Agfa 72: a glycin developer

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I will be posting pictures whenever I have some time to print, but looking at my negatives, I report some pretty good results with this developer.

It's not that different from Agfa 8, both being glycin-sulfite-carbonate developers, except that the amount of glycin is larger in Agfa 72.

For 1L of solution	Agfa 8	Agfa 72
Sodium sulfite anhy.	12.5g	125g
Potassium carbonate	25.0g	250g
Glycin	2.0g	50g

I used Agfa 72 at 1+19 on FP4+ for 8 min, and got excellent-looking negatives, with good midtones. The stock solution looks murky and heterogeneous, but give it a good shake, dilute, and it's looking normal.

These simple glycin developers seem to have the property to enhance midtones, so they may give a flat result on films that do not have a lot of inherent contrast. For instance, HP5+ gives a very even negative, and you need to do some darkroom work to get your deep shadows and your bright highlights. As always, this might be a tool in the right hands.

The image is nicely sharp and the grain is unobstrusive.

I'm also suspecting that it could be interesting on 120 Tri-X. This film has always given me issues because it does not have much shadow detail, so you might as well expand the midtones.

 

[Pentode]

Interesting. Thanks for posting this. I have this formula jotted down in my notebook but I don't remember where I saw it. The notes I had written for it were: 1+10 15min, 1+15 20min. I know I've never tried it so they must have been someone else's starting times for medium speed films, I guess.

I'm used to seeing glycin developers that are intended for use replenished (I think Agfa #8 is one) and need to be seasoned. With Agfa #72 being concentrated and intended for dilution, I assume it's to be used one-shot and no seasoning would be necessary (or even possible)?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Agfa's recommendation in the 1941 booklet I have is to dilute 1+15, and develop 20-25 mins, or 1+4 and 5 to 10 mins.

That is way too much for a modern day rollfilm, but bear in mind that 72 was recommended for commercial film (i.e. slow and high contrast) for reproduction work, although it was said to be usable on roll/pack/sheet films.

I used 72 as a one-shot developer, but if 8 can be replenished I don't see why dilute 72 couldn't. Some more testing would be needed.

But one thing I find noticeable is that glycin-only developers are often said to be slow, which is not at all the case here.

 

[Pentode]

But one thing I find noticeable is that glycin-only developers are often said to be slow, which is not at all the case here.

Perhaps it’s because the heyday of glycin developers was when emulsions were thicker and developing times were longer in general. Someone might look at that 1941 data and assume that glycin developers must be slow.

I have no experience with glycin developers, personally, and I’ve been hesitant to delve too deeply into them because of all that I’ve read regarding the need to season them. Your first-hand experience makes me rethink my reticence. I shouldn’t necessarily believe everything I read!

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Michel, you might want to take a look at Edwal 10, a Metol/Glycin developer that is nice. I occasionally use it when I have Glycin. I use it replenished.

 

[JPD]

It should be a vey good portrait developer with excellent midtones and with grain and sharpness similar to Rodinal. For better shadows you may want to double the exposure. I used Agfa 8 with Agfa APX 25 a couple of times and liked it.

 

[relistan]

Looking at the ORWO Rezepts book from 1971 that I have, it has this developer Agfa/ORWO 72 with the same formula. Development guidance is to dilute 1:3 or 1:4 and develop 5-8 minutes. 1-2 minutes for paper.

Those seem pretty mismatched to the times and dilution you used. That's an odd discrepancy.

 

[gorbas]

Looking at the ORWO Rezepts book from 1971 that I have, it has this developer Agfa/ORWO 72 with the same formula. Development guidance is to dilute 1:3 or 1:4 and develop 5-8 minutes. 1-2 minutes for paper.

Those seem pretty mismatched to the times and dilution you used. That's an odd discrepancy.

The same for 1986 edition of ORWO Formulae
Every photographer has to find its own film EI and right dilution and time for every single new developer. Especially when mixed from the scratch.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I have no experience with glycin developers, personally, and I’ve been hesitant to delve too deeply into them because of all that I’ve read regarding the need to season them. Your first-hand experience makes me rethink my reticence. I shouldn’t necessarily believe everything I read!

Yes. Don't believe everything that you read. Believe everything that I write. MWAAHAHA!!!

 

[JPD]

Those old recommended dilutions and times are probably from long before the war. I don't think Agfa/ORWO bothered to test those old public recipes with more modern films.

 

[relistan]

The same for 1986 edition of ORWO Formulae
Every photographer has to find its own film EI and right dilution and time for every single new developer. Especially when mixed from the scratch.

Yes, definitely.

I was only remarking that his time was about the same for a dilution that was about 5x ORWO's recommendation. Because he has actually developed his film and it looks good my take away is that the ORWO guidance is perhaps not that great for modern films. Or maybe something else is at play?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Those old recommended dilutions and times are probably from long before the war. I don't think Agfa/ORWO bothered to test those old public recipes with more modern films.

Probably for the very simple reason that a lot of (vastly more sophisticated and scientifically rigorous) imaging science in the intervening period showed that doing so would be a waste of time, money & effort.

 

[Pentode]

I was only remarking that his time was about the same for a dilution that was about 5x ORWO's recommendation.

I have the same 1+4 dilution suggested in my 1939 Agfa data book for tray development. I suspect it was for developing plates.

 

[removedacct3]

The stock solution looks murky and heterogeneous, but give it a good shake, dilute, and it's looking normal.

What can you tell about the viscosity of the stock solution, or in other words, how much effort does it take to homogenize the stock solution by shaking it?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

What can you tell about the viscosity of the stock solution, or in other words, how much effort does it take to homogenize the stock solution by shaking it?

I just give a vigorous shake for a few seconds. It doesn't get perfectly homogeneous until you dilute it down.

 

[removedacct3]

Thank you!

Have you ever tried Hubl's Paste? And if so, can you give a short comparison between these two developers regarding viscosity?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Thank you!

Have you ever tried Hubl's Paste? And if so, can you give a short comparison between these two developers regarding viscosity?

Never tried it, but based on the descriptions I can find of Hubl, 72 is thinner. It's a liquid a bit like vinaigrette (which also needs a good shake).

EDIT: I made a few quick calculations in Excel, and the ratios between 72 and Hubl are very similar.

For 1g of glycin, both 72 and Hubl both have close to 5g of carbonate (Agfa 8 has double at 12g).
For 1g of glycin, Hubl has 1g of sulfite, 72 has 2,5g, and 8 has 6,25g

At comparable dilutions, 72 might actually be indistinguishable from Hubl's paste, more than compared to Agfa 8.

 

[removedacct3]

But one thing I find noticeable is that glycin-only developers are often said to be slow, which is not at all the case here.

I've mixed my first batch of Hubl Paste and did some initial testing. It looks like I am getting box speed, or a little above box speed, on Fomapan 100. Fomapan 100 in D-23 or Hypercat gives an exposure index of 50 instead of 100, so I was rather surprised with my densitometric results.