Book recommendations for learning modern developer formulas

[Pixophrenic]

Hello there,
I used to lurk on this thread for a while and the recommendation of the 1972 book by Jacobson and Jacobson was just the thing I was looking for, that is, not a "cookbook", but a more in-depth understanding of film development. Was there any book taking a similar approach to the one of Jacobsons' published since their 18th edition in 1972? Despite a lot of useful advice and a rational approach to developer composition, the Jacobsons' book seems seriously outdated as it does not cover modern hardened emulsions, and especially, the C-41 and E-6 chemistries. Thank you very much for the info.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The only books that deal with modern development techniques is by Grant Haist. All the others are really out of date. This is particularly true of one published in 1972.

 

[Pixophrenic]

Thank you for the pointer, Gerald. Do you mean Dr. Haist who passed away in 2016? I can only see "Modern photographic processing " of 1979 on Amazon. Are there any others?

 

[removed account4]

maybe ... the darkroom cookbook

 

[Petraio Prime]

Hello there,
I used to lurk on this thread for a while and the recommendation of the 1972 book by Jacobson and Jacobson was just the thing I was looking for, that is, not a "cookbook", but a more in-depth understanding of film development. Was there any book taking a similar approach to the one of Jacobsons' published since their 18th edition in 1972? Despite a lot of useful advice and a rational approach to developer composition, the Jacobsons' book seems seriously outdated as it does not cover modern hardened emulsions, and especially, the C-41 and E-6 chemistries. Thank you very much for the info.

Those are color chemistries. Why are you confused? I own that J&J book, and it is not outdated at all (except for Vitamin C developers).

 

[Photo Engineer]

Use the book by Haist. It is by far the best and most accurate explaining what is going on. Behind that is Mees and James.

PE

 

[Gerald C Koch]

maybe ... the darkroom cookbook

Most is in the Darkroom Cookbook was appropriated from other sources.

 

[trendland]

Grand Haist : Modern Photographic Processing Vol. I (1979) .

with friendly regards

 

[Pixophrenic]

Use the book by Haist. It is by far the best and most accurate explaining what is going on. Behind that is Mees and James.

PE

The Haist book is hard to get, and it is equally hard to believe that nothing new was introduced since 1979. I understand that there is quite a lot of legacy stuff in actual use, starting with the popularity of pyrogallol, but I am confused especially in quite a few points with regard to developers (more on films later). First, how does one arrive at mixtures of two or more developing agents in the same developer (i.e. Rollei Supergrain, Moersch Finol etc). Second, what is the point in using two buffering substances, like borax and carbonate, in the same developer? And third, many one-solution formulations of Crawley contain both sulfite and bisulphite (and carbonate). What is the point since carbonate neutralizes bisulfite and gives more sulfite? Of the FXs, especially confusing is the FX-55. Two-part concentrates are a different matter, as it is believed that keeping pH down helps extend shelf life. But FX-55 is a concentrate without any unstable substances! Then again, why not titrate sulfite down to pH 6 with acetic or boric acid? Are these questions answered by Haist?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, to start with you are right. There are no books more recent than Haist's book that are equal to or better than that book in explaining what is going on.

However, to make a point here, and to paraphrase Haist, he indicates that any developing solution with more than 2 developing agents has been improperly designed. In other words, two are enough. In my experience, he is right.

Crawley's work is generally obsolete, having been done with older emulsions. They often do not work the same with modern high Iodide emulsions. In addition, the chemistry is just awkward, as you point out.

PE

 

[Petraio Prime]

Well, to start with you are right. There are no books more recent than Haist's book that are equal to or better than that book in explaining what is going on.

However, to make a point here, and to paraphrase Haist, he indicates that any developing solution with more than 2 developing agents has been improperly designed. In other words, two are enough. In my experience, he is right.

Crawley's work is generally obsolete, having been done with older emulsions. They often do not work the same with modern high Iodide emulsions. In addition, the chemistry is just awkward, as you point out.

PE

Not at all. D-76 was designed in the 1920s, and is still close to state of the art. Many of Crawley's 'FX' formulas are variants of D-76. Most films do quite well in D-76. Until recently, all films were rated for speed in a variant of D-76.

 

[removed account4]

Most is in the Darkroom Cookbook was appropriated from other sources.

i didnt' realize the OP was looking for material published by the original authors
not exactly sure why "anthology of formulae" would not be OK. ... oh well ..

