Ansco 130

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

I'd second the comments about adding benzotriazole, without, however, dropping KBr too much. Used with MGWT it cools it just a touch, and it brings out more purple tone after Se, than a straight 130 followed by Se would do. Having said that, cooling off that paper is discussed in several other threads in more detail.

 

[cjbecker]

How do you process? (Stand/inversion/rotary/somethingelse) and are your negs tending toward fine grain or high Acutance?

Thanks

Just developed some tri-x 400 @ 400 negatives. Used nikor tanks but don't have a cap for it so I was doing figure 8s. 10 mins total, 10 seconds every 2 mins agitation, trying to retain some highlights. Negs look so far will print them this week.

 

[StoneNYC]

Just developed some tri-x 400 @ 400 negatives. Used nikor tanks but don't have a cap for it so I was doing figure 8s. 10 mins total, 10 seconds every 2 mins agitation, trying to retain some highlights. Negs look so far will print them this week.

Thanks. That won't work (just went rotary) but thanks for the info, that's why I was asking. Be well.

 

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

Thanks. That won't work (just went rotary) but thanks for the info, that's why I was asking. Be well.

Stone, I'm not sure what is your concerns that makes you believe that "that won't work". If you are referring to Ansco 130 in general, as a film developer, then I won't comment, as I have not used it for film, though many others have. If, however, you are making a point about rotary development being fundamentally different from inversion agitation, then please reconsider. Leaving stand development aside, there is no fundamental difference between rotary and inversion processing, and one can be made equivalent to the other by adjusting the duration. For a given development time, using inversion agitation, rotary will produce the same results, in terms of the contrast (curve) for a somewhat shorter time, usually ca. 30% shorter time, depending on the rotation speed. Other than that, automated rotary is likely to give you better consistency, batch-to-batch, and perhaps fewer errors, but there is no difference as to it working with one developer but not another one, for normal applications.

To the best of my knowledge, if you would like to use Ansco 130 for film in a rotary processor, it certainly should work.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone, I'm not sure what is your concerns that makes you believe that "that won't work". If you are referring to Ansco 130 in general, as a film developer, then I won't comment, as I have not used it for film, though many others have. If, however, you are making a point about rotary development being fundamentally different from inversion agitation, then please reconsider. Leaving stand development aside, there is no fundamental difference between rotary and inversion processing, and one can be made equivalent to the other by adjusting the duration. For a given development time, using inversion agitation, rotary will produce the same results, in terms of the contrast (curve) for a somewhat shorter time, usually ca. 30% shorter time, depending on the rotation speed. Other than that, automated rotary is likely to give you better consistency, batch-to-batch, and perhaps fewer errors, but there is no difference as to it working with one developer but not another one, for normal applications.

To the best of my knowledge, if you would like to use Ansco 130 for film in a rotary processor, it certainly should work.

There's another thread all about this that I created recently, but I can tell you for sure that you're absolutely incorrect. The time it takes to exhaust the dev in a given area by sitting for one minute vs constantly being replenished having no exhaustion gives completely different edge details, highlight details, shadow details, and grain structure changes.

Anyway I don't want to argue about it, just wanted to clarify something for myself and have now done so. If you disagree with my above statement, that's fine, but we will have to agree to disagree. Please continue discussing Ansco130 without me

 

[PhotoJim]

Some developers don't work well for rotary development, due to aerial oxidation - e.g. PMK - but I agree; I don't see why Ansco 130 wouldn't work. It's very resistant to oxidation compared to most developers.

 

[cjbecker]

Rafal Lukawiecki see (there was a url link here which no longer exists) It describes the effects of agitation on developing.


I feel stoneNYC is not talking that it would not work in general, but for his rotary development method, my times would not work.

 

[StoneNYC]

Rafal Lukawiecki see (there was a url link here which no longer exists) It describes the effects of agitation on developing.


I feel stoneNYC is not talking about it would not work in general, but for his rotart development method, my times would not work.

