Criteria for new developer formulations

[Photo Engineer]

Many people purport to have new developer formulations. This is GREAT!

However, to pass the test of time, Kodak and others have established a method for determining if a developer is better, the same, or worse than previous developers.

It requires running an experiment in which the new developer is exactly compared to the old developer, say D-76 or the like.

1. Is the contrast the same? If it is not, then the subjective speed may be different.

2. Is the speed the same at the same contrast? If not then you are fooling yourself.

3. Is the grain the same at the same speed and contrast?

4. Is the sharpness the same at the same speed and contrast?

These 4 factors are used to determine if the new developer equals the current reference developer. To be better, the new developer must be better than 2 or 3 of the above.

So, a new developer presented to you as being "better" should have:

1. Reference pictures to an older reference developer.

2. Be better in 2 or 3 of the above characteristics.

If not, then the developer is questionable, and if there is no reference, then the new developer tests are totally meaningless in that you have no comparison to make with the new developer.

I have become discouraged looking at people touting their particular developer with no evidence that it is better (or worse ) than anything else on the market.

When presented with a new developer there must be 2 photos that match as closely as possible in order to make a judgment. Otherwise you are dealing with a used car salesman.

PE

 

[gainer]

Many people purport to have new developer formulations. This is GREAT!

However, to pass the test of time, Kodak and others have established a method for determining if a developer is better, the same, or worse than previous developers.

It requires running an experiment in which the new developer is exactly compared to the old developer, say D-76 or the like.

1. Is the contrast the same? If it is not, then the subjective speed may be different.

2. Is the speed the same at the same contrast? If not then you are fooling yourself.

3. Is the grain the same at the same speed and contrast?

4. Is the sharpness the same at the same speed and contrast?

These 4 factors are used to determine if the new developer equals the current reference developer. To be better, the new developer must be better than 2 or 3 of the above.

So, a new developer presented to you as being "better" should have:

1. Reference pictures to an older reference developer.

2. Be better in 2 or 3 of the above characteristics.

If not, then the developer is questionable, and if there is no reference, then the new developer tests are totally meaningless in that you have no comparison to make with the new developer.

I have become discouraged looking at people touting their particular developer with no evidence that it is better (or worse ) than anything else on the market.

When presented with a new developer there must be 2 photos that match as closely as possible in order to make a judgment. Otherwise you are dealing with a used car salesman.

PE

As a rule, when an APUGer proposes a formula as I do from time to time, there is no sale attempted. If I must go to the trouble and expense of obtaining and testing every commercial developer that may equal or exceed some cockamamy idea I may have, I shall simply keep it to myself.

I presume that most of us here are not nor have ever been lab technicians with fortunes invested in the various appurtenances of a professional laboratory. The closest I have come to a commercial product is the suggestions I have made to Sandy King. I did not even ask him to give me any credit if my suggestions were usable. He was kind enough to do so anyway. I would not even consider accepting payment. I do what I do supported by my Federal Retirement Annuity.

If I present a formula that you believe should be compared with another, you are free to do your own test drive. In fact, if I am to be likened to a used car salesperson, you really should do your own test drive.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

Hmmm, reminds me of The Muppet Show.

 

[cmo]

Hmmm, reminds me of The Muppet Show.

Well, I always wanted a replacement for Miss Piggy

The 'used car dealers' are often manufacturers of miracle cures ("no grain, incredibly sharp, and all the benefits of those little blue pills"). They have always made money with their hyperbolical statements.

It would be so easy to show them up if there was a standardized, acknowledged test method, like the NCAP crash test.

 

[Ian Grant]

Hmmm, reminds me of The Muppet Show.

Have to agree, a sermon to those converted years ago.

Keep up the good work Patrick

Ian

 

[Alan Johnson]

New developers introduced since the publication of the Film Developing Cookbook are PC-TEA,Ilfosol-3 and the Pyrocats.These are moderate or high acutance developers and Kodak does not have a product in this market and probably no people working on it.Their test probably relates to products similar to what they actually make.

 

[Ian Grant]

There have been some others developers like like Hypercat and 510 Pyro introduced in the past 10 years, but those weren't tested properly by their deviser. In addition Crawley's published one or two more.

But in many ways there has to be a need for a new developer which offers some qualities not available in an existing product/formulae to warrant the considerable work required to formulate a well balance developer and test it properly.

Sandy King's Pyrocat is perhaps the best example in recent years of a well thought out developer that really fill as gap and that's reflected in the large number of people using the developer.

Patrick Gainer has done similar work with his PCTea etc, sometimes peer testing is a more valid way of testing and unlike a non active APUG member he never makes exaggerated claims about his formulae.

Not all commercial developers are optimal, D76/ID-11 is one in particular despite being taken as the reference standard, in fact Adox Borax MQ gives far better all round results (and was very similar to the ASA/BS reference developer), Agfa's Fine grain Borax MQ - Ansco 17 is another.

