BnW reversal attempts

YoIaMoNwater · Nov 25, 2020

Hey Guys,

Just recently signed up here after lurking for a bit. I've been trying to optimize BnW reversals through various online advices and guides. I tried Jens Osbahr's protocol with rodinal and chemical fogging (stannous chloride) on HP5+ but ended up with mixed positive/negative images, which was due to low bleaching (I was using potassium chormate rather than dichromate). Harvey Yurow explains it better here (https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PBR/pbr.html). All the steps were the same time as Jens suggested; however, I didn't have a Jobo tank so was manually processing the whole thing.

Next, I tried again on Fomapan 400 @ 800 with Microphen (15 min 1st and 15 min 2nd dev time) and a longer bleaching time (10 min), which gave better results. Instead of using stannous chloride, I took the film reel out from the tank and just exposed each side for 1.5 min under two 50W lamps. This gave considerately better results; however, the slides are still quite dark. I'm guessing this is again due to insufficient bleaching or perhaps I needed a silver solvent in the first developer. I'm gonna do more trials but with potassium permanganate because chromate is something I do not want around the house.

It seems like manual processing time vs Jobo processing time aren't the same, does anyone know how much percent I should increase from Jobo to manual? Various online posts say 15%, I'm thinking of adding 25%, would this be too much?

Another side project I'm trying is to develop Film Washi F with a X-ray film developing machine in my university. I had a go today but turns out the film was too thin and curly for the rollers. Has anyone tried reversal processing with this film? I got 6 more rolls in the fridge and figured why not.

Also, I started to experiment with reversal processing about a week ago and I just heard Adox has released a new kit. How weird is that? I feel like it's too expensive to get and the bleach will definitely be the first thing to go bad...

DeletedAcct1 · Nov 25, 2020

Imho you need a more powerful FD (first developer). Try Ilford PQ universal at 1+5 with a silver halide solvent added.
If you'll ever use permanganate, along with the required acid also add 20 grams per liter of hexametaphosphate. Use the bleach no more than 5min (better less but varies with films) with constant gentle agitation.
Sodium hexametaphosphate will considerably lengthen the bleach shelf life to months in the already diluited form.
As for the FD halide solvents, you should be using DTOD for optimum results.

Donald Qualls · Nov 25, 2020

Oh, boy.

In about two days, you'll be so confused you may never manage to process any film again, never mind B&W reversal.

That said, when I've done it (back in '06 or '07), I added a small amount of sodium thiosulfate to the first developer (Dektol 2+1 -- that's two parts stock solution to 1 part water -- plus 8 g/L sodium thiosulfate and 4 g/L potassium bromide), and gave 12 minutes with standard agitation (this was for Tri-X), bleached with dichromate, cleared in 100 g/L sodium sulfite, then light fogged and redeveloped in HC-110 Dilution F for 7 minutes. I found I needed to expose the (early oughties) Tri-X at EI 640-800. and got nice slides (aside from the gray base) with very fine grain (all the coarse grains were developed in the first dev and bleached away).

Kodak Motormatic 35, Tri-X, EI 640, reversal process

YoIaMoNwater · Nov 25, 2020

Alessandro Serrao said:
Imho you need a more powerful FD (first developer). Try Ilford PQ universal at 1+5 with a silver halide solvent added.
If you'll ever use permanganate, along with the required acid also add 20 grams per liter of hexametaphosphate. Use the bleach no more than 5min (better less but varies with films) with constant gentle agitation.
Sodium hexametaphosphate will considerably lengthen the bleach shelf life to months in the already diluited form.
As for the FD halide solvents, you should be using DTOD for optimum results.

What's DTOD? I thought Microphen is a powerful developer since it allows pushing HP5+ to 6400 (which I have done)?

Donald Qualls said:
Oh, boy.
In about two days, you'll be so confused you may never manage to process any film again, never mind B&W reversal.

What do you mean Donald? That looks quite nice! I'm guessing it's Tri-X 400?

Yea I just ordered some Rollei Superpan and Retro 80s since it seems like they're the only ones with a clear base.