+1

I'm also more particular probably than I need to be. I've heard many good things about Ansco130

 

[removed account4]

130 works wonders in a rotary system, also in small tanks, deep tanks, open trays stand and semi stand ( yadda yadda yadda ) ...
you just need to tailor the times / dilutions to match your methods and film type.

it won't work for stone because it is a group of powders that he will have to mix up as a liquid stock developer.
and he has recently said he has lab-restrictions that don't allow for mixology ( mixing powders to stock liquid developers ) ..

but it is a fantastic developer for film that i have been using for a long time, and its cousin ( gaf universal ) before that ...

 

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

Rafal Lukawiecki see (there was a url link here which no longer exists) It describes the effects of agitation on developing.

CJ, the post, which you have referenced, seems to suggest that agitation has an effect on the curve, whether we call it contrast, or highlight detail. Assuming we are not talking about stand development, which is a somewhat different matter, and towards which the agitation at only every 4 min would tend.

I would expect that you would get the same differences in what you have observed as DMax and highlight detail, at least for the first 3 agitation regimes, simply by shortening or extending the overall development time, and retaining the same agitation technique throughout.

 

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

There's another thread all about this that I created recently, but I can tell you for sure that you're absolutely incorrect. The time it takes to exhaust the dev in a given area by sitting for one minute vs constantly being replenished having no exhaustion gives completely different edge details, highlight details, shadow details, and grain structure changes.

Anyway I don't want to argue about it, just wanted to clarify something for myself and have now done so. If you disagree with my above statement, that's fine, but we will have to agree to disagree. Please continue discussing Ansco130 without me

Stone, I did not mean to argue or cause any offence to you, and I sincerely apologise if you have felt offended by my statements. Nonetheless, I do not feel that "for sure
I am completely incorrect". Let me stress, that as long as we are *not* talking about stand development, but about normal inversion agitation processing, as recommended by manufacturers, that is a few good inversions every 30 sec, to no less than every 1 minute, then the effect you would get would be quite equivalent to that of rotary development, once you have shortened the duration of the development. As a plus, as I have pointed out, rotary would give you more consistency and less scope for error. By the way, I have discussed the matter of this difference between rotary vs inversion processing with John Sexton, a while ago, and he seemed to think along the same lines.

I would like to know what evidence you have to state that the results would be significantly different when we consider these two approaches. Have you, actually, done a side-by-side comparison?

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone, I did not mean to argue or cause any offence to you, and I sincerely apologise if you have felt offended by my statements. Nonetheless, I do not feel that "for sure
I am completely incorrect". Let me stress, that as long as we are *not* talking about stand development, but about normal inversion agitation processing, as recommended by manufacturers, that is a few good inversions every 30 sec, to no less than every 1 minute, then the effect you would get would be quite equivalent to that of rotary development, once you have shortened the duration of the development. As a plus, as I have pointed out, rotary would give you more consistency and less scope for error. By the way, I have discussed the matter of this difference between rotary vs inversion processing with John Sexton, a while ago, and he seemed to think along the same lines.

I would like to know what evidence you have to state that the results would be significantly different when we consider these two approaches. Have you, actually, done a side-by-side comparison?

No offense, just don't feel like re-hashing or repeating and thread jacking.

My hand technique does not follow normal agitation recommendations, depends on each film but often the pattern is 1:1:2:1:1:2:1:1:2:1:1 where it's one minute between agitations, and then 2 minutes and also my "agitation" is not 3-4 inversions in 10 seconds it is one inversion only, very gently, over a 10 second period.

So it is closer to stand I would suppose, but adding a finer grained result than stand, which is sharp but grainy, mine is fine-ish but sharp edges, with what I can only describe as contrast in highlights unlike normal "blow out" or normal tonality, I don't have the word for the look I strive for, except it changes drastically even adjusting times with my current use of Rodinal. So I'm switching.

Nuff said, no offense taken or given, I will move forward regardless, I am now determined. "I am the decider and I have decided!" As a movie quote says.

 

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

No offense, just don't feel like re-hashing or repeating and thread jacking.

