Edwal 10 -- formula, anyone?

[Trask]

Trask submitted a new resource:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) - Edwal 10 -- formula, anyone?

I've seen a few references to Edwal 10 as an interesting Glycin developer, but cannot find a formula. Anyone have one at hand? Thanks for posting it!

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

 

[Ian Grant]

The formula I have is:

Metol . . . . 5g
Glycin . . . . 15g
Sodium Sulphite (anhyd) 70
Borax . . . .. 10g
Water to 1 litre

Use 1+1

Ian

 

[MikeSeb]

What do we like about this developer compared to, say, D23 or D76?

Curious, as I've not used it and, oaths to the contrary, will never forswear looking for the ideal developer!

 

[Trask]

Mike -- I wish I knew! I was going to mix up some Agfa 8 film developer (water, sodium sulphite, glycin, potassium carbonate, more water), then discovered I was out of potassium carbonate. So I went looking for other glycin developers and found exactly one reference to Edwal 10 (as opposed to Edwal 12, which is well documented). I find it interesting to see the differences between the two -- Agfa 8 uses only glycin as the developing agent, while Edwal 10 uses 2. Uses borax, too. I guess I'll just have to mix some up. Hopefully if someone else has used it, he or she will chime in.

 

[Trask]

And -- Ian, thanks!

 

[eclarke]

I was going to suggest Germain's Finegrain but it occurs to me you might not have Paraphenylenediamine!! It's a great developer:

750 cc Water
7 g. Metol
70 g. Sodium Sulfite
7 g. Paraphenylenediamine
7 g. Glycin
Water to make 1L

I use stock in a Jobo, normal time for TMY is 6"45" , 68 deg. F. but this is a little dependent on the pH of your water...Evan Clarke

 

[Ian Grant]

The classic Edwal developers are really Edwal 12 and Edwal Super 20. Don (DF Cardwell) has been investigating Edwal 12 and plans to reveal his findings quite soon.

These PPD developers are super fine grain with excellent tonality and sharpness (acutance), but they are now a neglected field.

It's worth noting though that Ilford produced a Phenidone Glycin developer, the proportions appear to be quite similar to Edwal 10 with the obvious swapping of the Metol for Phenidone, I have a formulae but it's un-numbered although quite possibly the basis for the original Ilfosol.

Ian

 

[df cardwell]

Funny you should ask. I'm preparing a short introduction to Edwal 10 and 12, and it should be 'ready for the press' (meaning APUG) in the next month.

Edmund W. Lowe (Edwal) created E-10 as a variation to D-76 back in the mid 1930s. He followed it up with a very fine grain developer with identical properties, Edwal 12. The only important difference between 10 and 12 is that 12 has a much lower pH, and produces a nearly grainless negative negative with today's advanced 400 ISO films like TMY2 and Delta 400.

While one may certainly use them diluted for one shot use,
I prefer both 10 and 12 as replenished developers.

There is a practical difference between 10 and 12: 12 uses PPD, and some folks are unwilling to work with some of photography’s potentially less friendly ingredients. Edwal 10 is just fine.

The image Edwal 10 produces, in terms of granularity, is similar to D-76, although the grain itself seems, to my eye, to be cleaner and more defined. It is a very subtle difference. It is not in any way mushy or soft. It has a neutral acutance. It is not soft, it does not produce exaggerated effects.

The tonal scale is different. Compared to D-76, the lower values are slightly darker, the midtones are the same, and the highlights are brighter. Using TMY2 as an example, E10 produces a shoulder that may be placed with precision at a density between 1.5 and 2.2, depending upon your agitation. E10, therefore, is very suitable for Minimal Agitation techniques. With agitation every minute, you can be safe to assume the curve will be very similar to D-76, with slightly deeper shadows and brighter highlights. E10 DOES give full exposure speed, the contrast rise through the shadows is lower than D-76.

In plainer terms, if I were making a picture where the shadows were more important than the highlights, I would use D-76. If the highlights were more important, I would use Edwal 10. For a balanced scene, either would do very well.

Most of my work is available light portraiture. Edwal 10 and 12 make negatives from TX and TMY2 that resemble studio work with TXP (in conditions that would be impossible to work with TXP). In short, Edwal 10 is a very carefully crafted alternative to D-76 that excels when flesh tones and highlights are important, and when local contrast in the midtones needs to be increased. It is a very good developer to use with incident readings.

For a beginner, or for all around safety, D-76 would be a better choice. Edwal 10 provides a fine second developer; a different look. On an overcast day, or in the shade, Edwal 10 !

Here is a curve from a calibrated step tablet, read through a densitometer and everything. Note that this is for a negative that was given minimal agitation, so there is a pretty dramatic shoulder, as well as more shadow density than one would expect with conventional agitation. But this suits MY work, so here is MY curve ! Hope it helps a little.



don

 

[df cardwell]

Lowe wrote wonderful documentation for his formulas,
including how to use variations of the basic formula,
and when to use them. Germain made an trifling adjustment in Lowe's work, and claimed it as his own.

Thank goodness we are untroubled
by such ruthless self-promotion in our era !

 

[Photo Engineer]

I would hope for better curve shape than the one with the sag in the middle.

The 6 or 7 minute curves are more realistic here:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

There is no magic bullet developer, only one that gives the best results. If the saggy curve works for you, then it is fine, but I prefer the straight line which gives me better results and is what the film was designed for.

PE

 

[eclarke]

Lowe wrote wonderful documentation for his formulas,
including how to use variations of the basic formula,
and when to use them. Germain made an trifling adjustment in Lowe's work, and claimed it as his own.

Thank goodness we are untroubled
by such ruthless self-promotion in our era !

I'm not well schooled on the dynamics of these authors, I just found the Germain formula in his little book, had the chemicals, made it and like it so have never ventured from it. I will read my Lowe and try the Edwal 12. Thanks for the info, Don...Evan Clarke

 

[df cardwell]

Germain's and the basic 12 will be virtually the same ! Whatever the name is, it is a splendid formula

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I can't back my claims up scientifically, but I've been an avid Edwal 12 user for the past couple of months processing about 50 or so rolls of film in that time span, and it really is a wonderful developer. I'm still getting used to it, though, but I love how it works on my negatives. Printing 9x9" prints from medium format Tri-X 400 I'm having a hard time finding grain in the grain focuser, while maintaining good film speed and soaringly beautiful highlights.
The curve in Don's post reaffirms the look that I like from it with very crisp and brilliant highlights, but not over the top and blocked up. The curve also suggests that you have control by reducing agitation if you don't like the highlights too bright.
I find it most impressive in portrait work, but have found it beneficial in other types of work also.

If Edwal 10 is similar to Edwal 12, but with coarser grain, then you can pick and choose what you like!

 

[Trask]

Seek and ye shall find, indeed. Thanks DF and PE and everyone else. I remember using Edwal 12 some years ago and at the time I thought it was a bit relentless of a developer. The main reason I'm interested in Edwal 10 is to see what effect the glycin has. I'll still make up some Agfa 8 so I can see glycin "unsullied" by metol, but for now I'll try the E-10, and report back.

 

[df cardwell]

Saggy curve ...

SAGGY CURVE ?????

:confused:

(based on my numerical data, the curve is a little saggy,
but I’m a photographer, not a numerologist, or whatever they are, and my Kodak Step Tablet isn’t linear,
and so I think my curve is a little lumpy and saggy and in reality the negs are really kinda wonderful.)

I was only 16 back in 1968, but got to work with my teacher’s Portrait Pan, and in my youthful naivety, thought that all you had to do was have your subject stand by the window or in an open doorway and Kodak magic would make the picture come out. Well, that’s why portrait films were made, right ? That was all it took back then.

Compress the shadows, expand the highlights. Fantastic. Magic.

The only 2 reasons I’m not using the stuff now are that Kodak doesn’t make it for 35mm.
And because Kodak stopped making it 40 some odd years ago. When it got canned, Paul Strand was really pissed off, too !

You can almost get the same thing with TXP, if you coddle it, and if you shoot 120, which I don’t.

So I got good at shooting TX and then TMY (for the last 20 + years) and then burning in the shadows with a #1 filter, which I knew was a waste of time, and then one day, until I realised that I was wasting my time.... I could fix the bloody curve !

I mean, if Zakia said I could do it, that made it OK, yes ?
So I did. I fixed it !
So I used a plain old glycin developer, that cost me two stops and made the highlights plot like a rocket launch.

In time, I remembered E10 and 12, and worked with them a little, and PRESTO !
Good old Kodak Portrait Magic, once again, on super adaptable TMY, with the help of a good old midwestern photochemist. I’ve got Portrait Pan again, except it is 400 EI, not 125, and 35mm instead of sheets.
But an 8x10 print looks like it came out of my RB Graflex.

