Emofin

[snusmumriken]

I've just joined this forum because I have a 'thing' about Emofin, and a search landed me in this forum. Looking back over several decades of fiddling amateurishly with many different film/dev combinations, all my best images were with Emofin. Since its demise, I have tried Barry Thornton's 2-bath dev and variations thereon, as well as old standbys like ID-11/D-76 - but the fact remains. Films involved include Tri-X (of course), but also FP4+, HP5+, Delta 100 and Delta 3200. All gave their best with Emofin, but especially Tri-X, Delta 100 and Delta 3200. Those last two may surprise some people who doubt that modern thin emulsions can hold enough developer. Emofin gave me a great combinations of more than box speed (reliably +1 stop) and fine grain.

Having said all that, I had a recurrent problem with muddy, inseparable mid-tones, so it wasn't all roses. In indoor, window-lit conditions or artificially lit scenes it was bloody brilliant. Outdoors it was also great so long as the image didn't involve lots of natural vegetation.

I still have 3 packets of Emofin in the cupboard. I will use them up, but what happens then? Has anyone else been through this ordeal and found a satisfactory replacement?

Thanks in anticipation for your thoughts.

 

[Alan Johnson]

https://ntphotoworks.com/product/bellini-duo-step-diafine-film-developer/
This is more like Diafine than Emofin and at this time [ July 21 ] not sold in the US I believe.
It contains phenidone and hydroquinone.
It may be suitable if you wish to buy rather than mix your own.

 

[snusmumriken]

https://ntphotoworks.com/product/bellini-duo-step-diafine-film-developer/
This is more like Diafine than Emofin and at this time [July 21] not sold in the US I believe.
It contains phenidone and hydroquinone.
It may be suitable if you wish to buy rather than mix your own.

Alan, thanks very much, it is specifically Emofin and not Diafine that I'm in love with. I am also fully expecting to need to mix my own. I currently use the Barry Thornton formula to mix my own. It is OK, but the speed increase is minimal, and my photos lack a certain subtle oomph that Emofin provided.

I saw that you had figured out the Emofin formula in another thread. I'm not quite clear about the range of values for each ingredient? But in any case, I guess the PPD is a no-no for environmental and safety reasons now, is it?

 

[Alan Johnson]

You would need to devise a substitute from the msds, here are my approximation limits, post 172.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/microdol-x-replacement.46346/page-7
Since you have some packs left it is advisable to check my calculation from the msds:
https://www.digitaltruth.com/products/tetenal_msds/emofin-MSDS.pdf
Note that the PPD derivative is CD-1 [not PPD itself], might get some from fototec suvatlar.
You would need to check if you are OK with the toxicity of CD-1.
Also try to start ,say, mid -range amounts from the msds , except use enough bisulfite to get the pH of the A bath right.
Quite a project, nobody has done it.

 

[AgX]

Next to the Bellini kit there is a second commercial kit for a Emofin style 2-bath developer (developing agent +alkali): Moersch MZB
(However, in contrast to Emofin it does not yield any speed increase, to the contrary.)

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Bill Troop was of the opinion that "In sum, I think Emofin is a speed-increasing, compensating metol developer, which uses ppd to decrease grain."

If PPD has no role to play in the speed increasing characteristic of Emofin as opined by Troop, then maybe you can drop it from the substitute formula that he provided and see what you get. Grain will be obviously more prominent.

Since you've some Emofin, you are in a unique position do a study of the original developer with its substitutes and draw informed conclusions about the substitutes.

 

[JensH]

Next to the Bellini kit there is a second commercial kit for a Emofin style 2-bath developer (developing agent +alkali): Moersch MZB
(However, in contrast to Emofin it does not yield any speed increase, to the contrary.)

Yes, Moersch MZB works very well... but I miss Emofin for rotation.

Best
Jens

 

[snusmumriken]

Thanks to all of you. I am quite disinclined to do a controlled comparison against substitutes that are expected to be inferior in some respect. The speed gain of Emofin is very welcome, but apart from that I can't describe any consistent effect that can be seen in all Emofin negatives. The magic must be quite subtle, and I'm not convinced it would be apparent in a controlled comparison. All I can really say is that Emofin and other developers were equally involved in generating legions of awful negatives; but that almost all of my best images involved Emofin.

