Chemistry question: Xtol for sharper, bigger grain?

[Ian Grant]

Use Microphen or mix ID-68, that gives sharper and more apparent grain which is still relatively fine.

Ian

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Juan,
Since you like to try different developer combinations, maybe you might want to look into Kodak DK-50. You seem to like D-76 and DK-50 isn't that far off from D-76. It's very easy to make, very clean working and should give you exactly the type of grain you seem to be looking for. I have even seen cans of DK-50 show up on eBay from time to time. Dilute DK-50 even more than suggested for normal use, and it acts just like FX1 developer. This is a very underrated developer, even for modern times. JohnW

John, thanks for the heads up! Looks promising!
I'll check it...
A D-76 with more grain would be lovely.
Thank you very much.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Use Microphen or mix ID-68, that gives sharper and more apparent grain which is still relatively fine.

Ian

Hello Ian,
Microphen is great indeed!
I use it all the time.
Except for portraiture in 35mm or direct sunlight, it's wonderful.
Thanks!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If you want sharp, more grain, Dk50 which can be replenished. Here in the US Photographers Formulary sells a version. Although not recommended for 35 because of the grain it was at one a favorite of large format shooters. If you mix your own you can find the formulas on line. This summer I'm going to be shoot a lot of 4X5 and thinking about DK50 with Foma 400 and 200.

Cool! I'd like to see it with medium format FP4+ or TMY.
I'll check if it replenishes with itself or with a different replenisher.
Thank you!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I use DK-50 1+5 when I want HP5 to print in carbon transfer. I'd love to see your results with FP4 or TMY.

 

[Ian Grant]

Cool! I'd like to see it with medium format FP4+ or TMY.
I'll check if it replenishes with itself or with a different replenisher.
Thank you!

If you mix from scratch ID-68 has a replenisher, sales of Microphen are low and the replenisher is no longer available, nor are the larger pack sizes. Microphen is the commercial version of ID-68, it's formula differs very slightly, having a touch of Sodium Metabisuphite in Part A to stop oxidisation while store, the buffering in Part B is adjusted, once dissolved they are the same.

FP4 will give the look you are after with ID-68/Microphen.

Ian

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If you mix from scratch ID-68 has a replenisher, sales of Microphen are low and the replenisher is no longer available, nor are the larger pack sizes. Microphen is the commercial version of ID-68, it's formula differs very slightly, having a touch of Sodium Metabisuphite in Part A to stop oxidisation while store, the buffering in Part B is adjusted, once dissolved they are the same.

FP4 will give the look you are after with ID-68/Microphen.

Ian

Thanks, Ian.
I use Microphen mostly at 1+1, because I don't do heavy pushing, and I like grain.
In general I use it for ISO400 at 640 for overcast scenes: that gives sharp visible grain, and a type of tone I like (starchy, once I read) and that's more intense than the tone of D-76 used for soft light. Soft light gets character in Microphen IMO.
Yet I have a dozen gallon boxes (I guess from the 80's, because there's no data for Delta3200), so I have Microphen for many years.
Recently I started a thread on reduced agitation with Microphen: grain can be very small, and yet sharp.
A gallon into several amber glass bottles full to the brim, remains fine after more than a year.
A great product. It can get EI3200 out of HP5+ for wet printing: that says a lot. Now the latest D3200 datasheet talks about wild EIs (12500), but a few years ago Microphen was recommended for EI3200 while DD-X only for EI1600.
If one day I can't buy more, I'll use your ID-68 formula happily.
Thank you!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

FP4 will give the look you are after with ID-68/Microphen.

Ian

Precisely these days I'm testing (slowly doing a MF roll of) FP4+@250 in Microphen 1+1 (it'll be 12 minutes 21C, condenser) for a wilder look in soft light, for those times TMX is too decent.

 

[Paul Howell]

Cool! I'd like to see it with medium format FP4+ or TMY.
I'll check if it replenishes with itself or with a different replenisher.
Thank you!