How long does the developer last when silver solvent and bromides are added?

Donald Qualls · Nov 27, 2020

YoIaMoNwater said:
What do you mean Donald? That looks quite nice! I'm guessing it's Tri-X 400?

Yea I just ordered some Rollei Superpan and Retro 80s since it seems like they're the only ones with a clear base.

How long does the developer last when silver solvent and bromides are added?

My confusion remark was aimed at the usual situation here at Photrio, of getting more conflicting or directly contradictory answers to your questions than you can even process, never mind sort the facts from. You're right, that was 35mm, which was only ever Tri-X 400 (I think that was labeled 400TX at the time). Tri-X Professional 320 (320TXP at that time) was only offered in 120 and sheet sizes, and Tri-X Reversal (officially ISO 200) only in 16mm and 8mm by the oughties -- I don't know if TXR was ever offered in 35mm, since 35mm cine is professional stock and would be shot on negative and printed to a positive for projection.

I only processed a single roll at a time (and only ever did a couple rolls, total), so I used that developer one-shot (as you normally would diluted developers). Even at two parts stock to one part water, I wouldn't expect Dektol to last more than a few days. Adding thiosulfate shouldn't change that noticeably. The same is true of HC-110 at dilutions higher than B (Dilutions A and B used to be used with replenisher, when you could still buy that, and kept running for months to years, like many other replenished systems) -- for Dilution F, I wouldn't expect to keep it even until the next day (and one roll of 36 exposures in minimum liquid has pretty well used up its capacity, anyway).

DeletedAcct1 · Nov 27, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
My confusion remark was aimed at the usual situation here at Photrio, of getting more conflicting or directly contradictory answers to your questions than you can even process, never mind sort the facts from. You're right, that was 35mm, which was only ever Tri-X 400 (I think that was labeled 400TX at the time). Tri-X Professional 320 (320TXP at that time) was only offered in 120 and sheet sizes, and Tri-X Reversal (officially ISO 200) only in 16mm and 8mm by the oughties -- I don't know if TXR was ever offered in 35mm, since 35mm cine is professional stock and would be shot on negative and printed to a positive for projection.

I only processed a single roll at a time (and only ever did a couple rolls, total), so I used that developer one-shot (as you normally would diluted developers). Even at two parts stock to one part water, I wouldn't expect Dektol to last more than a few days. Adding thiosulfate shouldn't change that noticeably. The same is true of HC-110 at dilutions higher than B (Dilutions A and B used to be used with replenisher, when you could still buy that, and kept running for months to years, like many other replenished systems) -- for Dilution F, I wouldn't expect to keep it even until the next day (and one roll of 36 exposures in minimum liquid has pretty well used up its capacity, anyway).

Why conflicting and contradictory?

Donald Qualls · Nov 27, 2020

Alessandro Serrao said:
Why conflicting and contradictory?

One of the rules of Photrio (going back to when it was APUG) is that for any yes or no question, you can expect to get at least fourteen different answers, including eight that include some variation of "that's a myth" or "you're an idiot". Only very seldom will any of the fourteen be a clear "yes" or "no" -- and if that's the case, there'll be a matching contradiction. Go look at one of the threads on prewetting film, replenishment, or whether to shoot at box speed or give some additional exposure (for a specific film) -- and if the latter, whether to also pull development -- for an example of what I'm talking about.

DeletedAcct1 · Nov 27, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
One of the rules of Photrio (going back to when it was APUG) is that for any yes or no question, you can expect to get at least fourteen different answers, including eight that include some variation of "that's a myth" or "you're an idiot". Only very seldom will any of the fourteen be a clear "yes" or "no" -- and if that's the case, there'll be a matching contradiction. Go look at one of the threads on prewetting film, replenishment, or whether to shoot at box speed or give some additional exposure (for a specific film) -- and if the latter, whether to also pull development -- for an example of what I'm talking about.

yeah i remember back in 2004 when I first subscibed to Apug. Now I feel this trend has gotten worse. But since there are few people that do reversals I think we are safe and sound here...

