Any NON developer incorporated papers left?

Harrigan · Apr 4, 2007

I was wondering if there are any FB BW gel-silver printing papers left on the market that do NOT contain developer agent in the paper? Anyone have any idea?

David A. Goldfarb · Apr 4, 2007

I believe that most FB papers today, if not all of them, are not developer incorporated.

A way to tell is to expose a sheet to light and put it in a tray of an alkaline solution (like calcium carbonate) and see if it developes.

Harrigan · Apr 4, 2007

I looked at the Arista ultra edu papers fb they are developer incoroporated so I assume foma who makes them might be as well.

I emailed Kentmere and they told me ALL of their papers have developing agents in the emulsion.

TheFlyingCamera · Apr 4, 2007

I don't believe the Bergger papers are developer incorporated, but it would be worth checking with them.

Photo Engineer · Apr 4, 2007

Someone remarked that no Ilford paper contained an incorporated developer, but all of mine test moderately positive.

In fact, my old Luminos paper was the only one that did not test positive out of all of the kinds I had until I got to papers about 20 years old.

PE

Brian Miller · Apr 4, 2007

Try Oriental Seagul. I know that the RC boxes are marked as being non-developer incorporated.

jgjbowen · Apr 4, 2007

The JandC Nuance paper did not incorporate developers in the emulsion. At least that is what their website said. Once JandC reopens (in September) you can check for yourself.

David A. Goldfarb · Apr 4, 2007

I'm fairly sure that Nuance (same as Efke Emaks graded, Cachet and Maco Expo RF) is not developer incorporated, because it seems to respond well to changes in developer.

Photo Engineer · Apr 4, 2007

I think that I have noticed a lack of contrast variation in ID papers when I try to change contrast or 'nuance' by changing developer concentration such as going from Dektol 1:2 to Dektol 1:3.

I think that the ID has a tendancey to damp out the change in developer, after all the ID is there to boost development in the paper.

Has anyone else noticed this? It seems to be either subtle or strong depending on paper.

PE

dancqu · Apr 5, 2007

Harrigan said:
I was wondering if there are any FB BW gel-silver
printing papers left on the market that do NOT contain
developer agent in the paper? Anyone have any idea?

I'm quite sure DI emulsions are few and far between. I've
tested four or five papers including Forte Polywarmtone and
Kentmere Fineprint and found no indication of DI. A few years
ago Freestyle assured me that NONE of their graded had DI.
Since then they have added one, graded EDU.ULTRA.
Only enough DI to be off to a quick start.

DI super-coats are more common but I doubt they have any
image producing potential of their own.

Just today I received packs of Fotokemika, Slavich, Arista,
and Kentmere papers; all Graded 2 FB. I'll be testing each for
DI emulsion. A little carbonated water, sodium carbonated BTW,
and an realistically exposed sheet of paper. I'm a real world sort,
at least when it comes to testing. Dan

firecracker · Apr 5, 2007

Fuji Rembrandt FB paper seems to have some in it.

Ole · Apr 5, 2007

There are two different reasons for putting developer substances in the emulsion:

Large amounts are used in paper meant for "activation processing", where the developer is activated by a simple alkaline solution.

Trace amounts are incorporated in the emulsion to adjust the properties slightly. This can be sufficient to give a slight reaction in an activation test, and can in some cases influence the effect of varying developers. These emulsions will more often than not be said to be non developer incorporated!

Simon R Galley · Apr 5, 2007

Dear All,

No ILFORD Photo paper, FB or RC is developer incorporated anymore:

With the activator / stabiliser processors no longer about in large numbers we have no need to have developer incorporated papers, without, the keeping properties of the paper pre-processing are improved, gloss is improved and manufacturing ( coating speed ) increased.

Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Photo Engineer · Apr 5, 2007

Simon;

A drop of dilute NaOH on an exposed sheet of Ilford MGIV blackens immediately, a drop on Kodak Polycontrast IV does the same only more so and more rapidly, and a drop on Luminos paper does not.

A drop on any of my own coated emulsions also does not.

Do you have any suggestion, considering that this is then a false reading for Ilford papers?

Thanks.

PE

Simon R Galley · Apr 5, 2007

Dear PE,

I have heard this before, I cannot think of a 'chemical' used in MNFC that would produce that result, I will speak to our paper R&D

Regards

Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited .

Mark Layne · Apr 5, 2007

These are the results of testing a few of the papers around here for ID with NaOH about 6 months ago. I am puzzled by some of the results as the Kentona is recent vintage and should test positive. The MGWT may predate current production.

Ilford Warmtone FB Yes
Dupont Varilour No
Efke Varicon No
Kodabromide A slight graying
Azo Yes
Ektalure No
Elite 3 No
Pal Print 2 No
Kentmere Kentona No
Fomatone Chamois 542 No

Mark

Photo Engineer · Apr 5, 2007

Mark;

Your results are interesting.

Azo giving a positive test is curious to me because AFAIK, it containted no ID. I just wonder if there is a false positive test here on pure chlorides due to formation of silver hydroxide.

Of course, other reducing agents that are not developers could be in the emulsion.

The way to check it with Azo at least, is to try the same test in the dark. If it does darken, then it is not developing agent.