Even if my curve is saggy, the pictures are WAY cool.

And when I want a straight line, its XTOL all the way.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Ian, what would be the conversion for using Phenidone in Edwal 10? I have more of that on hand than Metol and besides, have a slight Metol intolerance so I try to not use Metol whenever possible.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Don;

Before you dried the film, they were SOGGY curves in addition to being SAGGY! So, now they only sag!

I said, if it works, its good and lo, you have found it good, therefore it works. (that equation goes in both directions).

PE

 

[Larry Bullis]

I seriously enjoy both saggy and soggy curves and the observation that Edwal 12 is a RELENTLESS developer. This is what it is known for. I was lead to believe and expect that if you wished to expand a rather flat scene, Edwal 12 was right for the job. True, it seems to be. However, lest it be casually denied that one can contract with E12, take a look at the example below. Ilford delta 3200. Edwal 12. I'd look into E10 but I'm more interested right now in shooting what I have working for me, and E12 definitely is giving me what I'm looking for right now. As a veteran MCM 100 user, I am not put off by PPD. Yes, I know it causes cancer in laboratory animals in the state of California.

By the way, I also started with Germain's version, and it, too, is great. Not significantly different from Lowe's version. I suspect that you could use Lowe's recommendation about replenishment for it as well. You could also use it one shot as Lowe suggests for E12, dilute 1:9 and develop twice as long.

If by chance the example doesn't load (I don't see it) here's the url:

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

 

[Trask]

df -- 1968, and I too was sixteen, and shooting pictures for the high school yearbook. Microdol ruled, but I didn't like my Nikkorex F very much. Now I'm at bit older, which different toys, but still enjoying the magic of film development. Anyway, can you provide a few time/temp statistics so I can adapt your techniques to my present film (APX100)? Thanks!

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian, what would be the conversion for using Phenidone in Edwal 10? I have more of that on hand than Metol and besides, have a slight Metol intolerance so I try to not use Metol whenever possible.

The ratio of Phenidone instead of Metol varies depending on the exact formula but generally the Phenidone should be between 1/6th and a 1/10th the weight of Metol needed. Most formulae it's closer to 1/8th-1/10th.

Looking at the Phenidone/Glycin formulae I have it's 1.75g of Phenidone to 50 Glycin, so using the same ratio in Edwal 10 would indicate you need o add 0.525gms Phenidone in place of the 5 gms Metol.

Hope that helps

Ian

 

[df cardwell]

Starting times... use the time for D-76 1+1,
and agitate once per minute. Agfa suggests 11',
that's as good a place to begin as any other. I've found that it is better to judge
E10 by the midtones rather than by Zone I. You may choose to agitate for 10 seconds every 5th minute if the APX highlights climb to high for your taste.

You've got three ways to use this stuff:
one-shot, re-use the developer for a given number of rolls, or replenish.

Use D-76 instructions for guidance here.

If you replenish, 'season' the developer before your first roll
by soaking 4 rolls of 135-36/120 (any old b&w film that has been fully exposed)
for 15 minutes or so, and carefully drain all the liquid back into the bottle.

Work with 2 liters of developer, one Working solution, and one Stock.
After your development is finished, pour the developer from the tank into a graduate,
stop, fix, and wash as usual.

Withdraw 3 oz of developer from the graduate, and replace it with Stock, then pour it back into the Working bottle.
It isn't much of a hassle, and makes a very nice working developer that will last indefinitely.

d

 

[eclarke]

I use the Germain and the thing I like about it most is that it pulls well without adverse effects. I'm not scientific with my photography so this is an observation but with setup it goes to -1 and -2 quite nicely. My gut feeling (untested) is that the shadows come up quickly with this developer. I will probably making some Edwal 12 this weekend because it is drab and ugly in Milwaukee and I have spare sheets to develop!!...Evan Clarke

 

[Trask]

Thanks, DF -- just what I needed to know.

 

[jim appleyard]

... I am not put off by PPD. Yes, I know it causes cancer in laboratory animals in the state of California. QUOTE]

IIRC, PPD is widely used in hair dyes and shampoo. This makes one wonder how bad it really is.

 

[Larry Bullis]

I've read here about ppd causing severe reactions for some people. It's never bothered me, but I suppose I could reach my tolerance level one of these days. I hope not. So far, so good.