chemistry to counteract incompetency .. "silver bullet" ?

[removed account4]

in a recent thread i was told that
certain developers are
formulated / tailor made for people who
are basically incompetent

" tailored to people who are prone to
screw up and often covers up poor handling
that other developers might show errors"

the developers being spoken of is very much like
d76 and id-11 ( some people might refer to it as a metol-free "clone" )
and something metol-free that serves up prints similar to those done in dektol / d72.

i have never heard of this before and was hoping someone with a chemical experience /
chemistry background / PHOTOchemistry background might shed some light on this for me.

does the absence of metol / elon really make a developer "idiot proof" ?
if it does why is it that more people don't use metol free developers that
allow them to cover up poor handling, considering most people don't
handle their film ( or prints ) as if they were the crown jewels or a family heirloom.
granted we don't live in an age anymore where wartime photographers
newspaper photographers and others who may not have optimal handling
but life would be easier for a lot of people who sometimes make a mistake here or there

and a foolproof developer, a counter-incompetent silver bullet might come in handy.

granted i don't believe a word of what was said, and i don't think there is a developer
that will mask incompetency, and i think it was just a slight against people who might use these
developers, and people who have contempt for their materials, but what do i know, that is why
i was hoping someone with knowledge, could shed some light.

thanks
john

 

[analoguey]

Silver bullet of another kind.

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[removed account4]

Silver bullet of another kind.

Sent from Tap-a-talk

maybe, but i don't think so at all,
it might not be a silver bullet at all but a figment of the imagination.

 

[analoguey]

I thought a silver bullet is a figment of imagination/Chimera? :-/ (isnt that what it means, more or less?)

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[paul_c5x4]

does the absence of metol / elon really make a developer "idiot proof" ?

No - and even if it did, evolution shows that a new and improved idiot would surface.

 

[analoguey]

No - and even if it did, evolution shows that a new and improved idiot would surface.

Lol.
Thats true. You can never predict idiocy.

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[snapguy]

Get out

May I suggest perhaps you need to get out more? If you are going to swallow every piece of baloney that some drooling idiot puts out on the Internet you are going to waste a lot of time. Cessna has, and still may, make a twin-engine airplane for pilot doctors and lawyers who are famous for thinking they are too smart to have to listen to flight training instructors. It's a two-prop job but the propellers are in line, one behind another, and is easier to fly than when you have to sync an engine on each wing. Kodak used to lie about the ASA of their b&w films, figuring that if you overexposed it was better than if you underexposed. Better for their bottom line, sure, because you wouldn't want to pay for prints from very underexposed negatives. As for idiot-proof film developer, lots of luck. I remember a major news photo service was waiting impatiently for a photo of a baseball game in Seattle to share with dozens of newspapers around the country. The Seattle bureau of the news service finally admitted the photo was not available. "The door fell off the darkroom" was their explanation. You can't come up with a magic formula to prevent that.

 

[removed account4]

May I suggest perhaps you need to get out more? If you are going to swallow every piece of baloney that some drooling idiot puts out on the Internet you are going to waste a lot of time. Cessna has, and still may, make a twin-engine airplane for pilot doctors and lawyers who are famous for thinking they are too smart to have to listen to flight training instructors. It's a two-prop job but the propellers are in line, one behind another, and is easier to fly than when you have to sync an engine on each wing. Kodak used to lie about the ASA of their b&w films, figuring that if you overexposed it was better than if you underexposed. Better for their bottom line, sure, because you wouldn't want to pay for prints from very underexposed negatives. As for idiot-proof film developer, lots of luck. I remember a major news photo service was waiting impatiently for a photo of a baseball game in Seattle to share with dozens of newspapers around the country. The Seattle bureau of the news service finally admitted the photo was not available. "The door fell off the darkroom" was their explanation. You can't come up with a magic formula to prevent that.

snapguy

i get out lots, i have fistfuls of experience, and if you read what i said i believed it was not true
BUT unfortunately, i don't have excessive photochemical knowledge. and who knows maybe
someone with knowledge in chemistry will say YES ... metol free developers mask incompetency.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

May I suggest perhaps you need to get out more?

..

 

[removed account4]

I thought a silver bullet is a figment of imagination/Chimera? :-/ (isnt that what it means, more or less?)

