Alter id68 (microphen) to produce less contrast??

[MingMingPhoto]

hi all!
shout out koraks (I think it was him) who put me on to microphen.

I love the developer, but it's very contrasty. It's actually perfect contrast - but I'm interested in seeing if I can reduce contrast somehow.

Is there some sort of chemical I can add/reduce in the id68/microphen formula - or some sort of treatment I can do to produce less contrast with it?

ty!

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Either shorten the development times, dilute it or switch to another developer.
Try Autophen instead if ID68 doesn't suit you.

 

[koraks]

@MingMingPhoto are we talking about film or prints?
I've mostly used ID68 for prints. Perhaps for an odd sheet of film here and there, but not all that much.

If this is about film, then do as @Keith Tapscott. says. Reduce development time; that's all. You may have to expose a little longer to still get the desired shadow detail. If it's about prints, just dial in a lower contrast grade during exposure.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

@MingMingPhoto are we talking about film or prints?
I've mostly used ID68 for prints. Perhaps for an odd sheet of film here and there, but not all that much.

If this is about film, then do as @Keith Tapscott. says. Reduce development time; that's all. You may have to expose a little longer to still get the desired shadow detail. If it's about prints, just dial in a lower contrast grade during exposure.

ID68 is a film developer. I wouldn't use it for developing prints.
It gives similar or same results as Microphen.
Autophen uses the exact same components, but is probably softer working.
Take a look on Ian Grant's Lost Labours website for the formula of both.
There is also two replenishment formulas for Autophen. One is for topping up and the other is for flood/bleed replenishment.

 

[koraks]

ID68 is a film developer. I wouldn't use it for developing prints.

Sorry, I mixed it up with ID78. My bad.
I never use ID68.

 

[john_s]

ID68 is a film developer. I wouldn't use it for developing prints.
It gives similar or same results as Microphen.
Autophen uses the exact same components, but is probably softer working.
Take a look on Ian Grant's Lost Labours website for the formula of both.
There is also two replenishment formulas for Autophen. One is for topping up and the other is for flood/bleed replenishment.

This could work for the OP. The formula for Autophen is very like ID-68 but it differs in having a different balance of borax (less) and boric acid (more), so its pH would be a bit lower and would possibly be a bit more gentle. It was used for commercial photo finishing where contrast tended to be kept under control, in order to make printing easier.
If you try it, please tell us how it went.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

This could work for the OP. The formula for Autophen is very like ID-68 but it differs in having a different balance of borax (less) and boric acid (more), so its pH would be a bit lower and would possibly be a bit more gentle.

It was used for commercial photo finishing where contrast tended to be kept under control, in order to make printing easier.
If you try it, please tell us how it went.

Yes. The information sheet for it says 6 minutes at 20 degrees Celsius for all films that were available back then, so it must have had good development latitude.
As far as I know, Ilfotec DD (Dip & Dunk) developer is the modern equivalent.

 

[john_s]

...................................
As far as I know, Ilfotec DD (Dip & Dunk) developer is the modern equivalent.

I wonder if DDX is to DD as was ID-68(Microphen) to Autophen?

 

[MingMingPhoto]

is there a formula name for autophen? I don't see it in the film developing cook book. does it have a diff name, or does anyone know the formula?

 

[john_s]

is there a formula name for autophen? I don't see it in the film developing cook book. does it have a diff name, or does anyone know the formula?

Go to Ian Grant's web site at

Lost Labours

and look in the Resources section.

 

[Ian Grant]

is there a formula name for autophen? I don't see it in the film developing cook book. does it have a diff name, or does anyone know the formula?

Autophen was a PQ version of ID-11/D76, designed for large scale photofinishing, it was available as a powder or liquid, along with its replenishers. I have put the formula in the Resources section. on APUG/Photrio. I think it is in the Film Developing Cookbook possibly as the Axford-Kendal Fine Grain PQ Developer.

Ian

 

[MingMingPhoto]

Autophen was a PQ version of ID-11/D76, designed for large scale photofinishing, it was available as a powder or liquid, along with its replenishers. I have put the formula in the Resources section. on APUG/Photrio. I think it is in the Film Developing Cookbook possibly as the Axford-Kendal Fine Grain PQ Developer.

Ian

ah ok, thank you. I don't like d76 compared to microphen but I'll still deff check it out. microphen has a more specidifc look that I'm enjoying. d76 seems kidna muddy tbh. but will do this for sure and see waht's good

but i see, so more boric acid. is boric acid a restrainer?

 

[john_s]

.....

but i see, so more boric acid. is boric acid a restrainer?

