Amidol and water bath with contemporary enlarging papers

[Jarin Blaschke]

Hi all:

Does anyone have any remarks the use of Amidol and the water bath method for contrast control, particularly with Ilford Galerie paper? - which I understand has many more additives than the papers for which the method was conceived. However, this seems to be the only neutral-cold graded paper that is reliably available for the foreseeable future in the states.

Even though it's expensive, I'm drawn to amidol because it's much simpler to stock and mix than my current use of Ansco 130, which can take me 30 minutes or more to mix sometimes and I have to keep a lot of chemicals. Amidol also has a reputation of matching or exceeding results of Ansco 130, and the water bath method seems much more flexible and simple than tweaking the developer agent ratios in the latter developer. I could also go from high contrast to low contrast and back again in the same printing session. But only if it works with a contemporary paper I can procure and use.

I'm still early in the testing stages but I'm calibrating my process to pyro developer (WD2D). If VC papers produce too wonky of a contrast curve with these negatives, I'll have to work with graded paper and I'll need a method of flexible and subtle contrast control between grades. I work in 6x7 and need an enlarging paper. I don't have the means or desire to make digital negatives so contact printing on old-style is out of the question.

Thanks!
Jarin

Ps: any advantage to water bath control with VC papers? Just curious.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Amidol is a very reactive chemical and unstable in both solution and powder form. In addition it stains everything it touches. This includes hands, trays, clothing, ... It has been implicated in the neurological condition that Edward Weston suffered in later life. He never used tongs and dipped his hands in Amidol solutions routinely. In addition it is expensive and hard to obtain in any degree of purity for photographic work. It was Kodak's contention that the same results could be obtained with a properly compounded MQ developer.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Papers I've used that respond well to Amidol and water bath are Azo, Lodima, and Efke Emaks (Cachet Expo, J&C Expo).

I haven't tested the latest formulas of Galerie, but in my experience, Ilford papers have been designed to give very consistent results in a range of developers, which makes them somewhat impervious to developer controls, autotoning developers, and such.

I have a pretty good stash of graded paper in the freezer, but when that runs out, I'd be looking at papers like Slavich.

I keep my hands out of the amidol solution and always use tongs or gloves.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Amidol is not especially expensive to use at all. Some of the published formulas call for way more of it than actually necessary. A minor problemis the quality issue of Chinese amidol. But you can buy the better British mfg amidol from Artcraft in NYC. The new Ilford Cooltone paper responds quite well to amidol per se, though I have zero experience combining this with a waterbath tweak, and frankly, don't know why I would want to. MQ formulas will NOT replicate the tone of amidol, at least not on any paper I've ever tried. Formularly has an interesting proprietary PQ developer which is similar, though I prefer the real deal. I always mix amidol developer just before use. And I use gloves for everything anyway. If I was using water bath I'd probably dig into my remaining stash of EMaks. The long-extinct Brilliant Bromide graded paper was excellent for such things.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

Thanks, David:

So it seems that the only contemporary papers known to work with amidol and water bath contrast control are contact speed chloride papers and a cream based enlarging paper, none of which work for my uses or tastes. I'm seeking to enlarge a neutral to cool image on a pure white base. Has anyone used Slavich graded with amidol and a water bath? I'm however hesitant to use it due to future availability concerns. I'll nonetheless test gallerie in this way.

Any opinions on whether the formulary or artcraft amidol is preferable?

I've long been aware of the precautions needed with amidol and was not seeking reasons not to use it.

Jarin

 

[gzinsel]

sad to say, the best papers were emaks. unblinking eye has some good recipes for amidol formuleas. On another note. i just left a message with foma to still see if they are making fomabrom in grade 2 still. I was planning on buying mural roll and cut. In terms of your interest in staining developers i recommend pyro-cat hd. excellent staining high acutance, with stand or semi stand development virtually no grain. easy to control (expand and compress tonal range for zs). best greg

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have the Chinese amidol, and the only quality issue has been that it's more coarsely ground than other amidol. One option is to filter it, which is apparently what one did anyway before, say, the late 1960s. I've strained it, if it seems to have particles that don't dissolve.

I wouldn't call the Emaks base "cream", but it's not as bright as Gallerie.

 

[gzinsel]

as to your last question, I would not think that water bath is the preferred method for development. most people (ha ha) i know, i know. . . . . but any way. seem to think 2.5 minutes is the only option for time in developer. I do not know for sure if ilford gallerie has built in developers in them or not. I also do not know if they have multiple layers of sensitizer, also I do not know if they have optical brighteners in there papers. you should give a shout to simon, to answers those questions. btw. I have been using amidol with emaks for a very long time. until they went belly up. I now have to find a new grade two myself in a chlorobromide paper.

