Clyton Chemicals

Peter Schrager · Oct 28, 2005

Lowell Huff has posted on the photo-net forum that if he has enough interest
he will make a Rodinal clone. You can email him at Clyton chemicals. This might be interesting so people should express some interest....
Best, Peter

Peter Schrager · Oct 28, 2005

Clayton

Ooops that should read Clayton

Keith Tapscott. · Oct 28, 2005

Peter Schrager said:
Lowell Huff has posted on the photo-net forum that if he has enough interest
he will make a Rodinal clone. You can email him at Clyton chemicals. This might be interesting so people should express some interest....
Best, Peter

I wouldn`t worry too much about losing Rodinal, someone who works for or has worked for Agfa must know the exact formula of the commercial developer.
The popularity of this product should ensure it`s survival and I wouldn`t be at all surprised if a company such as Tetenal Ltd end up making it.

eric · Oct 28, 2005

Peter Schrager said:
Lowell Huff has posted on the photo-net forum that if he has enough interest
he will make a Rodinal clone. You can email him at Clyton chemicals. This might be interesting so people should express some interest....
Best, Peter

Ever talk to that guy on the phone? Seriously, you can call him and he'll chat with you with chemistry and stuff. He's pretty cool and knowledgable.

Photo Engineer · Oct 28, 2005

I have tested their fixers and found that they do not live up to the 'hype' posted about them on PN by Lowell Huff.

They are run-of-the-mill, adequate fixers, but not the super dooper stuff touted.

PE

eric · Oct 28, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
I have tested their fixers and found that they do not live up to the 'hype' posted about them on PN by Lowell Huff.

They are run-of-the-mill, adequate fixers, but not the super dooper stuff touted.

PE

I've never read any of the hype on photo net but aren't all fixers run-of-the-mill? I don't know what's special about fixer from one company to another. It just "fixes" the film. Its either slow or fast.

Peter Schrager · Oct 28, 2005

ok

PE-isn't that just the name of the game? You buys your tickets and you takes your chances. My post wasn't yay or nay just that if we had a supplier right here who was willing to make the stuff. I've never used any of the products they make since I don't care for shipping from the west coast; especially when it
comes to liquids in bottles. I already make my fixer and my pyro but I was having a little fun tryong out the "ritualistic Rodinal" !!
Best, Peter

Photo Engineer · Oct 28, 2005

Peter, I'll let you know after I do some experiments myself, but Rodinol is rather 'touchy' during packaging IIRC. So, it is not just a matter of "lets make Rodinol today".

Eric, all fixers are not born equal. TF4 is very fast and allows reduced wash times. If someone says that their fixer does the same but is even faster, but when tested is not only slower to fix, but slower to wash out, then it is HYPE to me.

TF4 met the specs. Don't take my word for it, you can test it yourself very easily. The Clayton fixer was equal to the Kodak Rapid Liquid Hardening Fix, but no better. It certainly did not meet TF4 in fix or wash times.

I myself have formulated several fixers that are even faster than TF4 and wash out more rapidly than TF4. I'm still working on it. Jdef has used one of my generation 1 super fixers and has posted the formula here on APUG. You may want to try it, he seems to like it. I am working on gen 7 right now.

PE

Paul Howell · Oct 28, 2005

I have use Clayton fix and stop when Kodak was out of stock, no big issues or praise. I do use Rodinal for EKF 25, so I would buy a bottle.

eric · Oct 28, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
Eric, all fixers are not born equal. TF4 is very fast and allows reduced wash times. If someone says that their fixer does the same but is even faster, but when tested is not only slower to fix, but slower to wash out, then it is HYPE to me.

Come to think of it, I use the Clayton Rapid Fixer (non-hardener) on my prints and TF4 on my negs. I just mixed some Clayton Rapid Fixer for negs cause I ran out of TF4. It does take longer to clear but I can't tell if TF4 or Clayton fixed the film better than the other.

Photo Engineer · Oct 28, 2005

Eric, in my experiment, the Clayton fixer cleared and fixed about 30% slower than TF4 and about the same as the Kodak fix. It was claimed that it fixed about 30% FASTER. That is not so.

The extent of fixation is identical in all cases. It has to remove all silver halide.

The wash rate with TF4 is about 2 - 4 x faster than with the Kodak and Clayton fixers.

Therefore overall, the TF-4 is more effective. As I mentioned above, it is possible to do even better.

PE

bobbysandstrom · Oct 28, 2005

Lowell is a good guy and someone we ought to stand behind and support whenever possible!

kaiyen · Oct 28, 2005

Lowell is a salesman more than anything else and can be really in your face about Clayton Chemicals. He also makes some claims that are pretty...incredible (in a literal sense).

However, some of his products aren't so bad, and at least he's responsive.

allan

bobbysandstrom · Oct 28, 2005

I think F-76 is a really fine developer. Can't knock that. Lowell has always been very helpful and willing to go the extra mile with regards to clayton products.

MattCarey · Oct 28, 2005

bobbysandstrom said:
I think F-76 is a really fine developer. Can't knock that. Lowell has always been very helpful and willing to go the extra mile with regards to clayton products.

My only trial of Rodinal was against F-76. I didn't pursue rodinal after that. Perhaps with more time, I could be initiated, but I just don't have the time.

I do like F76.

