI 1000 when I need faster than 400 but 1000-1250 will do and I don't need yet faster for which I turn to Delta 3200, and for taming highlight contrast with a small but useful bump in effective speed with Pan F+. But I use LPD for all my neutral tone prints. It and Harman WT developer are all I use, or need. I could find substitutes for those easier than for Diafine.
 
Roger Cole said:
FG7 has been discontinued for some time now. There are threads here about it.
Click to expand...
Thanks I saw it in the Freestyle catalog but didn't catch the fine print notification.
 
I use Xtol for general purpose, and Acufine for pushed film where I need the highlight compression. I believe Acufine was created by the same person as UFG, but under a different company. Those two really cover my basic needs, though I mess around with a couple others for fun or special situations (very old film, extreme push).

BTW, I was never able to match Diafine with a home brew developer; I'm sure it is possible but would require more testing than I'm willing to do.
 
 
With respect, if you've used UFG you would be hard pressed to think that it changed to a 'fairly standard MQ developer'. Looks smells works unlike any other standard MQ developer, lots of suspended solids. As well, any P or Glcyin amount would be well under the listed components in the MSDS.
 

While Phenidone due to its relative nontoxicity and the very small amounts used in most developers might noy be listed in an MSDS the same would probably not be true of Glycin. In addition just because a developer smells does not prove that it contains Glycin or any other developing agent for that matter.

The MSDS is for UFG's last re-incarnation and may no apply to some user's recollection of what they used before.

However since UFG is no longer available we are really beating a dead horse here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register