Dr. Jekyll No. 1, Formaldehyde-free lith developer

psvensson submitted a new resource:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) - Dr. Jekyll No. 1, Formaldehyde-free lith developer

I've been wanting to do lith printing for a while, but I've been discouraged by the use of formaldehyde in the developers, since my darkroom is poorly ventilated.

I know now there are some lith developers that are free of formaldehyde, like Moersch SE5, and that acetone is a possible replacement. However, reading comments by David Soemarko on a message board I'm now unable to find, I figured it would be possible to mix up a developer that doesn't use either of the organic compounds, just...

Click to expand...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Comments from previous article system:

By Tom Hoskinson - 07:29 PM, 10-31-2005 Rating: None
With the small amount of sodium sulfite (0.5 g/l) this developer should have a trendency produce stain.

You might look into GAF 81 Long Life Reprolith Developer as a formaldehyde free alternative.

GAF 81
Water (125F/52C)-----------------------750ml
Hydroquinone----------------------------35 grams
Sodium Sulfite (anhydrous)---------------55 grams
Sodium Carbonate (mono)----------------80 grams
Citric Acid-------------------------------5.5 grams
Potassium Bromide-----------------------10 grams
Cold water to make-----------------------1 liter

Do not dilute for use. Normal development time within 3 minutes at 68F/20C.

By psvensson - 07:34 PM, 10-31-2005 Rating: None
That's a very odd formula for a lith developer, since it's very highly concentrated. I haven't tried anything similar, but in my experience, adding that much sulfite will inhibit infectious development.

By Tom Hoskinson - 07:55 PM, 10-31-2005 Rating: None
Ansco/Agfa/GAF 81 has been around for a long time and there are similar Kodak and Ilford recipes as well that substitute Potassium or Sodium Metabisulfite for the Citric Acid. GAF 81 is the only one to claim a long working life, however. I don't know if it will give you the look you are after. Mix some and try it out. BTW, you might try substituting Catechol for Hydroquinone in your formula. Catechol is more active than Hydroquinone with about the same level of human toxicity (low, in solution). Ascorbic Acid is a possibly useful additive/accelerant.

By psvensson - 08:06 PM, 10-31-2005 Rating: None
I suspect the GAF formula is similar to single-solution developers like Edwal Litho-F and Speedibrews Lithoprint which don't give a true lith effect, but can give very warm images when highly diluted.

I will take your suggestion and see if ascorbic acid can prolong the life of the developer - it should be able to do some of the oxygen scavenging that sulfite otherwise does. But it would be a pity if it started developing the paper, since it doesn't give infectious development. The amount of carbonate in the developer is more than enough to activate ascorbic acid without an electron transfer agent like metol or phenidone.

By psvensson - 04:55 PM, 11-03-2005 Rating: None
Tom wrote: "With the small amount of sodium sulfite (0.5 g/l) this developer should have a trendency produce stain."

I take it you mean that it would produce image-wise stain, like a pyro developer. I agree - if I put film into this developer, it would certainly give image-wise stain. I have no idea if this is true for paper, but I suppose I could test by bleaching out the silver.

By Tom Hoskinson - 01:01 AM, 11-04-2005 Rating: None
Yes, and you may be seeing some staining effects when you reuse the working solution.

More About Lith Developers.

Three maybe four very common darkroom chemicals
make for Lith Processing. Dan

For people who stumble upon this, I'd recommend a few modifications. It does make for a proper lith printing developer, but is quite strong. I'd recommend at least halving the HQ and personally get the best results with a ratio like this:

* 1L water
* 1g hydroquinone
* 0.5-1g sulfite (not more than 1g.. I found 0.8g gives the best results on most papers while keeping the developer alive for ~2 hours / 8 prints)
* 6g carbonate
* 0.2-2g potassium bromide

For the bromide, I recommend a very low amount if using "unlithable" papers, such as modern Ilford RC papers. Very much at all will completely prevent infectious development. Otherwise though, probably 1g is a good starting point. If no bromide is added you will get fogging.

also, you can make stable 10% solutions for all of these so they can easily be mixed in the darkroom without needing to dissolve any powders. The hydroquinone can be dissolved into propelyne glycol when heated to ~140F. Hydroquinone can also be dissolved into triethanolamine, but it is more expensive and causes streaking and uneven development with lith printing, so I do not recommend it.

earlz said:

For people who stumble upon this, I'd recommend a few modifications...

Click to expand...

An interesting recipe there earlz. I've got the chemicals, so I'll be giving it a go real soon.

Terry S

I tried the formula given above by @grainyvision without success.
1g HQ
1g sulfite
6g carbonate
1g bromide

First attempt with a 4x5 negative contact printed with a Kodak Projection Print Scale superimposed. Enlarger set up to print 6x6 square to 18x18cm f/11 (exposure time for typical negative 10-15s). Exposure for this test was 60s, and some parts of the paper were outside the negative area, i.e. saw direct enlarger light. Tried with old Ilfobrom fixed grade 3, and recent Ilfospeed grade 2. Dev temperature 22°C. After 15min the "pie" pattern of the Kodak Projection Print Scale appears faintly, and after 25min no more evolution; the test was interrupted. The developer had started to turn reddish already at the start (had been left standing for maybe 3min).

Second attempt. Mixed fresh dev, this time dissolved the sulfite before the HQ (to protect the latter). Mixed in 30°C water, was 25°C once in the tray. Again recent Ilfospeed grade 2. Same exposure as above. Plus a piece of paper exposed to a fluorescent tube for good measure. Again some faint image appearing around 15min, with no further evolution. Test interrupted at 28min.

My next step would be BasicLith. But before I proceed to procure metabisulfite and PEG-3350, I'd like (if possible) to know why the complete failures. Too much bromide? but @grainyvision stated "probably 1g is a good starting point". Confused.

bernard_L said:

old Ilfobrom fixed grade 3, and recent Ilfospeed grade 2

Click to expand...

Do these papers lith readily? Paper makes a big difference. The Ilfospeed I'd be surprised if it liths, especially if it does so well. The Ilfobrom - maybe, but I'd expect difficulty. I'd start with an easy paper like Fomatone MG.

Most of the lith I did was with a developer quite similar to what you've been using; that is, I used a hydroquinone + sulfite (<2g liter working strength) solution as the 'backbone' and then added an activator (usually a carbonate), and bromide, chloride etc. to taste. You could replace the carbonate with a smaller amount of hydroxide to speed things up; tone tends to get cooler and you get more peppercorn behavior that way (if memory serves). Reduce halide content also to speed things up, but lith behavior will be less pronounced and you get a smoother tonality. Chloride instead of bromide gives warmer tones in my experience. Sodium chloride (in LARGE quantities) works especially well. Ammonium chloride tends to give fog very easily; I considered it a dead end street.

@bernard_L --- the original formula from the resource is

Dr. Jekyll No. 1

1l water, room temperature
16g Sodium carbonate monohydrate (Arm & Hammer Washing soda)
a pinch of sodium sulfite (about 0.5g)
4g hydroquinone
4g potassium bromide

Maybe you'll have better luck with that.

Thank you @koraks and @Don_ih for your advice. For my second attempt, I used this formula by @grainyvision
* 1L water* 30ml of 10% hydroquinone dissolved in propylene glycol (ethylene glycol can also be
used, but is toxic)
* 25ml of 10% sulfite
* 5ml of 10% bromide
* 5ml of 1% PEG-3350
* 13ml of 10% sodium hydroxide
from this thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/lith-developer-making-it.95484/
This formula is advertised as being fast. Not that I'm especially in a hurry, but if I am to fail, I prefer to know in 5min rather than 20. Went down to the pharmacy and bought some PEG-4000 laxative.

Also, I switched to a paper that is a priori more lithable than Ilfospeed: Ilfomar.

So it worked! After a test sheet with a Kodak Projection Print Scale, I chose an exposure time; about 3 stops more than for regular paper/dev. I printed 6 contacts from 4x5" pinhole negatives, without individual test strips, to make the most of the lifetime of the developer.

Indeed I could see the infectious development, snatching at 4'45" the first one, increasing to 6' for the last, one hour after mixing. By that time the dev was a dark red-brown and I was happy with whatever I had achieved. A little disappointed that the tone of the image is just the brown tone of the Ilfomar; ultimately I would hope to obtain a look similar to that of some of the photos of Guillaume Zuili http://www.guillaumezuili.com/

But, if lih were easy, it would be less fun. Below one of my first prints.

bernard_L said:

A little disappointed that the tone of the image is just the brown tone of the Ilfomar; ultimately I would hope to obtain a look similar to that of some of the photos of Guillaume Zuili

Click to expand...

I've had a quick look at Zuili's work (and recognized that I had seen it before, not too long ago). Much of what's on his website also features the brown/muddy hues that you typically get with many papers. Some of his prints tend towards pinkish hues a bit more; this is something I associate with long-gone papers like Forte Polywarmtone (this went pink in a very easy and pretty way) - it's one reason why hopefully one day Adox will bring back Polywarmtone (although whether it liths just as beautifully as the old stuff remains to be seen). I've also gotten fairly nice orange to somewhat pinkish hues with Fomatone and using (lots of) chloride instead of bromide. Still: paper really matters - a lot. There's no way around it. Don't expect to pick any random paper and get gorgeously colorful results. This is why lith printers cling to a select set of favorite papers. Polywarmtone is up there; Kentmere Kentona is another favorite (another long-gone paper).

Another thing you might want to look into is Moersch' polychrome technique. This is basically a two-staged development, where you use a first developer that's very slow working only to bring color to the highlights and upper midtones. You can use a metol-based developer (only metol; no other developing agents!!) for this, restrained with lots of sodium chloride. This will be sloooow but very colorful. Once you've gotten the hues you need, thoroughly rinse the print and finish it off in a regular lith developer like you've been using for the print above. This will nuke in the shadows through infectious development. In the process, most of the colorful hues of the first stage will remain in place. Both developers in this approach can be tuned to your heart's content by playing with halide additions, sulfite etc. I think for the first 'colorful' developer you can also use something like amidol or glycin (I forgot which it is that Moersch uses; should be easy to find); I didn't try either because I only had metol at hand.

Finally, toning is super powerful - even more so than on regular prints. Throw whatever you got/need/want at that print to get where you need to go. Selenium, sepia, gold, iron, copper - you name it, you try it.