Boric acid is acidic and reduces the pH (alkalinity) of a developer, and borax is alkaline. As a pair, they form a buffer which stabilises the pH, particularly important in developers that are reused and replenished. Some of Ian Grant's writings describe extremely long term use with replenishment, back in the days when most people used black and white materials and had their processing and printing done commercially by photofinishers.

About Autophen, I don't actually know if its contrast is more gentle than that of ID-68, but it looks as though it would be.

 

[MingMingPhoto]

how can I know the development times for autopen? is it the same as d76?

 

[Ian Grant]

how can I know the development times for autopen? is it the same as d76?

Autophen was designed for large scale machine processing where almost all films had the same development time, typically 8 mins at 20ºC. It's not the route to go down as it's essentially a developer that sits part way between ID-11/D76 & Microphen/ID-68.

Ian

 

[MingMingPhoto]

Autophen was designed for large scale machine processing where almost all films had the same development time, typically 8 mins at 20ºC. It's not the route to go down as it's essentially a developer that sits part way between ID-11/D76 & Microphen/ID-68.

Ian

"It's not the route to go down as it's essentially a developer that sits part way between ID-11/D76 & Microphen/ID-68."

what do you mean not the route to go? what's wrong with being between id68 and d76 (that's what I'm looking for)
is there a way for me to get a more specific dev time?

 

[Ian Grant]

I mean, I don't think it's going to solve your contrast question in the opening post. All you need to do is increase exposure and reduce development time.

Ian

 

[MingMingPhoto]

I mean, I don't think it's going to solve your contrast question in the opening post. All you need to do is increase exposure and reduce development time.

Ian

ah ok I see what you're saying.
I think d76 is less contrasty of a developer than id68 so I do think it should influence the contrast how I need it to.
but also a great call to over expose and pull the processing I didn't even think of that tbh - I'll try both methods actually.

as for the dev time, no way for me to get a more definaite dev time right?

 

[Doremus Scudder]

MingMing,

Ian's point is that you should be controlling contrast by adjusting development time, not by changing developer. If you reduce development time to reduce contrast, you often need a bit more initial exposure, hence his advice to "increase exposure and reduce development time."

D-76 and ID-68 are both fine developers, pick one and do a bit of exploring different development times to get the contrast gradient you desire. Kodak's age-old advice is still valid today: If your negatives are consistently too contrasty, reduce development time and vice-versa - and - If your shadow detail is less than desired, give more exposure (and vice versa, but that's rarely an issue).

Best,

Doremus

 

[koraks]

I think d76 is less contrasty of a developer than id68

That's not a meaningful statement. Either can be 'contrasty' or very flat depending on how much development you give. A developer can be relatively fast or relatively slow, but all that means is that it takes a different amount of time to get the same job done. And yes, there is such a thing as a 'compensating' developer, but even these can give very contrasty negatives just the same.
It sounds to me like you're trying to solve very basic exposure and development problems by trying to find a magic developer that automatically gets it right. No doubt that sooner or later you hit upon a combination that works for you, but then the season/light changes, you use a different film etc. and you're back at square one and none the wiser.

Maybe it's a good idea to take a few strips or rolls of film, expose them identically and then develop them in the same developer, but for different times. You'll see what happens with your own eyes. Then if you don't like the degree of shadow detail, you know you need to give a bit more exposure. Do some systematic testing - not so much to find the best way for you, but to experience with your own eyes/hands what differences in exposure and development do for your negatives. This experience will be invaluable and will help you get to where you want to be regardless of what kind of film, developer and lighting conditions you may encounter on your journey.

 

[MattKing]

I'm guessing here, but I'm wondering if @MingMingPhoto is approaching this from a colour film perspective, where developing times and temperatures are usually fixed.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I mean, I don't think it's going to solve your contrast question in the opening post. All you need to do is increase exposure and reduce development time.

Ian

Bingo!

 

[MingMingPhoto]

Ok so I'll develop for less time. thank you guys

 

[MingMingPhoto]

but I still don't buy that there is no difference between developers

 

[Ian Grant]

but I still don't buy that there is no difference between developers

Yes, there are differences with developers, and they can be quite large, but with any developer negative contrast is a function of exposure and development time.

Ilford spent some years working on Autophen before marketing it. They realised the slight gain in speed with a PQ variant of ID-11/D76 and then exploited this further with ID-68/Microphen, one major step was reducing the Sodium Sulphite. Developers like Adox Borax MQ & Ahgfa 17/Agfa Ansco 47 give slightly better film speed compared to ID-11/D76.

The formula for Autophen was incorrectly claimed to be that of Microphen in the Photo Lab Index, and then many other US publications, just one of hundreds of errors il the Photo Lab Index.

My point is though that Autophen and ID-68/Microphen are quite similar, and you would need a more significant change in developer to make it worthwhile changing developer.

Ian