Sent from Tap-a-talk

not sure

i have found my own silver bullet though
something that works for me in every situation
its coffee based and glycin based .. its fantastic
but my silver bullet might not work for you, its the old YMMV and all that.

but a developer that will make someone prone to darkroom incompetency's work look better,
now that would be a great thing.
the weird thing is these developers i am asking about are used in university, high school &c darkrooms all over the usa
for 30-40+ years, if they make people's work look that much better why aren't there millions of master printers
and world-arresting photographers instead of just a few here and there...

 

[Rick A]

AFAIK the only way to mask incompetency is to not do anything and then claim someone's work as your own. As to someone claiming that certain developers were designed to cover said malady, only said it to make themselves feel superior(thus masking their own incompetency).

 

[gone]

I'm not sure there is an idiot proof anything. If there is, y'all are going to have to fight me for who gets first in line.

Having tried more than a few developers, I will tell you that D76 is about as close to one as you can get, if partnered w/ Tri-X. I've forgotten to do a lot of my inversions, accidentally mixed it up full strength and developed it w/ the times and temps for the 1:1 version, gotten my temps all wrong (once you drop those fancy, smancy dial thermometers, you can throw them away I learned) and no matter what I did, the damn negs looked great. Especially the time I developed it full strength w/ diluted protocol. It gave my Rolleicord shots a very nice "bite" w/ gorgeous grain. It looked like the Tri-X of olden times if you ask me.

Thanks for posting this. It's time to clear the wife and cat out of the kitchen, and get in there and make some more "mistakes". Like the the Rolleicord shots below that were made w/ full strength D76 and the 1:1 times and temps.





For my off-topic comment le jour, I've never understood all the hoopla over Planar lenses. Buy yourself a cheap Rolleicord w/ a clean Triotar, get it set up right, and it will absolutely blow a Planar out of the water, unless you're peeking into the far, far corners. Great lenses.

 

[Rudeofus]

I don't think these "fool proof" developers can save you from a dark room door falling off, but they can reduce the impact of some minor processing errors:

1. Some developers, especially high performance ones, build up some fog during development. If you overdevelop with these, fog may become a major issue. Other developers, especially those that don't try to extract the last bit of film speed, may fare better in this regard
2. Likewise, some developers show stronger suppression of shadows when one underdevelops than others.
3. A liquid concentrate developer may be easier to use than a developer that you have to mix from two powder bags (and god help you if you throw the contents of both bags into your container, then add water).
4. Some developers fail silently after some time of storage, while others indicate their imminent demise by discoloration.
5. Some developers allegedly show bromide drag if you don't agitate properly, whereas others won't.

Feel free to continue this list ...

 

[Rick A]

John, the statements made in the other thread about "student" developers etc. are without merit and make no sense. That's the long and short of it.

So, we should label it "supposition of the uneducated".

 

[Photo Engineer]

Developers are designed around several criteria: Speed, grain, sharpness, solubility, keeping, cost and a host of other minor things but being idiot proof is not one of them that I ever heard.

I have heard people say: "Design this process to be as idiot proof as possible" acknowledging the fact that complex processes (such as color) can be difficult for some, but the qualifier "as possible" adds the fact that we just do our best to keep from confusing the customer who buys the product.

PE

PS: John, I think you have had too much free time lately. A cold damp towel on your forehead and a good nap every day for a while might help.

 

[removed account4]

I'm not sure there is an idiot proof anything. If there is, y'all are going to have to fight me for first in line.

Having tried more than a few developers, I will tell you that D76 is about as close to one as you can get, if partnered w/ Tri-X. I've forgotten to do a lot of my inversions, accidentally mixed it up full strength and developed it w/ the times and temps for the diluted version, gotten my temps all wrong (once you drop those fancy, smancy dial thermometers, you can throw them away I learned) and no matter what I did, the damn negs looked great. Especially the time I developed it full strength w/ diluted protocol. It gave my Rolleicord shots a very nice "bite" w/ gorgeous grain. It looked like the Tri-X of olden times if you ask me. Thanks for posting this. It's time to clear the wife and cat out of the kitchen, and get in there and make some more "mistakes". Like the one w/ the Rolleicord (below).

