Developer for Aviphot Pan 200

[relistan]

Here is one of the tests. Carbonate produced slightly higher emulsion speed. At first glance it looks more significant than it is, but you can see a significant portion of the density increase is just more fog, which is to be expected. When I high pH is used for bath B, a formula typically will require balancing with KBr.
View attachment 269892

Interesting. I definitely need to save some $$ and get a densitometer. You are again posting results that don't match my experience at all. I wonder, as mentioned, how much agitation schemes play into this. But without any data I guess it's just YMMV.

Side issue, from recipes I've seen the KBr typically goes in bath A (I don't think you meant to say otherwise) and is absorbed along with the rest of the developer for use in bath B. This is what I did. In a divided developer where some development happens in A, this also helps prevent fogging in that bath as well.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Here is one of the tests. Carbonate produced slightly higher emulsion speed. At first glance it looks more significant than it is, but you can see a significant portion of the density increase is just more fog, which is to be expected. When I high pH is used for bath B, a formula typically will require balancing with KBr.

Also note of course the results might change with a different bath A, or a non-active bath A etc.

View attachment 269892

Michael, thank you for posting these results and those linked in post 52.
I'm not claiming much expertise in this but it appears to me that to obtain maximum EI together with maximum development of the shadows, Carbonate combined with no agitation should be used in part B.
I am encouraged in this view by the fact that AA in his book "The Negative" p229-30 recommended no agitation in Part B for good shadow development.

 

[relistan]

Michael, thank you for posting these results and those linked in post 52.
I'm not claiming much expertise in this but it appears to me that to obtain maximum EI together with maximum development of the shadows, Carbonate combined with no agitation should be used in part B.
I am encouraged in this view by the fact that AA in his book "The Negative" p229-30 recommended no agitation in Part B for good shadow development.

Alan I have tried both ways. Depending on the developer you can end up with some pretty "interesting" edge effects from no agitation in bath B. Totally depends on the developer and film in question. I agitate one inversion per minute usually and that seems to tamp it down. I would think it would work like stand dev, which seems to work for me, but I've seen it as a problem with two baths and usually not in stand dev. Maybe it's a matter of concentration being high at first? YMMV. Probably I should investigate it more thoroughly to understand why/when it happens.

 

[Henning Serger]

Interesting. I definitely need to save some $$ and get a densitometer.

You really should. I can highly recommend it! It is by far far one of the best tools for optimizing your BW film photography. With a densitometer and evaluating the characteristic curve you will get
- the correct real, effective sensitivity / speed of the tested film-developer combination
- you will immediately see by the curve-shape how the tonality behaves in the shadow-, mid- and highlight zones
- you will be able to fine tune the curve-shape = tonality by using different developers, or different solutions, or different agitation rythms.
I highly recommend the Heiland TRD-2 densitometer. Best in class for BW.

Some general important aspects:
1. With the Agfa aerial films you will always have a kind of S-shape curve. You can make it a bit more linear with certain developers, but you can't make it straight linear. It is not possible. Therefore it is not possible to overcome the lack of shadow detail of these films by the developer (only).
You need the exposure to succeed in shadow detail. More exposure, more light is the only way to get good shadow detail with these films.

2. Speed enhancement by developers: I have used and tested more than 40 different developers over the years, and each year some further new ones - especially by the very innovative chemical manufacturers like SPUR and ADOX - are tested and added to my list.
The difference in real sensitivity / speed of different developers is not very big. The difference between a 'low-speed' fine grain / high-resolution developer like for example Perceptol, SPUR HRX, CG512, Moersch Finol on the one side, and a 'speed-developer' with better or max. light sensitivity utilisation like Microphen, DD-X, T-Max Dev., SPUR SHADOWmax etc. is in most cases max. one stop, in very rare cases 4/3 stop.
Therefore the possibility to get better shadow detail only by using a different developer is limited.
In most cases the exposure is needed for that, too.
You must not forget: One stop less exposure means 50% less light on the film! That is quite a lot. And a developer generally cannot fully compensate for so much less light.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Alan Johnson]

https://www.researchgate.net/public...F_SENSITIVITY_CENTERS_AND_LATENT_IMAGE_SPECKS
Appears that some developers may develop smaller silver specks which may account for speed enhancement.