My hand technique does not follow normal agitation recommendations, depends on each film but often the pattern is 1:1:2:1:1:2:1:1:2:1:1 where it's one minute between agitations, and then 2 minutes and also my "agitation" is not 3-4 inversions in 10 seconds it is one inversion only, very gently, over a 10 second period.

Thanks for clarifying, and I also apologise if I made you "thread jack". I was merely hoping to address the point you made in post #154, which I read to say that you felt that Ansco 130 would not work in rotary processing, since I believe it would. Regarding your unorthodox agitation regime, I would definitely agree that it would not give you results that manufacturer-recommended agitation does, which tends to be much more vigorous, and more similar, in my experience, to rotary processing results. However, I fully respect your technique choice, and I expect great results from you.

 

[StoneNYC]

Thanks for clarifying, and I also apologise if I made you "thread jack". I was merely hoping to address the point you made in post #154, which I read to say that you felt that Ansco 130 would not work in rotary processing, since I believe it would. Regarding your unorthodox agitation regime, I would definitely agree that it would not give you results that manufacturer-recommended agitation does, which tends to be much more vigorous, and more similar, in my experience, to rotary processing results. However, I fully respect your technique choice, and I expect great results from you.

Maybe I'll use Ansco130 as my choice of print dev someday

 

[removed account4]

Hi cookie jar ...
I learned 35*\- years ago. 1 full minutes
doing lazy eights then 10 seconds every minute ..
then I met others who were told 1 full min, then 5 seconds every ½min ...
People like to develop the way they like after they learn ( or don't learn )
the basics ...if you read the thread the person who was confident was referring to
a thread regarding rotary development and he anted his film to look a certain way
not really hand tank development .. he had just gotten the machine
and was getting the bugs.out of his process ...
he also had restrictions regarding which chemicals
he could or couldn't use ( wasn't permitted to mix dry powders )

the beauty of photography is nothing is really set in stone ... you can
follow manufactures recommendations or your pals' or something random on the interweb,
or make something up yourself ....
if you look back to the beginnings of this thread
more than a decade ago you will see I was one of the few( maybe the only?)
person using a130 for film. People here and there discouraged its use for film ...
but I made my own recommendations which 13 years later people modified for their own use ...
Recommendations are starting points, even those printed on boxes,bottles, and pouches ...
have fun !
Ps. I don't use a130 much these days. Being broke has
brought me back to dektol ...
and while I made the mistake of DRINKING instant coffee
while our power was out for 3 days, I will stick to developing
my film in it

 

[Wayne]

and while I made the mistake of DRINKING instant coffee
while our power was out for 3 days, I will stick to developing
my film in it 

I drink it every day. I'm such a neanderthal I've never grasped the aura of the bean. Its a tool to leverage me out of bed, not a gourmet beverage. YMMV, and of course it does.

Sorry for the interruption..carry on...

 

[removed account4]

I drink it every day. I'm such a neanderthal I've never grasped the aura of the bean. Its a tool to leverage me out of bed, not a gourmet beverage. YMMV, and of course it does.

Sorry for the interruption..carry on...

Hi Wayne ... Maybe it was the brand ( stop and shop medium roast instant "
or most likely it was because I just used tap water like warm directly out of the
sillcock/spigot to mix I with .. I am guessing it is my methodology..and drinking it
Black/straight... Thankfully I didn't drink.any OJ or.brush my teeth with baking soda ..
I'm too negative already!

 

[markbau]

I've developed on a JOBO cpe for years and PMK has been my only developer for about 20 years, Tri x for 15 minutes gives me beautiful negs.

Some developers don't work well for rotary development, due to aerial oxidation - e.g. PMK - but I agree; I don't see why Ansco 130 wouldn't work. It's very resistant to oxidation compared to most developers.