 

[gzinsel]

art craft has the best amidol not the chineese shit

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

Thanks. Who is Simon?

I'm using WD2D+ with FP4 and HP5. If the tonality of VC papers works out with the stain of this film/developer combination (not too compensating with dead highlights or too steep shadows), my life will be much easier and don't have to contend with the diminishing graded options and restrictions in contrast control. I used to use Seagul VC but will look at MCC110 as well.

J

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've used amidol from Artcraft, and no question it dissolves more easily, but filtering isn't a big issue (and for Weston it was the norm), and having got in on the Chinese amidol venture when it happened, I have a really good supply to last a long time for less cost.

Simon Galley represents Ilford/Harman.

 

[gzinsel]

Unlike David, I have not had excellent results with the chinese amidol, as i had HAD with the more pure brand, that was being sold to the Formulary in years past. In my opinion it is not C.P. (chemical pure). Its full of impure particals. its red, its difficult to see your prints in the tray. and quite frankly, I am not going to pay for inferior grade. Pardon me for saying, "but my time is too valuable" and so is yours to be screwin' around with this dog do-do. I just can not understand why people think this "stuff" is even o.k.???? I just can't get my head around it. I have looked at the prints made from the same negative/paper combo. using the old amidol and the new chinese, and there is just no comparsion. I don't. . . .I don't . . . it leaves me speechless. I am at a lose for words. As much as I want to respect peoples comments- this Topic is trying for me -

 

[Simon R Galley]

I'm Simon..... I think they mean me....

I work for ILFORD Photo

I love Galerie ( with a passion ) its my printing paper of choice, available in Grade 2 and 3 GLOSS and in Semi Matte Grade 2.

I have to admit I have never used Amidol, our Tech service may be able to help, but from historical knowledge its not a developer we would ever test with.

Someone suggested you try our new ILFORD Cooltone VC product, cooler than nuetral but less expensive and easier to find then Galerie Graded and a very, very responsive paper.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

For a thorough discussion of the Chinese amidol problems and solutions, including assays of impurities, take a look at the threads in the Azo chemistry forum from around the middle of 2006 to 2008 or so:

Dead Link Removed

Michael A. Smith has been using it and said he didn't have any problems with it, and many users report no problems, but it could be that there are impurities reacting with the water in some areas, but not in others, or with some people's processing trays, but not others.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

Hi Simon:

The only way I'd likely use amidol is as a way to fine-adjust between grades when using graded paper with a water bath. Gallerie seems to be the only truly dependable option anymore. Otherwise, I'll probably stick to VC and Ansco 130 with benzotriazole. The only issue is my film developer of late, WD2D and the stain which may or may not render tonality adversely with VC paper. I'll be able to test in a few weeks (after this present job- I'm in the middle of nowhere in South Carolina right now), and will report back! I was going to test Seagul and MCC110 on the VC side but perhaps I'll now throw in the new Ilford cool tone VC to compare. I was just never thrilled with the neutral MG historically.

***Simon: How would you propose making fine contrast adjustments to Gallerie between grades when printing? With VC I've always used a color head and made quarter-grade or less adjustments. I'd like to maintain that level of control.


Jarin

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

Ps: I'll just go with the art craft Amidol when I test. Why mess around with maybes and probablys?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

You probably can't get the Chinese amidol in any case, except from people who bought too much and are selling it off. It was a one-time deal eight years ago.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Hi Simon:

The only way I'd likely use amidol is as a way to fine-adjust between grades when using graded paper with a water bath. Gallerie seems to be the only truly dependable option anymore. Otherwise, I'll probably stick to VC and Ansco 130 with benzotriazole. The only issue is my film developer of late, WD2D and the stain which may or may not render tonality adversely with VC paper. I'll be able to test in a few weeks (after this present job- I'm in the middle of nowhere in South Carolina right now), and will report back! I was going to test Seagul and MCC110 on the VC side but perhaps I'll now throw in the new Ilford cool tone VC to compare. I was just never thrilled with the neutral MG historically.

***Simon: How would you propose making fine contrast adjustments to Gallerie between grades when printing? With VC I've always used a color head and made quarter-grade or less adjustments. I'd like to maintain that level of control.


Jarin

Jarin,

Maybe I can step in for Simon here...

Every graded paper I've worked with over the years (including Gallerie, which I use quite a bit) responds well to split-development to achieve intermediate contrast grades, i.e., using both a soft-working and a "normal" or higher-contrast developer. I've used Selectol Soft or Ansco 120 or similar in tandem with Zone VI (Bromophen) or Dektol, etc.