Ian

 

[archer]

Dear Ron;
Is your post aimed at those who sell packaged developers while keeping the formulas secret? If so, I would agree with your premise. For the rest of us, that experiment with different formulations for our own edification and then share the formulae with other photographers who wish to try them, your criteria would be very limiting because it would not take into consideration the cost and component availability factors as an important part of why so many prefer to "mix their own", not to mention the pleasure and knowledge derived from the effort.
Denise Libby

 

[archer]

Dear Ian;
have you posted the formulae for Agfa's Fine Grain MQ and Ansco 17? I'm vaguely familiar with both but have never used either and have not seen their formulae. I believe your point is well taken about developing a standard all can agree on.
Denise Libby

 

[Ray Rogers]

I basically agree with both Ron and Gadget.
I woud like to see some comparative data on Ron's developer(s) and fixers too, though, btw.

Ray

 

[eclarke]

The standard is what the print looks like. I have an acquaintance who tests and tests until all the data is perfect but the photographs suck. It's a visual medium and the final proof is the prints...EC

 

[Ian Grant]

I think that's why the best new developer's have come from working photographers, like Sandy King

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

I basically agree with both Ron and Gadget.
I woud like to see some comparative data on Ron's developer(s) and fixers too, though, btw.

Ray

Ray;

Comparative developer tests were published here on APUG as were the fixer tests.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

I do not disagree with anything said here, but I want to remind you that:

1. I mentioned no names, and when asked Patrick posted some pretty good comparative tests so that pretty much eliminates him from this so-called "muppet show". I was making a general statement, not pointing the finger. If Patrick had failed to present comparisons then he might be included.

2. You do not need an elaborate lab to do the tests of speed, grain, sharpness and contrast. I can do it with a resolution chart and a MacBeth color checker with a few rolls of film. I cut off several frames and run them through the two developers in question and then make prints. What could be simpler? Well, sheet film is simpler but more expensive.

PE

 

[Ray Rogers]

Ray;

Comparative developer tests were published here on APUG as were the fixer tests.

PE

I was not aware of that
(or don't recall being aware of it!).

Does anyone know where they are?
Or what to search on to get the good stuff?
Who is actually using them
and thinks they are superior
and knows objectivly why?

I would like to see the comparisons of speed, grain, sharpness and contrast　that PE mentioned...

I imagine I was not following that thread at the time, (not being that interested in competitive processing pe se), but the longer I read threads and posts like those above, the more I feel it is important to be critical of the products and materials being mentioned.

However, the comments of eclarke here ring true indeed!

Ray

 

[gainer]

If what I can do is sufficient, I will continue to do it when I think I've got something. I reserve the right to show preliminary results when I might be on the way to something better. This way, others can join in earlier. I do, however, reiterate that I have made no money from sale of developers. I have on occasion been paid for magazine articles dealing with some of my experiments.
I have resurrected my old camera with the step wedge I built into it, and the densitometer that I designed and built. I'm learning how to use them.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ray;

I have offered comparative tests for Liquidol, Super Fix I, Azo type emulsions and Kodabromide type emulsions with side-by-side comparisons including different surfaces, contrasts and etc. The developer and fix offered their relative comparisons with production developers and fixes. All are posted here in various places. I have never posted a film developer, although I have about 3 or 4 in the works, and the lack of posts are mainly due to my dissatisfaction with the results so far and are partly (out of frustration) the reason for my OP.

Patrick;

This was not intended as fingerpointing but merely a compilation of all comments I made elsewhere into one reference for those that do feel that they have something exceptional. This is a set of instructions on how to prove it to the general public. This is what I have to do if I am to prove, at least to myself, that any of my film developers are any good.

PE

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I wholeheartedly agree, Evan.

Grain can be finer or sharper by measurement, but how that grain actually looks when printed is entirely subjective. What is better?
I find that tonal rendition is so much more important. I used for a while, when I could afford it, Edwal 12 developer. Looking at the curves it produced it wasn't a very good developer. Sharp toe and shoulder. But boy did it help me make some nice prints! (to my eyes anyway).

I really think there are two camps that try to co-exist. One is technical and scientific, and the other is passionate and judging by subjective terms only, i.e. how a print actually looks and feels to their eyes.

It's tough to marry the two approaches into one big happy family that agrees on things. I respect PE for the consistency in his approach. And I respect Gainer for the inventiveness and sticking his nose out. And I respect my own approach of using whatever I think looks best. (Xtol, replenished, by the way).

- Thomas

The standard is what the print looks like. I have an acquaintance who tests and tests until all the data is perfect but the photographs suck. It's a visual medium and the final proof is the prints...EC

 

[CBG]

PE mentioned several criteria Kodak would use to evaluate a new developer. Comparison to an existing high performing developer makes very good sense. Kodak has to view new products within a competitive commercial environment, and it sets very high standards for technical excellence.