Replenisher is different

DK50
water 500 cc
Elon developing agent (methol) 2.5 grams
Sodium Sulfite desiccate 30 grams
Hydroquinone 2.5 grams
Kodalk (sodium metaborate.) 10 grams
Potassium Bromide .5 gram
water to make 1 liter

Replenisher Dk 50 R

water 750 CC
Methol 5 grams
Sodium Sulfite disiccated 30 grams
Hydroquinone 10 grams
sodium metaborate 10 grams
Potassium Bromide 40 grams
water to make 1 liter

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thank you, Paul.
Low sulfite content...
I guess the only reason Kodak had for recommending DK-50 for sheets and not for rolls, was simply a bit of grain...
Some people like it for rolls, though.

 

[john_s]

Replenisher is different

DK50
water 500 cc
Elon developing agent (methol) 2.5 grams
Sodium Sulfite desiccate 30 grams
Hydroquinone 2.5 grams
Kodalk (sodium metaborate.) 10 grams
Potassium Bromide .5 gram
water to make 1 liter

Replenisher Dk 50 R

water 750 CC
Methol 5 grams
Sodium Sulfite disiccated 30 grams
Hydroquinone 10 grams
sodium metaborate 10 grams
Potassium Bromide 40 grams
water to make 1 liter

That's an error, a lot of bromide in a replenisher?

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, if you are using a replenisher you really don't need Potassium Bromide in it since your stock/main developer has probably built up enough Bomide. Here is what I have for DK-50R:
Water (at 125F or 52C) 750.0 ml
Metol 5.0 grams
Sodium Sulfite, dessicated 30.0 grams
Hydroquinone 10.0 grams
Kodalk (Sodium Metaborate) 40.0 grams
Water to make 1.0 liter
Dk-50 is a very good developer, which seems to be like a stable old workhorse. I have even used it with some of the older Ultrafine Extreme and Shanghai GP3 in 120 and thought it to be excellent. I could easily get by using DK-50 replenished, but I am using Xtol-R at the moment and see no reason for changing horses in the middle of the stream. JohnW

 

[Lachlan Young]

I guess the only reason Kodak had for recommending DK-50 for sheets and not for rolls, was simply a bit of grain...

Kodak's F-9 data sheet would like to disagree.

Stock strength DK-50 is very fast developing (potentially just 2.5-3 mins for normal contrast), so you can see why they would not suggest it for rolls. You can however replenish DK-50 at 1+1 dilution.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Kodak's F-9 data sheet would like to disagree.

Oh, I didn't mean it was people at Kodak who said it officially: I meant, after someone did comment on the common use or preference of DK-50 for sheets, people in general (but possibly Kodak people too, even if that's not stated in F-9) may have preferred smaller grain from other developers if rolls was the case: what I was saying was, less grain doesn't make better photographs: that seems to confuse some people up to these days.
I imagined, from other forum members' words, that was Kodak's official position, but it seems it was some DK-50 users position.
I think any great photograph in photography history, would be basically just as good if developed with DK-50, and none of them would be better if developed in Pyrocat-HD or replenished Xtol. That was the point in my post, not Kodak's official position, which is irrelevant.
Kodak's position doesn't make good photographers nor good photographs, but believing less grain is better, makes people spend their lives seeking what has no relevance, instead of seeking what matters.

 

[grain elevator]

Xtol 1+2 results in sulfite content in the same ballpark as the 30g/l for stock DK-50. And I've found the grain to be nice.

 

[NB23]

As far as I know, the sharpest developer out there is Ilfosol-3

 

[Sirius Glass]

Oh, I didn't mean it was people at Kodak who said it officially: I meant, after someone did comment on the common use or preference of DK-50 for sheets, people in general (but possibly Kodak people too, even if that's not stated in F-9) may have preferred smaller grain from other developers if rolls was the case: what I was saying was, less grain doesn't make better photographs: that seems to confuse some people up to these days.
I imagined, from other forum members' words, that was Kodak's official position, but it seems it was some DK-50 users position.
I think any great photograph in photography history, would be basically just as good if developed with DK-50, and none of them would be better if developed in Pyrocat-HD or replenished Xtol. That was the point in my post, not Kodak's official position, which is irrelevant.
Kodak's position doesn't make good photographers nor good photographs, but believing less grain is better, makes people spend their lives seeking what has no relevance, instead of seeking what matters.