 

[Murray Kelly]

Hi Alan. Bill Troop also suggests C41 developer for Techpan (and amazing ISO 100) at the back of the book which I have never tried. I have ImagelinkHQ (Son of TP), Bluefire, RO80s and FK25 but stick with what I know. Keep up the good work, as these films seem to be like a honeypot to amateurs.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I looked into your idea Murray, There is a Spur developer that gives a speed increase for a similar type of emulsion:
https://www.macodirect.de/media/pdf/bc/91/b3/SLN11_Datenblatt_e.pdf
It contains potassium hydroquinone sulfonate 21799-87-1,
https://www.moersch-photochemie.de/content/rohchemie

 

[Murray Kelly]

Thank you, Alan. I see you edited HAS out. I was a bit puzzled at that because it may have its place in colour but not with these films.
My first thought when I read Troop's comment (almost a 1 liner) was how would it go used like David Lyga at 1+9 or 1+14 for 10 - 15 min? I have done that successfully on colour. As as an aside, a 1-shot doesn't need HAS. With only one thin silver layer that time may be too long. For C41 I dilute with DI pH adjusted but here even that might be overkill.
Pleased to hear from you again.
Murray

 

[Henning Serger]

Hi Alan. Bill Troop also suggests C41 developer for Techpan (and amazing ISO 100) at the back of the book which I have never tried. I have ImagelinkHQ (Son of TP), Bluefire, RO80s and FK25 but stick with what I know. Keep up the good work, as these films seem to be like a honeypot to amateurs.

Murray,
it is very important to clearly differentiate between the different film types:
Kodak Technical Pan, Agfa Copex Rapid, Kodak Imagelink, ADOX CMS 20 II are really much different to the Agfa aerial films Aviphot Pan 80 and 200. Different technologies for much different purposes. And you need very much different developers for optimal use for these two separate film classes.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

while it is not necessarily difficult to optimize a developer for a given emulsion, it is entirely another matter to make a formula that delivers excellent results with a wide variety of emulsions.

Apart from Adox's special purpose developers like Adotec and Silvermax which are optimised for specific films, are there any such optimised developers for current films like Tri-X or Acros? Not necessarily commercial developers.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Yes. I am not looking for perfection as revealed by commercial extensive research but just something straightens out the S curve somewhat for Aviphot 200 and gives an increase in EI.

I have seen Crawley's HD curve for Bluefire film which shows a very pronounced S-curve which leads me to believe that the slow speed Bluefire and higher speed (Aviphot 200) may have similar S-curves and react in similar ways to developers. I think the Bluefire may have been a version of the now discontinued Agfa Copex..

 

[Alan Johnson]

That is the basis of (1) MDS-1 except the phenidone is replaced by metol to avoid streaking. The two not investigated yet in homebrews are:
(2) Use of the hydroquinone monosulfonate instead of hydroquinone and in a single bath and
(3) Use of Color developing agent or C-41 developer diluted if I understand Murray correctly.
I just note that in case anyone ever wishes to take this further.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Metol can be OK in 2-bath, it was used in the now discontinued Emofin, giving about 1 stop speed increase.
Microdol-x replacement | Page 8 | Photrio.com Photography Forums

 

[relistan]

Apart from Adox's special purpose developers like Adotec and Silvermax which are optimised for specific films, are there any such optimised developers for current films like Tri-X or Acros? Not necessarily commercial developers.

Raghu, interestingly some folks are using the Silvermax Developer specifically for Acros with good effect. Not exactly what you were asking but related.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Raghu, interestingly some folks are using the Silvermax Developer specifically for Acros with good effect. Not exactly what you were asking but related.

Thanks Karl! Would like to know more on this. Can you give some pointers?

 

[relistan]

Thanks Karl! Would like to know more on this. Can you give some pointers?

I am trying to remember where I was reading this and can't find it. However, looking at the ADOX Silvermax developer data sheet, there are now official times for a few more films, including Acros: http://www.adox.de/Technical_Informations/TA_SILVERMAX_EN.pdf . Here's a good example from Flickr of what it looks like: https://www.flickr.com/photos/129240325@N07/25113184527/

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

I am trying to remember where I was reading this and can't find it. However, looking at the ADOX Silvermax developer data sheet, there are now official times for a few more films, including Acros: http://www.adox.de/Technical_Informations/TA_SILVERMAX_EN.pdf . Here's a good example from Flickr of what it looks like: https://www.flickr.com/photos/129240325@N07/25113184527/

Thanks Karl.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Progress to date:
After 7 rolls through MDS-1, I am aware that there is development in the carry-over to part B. Exhaustion of developer in part B, sometimes cited as a property of 2 bath developers, is never reached.
However, since I am using part B composition believed close to that of Emofin (see Link, post 13 above) and Emofin is said to process 15 rolls/L, the approach seems valid.
Eventually the contrast will increase to a level unacceptable for scanning/silver printing and new part B will be needed. But Emofin was used to develop films for silver gelatin printing for 70+ years.
Notably the density obtained using MDS-1 is much higher than that obtained using MDS-1 part A with 12g/L Metaborate part B (Thornton) and higher than that with 12 g/L Metaborate + 12g/L Sulfite part B.
I hope to report eventually on the number of Aviphot films that can be put through MDS-1 before the contrast is unacceptably high.

