agfa / gaf universal developer

jnanian submitted a new resource:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) - agfa / gaf universal developer

from what i understand this is the formula for the mythical gaf universal
it is very similar to ansco/gaf 130

i used years ago when it was premixed and sold in a can
and it took 10+ years to meet someone who knew of it, and knew the formula.

THANKS LARRY D!


Water (125 degrees F) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 750 ml
Metol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 g
Sodium Sulfite (Anhydrous) . . . . . . . . . 35 g
Sodium Carbonate (Monohydrate) . . . . . 78 g...

Click to expand...

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

Just curious: how critical are the individual measures, especially the 2.2 g of Metol and the 1g of KBr?

Ansel Adams Variation of Agfa Ansco 130

With a paper developer the weights are less critical +/- 10% will have only a marginal impact which would go un-noticed. To much or to little Bromide may affect the image colours though as well as the contrast.

Agfa Ansco (GAF) sold an MQ Developer Agfa 103 formerly N-103 as their Universal Film & Paper Developer and published Agfa 130 as a Universal paper developer but don't seem to have marketed it. They also sold Agafa 125 prepackaged later callinig it Vividol..

The Formula John's published here is similar to Agfa Ansco 130 but with no Hyrdroquinone, only 70% of the amount of Sodium Sulphite and less then 20% of the Potassium Bromde, this will affect the tray life very slightly, contrast andmore importantly image colour/tone. It's actually Ansel Adam's variation of Agfa 130 which he preferred because if gave him more neutral tones. Ansel left out the Bromide entirely but the 1g here might be preferable. I think it's published in "The Print".

Sorry to disappoint you John it's not the Ansco/GAF Universal formula but it does explain why someone else had come across it

It's worth remembering the refernce to Agfa developers here is to Agfa Ansco, later renamed GAF, and that these formula numbers 103, 125 and 130 are unrelated to the German Agfa (also Orwo) formulae of the same numbers which are for quite different unrelated developers.

Ian

Ian, do you have the Ansco/GAF Universal formula (if this isn't it), and can you share it so we can give it a spin?

hi ian

thanks for posting this !

i thought the formula looked familiar, but i misplaced
my copy of "the print" ... i guess i have to continue looking for
the great red canned whale !

thanks again for the reminder that things are not always what they seem

john

Trask said:

Ian, do you have the Ansco/GAF Universal formula (if this isn't it), and can you share it so we can give it a spin?

Click to expand...

No problem, I have them in 3 Agfa Ansco / Gaf publications, I'll post them all for you as seperate articles.

Ian


PS. Agfa Ansco 125 Paper Developer, later recommended for films as well (there was a url link here which no longer exists). This was later called Vividol by GAF, the instructions for use are identical.

Agfa Ansco 103 Uninversal is here as well.

It should be noted that Agfa Ansco revised the formula for 103 between 1938 and 1941 dropping the amount od Sodium Sulphite from 57g/l to 45g/l and referred to the revised version as a paper developer, it was no longer recommended for films.

This switch is mirrored in other companies formulae, D72 - Dektol was originally a film developer and as emulsions changed it became a print developer. Part of the explanation for this shift is with the rise in use of 35mm film negatives were being processed to lower contrasts which helped imrove grain, sharpness and tonality.

thanks ian !

for the years i searched i used the instructions " 1;6 film 72ºF, 6 mins" as my "tell" ...
i used to think it was A125 but the dilutions and times were different and the can
just said "universal developer" and i know vividol was sold in the 70s just as "vividol" ...
( i have almost bought some off ebay just to look at )

i looked at the 103 ( both when i was published here years ago ) and just now too
and the dilutions kept me at arm's length ...
maybe in the 70s they just changed the name to universal developer and changed the dilutions ?
it is too bad that orwa/agfa ... agfa/ansco ... and GAF didn't keep the same names + numbers
it would have made things a lot easier

i just processed a bunch of film in ansco 130 1:6 for 8.5mins yesterday, and they looked beautiful !

i should probably stop looking for what is right in front of me

john

John, what with various references to Agfa and Ansco, I'm left wondering which "Ansco 130" you just referred to as producing beautiful negatives? LF, MF, or 35mm?

Many Print developers work as film developers if diluted and can produce reasonably fine grain as well. I've used and tested Ilford PQ Universal at 1+29 and May & BAker (now Champion) used to recommend Suprol their equivalent for commercial fine grain processing of all films in continuous processors.

Ian

ian -

i know what you mean ... i am always reminded of people who used ( and still use ) dektol and make nice
smooth continuous tone negatives .. people always think print developer = golf balls sized grain ...
but print developers do all-right ..


trask

i use the "kit" the formulary sells as their "formulary 130 paper developer".
i have used it with 35mm - 8x10 sheets ... 1:6 ( sometimes 1:10 ) ... i really can't complain,
although i know of people that have used this same developer, their agitation
technique gave them very contrasty film ... for sheets of film, i try to run it between 70-72º
( glycin likes it warmish ) i do a pre-soak for about 2 mins and shuffle continuously for about 8-8 3/4 mins ...
water bath, then fixer ...

i am sure if you dilute it more than 1:10 it will work well too, you will have to do tests to determine development times ..

Thanks, John. And Happy New Year to all!