Many people prefer fine grain. I do. But not everyone. Sometimes I would might like a bit coarser grain but that is after I developed the film so as they say the ship sailed out of the train station or the train sank in the harbor.

 

[MattKing]

I would be surprised if Kodak's considerations for DK-50 were much related to the conditions for film use today.
Rather, I expect they aimed DK-50 at commercial processors, or large volume commercial photographers.
And at the time, a film like T-Max 400 was probably impossible to imagine!
FWIW, my 1940 Kodak Reference Handbook lists DK-50 in the developers recommended for certain sheet films, but doesn't include DK-50 recommendations for any "miniature and roll" films.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Xtol 1+2 results in sulfite content in the same ballpark as the 30g/l for stock DK-50. And I've found the grain to be nice.

Hi grain,
I never got really sharp grain with Xtol.
I talk about wet printing.
Possibly some people see sharp grain after scanning and oversharpening.
I remember I tried with two different films, even at 1+3, and I prefer the grain I get with other developers.
About your chemistry comment, maybe there are other factors, apart from sulfite content, that also influence grain structure.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I would be surprised if Kodak's considerations for DK-50 were much related to the conditions for film use today.
Rather, I expect they aimed DK-50 at commercial processors, or large volume commercial photographers.
And at the time, a film like T-Max 400 was probably impossible to imagine!
FWIW, my 1940 Kodak Reference Handbook lists DK-50 in the developers recommended for certain sheet films, but doesn't include DK-50 recommendations for any "miniature and roll" films.

Would you say there was another reason apart from grain not showing up too much?

 

[John Wiegerink]

I would be surprised if Kodak's considerations for DK-50 were much related to the conditions for film use today.
Rather, I expect they aimed DK-50 at commercial processors, or large volume commercial photographers.
And at the time, a film like T-Max 400 was probably impossible to imagine!
FWIW, my 1940 Kodak Reference Handbook lists DK-50 in the developers recommended for certain sheet films, but doesn't include DK-50 recommendations for any "miniature and roll" films.

Matt,
Kodak might not have recommended using DK-50 for miniature format back then, but DK-50 seems to work very well with it now. I have never used it as dilute as Murray's 1+9 (the other DK-50 thread), but at 1+5 it holds up very well with the newer emulsion films. It's kind of like a Metol version of Rodinal. Yes, there's grain, but very nice grain, not mush. JohnW

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

That sounds soooo gooooooood

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, I was responding to the discussion about what Kodak intended DK-50 be used for. That intention was formed a very long time ago.
And would point out that "miniature and roll" films from over 80 years ago were fundamentally different from current films.
The suitability of DK-50 for current films is more related to the nature of the films, than the nature of DK-50.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Matt,
Yes, you are right. Film today is certainly not the film of the past. Funny how we think of 6X6, 6X7cm format as rather large and back then it was considered pretty small. I was always told that DK-50 was a developer for 4X5 and D-76 was for the smaller stuff. Back when I first started doing my own B&W film development I followed that advice and never would have tried DK-50, since I owned nothing larger than 35mm. A lot of the deceased photographers of the long past would be rolling over in their graves if they saw some of the combinations people use now. A good example is a "Coffee developer"? Or "Herb" developers? Take care, JohnW

 

[Lachlan Young]

DK-50 (and DK-60a) were fast working, easy to replenish etc - they also ended up being developers of choice for a lot more 'photographic' applications (technical/ industrial/ production oriented) than just the narrowly pictorial. HC-110 (dilution A, B, E for DK-60a stock, 1+1, 1+2 respectively - dilutions C, D, F for DK-50 stock, 1+1, 1+2) seems to have been intended as a simplifying drop-in product. Something like Ilfosol 3 is going to be considerably better geared to modern emulsions than any of the above.