Ansco 130 user experience, questions, comments, appreciation...

[chuckroast]

Forever.

Incidentally, Ansco 130 will develop your paper even if the glycin is dead when you mix it. It is essentially dektol with glycin and more bromide added.

I've added glycin to homemade dektol lots of times. It makes it last longer. And it makes the development slow down at the normal "done" point but actually keep going in the midtones without just fogging the paper. So, you can leave the paper in for 3 or 4 extra minutes and see some difference that might be an improvement.

In what proportion have you added glycin to dektol?

 

[john_s]

Does anyone know what the reasonably expected Benzotriazole stock shelf life might be? I have some ancient Zone VI bottles here that are likely 25+ years on the shelf.

Benzotriazole is a permanent addition to recirculating water boiler systems (as an anticorrosive) so I think it is quite a durable compound!

 

[chuckroast]

Benzotriazole is a permanent addition to recirculating water boiler systems (as an anticorrosive) so I think it is quite a durable compound!

But that is a closed system with very little air in it.


I wonder if there is a way to test my old bottles.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

PRJ... i didn't quite understand the last sentence. What connection are you making between Ansco/PF 130 and Edwal? Thank you.

The Edwal film developers (Edwal 10,12) use Glycin but since I don't use those anymore I stopped buying Glycin so I don't use 130 anymore either.

 

[GregY]

The Edwal film developers (Edwal 10,12) use Glycin but since I don't use those anymore I stopped buying Glycin so I don't use 130 anymore either.

Thank you PRJ

 

[Don_ih]

In what proportion have you added glycin to dektol?

Somewhere around a spoonful to a litre of stock. I don't think I ever weighed it.

Test your benzo by adding some to working-strength paper developer and see if it does what it should.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I always mix just enough for the next session, and at that point, dilute it 1:3 for use. Dektol and 130 deliver different image tones. I gave up on Dektol decades ago. Benzo will cool either developer, at least at first glance. But if you want to use gold toner to cool the print afterwards, you actually want the more finely divided and hence warmer silver dev which KBr delivers. If you do want to experiment with Benz, use only 1/10 the gram wt as KBr.

 

[ags2mikon]

@DREW WILEY, So instead of 5.5g of KBr use .55g of benzo?

 

[chuckroast]

Some years back, I started substituting 15ml of 1% Benzotriazole (in alcohol) for the bromide and with my gear and materials, I was getting nicer blacks. Discussions of this back then had me try it and found that I preferred the results. Ilford WT showed the most dramatic difference with velvety blacks.

When you say "in alcohol" are you mixing the benzo in just alcohol or just using it to dissolve the benzo and then coming up to full volume with distilled water?

 

[chuckroast]

I always mix just enough for the next session, and at that point, dilute it 1:3 for use. Dektol and 130 deliver different image tones. I gave up on Dektol decades ago. Benzo will cool either developer, at least at first glance. But if you want to use gold toner to cool the print afterwards, you actually want the more finely divided and hence warmer silver dev which KBr delivers. If you do want to experiment with Benz, use only 1/10 the gram wt as KBr.

So you are recommending 0.55g/l of benzo in lieu of KBr.

In #16, @craigclu is recommending 15ml of 1% benzo solution, which works out to be 0.15g/l.

Could either of you comment on how this almost 4x difference might work out in practice?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Benz is a much stronger restrainer per gram wt than KBr.

My own Kbr quanitity for 130 is 4 g / liter; therefore substitute Benz would be 0.4 g/ L. That has the same effect in terms of restraining highlights and other printing characteristics. You can fine tune it according to your own needs, or even experiment by combining limited amounts of the two if you wish.

Another cold tone tweak to 130 is to double the hydroquinone. AA sometimes did that. I prefer the original formula, and rely on post-toning using gold chloride to cool the image on appropriate papers.

 

[ags2mikon]

Thank you @DREW WILEY.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

AA sometimes did that.

He also seems to have left out the hydroquinone all together. From Unblinking Eye:

 

[Don_ih]

I'd say that produces less contrast and a warmer print. That shouldn't be able to print 5 sheets of 8x10. I do believe that recipe is wrong.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I'd say that produces less contrast and a warmer print. That shouldn't be able to print 5 sheets of 8x10. I do believe that recipe is wrong.

Here's what he says in The Print (Appendix 1):

My personal variation on this formula was as follows: omit the hydroquinone and the bromide, and reduce the sulfite to 35 grams per liter. Then add bromide only as needed to prevent fog. This was strickly a personal adjustement, but it gave a beautiful print color. If its contrast was found to be too low, I added as required the following hydroquinone solution (which does, however, cause a cooling of the image):

Water (52ºC): 750ml
Sodium sulfite (desic.): 25g
Hydroquinone: 10g
Water to make: 1 L

 

[Don_ih]

Here's what he says

That's fine. But he was likely using higher contrast papers and that developer would probably be dead in no time. It would also be pointless to try that with any currently made papers - if you wanted realistic results from your contrast filters.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A bit of clarification - AA generally hated warm low-contrast prints when it came to his own work. The notable exception was very large prints which didn't hold together well when printed cold and contrasty. Some of his most famous images were based on negs far more grainy and less sharp than what is typical today. If the original was on 8x10 film, anything bigger than a 20x24 inch print size could be dicey, with a few exceptions. Therefore, instead of printing them dramatic in his stereotypical style, he printed them soft, warmish, and poetic instead, and on matte paper. Viewers tend to back away from these to take it all in, since up close they're rather fuzzy.

Or rather, he mainly had them printed that way under his own supervision. Despite all the folklore, his own darkroom wasn't very well equipped for that kind of work compared to commercial labs. I once had a lot of opportunity to see the largest exhibition ever assembled of his bigger prints - well, more than see them; but that's a different story.

He seems to have experimented with different developers. But his standby was ordinary Dektol, supplemented by Selectol Soft, which can trend a little warm with certain papers. I've always been a little disappointed in the slightly greenish-black tinge Dektol lent to his images.
In later years, his primary paper was FB glossy Ilfobrom Galerie Graded. Nowadays, any oversized cold tone image is likely to be a "remastered" digitally sharpened commercial inkjet authorized by his Trust, offered for sale at a pittance compared to what a fuzzy vintage version would sell for.

 

[john_s]

Here's what he says in The Print (Appendix 1):

I always wondered about whether that was correct because to add, for example, the amount of hydroquinone to make the developer the same as the classic formula, another Litre of water would have to be added, making the dilution much greater (and it would still be half strength). If I were doing something like adding HQ during a session, I would use a concentrated solution of it to avoid excessive dilution. These days one could make a concentrated solution of HQ in propylene glycol.