 

[Beverly Hills]

You would need to devise a substitute from the msds, here are my approximation limits, post 172.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/microdol-x-replacement.46346/page-7
Since you have some packs left it is advisable to check my calculation from the msds:
https://www.digitaltruth.com/products/tetenal_msds/emofin-MSDS.pdf
Note that the PPD derivative is CD-1 [not PPD itself], might get some from fototec suvatlar.
You would need to check if you are OK with the toxicity of CD-1.
Also try to start ,say, mid -range amounts from the msds , except use enough bisulfite to get the pH of the A bath right.
Quite a project, nobody has done it.

Hallo Alan Johnson,
The PPD derivate is CD-1? But not for sure - right?

Could it be (not for sure) simple phenidone ?

In some older formulation ppd is used as an agend in combination with methol.

The derivative to PPD from later formulars was often phenidone.

 

[Beverly Hills]

Thanks to all of you. I am quite disinclined to do a controlled comparison against substitutes that are expected to be inferior in some respect. The speed gain of Emofin is very welcome, but apart from that I can't describe any consistent effect that can be seen in all Emofin negatives. The magic must be quite subtle, and I'm not convinced it would be apparent in a controlled comparison. All I can really say is that Emofin and other developers were equally involved in generating legions of awful negatives; but that almost all of my best images involved Emofin.

The advantage of Emofin to photographers during the 70s/80s was to push HP5 up to 42 DIN/6400 ASA.
You can still forget tonals, grain,contrast then -" but you have THE PICTURE" ( press photographers).....

 

[snusmumriken]

The advantage of Emofin to photographers during the 70s/80s was to push HP5 up to 42 DIN/6400 ASA.
You can still forget tonals, grain,contrast then -" but you have THE PICTURE" ( press photographers).....

What I found with Tri-X in Emofin was what appeared to be a genuine, useable speed increase of one stop, based on the usual testing exercise. So I subsequently rated the film at 800 ISO, exposed for shadow detail, and consistently got the results I expected:

I very much doubt that any greater real speed increase is possible in any developer. Four stops (e.g. rating HP5 at 6400 ISO) would be a description of the extent of under-exposure, rather than an indication of any speed gain.

I did test Emofin with T-grain and Delta-grain film too. The expectation was that - because these have very thin emulsions - they might not carry enough developer for a 2-bath formulation to work. I found that I got full box speed, including with Delta 3200, which others had found to be an 800 ISO film in other developers:

 

[Alan Johnson]

Hallo Alan Johnson,
The PPD derivate is CD-1? But not for sure - right?

Could it be (not for sure) simple phenidone ?

In some older formulation ppd is used as an agend in combination with methol.

The derivative to PPD from later formulars was often phenidone.

For sure it is CD-1:

https://www.digitaltruth.com/products/tetenal_msds/emofin-MSDS.pdf

 

[Beverly Hills]

For sure it is CD-1:

https://www.digitaltruth.com/products/tetenal_msds/emofin-MSDS.pdf

Yes I understand. It is of course speculative but one can allready imagine that the company Tetenal has changed the recipe of Emofin over the years.

If you want to understand it in that way, and ulimately everyone can decide for themselves, if we were talking about the developer Emofin we would speak of different recipes !
Then it would be about the correct composition of the components, in connection with Emofin, within a historical
section.

To clearify : Wich Emofin developer are we talking about here? Is this the same on that Tetenal recently discontinued?
No one will be able to answer it satisfactorely ?

I would assume that it is nearly the same with allmost identical properties.

But now, not to be missunderstood, my point here is exactly
this : Only Tetenal will know for sure, but that's a company
secret !

What makes that whole topic really complicated for those who are now wondering what to do without Emofin, that no
longer exist.

AND, let's be honest, an answer like : use xtol, or : then take
Rodinal, it is also good - can't really make everyone happy afterwarts !

I am aware that it is a bit naive to imagine, but how about then at least, after a certain time, if a manufakturer like Tetenal would be so accommodating as to publish the old
recipe that is no longer used.

( the chemicals replaced by the manufacturer are often still
avaible)

Not to think at all, that a manufacturer after he has decided
to take a product off the marked ( some times later ) releases
the recipe for it.

One could speculate that Tetenal is open to re - launching
Emofin, but that hasn't happened in the case of neofin red either !

In the end, it would probably still possible that the Chinese
would marked Emofin II after the recipe has been released..?

....just think about it folks....

 

[snusmumriken]

Yes I understand. It is of course speculative but one can allready imagine that the company Tetenal has changed the recipe of Emofin over the years.

If you want to understand it in that way, and ulimately everyone can decide for themselves, if we were talking about the developer Emofin we would speak of different recipes !
Then it would be about the correct composition of the components, in connection with Emofin, within a historical
section.
View attachment 333278

To clearify : Wich Emofin developer are we talking about here? Is this the same on that Tetenal recently discontinued?
No one will be able to answer it satisfactorely ?

I would assume that it is nearly the same with allmost identical properties.

But now, not to be missunderstood, my point here is exactly
this : Only Tetenal will know for sure, but that's a company
secret !

What makes that whole topic really complicated for those who are now wondering what to do without Emofin, that no
longer exist.

AND, let's be honest, an answer like : use xtol, or : then take
Rodinal, it is also good - can't really make everyone happy afterwarts !

I am aware that it is a bit naive to imagine, but how about then at least, after a certain time, if a manufakturer like Tetenal would be so accommodating as to publish the old
recipe that is no longer used.

( the chemicals replaced by the manufacturer are often still
avaible)

Not to think at all, that a manufacturer after he has decided
to take a product off the marked ( some times later ) releases
the recipe for it.

One could speculate that Tetenal is open to re - launching
Emofin, but that hasn't happened in the case of neofin red either !

In the end, it would probably still possible that the Chinese
would marked Emofin II after the recipe has been released..?

....just think about it folks....

That's a very old package! I don't even remember them looking like that, so it must be pre-1980s because that's when I discovered the stuff.

Emofin is not very open to re-launching the stuff - I asked them earlier this year:
Me: Is there any prospect of Emofin coming back into production, or is there some health and safety issue that prevents this?
Them: No, not planned yet. It is not about health and safety issues, it is about the market request.
Me: Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately, there may not be many people left who have any previous experience of Emofin, so market demand may be small!
Them: Many thanks for your feedback.

 

[Beverly Hills]

That's a very old package! I don't even remember them looking like that, so it must be pre-1980s because that's when I discovered the stuff.

Emofin is not very open to re-launching the stuff - I asked them earlier this year:
Me: Is there any prospect of Emofin coming back into production, or is there some health and safety issue that prevents this?
Them: No, not planned yet. It is not about health and safety issues, it is about the market request.
Me: Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately, there may not be many people left who have any previous experience of Emofin, so market demand may be small!
Them: Many thanks for your feedback.

That's the point - there is no great chance that Tetenal will
relaunch Emofin.

 

[Craig]

What I found with Tri-X in Emofin was what appeared to be a genuine, useable speed increase of one stop, based on the usual testing exercise.

I must admit that I have never heard of Emofin before. Sounds like something to do with club kids in their late teens who wear all black.

However, wouldn't Microphen give you the speed increasing quality you want? I think it's the phenidone that is doing that.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Emofin early version [no formula] is mentioned in the 1936 book "Leica Technik" by Curt Emmermann, I believe he invented it.
More recently the two bath version was used in Europe and the UK, not sure that it was distributed in the US.
IIRC it gave fine grain, maybe the CD-1 has solvent properties, and a speed increase which may be due to the aggressive carbonate-sulfite B bath.
It pre-dates the use of phenidone in such as Diafine and Microphen.

 

[miha]

Fun Fact, Tetenal Emofin first entered the market in 1929, just two years after Kodak introduced their D76. It was discontinued in 2015.

 

[Trask]

What's inside the box -- three separate packets. An Emofin-developed photo (Original 35mm Across pushed to 160). Excellent developer.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Interesting developer! I've never used it, but your picture of a cup of coffee looks good, except for one thing. It rendered your coffee far too light.