The lower concentration of Phenidone enables much more concentrated developing solutions to be prepared than is the case with metol developers. Both Phenidone and metol form 1:1 molar adducts with hydroquinone, and in concentrated solutions it is these complexes which tend to crystallize out first, this tendency being greater at the lower alkalinities. With MQ developers this crystallization becomes a serious problem if the preparation of liquid developer concentrates is attempted. With Phenidone, liquid developer concentrates can be prepared which require high dilutions to prepare working strength developers.
Unless you are heavily invested in Metol, I recommend you change to Dimezone-S (traditional Phenidone hydrolyzes over time). .
For D72 I don’t want to mix up an entire liter of stock solution because it’s not that concentrated. Would the chemicals dilute in less water? Let’s say 500ml instead of a 1000ml?
There are concentrated MQ developers, e.g. Kalogen. This developer lasts for several months. It avoids the MQ precipitation problem by working at very high pH.You can mix concentrated MQ developers because the Metol would oxidise too rapidly.
Dimezone-S is quite a bit more expensive than Phenidone, yet Ilford uses Phenidone B and Dimezone-S across their liquid product line. Phenidone might last longer in powder form (Microphen contains Phenidone), but people often prefer liquid developer concentrates, and once dissolved in water Phenidone hydrolyses. If this is all evil Kodak propaganda, then Ilford and Tetenal must have sadly fallen for it.My experience is that Phenidone based developers have a better shelf life than Dimezone-S. It seems largely Kodak marketing and disinformation that Phenidone has poor keeping properties, I have some 1961 Ilford Phenidone that's as good as fresh Phenidone bought last year. It's odd that British books state Phenidone keeps well and US the opposite.
This is strange, because I can get Phenidone much cheaper and much easier than Dimezone-S. Many suppliers of photochemistry carry only Phenidone. Maybe things are different in larger quantities.I think in bulk Dimezone-S is significantly cheaper than Phenidone, the switch was made when Ilford sub-contracted chemistry manufacture to Champion, Ron Mowrey (PE) mentioned the price difference some time ago.
Pyrocat HD (and its variants are no good example. Phenidone hydrolyzation happens in alkaline solution, while Pyrocat HD keeps the Phenidone slightly acidic. Whoever formulated it probably had very good reasons to mix it in two components. I am not aware of any Phenidone based single liquid concentrate developer.My experience is that Phenidone based concentrated developers commercial and home made have (or had) a slightly better shelf life than commercial Dimezone based versions and that seems to be the experience of others as well. With Pyrocat HD I've found no noticeable drop in activity of Part A which contains Phenidone a fter 3 to 4 years, that's mixed in de-ionised water not Glycol, but then that's in an acidic solution, the moment that last of the Metabisulphite breaks down the Pyrocatechin oxidises rapidly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?