Alternatives to Amidol

Alex Hawley said:

I've tried and and am using a variation of regularly. Here's what I have determined:
1) Agree with Tom, by itself, it does not produce the 3-D effect amidol does.
2) If you use a water bath, you need to agitate a little bit to prevent mottling, especially in sky areas. This may really be a characteristic of the current Azo. Michael Smith has reported the same problem. Just a little slosh will prevent the mottling.
3) I add 3 grams citric acid per liter to the mixture as a preservative. This seems to work well. I have kept a mixed solution for up to two weeks and it still worked.

I'm having worthy results using a split bath of Agfa Neutol WA, followed by water bath, followed by PPPD using all catechol - no pyro. Hard to discern a difference between this and amidol.

The only real reason I switched to this is because I ran out of budget money for amidol. I'd prefer amidol because its so easy to work with and produces the best results. But, this split bath combo is very very close.

Click to expand...

Good stuff, Alex!

In your split bath process; are you replacing the pyro 1:1 with catechol?

"I'd prefer amidol because its so easy to work with and produces the best results."

This is what I was interested in. If the results with Amidol are visually better why use anything less? Eat the cost difference & use the creativity in your photographs rather than in exploring formulas. It is fun to explore but at some point you have to decide if fine prints are the goal or experimenting with chemical formulas are what you are really after.

Nothing wrong with looking at alternatives to Amidol.

Some folks don't want to deal with the Amidol chemical safety requirements (i.e. handling of the dry chemical). In addition, there have been some quality control problems with recently manufactured lots of Amidol (when used in photographic developer applications).

I don't have any problem safely handling dry Amidol. If Greg's large quantity buy of tested Chinese Amidol is successful, that will solve the Amidol availability problem for me for the foreseeable future.

Tom Hoskinson said:

Good stuff, Alex!

In your split bath process; are you replacing the pyro 1:1 with catechol?

Click to expand...

Yes Tom, the portion of pyro is replaced with catechol. Credit has to go to Francesco for the technique. All I did was use the PPPD catechol solution in place of the Moersch catechol he uses.

The second benefit of this technique is that it produces a slight warm tone. It looks cold coming out of the fixer, but dries warm. I tried it with the original PPPD formula, but the result was too warm for my taste.

Why use anything but amidol? Well, for me, its simply the expense. Michael and Paula say they get about 50 prints out of a batch. That's a lot of prints in one day, but that's their livelyhood. I'm lucky to make 10 to 15 prints in one day and that's a fair day's work. Plus, Francesco and I both swear there's nary a perceptable difference using the Neutol/Catechol technique unless one has a really trained eye. No one's complained about any of my prints yet for not always using amidol. I don't think Francesco has gotten any criticism either.

WarEaglemtn said:

"I'd prefer amidol because its so easy to work with and produces the best results."

This is what I was interested in. If the results with Amidol are visually better why use anything less? Eat the cost difference & use the creativity in your photographs rather than in exploring formulas. It is fun to explore but at some point you have to decide if fine prints are the goal or experimenting with chemical formulas are what you are really after.

Click to expand...

I am with Dan on this one, I am one of those that sticks with one formula, one developer and one paper until I know it back and forth. Having said that, I proposed experimenting with an alternative to Amidol because of the cost. On that note, King posted that pyrocat was more energetic with the addition of ascrobic acid. Perhaps this is all that is needed on the paper developer too..I dont know, I leave that to those who use azo to try and experiment.

I do experiment with another developer or variation from time to time, but not often. Only when I hear good reports from people who I respect or I am in a state of confusion or turmoil.

I let the final negatives & prints be the guide. If I can't see a difference after having the prints up for awhile next to my known standards, I don't change. If it isn't an improvement I can see I don't change. Each change entails more than just that, it changes some working characteristics, methods & mental approach that all interferes with what I am trying to do, get prints that are the finest I can produce.

If that means using nasty stuff like Amidol, so be it. In small amounts it is fine & controllable & easy to mix. Same with the Pyrocat HD from Sandy King(thanks to Sandy for coming up with this stuff- it is excellent) Having known materials that work predictably & without odd & unexplainable failures(like Xtol) takes the worry out of things in a big way. I can then concentrate on the images and not the process.

Maybe there is something finer than Michaels Amidol, but I have not yet seen it. The bottom line for me is that it works and gives results nothing else matches.

I'm concerned first and foremost with pictures. Not with chemistry. I believe that once you find something that works, stick with it, until you see something similar to what you do, only the quality is better, in a technical way. Then try that, too. But if you don't see something better, don't switch. If it ain't broke . . . .

But some come to photography from the technical side and really enjoy trying many things. Nothing wrong with that--it is just a different approach from that of those who come to photography from the picture side and have to learn the technical stuff as a necessary evil.

I once taught all that technical stuff in an art school--after I taught myself, and am glad I had to learn it--but have forgotten 98% of it by now. That's because 98% of it really has nothing to do with pictures.