Breakdown of MuirSoft Shot Developer and implementing into Ilford PQ Universal

Hi all,

So I have started to do unsharp/contrast reduction masking for C41 negatives I have. Yesterday, finally I have developed good masks, with max density of 0.28 and good tonal separation. Also, the mask came out grey rather than brownish which is important for C41 negatives to have neutral tone (yay!)

However, preparing Muir Softshot is time consuming, not effective and also expensive. Not to mention, it has a very short lifecycle once prepped so I have to prep it every time when I want to create my masks.

So my plan is breaking Muirsoft Shot in a way and that taking necessary compounds and implement into Ilford PQ universal that I have. (Both are phenidone based, so I think this should be doable)

So 1lt Muirsoft Shot has;

• 2gm Phenidone
• 10 gm Sodium Sulfite
• 1.4gm Potassium Hydroxide
• 15ml Edwal Liquid Orthazite
• Vitamin C

Could you please tell me what each chemical does (except Phenidone which is the developer, and Vitamin C, which is also part of developer)?

So maybe then I can prepare correct dilution of PQ Universal and put whatever is needed afterwards.

Many thanks,
Fatih

According to this thread here the Edwal Liquid Orthazite component is Benzotriazole (an organic restrainer) and some Sodium Sulfite.

Regarding replacement: you can't really trim Ilford's print developers into low contrast behavior. If you dilute it, you may get high contrast in the shadows and then a very flat curve. There's something special about "high Phenidone and low secondary developer", which creates very flat and perfectly straight H&D curves.

Yes my goal is to have a very straight curve, have low DMax somewhere 0.3

My plan was adding some parts into Ilford PQ to make it work like Muir Softshot.

Adding Benzotriazole to dilute PQ Universal is the wrong approach, one reason for adding Benzotriazole is to ensure neutral tones. I could mix you some Muirsoft relatively inexpensively., or you could try ID-3. I'm not far from Birmingham.

Ian

Fatih Ayoglu said:

Yes my goal is to have a very straight curve, have low DMax somewhere 0.3

My plan was adding some parts into Ilford PQ to make it work like Muir Softshot.

Click to expand...

You'd have to add massive amounts of Phenidone to achieve this, and this much Phenidone may not even dissolve all that easily. If you look at Michael's low contrast developers: These use the same amount of Phenidone, but get away without restrainer and extra alkali, so it's 3 components instead of 5. You can make a 5% concentrate of Phenidone in Propylene Glycol, this one lasts very long, and once the Phenidone is dissolved, making either Maxim Muir's dev or Michael's dev isn't really all that hard.

Here's my substitute, which is quite simple to mix (and yes, Ctein himself knows about it): HC-110 mixed 1:31 from stock (stock being 1:3 from concentrate. Then add per liter of that 2 ml of 1% benzotriazole solution, to act as a toe cutter. Note : NOT 2 g/liter of benz per quart of working solution, but only 2ml of a benz solution already diluted to 2%. It doesn't take much. You'll notice that Muir Softshot also employs benzotriazole (Othazite) as a toe cutter. But my own developer gives a straighter line with almost no toe at low gamma, with TMX100 and FP4 at least.

Doing this with D76 or ID-11 won't cure the deep sag in their kind of curves. You could test other developers; but HC-110 is rather remarkable in its flexibility over a great range of dilutions. I don't know if its easy to find in the UK; but you could perhaps try the alleged Ilford equivalent of HC-110.

DREW WILEY said:

Then add per liter of that 2 ml of 1% benzotriazole solution, to act as a toe cutter. than later you say - but only 2ml of a benz solution already diluted to 2%.

Click to expand...

Should the last "already diluted to 2%." be 1% or am I missing something.
What temperature do you process TMAX100 at.

2 ml of 1% benz solution added per liter of developer. Adding it pre-liquified is more accurate and easier than adding a tiny amount of benz powder directly into the working developer.

Second, I always process TMax 100 at 68F (20C) for critical purposes. With TMax RS developer per se, which is no longer made, 75F did give the straightest line for normal contrast applications, at the risk of some edge frilling. But that's a whole different thing than developing low-contrast masks.

Thanks Drew. I had been using TMax RS for contrast masks at 75 degrees and it produced straight line contrast masks. I still have a couple of liters on the shelf that I will test this winter to see if it is still good otherwise it will be back to HC110

Much appreciated guys. My pain is Muir Softshot has a very short life so I need to prepare every time, by measuring everytihng carefully like vitamin C. Otherwise my KOH, benzotriazole and Phenidone is prepped in water or Glycol to keep them well.

@DREW WILEY If I would go down the route of HC110 which doesnt exists anymore, do I need any other chemicals except benzotriazole?

Or I will do binge mask creation, will spend 1 day and try to do as much as possible.

You need to do your homework first, and establish your protocol with the chemistry you can find. I haven't personally tried the various alleged substitutes to HC-110, or even its later Kodak versions. I'm still working from the original syrup version, which seems to store well in concentrate fashion for decades. But the only additional chemical I need, besides HC110, is benzatriazole powder. Even a small bottle of it is sufficient for many many sessions, and extremely economical compared to pre-diluted solution like liquid Orthazite. The HC-110 is also very economical because it too is being used at high dilution. After you have this figured out, then yes, you can go ahead and expose a number of sheet film masks, and then batch develop them in a tray. What will slow you down is simply the need to make sure that every step along the way, the film and registration glass surface are kept clean and free of dust or fingerprints.

Masking for color neg film is a little different than other forms of unsharp masking since it must be done more gently in terms of final mask contrast, and ideally with a more consistent straight line, which is more difficult to achieve with most common developers. I've never tried the poor man's substitute for HC-110, DK50, in this respect. I don't even know how many substitutes for HC-110 are currently on the market. There is one called FPP HC-110. And newer versions of Kodak HC-110 itself are still readily available in the US at least, like at Freestyle.