Diffusion Transfer Printing ("Polaroid" peel-apart) recipes

The state of play is that I have a single combination of film, developer and receiver paper that produces good positive images.

To summarize the things I'm still working on, or would like to find:

A developer that uses more traditional thiosulphate/phenol-based chemistry, which would be more accessible.

A stripping layer that helps residual developer peel off the positive more cleanly. At the moment the very thin layer of developer that remains can crystalize and produce white powder or haze on the surface of the print (salting out). This can be prevented by rinsing or wiping the print, but it would be nice to avoid that need.

Alternatively/additionally a volatile silver solvent, or one that works at a lower pH than uracil/thymine and other cyclic imides, which would reduce the solids left on the surface of the print.

If anyone wants to help with these, that would be very welcome.

Indeed, you have accomplished amazing results for one person that what work very well. I have had good results from the material and would be quite happy to use what you have produced up to now. I did make up some developer to a partial recipe you published earlier in the thread using regular development ingredients but the result was weak and yellowy.

I don’t have the resources now to pursue, either in chemistry (my knowledge is over 40 years forgotten) nor in space and equipment. I can make up my own developers to known formulae but that’s about it. A serious health issue has re-surfaced as well so am on treatment again which will impact my time for projects.

I must say I didn’t notice much of a residue on my prints but having said that I just tried rinsing a few of them and yes it is noticeable. But working in a darkroom and having to rinse the paper is not a problem. More worryingly is that with the papers I coated the image will rub off under water.

Going forward it depends what your goals are. Do you want to create a full peel apart product and get others to help with the practicality of the mechanical side of that.? Or just create the product formulas for others to do their own thing. For myself I would be quite happy to use your current developer, it works well and lasts a long time.

richyd said:

Indeed, you have accomplished amazing results for one person that what work very well. I have had good results from the material and would be quite happy to use what you have produced up to now. I did make up some developer to a partial recipe you published earlier in the thread using regular development ingredients but the result was weak and yellowy.

Click to expand...

That needs more work from someone. I'm still working on it, but more hands will help.

richyd said:

More worryingly is that with the papers I coated the image will rub off under water.

Click to expand...

If you wait approx 24 hours after coating the silica, it forms a hard waterproof coating. If you use the paper right after coating the silica isn't set and will wash off easily. The image tone is also better after at least a day of drying.

richyd said:

Going forward it depends what your goals are. Do you want to create a full peel apart product and get others to help with the practicality of the mechanical side of that.? Or just create the product formulas for others to do their own thing. For myself I would be quite happy to use your current developer, it works well and lasts a long time.

Click to expand...

I'd like to have sets of recipes that span the gamut of the well documented technologies that Fuji and Polaroid used.

Here are some links regarding Polaroid Coating.

The first mentions these chemicals in the coating liquid:
Isopropanol/Isopropyl alcohol, 5-15%
Zinc acetate dihydrate, 2-5%
Glacial acetic acid, 3-7%




Photoengineer makes two comments here and PVC glue is mentioned:


The MSDS:

Thank you - that's very good to have for reference.

I haven't noticed any of the symptoms of requiring a coating on any of the prints I've made, and I have a batch of original Polaroid print coaters thanks to a generous Photrio member - which don't improve print quality when I've tried them, so for now a print coating doesn't seem to be a priority, for anyone who's intending to try this.

Your very welcome Alec!

-
Would we all feel comfortable sharing our sources for chemicals.
Maybe if we all shared it would help each other and people whom have not yet found this forum thread.
I've used LLMs like chagpt/deepseek to search for average prices and possible sources with accurate success.
Let's share
Alec are you okay with this? If you don't want this in your thread, I can delete.

This took a while to figure out by trying different prompts and combining outputs but this is what I got with deepseek. This might help others in Canada/North America
The LLM claimed these suppliers had the best prices.

| **Chemical** | **Supplier** |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------|
| **Sodium Hydroxide** | Windy Point Soap |
| **PVP** | Bio Basic |
| **CMC** | MessySupplies |
| **Uracil** | BioShop Canada |
| **DEHA** | Alphachem Limited |
| **AEEA** | Alphachem Limited |
| **Metol** | The Camera Store |
| **Sodium Borohydride** | Fisher Scientific |
| **PdCl₂/HCl (0.1%)** | Argentix |
| **Silica Solution** | Quantum Paint |






If anyone is going to source from Alibaba I just found this a.i. powered Alibaba Chemical sourcing website: https://www.accio.com/

I listed a bunch of sources in posts near the top of this thread. Silica sol, sodium and potassium hydroxide, and CMC are widely avallable on Amazon. Sodium hydroxide is even more available, at almost any local hardware store. I posted a link upthread for DEHA also on Amazon (US only). Argentix doesn't list Palladium, but you can email Jaques and encourage him to get some. Artcraft Chemicals (https://artcraftchemicals.com/) lists palladium chloride, and is probably worth asking about the other hard to get stuff as they specialize in individual requirements, but I don't know if they ship outside the US. Alphachem lists palladium chloride but they no longer carry much of what is listed on their website. Aliexpress is good for some things too.