View attachment 96352

View attachment 96353

thanks momus

since the developer ( film ) is similar to d76 maybe you are onto something
but if suggest d76 was tailor made for incompetence i am sure i will be flogged
everyone love d76 for their reasons .. maybe one of those reasons is because
when they use it they " look marvelous !" as your lovely images look

I don't think these "fool proof" developers can save you from a dark room door falling off, but they can reduce the impact of some minor processing errors:

1. Some developers, especially high performance ones, build up some fog during development. If you overdevelop with these, fog may become a major issue. Other developers, especially those that don't try to extract the last bit of film speed, may fare better in this regard
2. Likewise, some developers show stronger suppression of shadows when one underdevelops than others.
3. A liquid concentrate developer may be easier to use than a developer that you have to mix from two powder bags (and god help you if you throw the contents of both bags into your container, then add water).
4. Some developers fail silently after some time of storage, while others indicate their imminent demise by discoloration.
5. Some developers allegedly show bromide drag if you don't agitate properly, whereas others won't.

Feel free to continue this list ...

thanks rudeofus
i know your chemical background is pretty good ..

i haven't used enough developers to be able to continue the list
but i appreciate you breaking this down.

but would a metol free film developer like d76 be something that would be able to
mask poor film handling, poor agitation poor temperature control, poor dilution control
poor reel loading poor bubble rapping ( rap to release bubbles ) ( sorry i can't add anymore sloppyness i'm tired )
i mean it would be like if you used a metol free d76 clone it would be like having someone who owns a world class lab process your film.

whats not to like ?

 

[removed account4]

Developers are designed around several criteria: Speed, grain, sharpness, solubility, keeping, cost and a host of other minor things but being idiot proof is not one of them that I ever heard.

I have heard people say: "Design this process to be as idiot proof as possible" acknowledging the fact that complex processes (such as color) can be difficult for some, but the qualifier "as possible" adds the fact that we just do our best to keep from confusing the customer who buys the product.

PE

PS: John, I think you have had too much free time lately. A cold damp towel on your forehead and a good nap every day for a while might help.

thanks PE
i appreciate your background and knowledge base, and KNOW you know your stuff seeing you design emulsions as well as developers .

i don't think a damp cold towel will help.

John, the statements made in the other thread about "student" developers etc. are without merit and make no sense. That's the long and short of it.

maybe you are right ?
i was hoping there would be a kernel of truth in it ...

 

[Photo Engineer]

John, D76 - metol free?

 

[Ian Grant]

Ilford Autophen was a PQ so metol free version of ID-11/D76 sold as a photofinishing replenishmed developer. In many US books the formula is mistakenly said to be Microphen


Autophen

Sodium sulphite (anhydrous) 100 gm.
Hydroquinone 5 gm.
Borax 3 gm.
Boric acid 3.5 gm.
Potassium bromide 1 gm.
Phenidone 0.2 gm
Water to make 1 litre


Ian

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Years ago I had to teach a dumbed down version of organic chemistry designed for pre-med students. This particular group usually failed the regular chemistry course. It still gives me the shivers when I think about this. Students in science or engineering took the regular (harder) class.

Silver bullets only work on werewolves.

 

[removed account4]

John, D76 - metol free?

no ron

sprint film developer ...

 

[Photo Engineer]

Then there are the Haist variations. I can't remember them OTOMH, but his work at KRL encompassed quite a few variants that gave the same or similar results when compared to the original formula.

PE

 

[Truzi]

I don't believe in magic bullets. Certainly one should instead state an opinion and explain why, with sufficient caveats, but not everyone does this. So when I hear blanket claims, I realize some people claim things they have heard are facts, but I tend to interpret what I read as opinion. Also, I always wonder if there is something below the supposed "facts" (not just photography related) that may have been misinterpreted/misrepresented in some manner.
Also, I am truly bad at chemistry, but I do feel the concept of a "magic bullet" not a logical thought, aside from colloquialism.

However... to stir this veiled question, is it possible some things may make life easier in one way or another, especially for a beginner? For example, I often see recommendations against certain dilutions of HC110.

Now to don my flame-resistant suit

 

[cliveh]

in a recent thread i was told that
certain developers are
formulated / tailor made for people who
are basically incompetent

" tailored to people who are prone to
screw up and often covers up poor handling
that other developers might show errors"

the developers being spoken of is very much like
d76 and id-11
john

I hold my hands up, I use D76 all the time.

 

[georg16nik]

Stone is walking the walk, he went from hybrid shooter to traditional workflow. For 2014 that's amazing!

He said something “incompetent” about John's favorite dev. (from his teen years) ouch; BIG DEAL!

APUG should be supportive, not criticizing members in such way.