Matt

titrisol · Oct 29, 2005

F76+ is almost identical to DDX in th way it behaves.
Lowell was nice enough to send me some samples a while ago when we thought Ilford was going down the drain and both their F76+ and the odorless fixer are excellent products.
I still have to try their low contrast developer (Extend +)

MattCarey said:
My only trial of Rodinal was against F-76. I didn't pursue rodinal after that. Perhaps with more time, I could be initiated, but I just don't have the time.

I do like F76.

Matt

Hero! · Oct 29, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
Eric, all fixers are not born equal. TF4 is ....
PE

Photo Engineer, is TF4 a brand name? Are you advocating it as the quickest and best of the fixes? Please elaborate.

Thanks!

Peter De Smidt · Oct 29, 2005

TF4 is an alkaline fix sold by the Photographer's Formulary. I think Bill Troop developed it.

Photo Engineer · Oct 29, 2005

Hero! said:
Photo Engineer, is TF4 a brand name? Are you advocating it as the quickest and best of the fixes? Please elaborate.

Thanks!

I neither advocate nor object to any product. I merely state how the product performs. The TF4 meets the advertized specs on the bottle. It is the fastest fix I tested (other than my own) and is the fastest to wash out to archival levels (other than my own - tests still pending).

So, when compared to other fixes, I can say that TF-4 has no hype associated with it and neither does Kodak Rapid Hardening Fix. They perform up to the figures stated on the bottle. Even though the Kodak fix is slower, it meets its stated specs.

OTOH, the Clayton fixes that I tested did not perform up to the standards posted by Lowell Huff, and there were no performance figures on the bottle. Posted information on several sites that sell Clayton gave conflicting information on treatment times and other critical information such as dilution.

TF4 is an improved version of TF3 which is published in Anchell and Troop. It is indeed sold by the Formulary and does live up precisely to its specification.

After many years of R&D in Bleach and Fix chemistry, I believe that I can speak with a certain degree of authority on the subject. Nothing is wrong at all with the Clayton product. It is a fine fix. It is just not a Super Fix. Isn't that what HYPE is all about? Overstatement of the capabilities of a product.

The Clayton fix is an excellent work alike for the Kodak Rapid Liquid Hardneing Fix. No more, and no less. If that is giving you the value you want, then it is a fine product, but if you expect more from it based on some 'hype', it will not deliver.

My tests show that TF4 does deliver what it says on the bottle. It is the quickest fix I tested of all but my own special formulation, and it washed out faster than any but my own formulation.

PE

craigclu · Oct 30, 2005

PE... What are your plans with your fixer? Are you going to share the results and formula when you've finished or do you have other goals with it? Where does it fall on the pH scale, in general? Has it seemed compatible with staining developer processes? Sorry if this was answered elsewhere but I don't recall seeing it.

Photo Engineer · Oct 30, 2005

craigclu said:
PE... What are your plans with your fixer? Are you going to share the results and formula when you've finished or do you have other goals with it? Where does it fall on the pH scale, in general? Has it seemed compatible with staining developer processes? Sorry if this was answered elsewhere but I don't recall seeing it.

Craig, my only published fixer was posted here by Jdef (IIRC). For the time being, that will have to be the only one.

My plans are to develop a universal B&W fixer that will also serve to work with other ingredients as an economical, fairly stable film blix for E6 and C41. It will then be basically a very rapid B&W fix, part of a blix (with an add on part), a color fix and it will allow for very very rapid wash with good image stability. It will work with both film and paper and with B&W and color.

Since it is still under development, I don't care to comment further on it. My ultimate plans for it are open ended at the present time.

I use it myself in my own darkroom. I am currently on version 7, and am running wash and keeping tests.

Thanks for your interest.

PE

Mick Fagan · Oct 30, 2005

PE, that sounds very, very interesting. As a person who does C41, E6 and B&W, it may make life quite different in the dark room.

I await, with bated breath.

Mick.

dancqu · Oct 30, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
... is very fast ... reduced wash times. ... fix or wash times.
... even faster ... more rapidly ... super fixers ...

I think it's a fetish. Years ago the term "speed freaks"
was used. I not going to use that term because I
don't travel in those circles which use such
terminology.

Last night I used 1/2 ounce of unadulterated A. Thio.
in a solution volume of 16 ounces to clear, and some, a
120 roll of Delta 3200. I checked at 6 minutes and it was
clear. I gave it another 2 minutes. A following iodide test
did show some margin.

One of these days I'll get around to testing wash
times associated with highly dilute one-shot-and
-done-with-fixers. First though I've got to find
out how to prepare a permanganate solution
which does not produce a precipitate. Dan

Photo Engineer · Oct 30, 2005

Dan, I'm not a speed freak. I want to use less fresh water for washing.

I want to save time in the darkroom. I want to save time keeping temperatures at 100 deg F (38 deg C).

All hit you in the pocketbook or affect the environment.

Those are my targets.

PE

dancqu · Oct 31, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
Dan, I'm not a speed freak.
I want to use less fresh water for washing.
I want to save time in the darkroom.
I want to save time keeping temperatures at 100 deg F ... .
All hit you in the pocketbook or affect the environment.
Those are my targets.

Don't pay any attention to me. My minimalist
regime dictates S. or A. Thiosulfate unadulterated.

BTW, that Delta 3200 I wrote of has the very slightest
pink hue. I'd average the exposure of the roll at close to
zone 5. For that film I think 2/3 ounce, 20ml of 60%, a more
correct amount. Clear and then some time will likely run about
6 minutes. I've not made exact time tests. I only mention
this so as to head off any misgivings on the part
of any interested. Dan

Clyton Chemicals

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency