Developer for Aviphot Pan 200

[Alan Johnson]

That's about a 30x enlargement from 35 mm, ie a print about 4 feet wide.
Since my pile of silver gelatin prints has become rather large I am storing pics on Flickr Pro.
The downside to that is you cannot stop others also blowing them up to excessive dimensions.
I have not ascertained if what you see is grain, or if it is affected by exposure, or if it is some other effect.
Flickr gives the option to view at more normal enlargement, about 12x, just click the original pic once.

 

[adamlugi]

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

Hello,

What do you think would be the best developer for Agfa Aviphot 40?
Best Regards
Adam

 

[Alan Johnson]

I believe Henning has mentioned that developers he has used for these aerial films include Spur HRX and Adox FX-39 II, generally at around half Aviphot box speed or less.
MDS-1 should work at around Aviphot box speed but is still under investigation.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I investigated if small spots at high magnifications were caused by underexposure.
A near-black object was photographed on Rollei Retro 80s (~Aviphot 80) at EI =25 and EI =80.
The sections shown are about 1.2mm wide on the negatives, ~50x magnification on my screen.
Small spots visible at EI =80 (RHS) are still visible, along with some grain, at EI =25.(LHS)

The spots do not appear to be caused by underexposure, they are the result of high magnification.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Good that it turned out to be a scanning issue and not related to developing.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Carry on carbonate:
(1) MDS-1 is an approximate copy of the latest Diafine substitute [see link below] with the phenidone replaced by 10x its weight of metol, to avoid streaking with these [near monodisperse?] aerial films. I have some examples of Adox HR-50, Rollei Retro 80s and Rollei Retro 400s on Flickr including this where I got E=400 by a foul, the camera took an average reading from the dark background:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51299921335/in/dateposted-public/
The best EI for these films in MDS-1 is still to be found.

(2) A better explanation for development in bath B of 2-bath developers can be found than the oft repeated statement that development in the highlights [black on the negative] stops due to developer exhaustion. Since the part B of Emofin could be used 15x and that of Diafine many times, there would be some carry-over [20ml] from part A on each transfer to the tank and reels as well as the film on replacing part A by part B, making the part B a dilute developer.
Referring to dilute developers [actually the high acutance type], The Film Developing Cookbook 2020 p67 is paraphrased:
"...as the developer is very dilute, it exhausts quickly in the highlight areas where there is a lot of silver to be developed......At the same time the developer does not exhaust quickly in the shadow areas so these are free to develop much more than would be possible with an ordinary developer......can produce a speed increase of 50 to 100 percent with conventional slow to medium speed films....the effect is usually less with tabular grain films. "

(3) MDS-1 is not quite the same as a copy of the carbonate version of Diafine substitute, it contains 30g/L carbonate and 35g/L sulfite, pH~ 11.5 and probably gives a more grainy result.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/diafine/discuss/72157699627118502/, however both are based on a carbonate sulfite mix.
I found the B bath of MDS-1 [carbonate sulfite] gives notably higher density than a B bath of metaborate, possibly due to the carbonate absorbed in the emulsion resulting in faster development and more density before it diffuses out.

(4) Lachlan Young sent some literature [thanks] indicating that at a metol concentration of 0.2 g/L, the addition of HQ [as in MDS-1] reduces edge effects by about 40% so that a higher acutance developer could be made by replacing the HQ in part A of MDS-1 by metol, which would then be the only developing agent. However, I will not change the formula halfway through the experiment.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

There is carryover and then there is carryover accumulation that happens with repeated use of Part B. If somebody uses the two bath developer for developing several rolls one after the other in a session or a short span of time, carryover accumulation in Part B can potentially cause significant variation in the results one gets. Carryover accumulation can be eliminated by using a single use second bath.

 

[Alan Johnson]

The quote from The Film Developing Cookbook, post 92 $2 may be taken as applying to the Beutler high acutance developer, which has 1g/L metol in the working solution.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040421070043/http://jackspcs.com/fdnb.htm
From post 9, the carry over of metol from each 20ml is 2/1000 x 20 = 0.04g.
Thus at least 1/ 0.04 = 25 films may be developed in part B and it still being classified as a dilute developer.
It may be somewhat fewer because MDS-1 also contains hydroquinone.
Carry-over accumulation has not been cited as a problem with Emofin or Diafine as far as I know.

 

[Murray Kelly]

Alan, can I draw your attention to the FX-55 diluent. Crawley has given amateurs a final gift of a double system buffer that will be very stable and adjustable over a wide range of pH. It may be useful here. It may need dilution and even as a one shot at that.

A friend uses Diafine for everything but whereas I get 400 box speed with DK-50 he can only manage 100 or 200 with a particular Kodak T-grain film. This agrees with your previous s=tatement.

Thanks for the effort you are putting in to this project.
Murray

 

[Alan Johnson]

Thanks Murray,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FX-55_(film_developer)
Once I measured the pH of the working solution , about 8.3. The grain was found to be about the same as that from Pyrocat HD but having more clearly defined edges.
It might be a better way to get fine grain in a 2-bath developer than just piling in more sulfite, maybe with some speed loss cf higher pH.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I estimated EIs for Adox HR-50 (link) and Rollei Retro 80s in MDS-1 under contrasty sun/shade conditions.
Results are good for both at EI = 80, box speed for Aviphot 80.
EI will be lower for silver gelatin printing, see results from Henning Serger above.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51318563870/in/dateposted-public/
I did not measure EI for Rollei Retro 400s [Aviphot 200] but EI =200 might be concluded from this.

Development times for Aviphot based films in MDS-1 were 4.5m 20C , graduating to 3m 25C, agitating every 30s in bath A and 2 inversions at start and at halfway time in part B.

 

[Alan Johnson]

The Aviphot 80 has good figures for resolution at contrasts 1000:1 and 1.6:1, 287 lppm and 101 lppm.
100 T-Max from Kodak's site has 200 lppm and 63 lppm.
The pics Victorian Building 4 and 4a compare Rollei Retro 80s @ EI 100 and also Delta 100 @ EI 160 with yellow filter, both in MDS-1
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51325307647/in/dateposted-public/

A print would have to be pretty big before any difference in resolution could be detected but it is there.
However for 35mm handheld photography the higher EI might be better for filter use and less sunny conditions in some cases.
The Delta film is also free from the tiny spots in dark areas found in many of my Aviphot pics on Flickr but I made a print 16 in wide from the Victorian building on Rollei Retro 80s and they are not visible.

 

[Alan Johnson]

MDS-1 [post 9] acts in part as a high definition developer when dilute [part B] giving about 2/3 stop speed increase with Adox HR-50. From the Film Developing Cookbook 2020 p67, this is a true speed increase not a push.
It permits to take advantage of the high resolution of the Aviphot based film:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51338162977/in/dateposted-public/
However it is still necessary to apply a strong reverse S gradation setting when scanning and would likely be difficult to print optically.
I have processed 15 films using the original 1L of part A, with one fresh part B after 10 films.
It is possible that a better speed increasing developer for this type of film could be found.

 

[Alan Johnson]

The S-curve of the Aviphot films was here previously corrected by an inverse S in scanner software. However, a developer may be found with more tendency to flatten the mid-tones.
(1) Metol alone replaces MQ in part A, call it Me-1.
Sodium Sulfite anh.................35g
Metol 3g...................................3
Sodium Metabisulfite..............2.5g
Water to...................................1L pH
Tested with Rollei Retro 400s @ EI 200 this gave slightly flatter highlights and mid tones and better resolution of fine detail than MDS-1.
Me-1 is OK for scanning with a a strong inverse S curve, still hard work for optical printing.

(2) Metol along with a color developer in part A, call it MeCD.
Sodium Sulfite anh..................35g
Metol ........................................1g
Color developer CD-4...............4g
Sodium Metabisulfite.................1g
Water to.....................................1L
Rollei Retro 400s @ EI 160 gave a slightly contrasty result when no inverse S curve was used on my scanner but it was left on Auto [Silverfast 8.8].
This would likely print OK on soft grade silver gelatin paper. The resolution of fine detail is still good and the grain finer than Me-1.
The B bath in all these tests was Sodium Sulfite anh 35 g + Sodium Carbonate anh 30g, Water to 1L.
Processing was Part A: 3m 25C 2 inversions every 30s and Part B: 3m 25C 2 inversions at start and 2 inversions at half time only.
Field test of this will follow. Evaluation was done from 720 dpi A4 prints on Ilford Classic Pearl inkjet paper.

 

[Alan Johnson]

The MeCD4 works well for Rollei Retro 400s [Aviphot 200] with a yellow filter at EI 160 developed 3m 20s + 3m 20s 25C.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51358425012/in/dateposted-public/
I posted 5 pics with the scanner left on automatic with no inverse S. They should print well on silver gelatin paper.
CD-3 could probably replace CD-4. Emofin used to have CD-1.

 

[Foto Ludens]

The MeCD4 works well for Rollei Retro 400s [Aviphot 200] with a yellow filter at EI 160 developed 3m 20s + 3m 20s 25C.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51358425012/in/dateposted-public/
I posted 5 pics with the scanner left on automatic with no inverse S. They should print well on silver gelatin paper.
CD-3 could probably replace CD-4. Emofin used to have CD-1.

That looks great!

 

[relistan]

The MeCD4 works well for Rollei Retro 400s [Aviphot 200] with a yellow filter at EI 160 developed 3m 20s + 3m 20s 25C.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51358425012/in/dateposted-public/
I posted 5 pics with the scanner left on automatic with no inverse S. They should print well on silver gelatin paper.
CD-3 could probably replace CD-4. Emofin used to have CD-1.

This looks good, Alan! Still has a short toe (though there is more detail there than I expected) , but the mid tones and highlights look nice! Definitely on the right track here, I'd say.

 

[schyter]

Hi guys ...
I shot Agfa Aviphot 200 (@ 200) but now I only have two developers available : Tetenal Ultrafin Liquid and FX-37 .
What you would use and what development time? (development manually with tank AP)

Many thanks to all ...

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Hi guys ...
I shot Agfa Aviphot 200 (@ 200) but now I only have two developers available : Tetenal Ultrafin Liquid and FX-37 .
What you would use and what development time? (development manually with tank AP)

Perhaps you can utilize this opportunity to try and test perborate latensification and let us know if it helps this film.

 

[Murray Kelly]

FX-37 is the phenidone equivalent to DK-50 and I use that at 1+9 for normal films. I doubt that it would be helpful in killing the contrast of the film.
Murray

 

[Alan Johnson]

With FX-37 I can only suggest to try the time listed for Adox HR-50 in FX-39, 7.25 min 20C in 1+9.
ADOX-Fotowerke (fotoimpex.com)
The massive development chart is not much help in this instance.
The result may be a bit contrasty at EI 200 as Murray said.

 

[schyter]

many thanks ...

I forgot ... I have available the Thornton two baths ... maybe it can be better ?

 

[Murray Kelly]

It would be better, but Alan's newest would be even much more better.
Except they are both 2-baths the results would vary wildly I fear.
Try a few frames as a trial to satisfy your curiosity. We might all be pleased.
Years ago Don Qualls pushed the idea of a 1+50 dilution of Diafine A bath followed by normal B bath for this family of films.
Murray

 

[schyter]

It would be better, but Alan's newest would be even much more better.
Except they are both 2-baths the results would vary wildly I fear.
Try a few frames as a trial to satisfy your curiosity. We might all be pleased.
Years ago Don Qualls pushed the idea of a 1+50 dilution of Diafine A bath followed by normal B bath for this family of films.
Murray

Thks a lot ...


theoretically I knew that by diluting solutions A and or B, the variables of the film could be modulated as desired (contrast, grain, fog, shadows, etc.).
But I never did ... I'll try the Thornton double bath in stock

 

[schyter]

I just finished scanning the Agfa Aviphot 200 with the Thornton double bath.
Already at a superficial view, the negatives seemed to me to be correctly exposed and developed. I got a good confirmation after the scan.
Now you will need to try to print under an enlarger. Taking into account that I have used old Soviet equipment, I can be satisfied.

Leningrad camera, Jupiter 3 1.5/50, yellow filter