OP disregard my suggestion ...

 

[Pixophrenic]

i didnt' realize the OP was looking for material published by the original authors
i thought an "anthology of formulae" would be OK.

OP strike my suggestion !

I am looking to get a rationale to choose between the existing developers and BW films, and for some history, which includes understanding that what was good 50-70 years ago, may not hold. On a practical side, if I had to send a film for processing and the lab told me what they use, I'd have an educated guess what I get back. That some modern films "do quite well" in D-76, may not necessarily mean they show their best. If this is so, current cookbooks recommending D-23, Beutler, Steckler and such, may generally be doing a disservice.

 

[Photo Engineer]

All Kodak films were released for sale by passing a D76 release test. If they failed, they were not sold!

As for the Crawley formulas, one example are those with Iodide. They are said to improve sharpness, but in modern films show (for the most part) no advantage. The early films that Crawley used were either pure Bromide or had buried Iodide. Therefore, addition of Iodide to the developer caused instant adsorption of Iodide on the surface, and then release as development took place thus giving edge effects. Today, a 10% Iodide emulsion swamps that effect to render its own edge effects and thus you see no significant improvement.

There have been discussions about this a while back on APUG.

PE

 

[Pixophrenic]

Well, to start with you are right. There are no books more recent than Haist's book that are equal to or better than that book in explaining what is going on.

However, to make a point here, and to paraphrase Haist, he indicates that any developing solution with more than 2 developing agents has been improperly designed. In other words, two are enough. In my experience, he is right.

Crawley's work is generally obsolete, having been done with older emulsions. They often do not work the same with modern high Iodide emulsions. In addition, the chemistry is just awkward, as you point out.

PE

Thank you very much, PE. Now I am getting somewhere. May I ask what is your opinion on using traditionally "color" developing agents like CD-3 in BW developers?

 

[Photo Engineer]

CDs in B&W developers, alone or with other developing agents generally give slower speed and require longer development times. Done correctly, with lots of juggling, they can give excellent speed, grain and sharpness. However, there is no simple answer to the formula. You would have to do some R&D to come up with the correct formula. Several APUG members are doing just that. You may want to reach out to them, but since I only know this via private mail, I don't feel I can do this myself due to a possible desire for privacy.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

The Darkroom Cookbook 3rd or 4th edition is the best option, earlier versions contain too many erros all originating from the highly flawed Photo Lab Index publications which were riddled with errors. I'd add that the Lab Index errors were perpetuated in a great many US publications.

The DCB 3rd ed Formulae wre cross checked with primary source, the manufactuers own data.

Ian

 

[Petraio Prime]

All Kodak films were released for sale by passing a D76 release test. If they failed, they were not sold!

As for the Crawley formulas, one example are those with Iodide. They are said to improve sharpness, but in modern films show (for the most part) no advantage. The early films that Crawley used were either pure Bromide or had buried Iodide. Therefore, addition of Iodide to the developer caused instant adsorption of Iodide on the surface, and then release as development took place thus giving edge effects. Today, a 10% Iodide emulsion swamps that effect to render its own edge effects and thus you see no significant improvement.

There have been discussions about this a while back on APUG.

PE

Crawley revised his formulas over the years. Some of the ones optimised for Perutz films, for example, were dropped.

 

[Pixophrenic]

All Kodak films were released for sale by passing a D76 release test. If they failed, they were not sold!

As for the Crawley formulas, one example are those with Iodide. They are said to improve sharpness, but in modern films show (for the most part) no advantage. The early films that Crawley used were either pure Bromide or had buried Iodide. Therefore, addition of Iodide to the developer caused instant adsorption of Iodide on the surface, and then release as development took place thus giving edge effects. Today, a 10% Iodide emulsion swamps that effect to render its own edge effects and thus you see no significant improvement.

There have been discussions about this a while back on APUG.

PE

What would the keywords for a search to locate these discussions be? With "iodide" I am getting nowhere. Thank you.

 

[trendland]

The Darkroom Cookbook 3rd or 4th edition is the best option, earlier versions contain too many erros all originating from the highly flawed Photo Lab Index publications which were riddled with errors. I'd add that the Lab Index errors were perpetuated in a great many US publications.

The DCB 3rd ed Formulae wre cross checked with primary source, the manufactuers own data.