The technique is simple: develop in the soft developer for part of the total development time followed by the contrastier developer for the rest. Using the softer developer only yields about a paper grade less contrast. Splitting the time 50/50 gets you somewhere in the middle. The combinations are practically infinite and allow real fine tuning.

I've tried water bath development with graded papers and other developers and have not had real success; usually just about the same contrast as using the soft developer only when the blacks are anywhere in the acceptable range. Amidol may work differently, but I suspect it is more a characteristic of the paper than the developer.

I currently use a home-made Metol-only soft working developer and Bromophen, Dektol or the like when I need to split develop.

Getting more contrast than you normally get is the difficult thing, so you may want to make sure you have a negative with enough contrast to start with. For printing higher than grade 3, I switch to VC (MC110 now)

And, to get as much contrast as possible on graded papers, I'll often use a stronger developer dilution and/or add sodium carbonate and BTZ to the developer. Printing dark and bleaching back increases overall contrast and has a nice look too. Local bleaching can give whites a snap they would not otherwise have and is often a better solution (for interpretive reasons) than increasing overall contrast.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

Thanks Doremus:

The way I've heard about it is the harder developer first, and then the softer developer. Does it make a difference which order it's done? If I want a version based on Ansco 130, perhaps the trays have nearly the same formula, same amounts of metol and glycin, but only varying the amounts of hydroquonone in them: one with a pinch extra, and one with maybe 20% of the formula's usual amount? Good starting point? Is there a minimum time in the harder developer to insure a minimum black? What times would you suggest? Should the time in the two trays still add up to 2.5 minutes?

J

 

[c6h6o3]

As Adams pointed out in The Negative, water bath development depends on the physics of the film or paper, not the chemistry. That's why it only worked with thick emulsion films. It works wonderfully with Azo in amidol, but that's probably more a function of the paper than the developer. I haven't tried it with any other paper.

Amidol tends to warm tones, so it may not be to your liking anyway even if it were to work with Galerie.

As to safety: I've been using pyrogallol, pyrocatechin and amidol based developers for 15 years (and p-phenylinediamine based 777, which is even more toxic) and none of them has ever touched my skin. Not a drop. I've always worn nitrile gloves when handling it and a respirator when working with the powders. No modern photographer that I know of is foolish enough to get his fingernails black.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Jarin,

You probably work at a more exacting level of print perfection than I do...... I am a photographer but more especially a photo printer by trade ( although a long time ago now ) I worry much, much more about the neg than the print... I always bracket any 'important' image 2 half stops down and 2 up ( Sometimes even more, and even quarter stops ) but obviously my film costs are not an issue ( I am very, very lucky )....and that is probably excessive anyway, once I have chosen the optimum neg
( usually processed in DDX ) and have done my test ( on grade 2, 19 times out of twenty ) and dependant on the subject, apart from aesthetics in the print I very rarely need to even dodge and burn.

I have had the great pleasure of seeing some of the best printers in the world, and they sometimes have to revert to split grade to recover some over or under neg, and yes some will use a colour head to get exactly what they want. I have also heard that some people say VC FB paper is not 'as good' as graded, I strongly disagree, and when you are 'fine tuning' it obviously gives you more flexability, and with a difficult neg can be a life saver, I just believe the best ILFORD Paper ( for me ) is Graded Galerie, for me nothing comes close. In case you are interested my paper dev is nearly always Multigrade Dev, even for Galerie, as thats whats usually made up and ready in the HARMAN darkroooms.....my favourite VC paper is the new MULTIGRADE Cooltone product, as I prefer neutral to cool images.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[DREW WILEY]

Amidol does NOT necessarily trend to warm tone. In fact, it gives the coldest tone of any developer, though in a true black sense, not necessarily a conspicuous blue-black. For example, the first rainy weekend we get, along with Simon, I too will have my hands into a box of Cooltone. It will be processed in a personal non-alkaline amidol formula then toned in gold chloride. And it will be consistently rich true black. I do whatever is necessary to achieve the best print, and have both coldlights and various colorheads on hand, so might print a 6x9 neg during the same session as 4x5 or 8x10 ones, using different enlargers already loaded in advance. Waterbath and "snatch" development are not tricks which VC papers seem amenable to. You not only need a different kind of emulsion, but I suspect the kind of gelatin has something to do with it too. I certainly miss some of the old premium graded papers, but overall, these new VC papers are even more versatile in their own way.
Some of my early negatives, when I was just learning large format technique, were damn hard to print with the papers I had back then, but easily print now.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

As I understand it, amidol has the unusual property of developing from the bottom up, which is what makes it work so well for water bath control with compatible papers. The developer is absorbed by the emulsion layer, and as the pH changes, it becomes more active, so the developer closest to the base is working faster than the developer at the surface. Transfer it to the water bath, and the developer near the base is continuing to work, while the developer at the surface is rinsed away. Of that developer that remains absorbed in the emulsion layer, the developer in the shadows is exhausted quickly, while the highlights continue to develop in the water bath, so you can keep the shadows open while continuing to build detail in the highlights. With the right paper, it's a very useful technique.