Beyond what has been mentioned above, Kodak would also have to determine whether a potential new developer has sufficient product differentiation from existing products to merit production: i.e. whether it fits some new product niche, or whether Kodak would just be competing with itself by making a near twin to an existing product line. Also, would production and costs be workable and profitable? Would production entail any environmental problems? Does it fill a demand? Are the constituents environmentally acceptable? And so on.

But, for the purposes of readers of APUG, other possibly contradictory criteria may be valid. Some readers here may have a different set of concerns that new formulations might address:

1. LF and ULF users may not care much about grain.
2. Some users might want grain.
3. Extreme acutance and stand development don't fit the commercial world very well but are of great interest here.
4. Formulations not utterly optimal from measured results may offer convenience or other benefits for "home brewing". Liquid concentrates come to mind for me.
5. The pure fun of sorting out a new formula may outweigh the technical challenge of seeking an optimized product.
6. Simple home measurement formulae can make the user less dependent upon any particular supplier.

In short, the non-commercial world sometimes lives by different rules. And those rules may be at variance with exacting commercial and technical criteria. I believe there is room for both kinds of users.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Also a new developer should keep well,at least if it is to be a commercial product. Ryuji Suzuki (DS-10 ,DS-12) investigated additives to ascorbate developers.

 

[sanking]

You do not need an elaborate lab to do the tests of speed, grain, sharpness and contrast. I can do it with a resolution chart and a MacBeth color checker with a few rolls of film. I cut off several frames and run them through the two developers in question and then make prints. What could be simpler? Well, sheet film is simpler but more expensive.

PE

I don't agree that evaluating developers is simple. In fact, I find it to be very complicated, and ultimately somewhat subjective. Some things can be tested easily. For example, I can run sensitometry tests that will quickly provide a valid comparison of a new formula against a standard like D76 in terms of film speed, CI, and curve shape. Sharpness is a much more difficult question because it depends not only on the developer but on dilution and type of agitation. Grain is also problematic because how do you evaluate it? Visually by looking at negative, by printing (and if so, with what process and at what print size), or by scanning (different machines and methods give different results). Resolution itself can not be tested without the use of expensive high definition targets where the target is contact printed. The use of a camera system is useless in evaluating developer resolution because the limit to resolution will always be the camera/film system, not the developer.

Sandy King

 

[Murray Kelly]

Ron, I am a little in awe of your skills and expertise. I have also seen it said that ideas are 10c a bale. Few of us have the training and equipment to do all that would satisfy your requirements, however.
It would be a pity, I think, if those with a new idea were discouraged from putting it up here for general consideration. I don't remember many 'over the top' claims for a new idea.
As an example in another field Alexander Fleming re-discovered (thru sloppy technique) that penicillium notatum killed bacteria on one of his culture plates and published. Then he sat back and did nothing with the idea. It took Howard Florey nearly 10 years to do the spade work and get it to market. The idea, for Fleming, earned him eternal fame. Luckily for us he did publish. Few remember Florey.
So too with some ideas here. There aren't many photo engineers in our midst but good ideas are not necessarily the prerogative of engineers.
I like to see opinions (for that's all they are) about developers and their variations and have learned enough now to accept them for just that, opinions.
I hope they keep coming because once in a while something really good comes from one of them.
Murray

 

[Ray Rogers]

I don't agree that evaluating developers is simple. In fact, I find it to be very complicated, and ultimately somewhat subjective. Sandy King

Ouuuuh, Sandy
Well said!

Earlier I wrote (then deleted) a much less eloquent:
"I think if we are going to disagree, we are going to need better data than color checkers and res charts,
if we don't want to be just killing time."
so I am glad you did post your comments!

I have seen some of those pictures/scans that are offered here as comparative,
but they were not really all that convincing.

I think we need to THINK TANK this problem anew.
There must be a better way.

Ray

 

[Photo Engineer]

These are all very good comments.

One way to summarize them all is to use an old Kodak saying: "we sell pictures not curves." And, so I am aware of what all you say. For example, you do not compare a new developer with sheet film sizes against 35mm negatives. This is obviously wrong. And, I know that grain is a different matter at different negative sizes. Also, sharpness is of different import as negative size varies. Developer dilution is a critical issue in some cases as I have mentioned before regarding HC-110 in another thread.

All of these must be taken into account.

Murray, you said it well. An opinion is an opinion and they are of value because many of them are important. But, I put up my OP in the hopes that some would realize that sometimes proofs are needed, not just opinions because opinions are just words.

PE

 

[Alan Johnson]

In depth studies have been done.A trip to the library may turn up this:
"Image Quality and Black & White Photographs"
I.Stone, R.E.Jacobson and G.G.Attridge.
The Journal of Photographic Science, Vol 43 1995 p43-46.
They used 28 observers to subjectively rank image quality,graininess and sharpness.(They were actually studying different films).
Objective measurements for comparison included microdensitometer results.
Not a problem to test a developer,for the amateur multi-millionaire.