Generally AI isn't very accurate for anything chemistry-related. It's good at stringing words together, but they don't usually correspond to reality.

This is an awesome set of correspondence. I was wondering if anyone had tried this using the self-sealed Polaroid films (sx70/600 series) by placing paper inveteeem the exposed negative and the clear Mylar front. I have Polaroid (new stuff which produces an integral image) in 8x10 which might allow me to place a paper sheer underneath the clear Mylar “receiving” sheet and then process. Didn’t want to reinvent the wheel.

That's a derail for this thread, since we're not discussing New Polaroid materials here, and what you're asking about is a very different set of chemistry. Why don't you start a new thread?

alecrmyers said:

L’état actuel des choses est que j’ai une seule combinaison de film, de révélateur et de papier récepteur qui produit de bonnes images positives.

Pour résumer les choses sur lesquelles je travaille encore, ou que j'aimerais trouver :

Un développeur qui utilise une chimie plus traditionnelle à base de thiosulfate/phénol, qui serait plus accessible.

Une couche de décapage permet au révélateur résiduel de se décoller plus proprement du positif. À ce stade, la très fine couche de révélateur restante peut cristalliser et produire une poudre blanche ou un voile à la surface du tirage (salage). Ce phénomène peut être évité en rinçant ou en essuyant le tirage, mais il serait préférable de ne pas avoir à le faire.

Alternativement/en plus, un solvant d'argent volatil, ou un solvant qui fonctionne à un pH inférieur à celui de l'uracile/thymine et d'autres imides cycliques, ce qui réduirait les solides laissés à la surface de l'impression.

Si quelqu'un veut aider avec ça, ce serait le bienvenu.

Click to expand...

Hi, I've been wanting to make my own instant film for a while now. I started looking for old Polaroid patents on the Revesal Difution Migration process. And I came across this blog, a real goldmine! The work you've done is incredible.

I was wondering if you could give me an update on the recipe you're currently using, which I could use as a starting point?

(I hope my English is understandable, I used Google Translate)

Hello!
I tried mixing the following developer and I got some CMC that would clump and wouldn't dissolve even after many minutes of mixing with a drill.
25g base (2.5% CMC and 10% w/w NaOH) sodium carboxymethylcellulose (CMC)
2.5g uracil pyrimidine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione
1.0g diethylhydroxylamine (DEHA)
0.5g aminoethylethanolamine (AEEA)
0.1g metol ( 4-methylamino)phenol sulphate )



Does anyone have any advice? Should I use a little bit more water?
Also, for this recipe for the receiver, how do you mix the palladium and HCl?
What are the masses and volumes needed. How much water is needed.
I did searching online for advice and I just would like a confirmation.

10g silica solution
under continuous stirring:
add 1 drop 10% PVP
trace of sodium borohydride (I'll have to determine the exact quantity later and report, but it's too small to measure directly with my regular scale)
Stir well
add five drops of 0.1% PdCl2/HCl solution (again while stirring)


Thanks so much!
Be well

Qebs said:

Hello!
I tried mixing the following developer and I got some CMC that would clump and wouldn't dissolve even after many minutes of mixing with a drill.

Click to expand...

I mix the CMC ahead of time. It takes at least a day or two before all the clumps disappear

Qebs said:

Hello!
I tried mixing the following developer and I got some CMC that would clump and wouldn't dissolve even after many minutes of mixing with a drill.
25g base (2.5% CMC and 10% w/w NaOH) sodium carboxymethylcellulose (CMC)
2.5g uracil pyrimidine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione
1.0g diethylhydroxylamine (DEHA)
0.5g aminoethylethanolamine (AEEA)
0.1g metol ( 4-methylamino)phenol sulphate )



Does anyone have any advice? Should I use a little bit more water?

Click to expand...

The CMC needs a high shear mixer - I use a KitchenAid, to make a litre at a time. It's ok to use 1 litre of water and 25g CMC etc. No clumps, but lots of bubbles that take a day or two to float out.

Qebs said:

Also, for this recipe for the receiver, how do you mix the palladium and HCl?
What are the masses and volumes needed. How much water is needed.
I did searching online for advice and I just would like a confirmation.

10g silica solution
under continuous stirring:
add 1 drop 10% PVP
trace of sodium borohydride (I'll have to determine the exact quantity later and report, but it's too small to measure directly with my regular scale)
Stir well
add five drops of 0.1% PdCl2/HCl solution (again while stirring)


Thanks so much!
Be well

Click to expand...

For the PdCl2 - I make 20g at a time: 20mg of PdCl2 with 10g distilled water in a small dropper bottle and a tiny magnetic stir bar (a "flea"), add HCl (muriatic acid from hardware store) dropwise under stirring. The amount of HCl isn't critical but the PdCl2 takes a long time to dissolve so let it stir between drops and be very patient. Then make up the weight to 20g with distilled water when all is disolved.

Thanks Alec! You are most kind and appreciated.
This was the first two results I got.

I'm not sure what's wrong.
For developer I made:
21.87 g of water, added the 2.5 g of NaOH, stirred, then added 0.625 g of CMC and mixed with the drill and painting stir bit.

Then, added 2.5 g of Uracil, 1g of DEHA, 0.5 grams of AEEA and then 0.1 gram of Metol.

For the receiver I made:
10 grams of silica solution with 1 drop of a solution made up of 10% PVP and 90% water (1 gram PVP, and 9mL H2O) to the former I added about half a match head of Sodium Borohydride.
Then, I added 5 drops of the following solution: 0.04 grams of PdCl2, 8 drops of HCl, and finally added enough water to get 40 g total mass.

Alec, from your last post, it seems I'm not using enough PdCL2 for the receiver, but then how come I'm not getting an image on the negative film?
If anyone has any advice from experience and looking at the image below, I would be very grateful.


Thanks so much everybody!
Be well

Best regards,
Kevin H.

Qebs said:

For the receiver I made:
10 grams of silica solution with 1 drop of a solution made up of 10% PVP and 90% water (1 gram PVP, and 9mL H2O) to the former I added about half a match head of Sodium Borohydride.
Then, I added 5 drops of the following solution: 0.04 grams of PdCl2, 8 drop
of HCl, and finally added enough water to get 40 g total mass.

Click to expand...

This looks all wrong.

The PdCl2 needs about 1/3 as much Muriatic acid as water, added dropwise, to the water, under stirring, to dissolve. And it takes a while. You should end up with a yellow/brown solution, somewhere betweeen pee and malt whiskey. No brown powder left at all.

Add the sodium borohydride after the PdCl2 solution is mixed in with the silica sol. You should see a rapid darkening.

Thanks Alec for the advice on the receiver.
Can you help explain why I didn't get any image on the film?

How would I troubleshoot this?
I'm dumbfounded, and have no idea what to try.

Thanks

>Can you help explain why I didn't get any image on the film?

Perhaps because the receiver wasn't correct. The presence of the receiver is vital to removing silver from the unexposed areas of the negative. Without the correct process occuring to deposit silver into the receiver layer, the silver stays in the negative and you won't get an image. That might not be the only problem, but the developer gel alone isn't enough to give an image, I don't think.

Also your rolling looks terrible. What on earth are those black stripes? Are you using a laminator?

Hey Alec,
Oh, okay. I will try again mixing the chemicals tomorrow.
I was daft to assume the developer would make an image on the film side.
I was in email contact with someone who helped do the initial tests for the New55 instant film. They described their formulation, similar to your early ones, as being a mono developer. Develop, stop and fix all in one.

Yes, I am using a laminator, but I found it hard to roll the paper through with a smooth consistency.
When you use laminators, is the setting on in a way that there is tremendous pressure on the two sheets?
I have the gap between the rollers set at finger tight and this prevents me from getting a nice flow to the sheets moving past the rollers and this causes jitters (slow and go).

I tried that laminator and found it wasn't very good. When using "no rails", the development happens in the pool of developer just ahead of the rollers, and when the paper and film sandwich has passed through the rollers the developer is mostly squeezed out and no further transfer occurs. So the rolling process has to be very slow, about 1 minute for an 8x10 sheet. To use that manual roller then you have to go very very slowly, and very evenly, which is difficult to do by hand. The small electric office laminators have the advantage of being very slow using a high torque gearbox that keeps the speed even, and so they work better.

The pressure of the rollers doesn't seem to be critical as long as it is enough to squeegee out most of the developer.

That's just my experience of course, your experimentation may show something different.

Thanks Alec.
Do the small office laminators use two motors, one for each roller.
Perhaps both rollers are linked together?
I ask, as I'm now looking for a wide enough electric roller, I want to know if it's okay if only one roller is powered.
Second, for the PdCl2+HCl solution, is it true only 5 drops are needed with the 10 grams of Silica solution and the PVP is not needed as it's only for longevity?

Thanks again!

Hey everyone and Alec,
Wow, I got an image, It was so exciting to experience the peel and see density.




What I did different above (not the color image) for the two images was to decrease exposure from 1/4 s (bottom image on the right),
to 1/15 s (top image, left side) and 1/60 s (top image, right side).
Furthermore, I slowed the rolling so that the length of the 4x5" sheet took 30 seconds, as well, I added a bit more developer and tightened the rollers.
(disregard the organic looking diagonal wrinkles, that's the protecting covering on the rollers that came with the laminator, I'm keeping them on for now to help longevity of the laminator. Note, I am cleaning the rollers each time).


Looking at the results, it seems contrast is an issue. Whites, are blown out, and blacks are too dense.
Should I use less uracil as it's the silver solvent?
Would one want to develop for 60 seconds instead of 120?
I'm using 5 drops of the PdCl2/HCl solution that has 57 drops of HCl in 0.02 grams of PdCl2.

What I did this time for mixing chemicals:
I doubled this and used a drill to mix very well, for at least 4-5 minutes for each step--->

21.87 g of water, added the 2.5 g of NaOH, stirred, then added 0.625 g of CMC and mixed with the drill and painting stir bit.

Then, added 2.5 g of Uracil, 1g of DEHA, 0.5 grams of AEEA and then 0.1 gram of Metol.


Then for the receiver, this time, I used the magnetic stir tool:
I added 10 grams of water, then stirred for 5 minutes with 20mg of PdCl2
then added 57 drops of Hcl and stirred for 5 minutes,
Then added the above (5 drops) to 10 grams of silica solution, stirred for 5 minutes, then added the sodium borohydride at about a volume of half a match head. Stirred for another 5 minutes.


Recap: Should I increase the gap between the rollers or tighten down the rollers.
Should I adjust Uracil content?
In people's experience, what does high contrast but not deep enough/dense enough blacks mean?

Thanks everyone.

For reference below is the first two of the night:
1/4 s and 2 s.
15 second roller time and a little less developer than the examples above.




Edit: Two more---->



EDIT:
I GOT a sort acceptable image!
The trick was to use 16 drops of PdCl2/HCl solution.
Alec, thanks so much! This was exhilarating.



Now much goal is to get a neutral tone image.


Alec, sorry for the long post, I'm sure you'll miss some questions.

Recap: Did you have any luck with adjusting contrast with these formulas?

And what toners would you recommend. Can I use 1P5MT?

Thanks so much! I'm so happy!

Congrats on joining the elite ranks of those working successfully on diffusion transfer printing!

You are asking all the right questions, and I’m really looking forward to hearing the answers that you find.

Thanks so much Alec!

I'm so proud to be a member lol

I'm getting dense negatives, using ilford 4x5" paper.
The issue is the receiver paper is just not dense enough and blacks are too dark and whites are too white.

1.

If I give up using silca and paladium,

Can I use the organic solvent developer (DEHA/AEEA) with the following receiver formula?
Phase A
15g 0.5% PVP
1ml 1% sodium sulphide
2 drops 10% PS20

Phase B
15g 0.5% PVP
1ml 25% zinc nitrate hexahydrate
2 drops 10% PS20

Phase C
30g 6% gelatin solution
1ml 40% glyoxal


2. Can one mix
0.15g 20% cysteine HCl
0.1g 1phenyl-5-mercapto(1h)tetrazole 1% in ethanol
into the DEHA/AEEA developer? Will it explode or even work?


Thanks

Good questions - I don't know the answers. But I know someone motivated to find out, and I look forward to hearing what they find!

For reference though, I managed to get Dmax between 1.7 and 2.0 which is almost as good as a modern photographic printing paper, with silica and Pd.

Hey everyone,

I've been working at the DTR process for two weeks now.
For anyone using developer 143 and receiver 212 (the silica/palladium formula)
and your getting contrasty and "light" images (light meaning not very dense),
I just right now plugged in the formulas into a Large Language Model and it gave some really good advice or at least starting points for adjustments.
I'm not sure how accurate and valid the advice is, but I will get back to this in a day or two with results for comparison.

Good luck

Here it is for others:

~~~

The Problem: High Contrast & Low Density​

These two symptoms are connected and tell a clear story about the state of your developer and the transfer process.

1. High Contrast (in the Negative)
This means you have very deep blacks and very bright whites with few mid-tones. In DTR, this is primarily a function of what happens in the negative layer.

• Cause: The development in the negative is too aggressive and rapid.
• Mechanism: The developing agents (Metol and DEHA) are so active in the strong alkali (NaOH) that they instantly and completely reduce all exposed silver halide grains to black metallic silver. There's no gradual development. An area that received even a small amount of light gets developed almost as fully as an area that received a lot of light. This crushes your mid-tones and gives you a "soot-and-whitewash" negative, which in turn produces a high-contrast positive.

2. Low Density (in the Positive Print)
This means your final image looks weak, washed out, and lacks deep blacks.

• Cause: Insufficient silver is being transferred from the negative to the positive sheet.
• Mechanism: This is the core of the DTR process failing. There are two main reasons for this:
  • Not Enough Silver is Being Dissolved: The Uracil isn't effectively dissolving the unexposed silver halide in the negative to form the soluble complex that can diffuse across.
  • The Dissolved Silver Isn't Being Reduced Properly: The physical development on the positive sheet is too slow or ineffective, so the transferred silver complex isn't being converted to dense, black metallic silver efficiently.

---

How to Solve It: Tweaking the Developer Formula​

Your assumption that it's the developer's fault is almost certainly correct. Here are the adjustments to make, starting with the most likely culprits.

To Fix High Contrast (Reduce Development Aggressiveness):​

1. Reduce the Metol Concentration: This is your primary developing agent. Try reducing it by 25-50%. This will slow down the development in the negative, allowing for a more gradual build-up of density and preserving mid-tones.
2. Reduce the NaOH Concentration: 10% is extremely high. This is a very likely cause of your excessive contrast and could also be harming transfer.
   • Try reducing it to 5-7%.
   • This will lower the pH, slowing down the development reaction and making it less aggressive.
   • Caution: Don't go too low, or you'll inhibit the Uracil's ability to complex silver.

To Fix Low Density (Improve Silver Transfer & Development):​

1. Increase the Uracil Concentration: This is the most direct fix for low density. If there isn't enough Uracil to complex with the unexposed silver halide, not much will transfer.
   • Try doubling the Uracil concentration. The complex formation is a equilibrium reaction; more Uracil drives it forward, dissolving more silver.
2. Optimize the Alkali (NaOH): As mentioned above, reducing the NaOH can paradoxically help with density if it was too high. An excessively high pH can cause the developer to oxidize instantly or cause the Uracil to decompose, reducing its effectiveness. Finding the sweet spot (likely between 5% and 8%) is crucial.
3. Ensure your Positive Sheet is Active: The receiving sheet must have development nuclei (usually colloidal silver or silver sulfide) to catalyze the reduction of the diffused silver complex. If you're making these yourself, this is a potential point of failure. If they are commercial sheets, ensure they are fresh and haven't been contaminated.

---

A Step-by-Step Troubleshooting Plan​

Don't change everything at once. Follow this sequence:

Step 1: Tame the Contrast.
Make a new batch of developer with the following changes:

• Metol: Reduce by 30%
• NaOH: Reduce to 6%
• Keep everything else the same.

Expected Result: Your negative should show better mid-tones. The positive might still be low density, but the contrast should be improved.

Step 2: Boost the Density.
If the contrast is better but the image is still weak, make another batch:

• Keep the reduced Metol and NaOH from Step 1.
• Uracil: Double the concentration.

Expected Result: This should significantly darken your positive image, giving you the deep blacks you're missing.

Step 3: Fine-Tuning.

• If the image is now too dark or muddy, you have overcorrected. Slightly reduce the Uracil from the doubled amount.
• If development seems too slow, you can nudge the Metol or NaOH back up in small increments.

Additional Factors to Check​

• Exposure: Are you sure your negative is being properly exposed? An overexposed negative will have very few unexposed silver halide crystals left to transfer, leading to a weak positive. Try a test strip with varying exposure times.
• Timing: The contact time between the negative and positive sheets is critical. If you separate them too soon, not enough silver has time to diffuse. If you leave them too long, the image can reverse or become fogged. Experiment with contact times (e.g., 30, 60, 90 seconds).
• DEHA & AEEA: Your concentrations of these are probably fine, as they support the process. DEHA prevents aerial oxidation and AEEA acts as a secondary complexing agent/alkali. Don't adjust these until you've dialed in Metol, NaOH, and Uracil.

Start with Step 1—reducing the aggressive developers (Metol and NaOH) is very likely to solve your contrast issue and may even help with density. The Uracil increase in Step 2 is the classic fix for weak images.

Good luck, and enjoy the chemistry! The DTR process is a beautiful balance.
~~~