Lachlan Young · Nov 27, 2020

YoIaMoNwater said:
I thought Microphen is a powerful developer since it allows pushing HP5+ to 6400 (which I have done)?

You need to access and develop all the silver to get a good reversal, not simply build high density. A strong, higher contrast developer (hence the recommendation of a universal or paper developer) with halide solvent (DTOD, thiosulphate, or others) or development accelerator (polyglycols - eg various PEG molecular weights) will give better results. Some document films (because of their structure) seem potentially rather sensitive to halide solvents, but seem to run fine in systems that use development accelerators.

Donald Qualls said:
Tri-X Reversal

Probably of only passing interest, but 7266 is coated on grey triacetate, rather than a clear base.

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Nov 27, 2020

OP: Not discouraging you, but unless you plan on doing a lot of reversal processing, you're better off using a reversal kit such as the newly released Adox's kit or Foma's kit with films they recommend (Scala for Adox and Fomapan 100-R for Foma). Getting the reversal process right for an arbitrary film + developer combination is a lot of work which might not be worth the trouble if you just want to dabble in reversal processing. Of course it's a great learning exercise on various aspects of photochemistry if one's interested in that side of reversal processing.

Donald Qualls · Nov 28, 2020

I think for most of us, reversal is more of interest to try to do it ourselves, rather than primarily to produce actual B&W positives to display/project. The main exception to this is likely to be one-off in-camera positive prints -- but for that, Harman Direct Positive is far simpler and barely more expensive (yes, it costs almost as much as sheet film the same size, but process cost must be considered as well). I might also note that when I tried reversal, I didn't find it difficult to get right -- one test roll, then a second with adjusted EI and different second developer was about as good as one could expect for a gray-base film. I might give it another try with ORWO DN21 -- that's a clear base film, and with the speed increase from the process I used, could be shot at EI 20 or 25.

YoIaMoNwater · Nov 28, 2020

Lachlan Young said:
You need to access and develop all the silver to get a good reversal, not simply build high density. A strong, higher contrast developer (hence the recommendation of a universal or paper developer) with halide solvent (DTOD, thiosulphate, or others) or development accelerator (polyglycols - eg various PEG molecular weights) will give better results. Some document films (because of their structure) seem potentially rather sensitive to halide solvents, but seem to run fine in systems that use development accelerators.

Interesting. So strong developer is just faster? So even though Microphen can increase film density when it's being pushed the time it does so isn't fast for reversal?

How does polyglycols increase development? Can you send me some info regarding that? I have access to a lot of PEGs in the lab so that might be worthy to investigate.

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
OP: Not discouraging you, but unless you plan on doing a lot of reversal processing, you're better off using a reversal kit such as the newly released Adox's kit or Foma's kit with films they recommend (Scala for Adox and Fomapan 100-R for Foma). Getting the reversal process right for an arbitrary film + developer combination is a lot of work which might not be worth the trouble if you just want to dabble in reversal processing. Of course it's a great learning exercise on various aspects of photochemistry if one's interested in that side of reversal processing.

Nah it's fine. I bought all the chemicals and have access for the materials to make the bleach since I'm doing a PhD in biochemistry. It's good to experiment on the chemical aspect of photography rather than writing my thesis, even though the latter is definitely more important haha.

Donald Qualls said:
I think for most of us, reversal is more of interest to try to do it ourselves, rather than primarily to produce actual B&W positives to display/project. The main exception to this is likely to be one-off in-camera positive prints -- but for that, Harman Direct Positive is far simpler and barely more expensive (yes, it costs almost as much as sheet film the same size, but process cost must be considered as well). I might also note that when I tried reversal, I didn't find it difficult to get right -- one test roll, then a second with adjusted EI and different second developer was about as good as one could expect for a gray-base film. I might give it another try with ORWO DN21 -- that's a clear base film, and with the speed increase from the process I used, could be shot at EI 20 or 25.