 

[removed account4]

I read to say that you felt that Ansco 130 would not work in rotary processing, since I believe it would.

hi rafal,
i believe it would too.
unfortunately, a lot of photographers get caught
doing a specific routine and they are unable to break free of it.
they compare their 1962 tri x and d76 with whatever the web's flavor of the month
might be. they compare processing styles and techniques but only superficially, they
don't have the time or effort to spend delving deep/
i had a lot of time on my hands have used ansco 130 enough to actually know
that if diluted a certain way and used in a rotary processor it will
yield results consistant with any unorthodox agitation scheme out there
( as long as it isn't stand / semi stand development ).

the beauty of photography is nothing is really set in stone ... you can
follow manufactures recommendations or your pals' or something random on the interweb,
or make something up yourself ....
if you look back to the beginnings of this thread
more than a decade ago you will see I was one of the few( maybe the only?)
person using a130 for film. People here and there discouraged its use for film ...
but I made my own recommendations which 13 years later people modified for their own use ...
Recommendations are starting points, even those printed on boxes,bottles, and pouches ...
have fun !

i said that soon after your post + now 9 months later.
consider, modify, test and use.
the web is full of people who say things can't be done, they have never tried doing "it"
... for these people it becomes a self fulfilling profecy, but that doesn't need to be
everyone's reality. i have been told for decades not to do things, things can't be done
from taping a roll film back to the back of a graflex slr, to mixing developers or using them
a certain way. the people who say it can't be done the loudest usually just repeat what
someone told them, or they didn't want to spare the time, effort and materials to
see for themselves if the mantra " it can't be done" is actually true.

YMMV

 

[DREW WILEY]

I use Starbuck's Via instant coffee paks on backpacking trips. Otherwise, always freshly ground beans. Prior to that, I had a backpacking friend who
brought along some instant coffee. He offered me some, and I politely backed off slowly in the woods and dumped it behind a tree, where I secretly
dumpted his same of his freeze-dried Chili Mac the night before. Now there is no doubt the carcass of some bloated bear laying around there too.

 

[cjbecker]

Just another pf130 update.

I just developed a roll of fp4 in the orginal batch of pf130 that I mixed up in early 2011. It was mixed up and placed in brown glass bottles filled to the top and placed in a dark room. I developed it just like normal. 1-10 dilution, 75deg 9 mins, 2 flips every minute. The negs came out like the developer was brand new. Could not tell any difference.

 

[esearing]

Recently tried the PF 130 formula on Ilford MGFB Classic and Warmtone glossy papers. - The Classic paper had very nice blacks and clean midtone contrasts in as little as 60 seconds for full development at 1:1. Warmtone paper required harder contrast filter, double the exposure time, 2:30 development time, and was not as rich as classic, which is partially the nature of the warmtone paper. I am hoping stored shelf life in brown bottles will be as good as Ethol LPD (at least 1 year).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Warmtone achieves a higher DMax than Classic, and is visibly bolder, if that is what you want. You must not have developed it to completion. I work with in 130 quite often, and have done quite a bit of Classic too. Either one need toning to achieve DMax.

 

[esearing]

Warmtone achieves a higher DMax than Classic, and is visibly bolder, if that is what you want. You must not have developed it to completion. I work with in 130 quite often, and have done quite a bit of Classic too. Either one need toning to achieve DMax.

I'm going to disagree with you on this. MGFB Warmtone glossy is always a softer look than classic no matter which developers I have tried. In experimentation I try to get the papers to have similar looks and expose and develop as long as is necessary to achieve max black. When toning I find I can bring up the black a little in both but never match the contrast using the same filter. Warmtone requires more contrast filter or if Split grade Printing more time at the higher grade.

Maybe you use a different composition of chems than the PF 130, perhaps the Adams variant?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh gosh. I've got around 200 16x20 prints in the lab right now waiting to be drymounted, all on various Ilford papers. I mix my own 130 tweaks, some with KBr, others Benz. No difference in respect of potential DMax provided you make the necessary exp time changes and ample dev time. The color of the exp light is also a factor. I do it all - BG cold light, split printing, additive RGB colorheads, subtractive YMC. - MGWT can achieve one of the richest scales from DMax to hight that I've seen since Brilliant Bromide. You are aware of how glycin ages, aren't you? Perhaps that is the issue.