 

[relistan]

Progress to date:
After 7 rolls through MDS-1, I am aware that there is development in the carry-over to part B. Exhaustion of developer in part B, sometimes cited as a property of 2 bath developers, is never reached.
However, since I am using part B composition believed close to that of Emofin (see Link, post 13 above) and Emofin is said to process 15 rolls/L, the approach seems valid.
Eventually the contrast will increase to a level unacceptable for scanning/silver printing and new part B will be needed. But Emofin was used to develop films for silver gelatin printing for 70+ years.
Notably the density obtained using MDS-1 is much higher than that obtained using MDS-1 part A with 12g/L Metaborate part B (Thornton) and higher than that with 12 g/L Metaborate + 12g/L Sulfite part B.
I hope to report eventually on the number of Aviphot films that can be put through MDS-1 before the contrast is unacceptably high.

Very good update, Alan. Thanks. Your statement "Exhaustion of developer in part B, sometimes cited as a property of 2 bath developers, is never reached." Seems to ring true for every two bath we have experimented with so far. Build-up of carryover seems to happen regardless.

 

[Nokton48]

400s 70mm Supergrain Blad 30 Distagon 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

This is 70mm type II perfed Rollei 400s processed in Rollei Supergrain. Hasselblad A70 back 500 C/M 30mm bkack T* Distagon Fisheye Clear Filter. This is actually 70mm Aviphot 200 which I also have in bulk roll. They are identical emulsions. I bracketed but found the best exposure at EI 100. Has some IR qualities even unfiltered.

 

[Alan Johnson]

For the next stage of testing I have taken note that aerial films have about 2 stops less speed when used as pictorial film (post 25)
This gives EI ~ 50 for Aviphot 200 , EI ~ 20 for Aviphot 80 and EI ~ 25 for Adox HR-50 (post 34)

It is not known yet, but I aspire to get +1 stop from my developer and another +1 stop from electronic processing.
This would give for testing Aviphot 200 EI ~200, Aviphot 80 EI ~80 and Adox HR-50 EI ~ 100
I note it appears to be generally thought that using a normal (non aerial) film would give better pictorial results, but this is just a project for 1 year.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Using 100 T-Max film, the speed increase with MDS-1 vs D-76 was measured.
Development in both parts of MDS-1 was 4.5m 20C, agitating in part A 30s at start then 2 inversions every 30s. In part B 2 inversions at start then 2 inversions at 2 min.
The shadow detail in MDS-1 at EI = 160 was similar to that in D-76 at EI = 100,(pic) a speed increase of 2/3 stop for silver gelatin printing.
Scanning and processing gives an increase of about 2 stops on the results given by Henning, see eg Adox HR-50 at EI = 100:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51221997316/in/dateposted-public/

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Alan, based on the pic of the two strips, when I compare D76 and MDS-1 frames at 160, there seems to be more detail in the shadows of MDS-1, but the contrast is different. Similarly, when the frames at 100 are compared, the shadows of MDS-1 seem to be more developed than those of D76 but again the contrast is different. If the two strips were to be developed at the same contrast at either 160 or 100, would you still notice the difference?

 

[Alan Johnson]

You should compare D-76 @ 100 with MDS-1 @ 160 but your point is still somewhat valid, the contrasts are not identical.

I actually evaluated the relative EIs by looking at the shadow areas ,especially the hedge on the lower RHS, holding the negatives up to the light and looking at them through a loupe.
This gives D-76 @ 100 = MDS-1 @ 160 - 200 for shadow speed.

MDS-1 is somewhat similar to Emofin and Diafine substitute part B and these two are generally, with some dissenters, regarded as speed increasing. I will rely on this analogy to claim a speed increase with MDS-1 rather than repeated testing intended to get the contrasts exactly equal. In any case the curve shape with D-76 will be different from two bath developers.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Scanning and processing gives an increase of about 2 stops on the results given by Henning, see eg Adox HR-50 at EI = 100:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51221997316/in/dateposted-public/

What are these spots that are throughout?