It also gives very deep blacks, but about the same as Ansco 130 with papers that respond to amidol. Ansco 130, however, isn't as good for the water bath technique, so when I was being frugal about amidol, I would use Ansco 130 for prints that didn't require contrast reduction.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

For a thorough discussion of the Chinese amidol problems and solutions, including assays of impurities, take a look at the threads in the Azo chemistry forum from around the middle of 2006 to 2008 or so:

http://michaelandpaula.com/mp/AzoFor...BulletinCate=5

Michael A. Smith has been using it and said he didn't have any problems with it, and many users report no problems, but it could be that there are impurities reacting with the water in some areas, but not in others, or with some people's processing trays, but not others.

A friend of mine had a wack of Chinese amidol that I tried. It worked very well only after filtering it a few times. The print stained yellow, but that went away after a good soak in a tray of water. Personally, I wouldn't use it again. Lots of other developers out there...

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Thanks Doremus:

The way I've heard about it is the harder developer first, and then the softer developer. Does it make a difference which order it's done? If I want a version based on Ansco 130, perhaps the trays have nearly the same formula, same amounts of metol and glycin, but only varying the amounts of hydroquonone in them: one with a pinch extra, and one with maybe 20% of the formula's usual amount? Good starting point? Is there a minimum time in the harder developer to insure a minimum black? What times would you suggest? Should the time in the two trays still add up to 2.5 minutes?

J

Jarin,

So many questions!

Here we go, one at a time:

I've always used the lower-contrast developer first, then transferred to the higher-contrast developer. I think carry-over of the higher-contrast developer components (e.g., hydroquinone) would eventually contaminate the low-contrast developer as well as make the whole system a bit less controllable. I've never heard about starting with the harder developer first. As you likely know, there are several formulas (e.g., Beers) for mixing a developer of intermediate contrast. Usually this is just mixing a developer without the hydroquinone and then adding it as needed until the desired contrast is reached. Split developing accomplishes the same thing and is more flexible in my opinion.

As far as tweaking Ansco 130 to make it less contrasty: Ansel Adams says to use full strength for maximum contrast. He calls it a brilliant, cool-toned developer. He developed a variation for use with paper - omit the hydroquinone and the bromide, and reduce the sulfite to 35 grams. Add bromide as needed to prevent fog. He says the formula gives a beautiful print color. If the contrast is too low, he says to add the following as needed- (emphasis mine)

Water 750 ml
Sodium Sulfite (desiccated) 25 grams
Hydroquinone 10 grams
Water to make 1 liter
Adams says the Metol-Glycine combination gives a very fine neutral tone.

Note that this is a similar technique to that mentioned above. I haven't used 130 without hydroquinone and cannot say how soft-working it is, but it's certainly worth a try. In fact, I may give it a try once I get my permanent darkroom up and running next summer.

As far as times go: when I split develop, I try to give about three minutes of development. If I think I want to hit the middle, I give 1.5 minutes in each developer. The 1.5 minutes in the soft developer includes the 10-15 sec. drain time.

If I need to adjust contrast more, I'll do about anything. I find that increasing development time in the harder developer equates to giving a slight bit more exposure (and I often make these slight "exposure adjustments" by increasing developing time), so I try to stay at three minutes total if I like the exposure I have (if not, I don't hesitate to increase development time a bit). I then "see-saw" to arrive at the right combination of times, i.e., if I need less contrast, I'll try a print in just the soft developer (intentionally overshoot) and then work back to "center" to find the right combination. Sometimes I'll switch to a longer overall time (4 minutes) and give a bit less exposure so I can be more precise, but three minutes usually is adequate. That said, I don't hesitate to develop for up to five minutes or so if I think it will help the print; slight changes in the response curve happens with extended development along with the speed increase.

As for achieving a good black: soft-working developers deliver fine blacks (often a different print tone, however); you just need a contrasty enough negative to start with.

Hope this helps,

Doremus