Yea I had the thought of trying reversal a year ago but never gotten to it until now. Never tried ORWO DN21 but I just got some rolls of Rollei Retro 80s and Superpan 200 that have clear base. Now I just need to wait for the potassium permanganate to arrive before experimenting again. I will definitely update the results here.

Lachlan Young · Nov 28, 2020

YoIaMoNwater said:
Interesting. So strong developer is just faster? So even though Microphen can increase film density when it's being pushed the time it does so isn't fast for reversal?

How does polyglycols increase development? Can you send me some info regarding that? I have access to a lot of PEGs in the lab so that might be worthy to investigate.

From what I understand, polyglycols swell the emulsion slightly allowing faster & fuller development to occur. The maximum contrast attainable by Microphen with prolonged developing time is about a G-bar (average gradient) of about 0.9 - whereas PQ Universal at the strength suggested (1+5 rather than the normal paper developing strength of 1+9) will go past that in a matter of a few minutes and keep on going - you need good density so that you'll get good highlights after reversal.

The key patent for BW reversal first developers using PEGs as accelerators is attached. While it appears to cover the commercial FD for the Scala process, it is unclear what subsequent use has been made of the HQMS-K developers disclosed elsewhere in the patent for BW reversal.

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Nov 28, 2020

YoIaMoNwater said:
Nah it's fine. I bought all the chemicals and have access for the materials to make the bleach since I'm doing a PhD in biochemistry. It's good to experiment on the chemical aspect of photography rather than writing my thesis, even though the latter is definitely more important haha.

In case you have not seen it already, this is a useful tutorial: https://www.flickr.com/groups/1924424@N22/discuss/72157629499928508/

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Nov 28, 2020

YoIaMoNwater said:
thought Microphen is a powerful developer since it allows pushing HP5+ to 6400 (which I have done)?

If Microphen is close to Ilford ID-68, as suggested by @Ian Grant here, then you can see that it has good amount of Hydroquinone but pH is rather low (~8.8 as per Ilford) to be useful for reversal processing. If you want to persist with Microphen and don't mind doing some experimenting, then you can give 1+1 working solution with 30gm/l Sodium carbonate a try.

Donald Qualls · Nov 29, 2020

YoIaMoNwater said:
I had the thought of trying reversal a year ago but never gotten to it until now. Never tried ORWO DN21 but I just got some rolls of Rollei Retro 80s and Superpan 200 that have clear base. Now I just need to wait for the potassium permanganate to arrive before experimenting again. I will definitely update the results here.

ORWO DN21 is a slowish duplicating film -- very fine grain, ISO 13 for still photography at pictorial contrast. It's sold commercially in single rolls as Lomography Kino Babylon 13, but a couple of us have gotten 30.5m bulk rolls of DN21, confirmed to be the same film, from ORWO.na (North American distributor for ORWO). It's on a clear base, so it's a good candidate for reversal.

My main concern with doing reversal again is that I'm now on a septic system -- of course, I never put dichromate bleach down the sewer system in my old place; I neutralized it by mixing with the sodium sulfite clearing bath (turns the orange solution green as it changes hexavalent to the much more benign trivalent chromium), though it's been so long I don't recall what I did with it after that (should go to hazmat collection; still pretty acidic and trivalent chromium still isn't friendly stuff, just less unfriendly than hexavalent). Still, I don't know how much residual chromate+++ left after clearing is enough to cause trouble when I wash the film before redeveloping. Permanganate is less of a problem that way, but it softens emulsion rather than hardening it, as does copper sulfate, and I've heard a number of opinions that peroxide doesn't work well enough to bother (though I've seen some decent results from people using it, at least on paper).

Beyond that, as I noted, I don't really need B&W slides (don't even own a projector), and if I did I could contact print my negatives to the DN21 under the enlarger (even from color negatives, since DN21 is orthopanchromatic) or use a duplicating setup (macro tubes and a copy stand over a scanner film carrier is one way -- like DSLR digitizing with a film SLR).

