CD4-LC low contrast developer for scanning

[Alan Johnson]

Eterna RDS 4791 was a bit foggy for reasons unknown so I turned to Kodak.
I found two Eastman films which from the MTF chart have a notably high resolution.
2234- available in cassettes in UK but not ? in US.
2369- available as Film Photography Project High-Con 2369 in cassettes.
2234 was tried with CD4-LC developing 20% longer than CMS20 II above, post 72.

It appears that 2234 can be shot at EI =25 (attachment).
The results of the first test suggest it comes close to CMS20 II.

I hope to make a field trial of 2234 followed by a test of 2369.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I took photographs on different days on CMS20 II and Kodak 2234, both at EI =20 with the same lens, scanned and processed identically.

CMS20 II


Kodak 2234


Initial impression is that the resolution of fine detail and the fineness of grain come in the order:
CMS20 II better than Kodak 2234 better than Adox HR-50 (previous work, EI=50),though the latter can be developed in "ordinary" developers.

 

[relistan]

I took photographs on different days on CMS20 II and Kodak 2234, both at EI =20 with the same lens, scanned and processed identically.

CMS20 II


Kodak 2234


Initial impression is that the resolution of fine detail and the fineness of grain come in the order:
CMS20 II better than Kodak 2234 better than Adox HR-50 (previous work, EI=50),though the latter can be developed in "ordinary" developers.

That CMS 20 II looks great here. Practically grainless.

 

[Alan Johnson]

The Kodak 2369, sold as Film Photography Project Eastman High-Con 2369 has a clear base like CMS 20 II and somewhat similar shadow density at EI=20 (pic).
Another to field test.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The Kodak 2369, sold as Film Photography Project Eastman High-Con 2369 has a clear base like CMS 20 II and somewhat similar shadow density at EI=20 (pic).
Another to field test.

Alan,
You're right, those two look like they could be twins. Do you think 2369 has slightly better shadow detail?

 

[Alan Johnson]

Alan,
You're right, those two look like they could be twins. Do you think 2369 has slightly better shadow detail?

For the field test I hope to shoot 2369 and CMS 20 II both at EI=20 and compare.
There seems to be little chance that 2369, discontinued in 2011, will take over from CMS 20 II.

35mm Fuji HR-20 microfilm may continue in production but it is currently sold in bulk rolls with a minimum order number and is unperforated (will work in Canon EOS 10s/ EOS 1 maybe).
What a laugh if the EOS 10s (EOS10 in Europe) ended up being able to capture more detail than any Leica.

 

[Alan Johnson]

For comparison of CMS20 II and Eastman 2369 (=Film Photography Project High-Con 2369), photographs at EI =20 in the same camera with the same lens were taken within a few minutes. They were developed for the same time in CD4-LC and processed similarly during and after scanning.

FPP High-Con 2369


Adox CMS20II


There seems little to choose between them, 2369 may have slightly higher contrast.
It could be used if supplies of CMS20 II are discontinued first, possibly developed in Adotech IV, Rollei RLC or Photoformulary TD-3, I did not try it.

 

[Alan Johnson]

With a possible limited supply of Adox CMS20 II and FPP High-Con 2369 I tried expired unperforated microfilm.
A bulk roll of Imagelink 1461 expired 2001 was loaded into cassettes. A Computrol loader (similar to Watson) was used, with no perforations the exposure counter did not operate and the number of exposures loaded was estimated from the crank rotations. Some say that any scratches with this type of loader are mostly due to grit in the cassette. A 2 inch length of perforated film was attached to the unperforated film with sellotape and this loaded satisfactorily into a Canon EOS 10 (10s in US), one of few cameras designed to cope with unperforated film.

At EI=20 in fresh CD4-LC the results are not quite as good as those from CMS20 II on the 33 year old Imagelink which shows hardly visible tiny white specks at high magnification:

 

[Alan Johnson]

On a sunny day, Spur Ultra R 800 in CD4-LC, 3rd film in this, from post 72 Sept 15 2024, developed 10.9min +30% @20C, agitated every 3rd minute.
Water wash, fix 1 min, Tapwater wash 5min, Photoflo, dry.

 

[John Wiegerink]

wow! That's some pretty fine detail. Contrast looks pretty good also with a fair amount of shadow detail. Job well done!

 

[Alan Johnson]

The CD4-LC at 5 months old in a glass bottle under inert propane/ butane mix has only done 3 films but is keeping well.

 

[relistan]

The CD4-LC at 5 months old in a glass bottle under inert propane/ butane mix has only done 3 films but is keeping well.

5 months so far is pretty good…

 

[Alan Johnson]

Good keeping properties make CD4-LC a preferred low contrast homebrew developer for occasional use.
Others I tried were TDLC-102 which did not keep well,

TDLC-102 developer (Bill Troop)

This one shot developer can give pictorial results with Adox CMS20 II or Spur Ultra R 800. It is detailed in The Film Developing Cookbook 1998 p97 and in FDC 2020 p132. In FDC 2020 p134 it is noted that HQMS might replace glycin. I made and use a 10x concentrate: Demin water 40C...

www.photrio.com

and H&W Control in Glycol which gave posterisation.

H&W Control developer in glycol

Low contrast developers for microfilms are discussed in The Film Developing Cookbook 2020 p129-138 and in FDC 1998 p95-102. Amongst commercial developers are Adotech IV, Rollei RLC and Photoformulary TD-3. Dilute "ordinary" developers may work if the film EI is reduced sufficiently from box...

www.photrio.com

Here is one with CD4-LC:

 

[Yezishu]

I hope you don’t mind me asking some basic and perhaps self-evident questions here. For those microfilms, would using sodium sulfite at 30g/L produce a significant solvent effect ( "some silver is dissolved and precipitates out slowly")? When developing some microfilms, I noticed that the developer solution (sodium sulfite 20g/L, Dimezone 0.8g/L, ascorbic acid 0.8g/L) became cloudy, which surprised me, as I thought this will happens at around 70–80g/L.

 

[Alan Johnson]

The Film Developing Cookbook 2020 p131 notes:
"There is another good reason for lowering sulfite when a document film is used. Sulfite at any level has a solvent action which initiates solution physical development. The finer the grained the film, the more pronounced this action. Document films are exceedingly fine grained. Sulfite should be reduced to a minimum on the assumption that doing so will improve the image quality."
It goes on to suggest a POTA modification containing 10g/L sodium sulfite.
So it does appear that a version of CD4-LC with only 10g/L sulfite might give better image quality.

On the other hand, when CD-4 is used in C41 developers, hydroxylamine sulfate, HAS, is added as a preservative.
To keep things relatively simple in CD4-LC, as a preservative HAS was omitted and sulfite used at 30g/L rather than the 10g/L recommended in FDC p131.

 

[Yezishu]

Thank you for clarifying my doubts! I am trying to use a type of microfilm as a reversal film because its base is very transparent. That means to combine a low-contrast developer with a solvent effect. Now I think I can simply add more sodium sulfite rathre than extra sodium thiocyanate or sodium thiosulfate.