I have read that the hydroquinone in this developer does not last nearly as long as the other developing agents. So I wonder if the "better tones" are just the result of the HQ becoming less potent. Which leads one to the AA version without HQ. I have read the Adams books, and Jack's Specs: http://www.jackspcs.com/chemdesc.htm (glycin description) http://www.jackspcs.com/pd130a.htm (130 formula, AA version) Thanks to an APUG member, I am now for the first time the proud owner of 100g of glycin, which came to me via Alaska then Brisbane. It's now in my freezer, awaiting beng made into 130. Given its reputation for keeping better in solution than as a powder, I have a few questions which the experienced members might be able to address: It would take me a while to use 100g of glycin, so would it be better to make up the whole amount as 130 stock rather than keep some as powder? Could I make it up double strength to help its keeping? Did Tom Hoskinson's experiment of using TEA to make up a "solution A" stock work well? (see http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/8211-glycin-anyone.html) Should I consider leaving out the hydroquinone or reducing it? (Since AA preferred leaving it out, and others have noted the "improvement" with age) I use a Nova vertical slot processor in a tiny darkroom, so making up alternative developers for problem negatives is usually avoided. But is it worth considering keeping the HQ separate and adding a bit if required? I understand the the print tone is cooler with HQ, as well as being more contrasty. I always wondered about the Adams HQ addition. It was mixed with a lot of water and adding enough of this solution to approach standard 130 would add an appreciable amount of water an so would dilute the whole thing, probably not what you want if you need a little more contrast. Wouldn't it be better to have the HQ as a concentrate, perhaps in propylene glycol (in which HQ is very soluble)? Finally, does anyone know why in the AA version, the sulfite is reduced? I can understand the HQ being eliminated, but why the sulfite?