YoIaMoNwater · Nov 30, 2020

Lachlan Young said:
From what I understand, polyglycols swell the emulsion slightly allowing faster & fuller development to occur. The maximum contrast attainable by Microphen with prolonged developing time is about a G-bar (average gradient) of about 0.9 - whereas PQ Universal at the strength suggested (1+5 rather than the normal paper developing strength of 1+9) will go past that in a matter of a few minutes and keep on going - you need good density so that you'll get good highlights after reversal.

The key patent for BW reversal first developers using PEGs as accelerators is attached. While it appears to cover the commercial FD for the Scala process, it is unclear what subsequent use has been made of the HQMS-K developers disclosed elsewhere in the patent for BW reversal.

Wow, I did not know PEGs could swell the emulsion to help development. It seems like there's a lot to play around to get the right combination of developer, PEG, and anti-fogging agent. With just PEG itself may end up reducing density. I might give PEG 400 a try once I optimize a reversal system with Microphen.

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
If Microphen is close to Ilford ID-68, as suggested by @Ian Grant here, then you can see that it has good amount of Hydroquinone but pH is rather low (~8.8 as per Ilford) to be useful for reversal processing. If you want to persist with Microphen and don't mind doing some experimenting, then you can give 1+1 working solution with 30gm/l Sodium carbonate a try.

Thanks for the link Raghu, it's good to know that the person's use of silver solvent is important. I'm thinking of adding 0.5% of sodium thiosulfate to Microphen in the first developer to see if this helps in clearing out all the silver halides. I'm gonna do a test with Rollei Superpan with the protocols I have done before but using potassium permanganate as bleach instead of postassium chromate. Then I'll add in the 0.5% sodium thiosulfate to see if it gives clear highlights.

I didn't know pH was a factor in developer, which prompted me to dig further. It seems like higher pH increases the developer efficiency; however, each developer has their own optimal pH range so I'm hesitant to give that a try now. I'm trying to use what I have so getting another developer (such as strong paper developers that people here have suggested) isn't my top priority. I still have Rodinal at my disposal that Jens Osbhar use, but I'll try that later if everything else fails.

Donald Qualls said:
ORWO DN21 is a slowish duplicating film -- very fine grain, ISO 13 for still photography at pictorial contrast. It's sold commercially in single rolls as Lomography Kino Babylon 13, but a couple of us have gotten 30.5m bulk rolls of DN21, confirmed to be the same film, from ORWO.na (North American distributor for ORWO). It's on a clear base, so it's a good candidate for reversal.

My main concern with doing reversal again is that I'm now on a septic system -- of course, I never put dichromate bleach down the sewer system in my old place; I neutralized it by mixing with the sodium sulfite clearing bath (turns the orange solution green as it changes hexavalent to the much more benign trivalent chromium), though it's been so long I don't recall what I did with it after that (should go to hazmat collection; still pretty acidic and trivalent chromium still isn't friendly stuff, just less unfriendly than hexavalent). Still, I don't know how much residual chromate+++ left after clearing is enough to cause trouble when I wash the film before redeveloping. Permanganate is less of a problem that way, but it softens emulsion rather than hardening it, as does copper sulfate, and I've heard a number of opinions that peroxide doesn't work well enough to bother (though I've seen some decent results from people using it, at least on paper).

Beyond that, as I noted, I don't really need B&W slides (don't even own a projector), and if I did I could contact print my negatives to the DN21 under the enlarger (even from color negatives, since DN21 is orthopanchromatic) or use a duplicating setup (macro tubes and a copy stand over a scanner film carrier is one way -- like DSLR digitizing with a film SLR).

Yea I get you with chemical disposal. Fortunately I'm in a university lab so I just bring my chemical wastes there. I got a bit too cautious for the potassium chromate after reading how bad dichromate is on the web. I just mixed it with rest of the Rodinal I used and left it in the fume hood with the appropriate label so our lab manager could dispose it properly. If I wasn't in this situation where chemical waste can be properly disposed then I wouldn't even attempt black and white reversals.

YoIaMoNwater · Nov 30, 2020

Here's what the film base

and image look like on a light box.