However, in my tests some of the papers can be seen to leach out a yellowish material into the hydroxide solution and this only happens with the suspected ID papers which give the strongest positive test.

PE

Harrigan · Apr 5, 2007

Trace amounts are incorporated in the emulsion to adjust the properties slightly. This can be sufficient to give a slight reaction in an activation test, and can in some cases influence the effect of varying developers. These emulsions will more often than not be said to be non developer incorporated![/QUOTE]

This is my main concern for having non DI papers. I want to be able to have the most control over the tone by using different paper developers. If the paper is DI then it is my understanding it really doesn't make sense to use amidol vs dektol per say. The dev in the paper would negate the effects of specialized developers.

Perhaps I am misguided here, is my assumption correct? Does a DI paper eliminate the different effects I can get w/ different developers?

This has been a great post so far, thanks for helping.

David A. Goldfarb · Apr 5, 2007

If you're looking for a paper that responds well to amidol, try Efke Emaks (J&C Nuance, formerly Cachet/Maco Expo RF).

A developer incorporated paper will reduce flexibility in different developers and toners, but so will emulsion hardening (or at least Steve Anchell seems to think so).

Photo Engineer · Apr 5, 2007

I have tested Endura paper which is a high chloride emulsion and it gives no indication whatsoever for ID. Therefore, my hypothesis above about Silver Hydroxide forming is probably incorrect.

All of the tests I have run indicate more than a trace of ID is present in papers that give a positive result (including Ilford), and there is more than a trace of loss in the ability to 'customize' the results of development.

Emulsion hardening tends to slow the paper development, speed and contrast but since we were aware of hardener problems, we adjusted the formulas to compensate. For example, IDs were used to boost contrast, and other development accelerators were also used. This was one of the early reasons for using IDs in non activated B&W papers.

A blocked developer is sometimes not ranked as a developer, and if immersed in alkali it will unblock and begin acting as a developer. There are several such that were used by EK. If you just put HQ into a paper, the paper will quickly go bad. Use phenidone and it will not go bad as quickly. A blocked HQ will keep longer than either incorporated HQ or phenidone.

PE

dancqu · Apr 5, 2007

Mark Layne said:
These are the results of testing a few of the papers
around here for ID with NaOH about 6 months ago.

Ilford Warmtone FB Yes -- Dupont Varilour No
Efke Varicon No -- Kodabromide A slight graying
Azo Yes -- Ektalure No -- Elite 3 No -- Pal Print 2 No
Kentmere Kentona No -- Fomatone Chamois 542 No

Interesting to see that even the extremely caustic
NaOH produced so few positive results. Lye is very
seldom encountered in developers. When included
it is so with other ph modifying ingredients.

For just about every print developer a carbonate is used
to activate. It is reasonable that it be the activator for
real world testing of papers for DI emulsions. I do not
consider valid tests results obtained by the use of
lye; sodium hydroxide.

Carbonate alone in solution is a tough test. In a
working developer it's ph is downward modified by
other chemicals. Dan

Photo Engineer · Apr 5, 2007

Dan;

The pH value is the pH value, and any change in pH is more dependant on the buffer capacity of the solution than the alkali used.

You can achieve a pH 9 solution of NaOH if dilute enough, but you cannot achieve a pH 9 NaOH solution with good buffer capacity. So these must be separated out in such a discussion.

I chose to use NaOH because I knew some of these active agents were blocked and the NaOH solution at a higher pH would unblock it. This can be the case with certain agents, otherwise they would be of no use in the coating, now would they? If they were inactive, why put them in?

So, in any test that is revealing, the compound is there - or some reducing agent! No quibbling about that.

PE

Mark Layne · Apr 5, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Mark;

Your results are interesting.

Azo giving a positive test is curious to me because AFAIK, it containted no ID. I just wonder if there is a false positive test here on pure chlorides due to formation of silver hydroxide.

Of course, other reducing agents that are not developers could be in the emulsion.

The way to check it with Azo at least, is to try the same test in the dark. If it does darken, then it is not developing agent.

However, in my tests some of the papers can be seen to leach out a yellowish material into the hydroxide solution and this only happens with the suspected ID papers which give the strongest positive test.

PE

PE
The Kentona puzzles me as it is admitted to have DI.
I will retest the Azo also old and new Kentona

Mark

dancqu · Apr 6, 2007

Mark Layne said:
The Kentona puzzles me as it is admitted to have DI.

Kentmere's Bromide has, according to the pdf, a DI supercoat.
If Kentona has any DI it is likely in the supercoat. I know their
Fineprint has no DI capable of generating any image. Dan

Photo Engineer · Apr 6, 2007

Dan;

Please remember that recent innovations include the use of DI not for development but rather for accelerating normal development. Therefore, they react somewhat differently in papers.

The test is for their presence, not for their imaging qualities.

PE

Any NON developer incorporated papers left?

Harrigan

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Harrigan

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Photo Engineer

Brian Miller

jgjbowen

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Photo Engineer

dancqu

firecracker

Ole

Moderator

Simon R Galley

Photo Engineer

Simon R Galley

Mark Layne

Photo Engineer

Harrigan

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Photo Engineer

dancqu

Photo Engineer

Mark Layne

dancqu

Photo Engineer

Any NON developer incorporated papers left?

Moderator

Membership Council

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency