Chemistry question: lith developer part A plus Bromophen?

[18percentgrey]

I was making my foray into Lith printing (using Lith dev on expired paper) using Agfa portrigarapid paper and Photographers Formulary 70 dev (like Kodalith dev) when I inadvertently used part A and Ilford Bromophen dev (in place of part B) in equal amounts diluted 1:4. See results.Did I happen upon a happy accident as Bob Ross used to say? Thank you in advance.

 

[koraks]

AFAIK Bromophen is similar to ID62 which is a general purpose PQ developer. If you add a typical lith developer part A to this, what you basically get is an ID62 variant with a little more hydroquinone. It's not going to make all that much difference vs. just ID62. The main difference will be the dilution; you'd be using the ' augmented Bromophen' a little more dilute than you'd normally do. This would slow down development; combined with the typical lith-print overexposure and 'snatching' the print earlier, what you end up with is a fairly low-contrast print which is likely somewhat warm-toned because of the incomplete development. That seems to be what you got, so nothing really odd going on here. There's no infectious development going on, which would also not be expected given the chemistry - Bromophen is loaded with sulfite and there's phenidone in there, so any potential for lith activity is eliminated.

Talking about the example; I see two prints - what are we looking at here? Is left a reference straight print with normal exposure and right a lith-overexposed, early-snatched print?

 

[18percentgrey]

Thank you, two different exposures and dev times. Perhaps the paper is not as fogged as I thought. I will be returning to the darkroom soon to try the Ilford paper dev alone and the Lith a b dev also on separate trials.