And when the curve is adjusted on SilverFast8 with Plustek 8200i

Fomapan 400 @ 800 reversal processed with Microphen.

DeletedAcct1 · Nov 30, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
I think for most of us, reversal is more of interest to try to do it ourselves, rather than primarily to produce actual B&W positives to display/project. The main exception to this is likely to be one-off in-camera positive prints -- but for that, Harman Direct Positive is far simpler and barely more expensive (yes, it costs almost as much as sheet film the same size, but process cost must be considered as well).

I couldn't agree more with that.
I consider b&w reversal as a "niche" product. I've embraced it because I don't own an enlarger due to space limitations. It's not my intention to discourage the op but imho b&w reversal is one of the most difficult process to master, beyond a proper E6 run line.
Too much trials leads to frustration, spent money (or wasted money) and so so results.
Plus, I feel b&w reversal strips the character out of any film, making them look almost identical one to another. Then there's the projector problem: you must have an excellent projection lens to appreciate fully the beauty of a b&w slide, or any slide for that matter. And They don't come cheap!
My advice, being in the reversal contest for more than 15 years, is to get a good kit, like the Foma or the new Adox, and use exclusively each tailored film to each kit.

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Nov 30, 2020

YoIaMoNwater said:
Here's what the film base and image look like on a light box.

Fomapan 400 @ 800 reversal processed with Microphen.

It appears rather low in contrast for my tastes. You need a more potent developer IMO.

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Dec 2, 2020

Alessandro Serrao said:
I feel b&w reversal strips the character out of any film, making them look almost identical one to another.

@Alessandro Serrao: this is interesting and would you mind elaborating? I'm also curious to know which films you had in mind when you wrote this.

DeletedAcct1 · Dec 2, 2020

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
@Alessandro Serrao: this is interesting and would you mind elaborating? I'm also curious to know which films you had in mind when you wrote this.

All films look about equal when reversed, imho, in terms of grain structure (all fine grained) and in terms of general "look". I feel it's much more difficult to tell which film is when you look at them in slide form.
It's inherent in the process: the levelling action of the reversal process will flatten many characteristic of any film. Think of the grain of Delta 3200 that can be used at an advantage.
Plus there's that annoying (at least for me) color cast (brown - sometime olivine - sometime yellowish) to the final slide that seems cannot be avoided.

Donald Qualls · Dec 2, 2020

Alessandro Serrao said:
Plus there's that annoying (at least for me) color cast (brown - sometime olivine - sometime yellowish) to the final slide that seems cannot be avoided.

If you use a sulfide toner for second developer, you'll get the toned color. Otherwise, the only place you're getting warm tone is from too-fine grain, which can be (partly) solved by using a less solvent second developer (but when I've used HC-110, I never had that problem; my images were very neutral in tone).

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Dec 2, 2020

Alessandro Serrao said:
All films look about equal when reversed, imho, in terms of grain structure (all fine grained) and in terms of general "look".

It's true that in reversal processing the big crystals are consumed by the first developer leaving only small crystals to the second developer. And therefore, slides have a fine grained image. But what about sharpness, contrast, dynamic range, resolution, micro contrast, shadow and highlight compression, etc.? Do you find that all films are equal along these dimensions?

Alessandro Serrao said:
Plus there's that annoying (at least for me) color cast (brown - sometime olivine - sometime yellowish) to the final slide that seems cannot be avoided.

Is it a uniform color cast or a tint proportional to silver density?

DeletedAcct1 · Dec 2, 2020

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
It's true that in reversal processing the big crystals are consumed by the first developer leaving only small crystals to the second developer. And therefore, slides have a fine grained image. But what about sharpness, contrast, dynamic range, resolution, micro contrast, shadow and highlight compression, etc.? Do you find that all films are equal along these dimensions?

Is it a uniform color cast or a tint proportional to silver density?

Uniform color cast, like the silde was lightly toned.
I find a proprely developed and printed negative sharper than a slide but it's my problem since I have a crappy projector lens and I dont use glass mounts.

BnW reversal attempts

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency