Developer for Aviphot Pan 200

Alan Johnson · Jul 27, 2022

In The Film Developing Cookbook 2020 p91, Bill Troop suggests that Atomal A49 may include hydroquinone in combination with the PPD derivative N,N,-Diethyl-p-phenylenediamine sulfate which latter is not CD-1 though it is close.
MeCD4 contains metol and CD4 and is more like the discontinued Emofin.
IMO, all these PPD derivatives may have a flattening effect on the curve which makes them way to go to get a pictorial result from contrasty films.

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Jul 27, 2022

Another approach to tame excessive contrast is SLIMT. Last year I came across this interesting variant of SLIMT technique for reducing contrast of film/paper post exposure:
https://www.facebook.com/
Unlike David Kachel's SLIMT which uses homeopathic dilutions of potassium ferricyanide, this new technique uses copper chloride (or equivalently, copper sulphate and sodium chloride) and in easily measurable amount (and hence not as sensitive to small measurement errors as SLIMT).

markjwyatt · Jul 27, 2022

Alan Johnson said:
...

...

If you magnify this image to max on Flickr, and look on some of the boats there are broken up thin lines (look at the third boat from right in the front row. Look on the front of the boat). Are these some type of thin cords or is this some type of chemical or scanning anomaly? I see one boat (2nd row, 6th boat to the right with tall cabin) where these lines appear to extend into the open cabin door, but disappear, and as well appear to extend into the grey background and also disappear.

John Wiegerink · Jul 27, 2022

markjwyatt said:
If you magnify this image to max on Flickr, and look on some of the boats there are broken up thin lines (look at the third boat from right in the front row. Look on the front of the boat). Are these some type of thin cords or is this some type of chemical or scanning anomaly? I see one boat (2nd row, 6th boat to the right with tall cabin) where these lines appear to extend into the open cabin door, but disappear, and as well appear to extend into the grey background and also disappear.

I see what you're talking about. I think that the negative sat on, say, a table, and an ant that just crawled out of the jelly jar walked over it with jam on his little feet.

Alan Johnson · Jul 27, 2022

Good spot guys.
It seems to be because I scanned in 16-> 8 bit B/W, the lines are round the edges of the lightest white.
Scanned in 48 -> 24 bit color the lines disappear:

markjwyatt · Jul 27, 2022

Interesting. Thanks. I usually digitize with a digital camera in RAW and do not see that.

John Wiegerink · Jul 27, 2022

Quick question. I just received my rolls of Rollei Superpan 200 from Freestyle Photo and would like to use MeCD4 developer to test it out. I have CD-2 developer, but no CD-4. Does anyone know, off-hand, the substitute weight of CD-2 to use? I know that CD-2 is going to be somewhat more active than CD-4, but don't know by how much. How to make MeCD2????

Alan Johnson · Jul 27, 2022

Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Derivatives of p-phenylene diamine? - Powered by XMB 1.9.11

CD-2 MW=214.74
CD-4 MW=292.35
If the ratio of the molecular weights is any guide, IDK. From PE:

Replace PPD by CD-3

My local supplier only has CD-3 not PPD. PPD MW=108.14 www.chemblink.com/products/106-50-3.htm CD-3 MW=836.97 www.chemblink.com/products/25646-71-3.htm Should I use 836.97 parts CD-3 to replace 108.14 parts PPD by weight? It's for a B/W film developer. Thanks.

www.photrio.com

John Wiegerink · Jul 27, 2022

Alan Johnson said:
Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Derivatives of p-phenylene diamine? - Powered by XMB 1.9.11
CD-2 MW=214.74
CD-4 MW=292.35
If the ratio of the molecular weights is any guide, IDK. From PE:

Replace PPD by CD-3

My local supplier only has CD-3 not PPD. PPD MW=108.14 www.chemblink.com/products/106-50-3.htm CD-3 MW=836.97 www.chemblink.com/products/25646-71-3.htm Should I use 836.97 parts CD-3 to replace 108.14 parts PPD by weight? It's for a B/W film developer. Thanks.

www.photrio.com

Great, that's all I need to know.

Alan Johnson · Jul 31, 2022

I shot Ilford Delta 100 @ EI = 160, the negatives are not ideal, being underdeveloped and low contrast [not helped by dull weather].
However they may be rescued to provide a "print".
EI 160 is potentially useful with filters.

Alan Johnson · Aug 1, 2022

The Chemistry of Photography From Classical to Digital Technologies : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The Chemistry of Photography From Classical to Digital Technologies

archive.org

On p46 the 2nd formula listed in the table is CD-4 and on p69 the formula of the oxidized form is given.
The oxide may be responsible for blocking the emulsion surface and causing flattening of the curve.
It is probably slowly removed by sulfonation.
It is interesting to note that the msds of Adotech IV shows the working solution with little sulfite. OTOH the Emofin substitute suggested by Bill Troop and intended for normal contrast films contains a lot of sulfite:

Microdol-x replacement

Paul, Ilford wouldn't have published their Technical Sheet P10 if it didn't work, presumably with their films which were then Pan F, FP3 & HP3, the newer Ilford films are less prone to Dichroic fogging. You do not need to use as much Ammonium Chloride as they suggest but you'd need to experiment...

www.photrio.com

So by this theory MeCD4 could have its curve flattening effect adjusted by changing the sulfite content.
Just note this out of interest, I am not going to try it.

Alan Johnson · Aug 9, 2022

Developer expiry-
A test using Adox HR-50 showed that the developed film leader was losing density in this batch of MeCD4. The batch has developed 24 films and is 21 weeks old, stored under a butane/propane mix in a glass bottle. It appears that it would be better to limit the number of films per 1L +1L batch to about 15.
A test was made to find if there was development in Bath A alone with a film believed to have a thin emulsion [attachment].
The pH of Bath A by paper was slightly less than 8.

I now believe the development times given in post 208 [short to avoid blown highlights] can be increased to give better negative density. 8m +8m 20C ,temperature corrected using the Ilford chart, is a ball park figure.

destroya · Jan 28, 2023

just wanted to post on my first attempt with the MeCD4 formula and RR80. my normal developer for this film is Pyro-m shot at 50. mixed up the MeCD4 formula and shot 2 rolls. 3/4 of the shots at 80 the rest at 64. nothing special, just a short walk enjoying the nice weather we had after many weeks of rain, rain and more rain. used an orange filter as there was a lot of new growth, mostly weeds. I really like this developer with this film. it really did as advertised, it flattened the curve and gave a lot more shadow detail that my pyro developer. the only other developer I found that came close to this was beutler. the MeCD4 is better in all accounts according to my little test and that makes me happy. I have yet to wet print any of the negs as my enlargers are boxed up ( we in California have been in drought so I was asked to not wet print as it uses a lot of water (or so I was told)). so scanning is my simple test but there was a clear difference. I went back the next day to the same place (its my daily walk spot) shot another roll and developed in pyro and it was clearly not as good. 80 was the correct speed for me.

Many thanks for this new formula. I will use it going forward. my next test will be to try it on some of my 4x5 RPX 25 and RR IR.

john

Helge · Jan 29, 2023

Alan Johnson said:
Developer expiry-
A test using Adox HR-50 showed that the developed film leader was losing density in this batch of MeCD4. The batch has developed 24 films and is 21 weeks old, stored under a butane/propane mix in a glass bottle. It appears that it would be better to limit the number of films per 1L +1L batch to about 15.
A test was made to find if there was development in Bath A alone with a film believed to have a thin emulsion [attachment].
The pH of Bath A by paper was slightly less than 8.

Why the mix of butane and propane?
Is ordinary butane alone bad in some way?

Alan Johnson · Jan 29, 2023

Butane should be OK.
If you want to start a debate about antioxidant gas please start your own thread.

Helge · Jan 29, 2023

Alan Johnson said:
Butane should be OK.
If you want to start a debate about antioxidant gas please start your own thread.

Was just probing for an answer to whether there was some reason or it was out of scarcity.
Plenty threads for that topic.

runswithsizzers · Jan 29, 2023

I have one roll of Rollei Superpan 200 in 135 which I plan to expose at about EI 80 / 100. I usually shoot outdoors on sunny days, but maybe I should aim for lower contrast scenes with this film?

After reading this thread I will not be buying any more of this film, so no point in me doing a lot of testing. I just hope to get reasonably acceptable results suitable for scanning from this one roll. Ideally, I would like to get results that could be darkroom printed in the future, but if my negatives don't have a lot of shadow detail I wont be throwing myself on my sword.

I will admit, I have not read every word of this 10-page thread, and of what I did read, I did not understand many of the more technical posts. But I still have 2 simple questions.

I would like to process this roll of Rollei Superpan 200 using either Eco-pro ascorbic acid or Ilford Ilfosol 3 developer, because that is what I have on hand.
Q1. Would one of these developers be better than the other for speed and/or contrast control?

Q2. I don't find any processing times posted on the Massive Development Chart for Rollei Superpan 200 at any EI less than 200. If I expose at EI 80/100, should I use the times posted for 200 - or something else?

Thank you, -gw

super_claret · Apr 14, 2023

Hello all. New to this but have just shot a roll of 35mm Rollei IR400, rated at 400 ( hadn’t seen this thread before I shot the roll). Only developer I have is 510 Pyro, which I’ve used on many films and like mixed at 1+100. I use a Jobo CPE2 processor and am looking for dev times but cant find any on the internet. Massive Dev recommends 22 mins but in a semi stand method. Does anyone have a clue where I could start please, bearing in mind that I could have underexposed the film by rating it at 400.

This is a test roll with some normal photography and some using an IR720 filter ( giving 5 stops extra to compensate for the filter). I’ll be scanning and inkjet printing, once I find a suitable speed and dev time. Any help would be appreciated

Helge · Apr 14, 2023

super_claret said:
Hello all. New to this but have just shot a roll of 35mm Rollei IR400, rated at 400 ( hadn’t seen this thread before I shot the roll). Only developer I have is 510 Pyro, which I’ve used on many films and like mixed at 1+100. I use a Jobo CPE2 processor and am looking for dev times but cant find any on the internet. Massive Dev recommends 22 mins but in a semi stand method. Does anyone have a clue where I could start please, bearing in mind that I could have underexposed the film by rating it at 400.

This is a test roll with some normal photography and some using an IR720 filter ( giving 5 stops extra to compensate for the filter). I’ll be scanning and inkjet printing, once I find a suitable speed and dev time. Any help would be appreciated

I’d develop it at 200 time since this is only a test. As said, it’s pretty contrasty film and a bit of flatness can sometimes actually be good.
No experience with 510 though.
I use XTOL and accidentally underexposed the film by a stop like you did, especially contrasty and foliage rich scenes actually looked better to me.

super_claret · Apr 15, 2023

After much deliberation, I decided to develop in the Jobo using 510 Pro 1+100 for 10mins 30secs at 21C. I wasn’t expecting much but got some usable negs. The real baffling Thing to me is that the shots exposed without filtration were way underexposed, however, the shots with the IR72 and 5 stops extra were pretty dense to the point of being blown.

I’m wondering if I should shoot another roll and rate it at 100 and develop for less? I think I’ll try a 120 roll and make notes for each exposure.

destroya · Apr 15, 2023

i found that because this film is quite sensitive to the red end, that filter factors are not really linear compared to other films. I would not use 510 to develop this film as the film itself is very contrasty and 510 has a real long toe so your blacks are gonna block up. I had better luck with pyro-m/HD with a reduced agitation scheme. with that developer, I found that metering the film at 125 gave best results. but when using filter factors, use 200 or even 320 as you go closer to the red filers. when I meter with an indecent meter, I use 5 or 6 for a 720 filter, 25 for red and 50 for orange.

now that I found, did a little testing, I use MeCD4 developer and it really tames this film. meter at 160 or 200 depending on the lighting. IR still at 6. but it really does flatten the curve and tame the contrast. if you plan on shooting any of the agfa aviphot films (rollei retro 400s/80s, superpan or rollei IR) you should give this developer a try. I just bought a large format, 5 inch, bulk roll of it and really plan to give it a real deep testing. at .10 cents a sheet, I figure it was worth it

john

albada · Apr 15, 2023

It looks like that bulk roll expired nine years ago.

super_claret · Apr 16, 2023

destroya said:
i found that because this film is quite sensitive to the red end, that filter factors are not really linear compared to other films. I would not use 510 to develop this film as the film itself is very contrasty and 510 has a real long toe so your blacks are gonna block up. I had better luck with pyro-m/HD with a reduced agitation scheme. with that developer, I found that metering the film at 125 gave best results. but when using filter factors, use 200 or even 320 as you go closer to the red filers. when I meter with an indecent meter, I use 5 or 6 for a 720 filter, 25 for red and 50 for orange.

now that I found, did a little testing, I use MeCD4 developer and it really tames this film. meter at 160 or 200 depending on the lighting. IR still at 6. but it really does flatten the curve and tame the contrast. if you plan on shooting any of the agfa aviphot films (rollei retro 400s/80s, superpan or rollei IR) you should give this developer a try. I just bought a large format, 5 inch, bulk roll of it and really plan to give it a real deep testing. at .10 cents a sheet, I figure it was worth it

john

Thank you. What is MeCD4? Searched for it but nothing

super_claret · Apr 16, 2023

There are so many differing opinions regarding what to rate this film at and for the beginner, it’s all a bit confusing. I think I’ll shoot another roll and rate it at 100. I’ll allow 5 extra stops when using the IR72 filter and see how I get on.

Alan Johnson · Apr 16, 2023

super_claret said:
What is MeCD4? Searched for it but nothing

It is the formula I was experimenting on in this thread, but if you are new to this it may not suit.