Ian

Well Ian - in short to The Darkroom Cookbook- by the time :
I heard a lot of it since years, but I havn't
bought it. Don't ask me wy - perhaps it seams to me to be to expensive - I can not say? Once a day as I was online I got some PDF's from Nikon (tables,datas a.s.o.) and I can't remember on what else sides I was???
At home I checked my knew PDF's and noticed : One PDF was a bigger one (27Mb) not such a surprice,perhaps a PDF with photos from a brochure?
I opened it and wonder 279 PDF sides!!!....
The complete Cookbook as a PDF.
Dont't ask me from where I can not say.

with regards

 

[Photo Engineer]

A great many errors exist in formulas in almost all publications. Or, OTOH, they may be obsolete formulas. The Photo Lab Index and the Chemical Rubber Handbook all contain errors in formulas. I understand that Bill Troop is working to correct many of these errors along with Steve Anchell in a new edition of their book. The same is true of emulsion formulas. Many many errors.

As for a search, try Crawley and APUG. IDK if it will work, but that is all I can think of right now. I'll see if I can locate something on my end.

PE

 

[removed account4]

I am looking to get a rationale to choose between the existing developers and BW films, and for some history, which includes understanding that what was good 50-70 years ago, may not hold. On a practical side, if I had to send a film for processing and the lab told me what they use, I'd have an educated guess what I get back. That some modern films "do quite well" in D-76, may not necessarily mean they show their best. If this is so, current cookbooks recommending D-23, Beutler, Steckler and such, may generally be doing a disservice.

good luck with your research ...
ian's suggestion is right on the money ...

regarding what you will get back from a lab
most film sent to a lab and given back to customers
looks pretty much the same. labs don't usually use
exotic developers and processing methods.
the only time ( i am guessing ) your film will look "different"
is when there is "user error" and the person processing the film
doesn't do something right ... maybe the developer is old/dead
too hot &c .. it won't have anything to do with the type of developer used by the lab.
( unless it is proprietary like DR5Chrome ). i have never heard of a lab
using pyro or rodinal, or buelers monobath but something plain vanilla ...

 

[JWMster]

As a newby, I'm with you in seeking mo' bettah info. Have read John Finch's "The Art of B&W Developing" (Kindle edition). Have gleaned, Steven Anchell's "Darkroom Cookbook" (Kindle edition) and there's some useful stuff there on darkroom layout and handling of chems. Forumlas... I can't say. So far, just buying liquid pre-made stuff, as I have my hands full with just getting a clean job without going deep into the chemistry. I respect the chemistry, and that's why I'm content so far to lean on the pre-mix stuff. Currently reading, "Irridescent Light: The Art of Stand Development" by Michael Axel (iBook edition). As ebooks, you save a buck or two, but lose convenience and handling, but you also gain speed of access, and access to small press publications like the current read. Biggest issue with books is they make me want to try everything as if the "next" thing someone else is using is some sort of magic bullet when the reality is simpler. I think the point of the great photos is to show what is possible in skilled hands. Tidbits here and there (on the net, forums, youtubes and blogs) seem to offer some useful accounts of experience, but it'd be cool to find the equivalent of a master class in darkroom from negatives to printing - both wet and dry. They are out there. I just haven't done one - yet.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Also "The Film Developing Cookbook" 1999 by Steve Anchell and Bill Troop (The latter is a photochemist).
Since then have appeared various versions of Pyrocat, worth a look.

 

[Ian Grant]

Crawley revised his formulas over the years. Some of the ones optimised for Perutz films, for example, were dropped.

There's maybe a misconception here, as editor of the BJP weekly magazine and also the BJP Annual he published formulae contributed by other people and that includes Ilford & Kodak as well as the alternative colour developers (and others steps) from a German chemist Ernst G* (almost certainly working for one of the larger photo companies) as the formulae all worked well.

What most mean by the Crawley formulae are his own FX series of B&W developers first published in 6 articles in the then weekly BJP at the end of 1960 and January 1961, and only a few were revised. These were in the BJP Annuals into the 1990's.

As to the Perutz formulae, when Crawley started editing the BJP Almanac they were on the cusp of being taken over, still making their own films and the formulae stayed in the Annuals while the older films were still around. Then in 1964 Agfa or rather the newly merged Agfa Gevaert took Perutz over and their Perutz brand films used the regular Agfa processes.

Ian