excessive fog and beutler's 105

[dancqu]

This is fog , not poorly fixed negs. It has a definite
grainy grey density which extends into some of the
shadow areas of the frames.

Are you describing a peculiar form of light leakage?
Grainy gray suggests a fog exposure caused. Dan

 

[Leon]

Are you describing a peculiar form of light leakage?
Grainy gray suggests a fog exposure caused. Dan

Dan - no, there are no light leaks going on. I have been doing comparison rolls in d76h, d23 and the beutler hd. all the d23 and d76h rolls have been fine, all the beutler rolls have been heavily fogged, which affects the shadow values to make them look "solarised" when scanned and flipped into a positive.

this is really bugging me as I have been mixing pyrocat hd for some time with no trouble and the d23 and d76h I've mixed are causing no problems - the fact that this is going wrong is really frustrating!

 

[gonzalo]

hi,
using this developer at 1:1:10 with 5 ml of .001% potassium iodide solution gives me clean, fog free negs ( second prize in pursuit of adjacency effect/ mackie lines ! ) ...

i've experimented with anywhere between 2ml-10ml and haven't noticed much difference.

the films have been apx100 and gp3(shangai) in 120 .

has anyone experimented using this developer in an ultra diluted form for stand development? i suspect that a dilution of 1:1:32 could yield similar results as rodinal 1:200 ( 60 - 90 min stand ) but with the benefit of metol ...

 

[Photo Engineer]

To find out, you need to know the density of the solute. That can be found in tables, in MSDS sheets, and quite often on the label of the bottle. But that is the difficult route - the "add water to make" is far simpler!

Ole;

Sorry, but even knowing the density of the solute will not help you. It is a matter of hydrogen bonding in water (among a large number of other factors) that determines whether a solution 'collapses' or 'expands' when a solute is added to a solvent. Thus density can go either way.

Many chemicals in water decrease density while many increase density. There is no way to tell from the solute, in advance, what the final density will be.

In fact, the equation to calculate the density of silver nitrate in water is a 5th or 7th order equation (I forget off hand) and the equation to relate that further to temperature is another 3rd or 5th order equation (another plead that I forget after years of disuse of the equation). This mathematical complexity is due to all of the molecular interactions involved.

You are right in saying that the dilute to volume is the best way. Another way is to dilute to weight. There are two types of percent solutions. Weight / Volume and Weight / Weight. But, due to density considerations, once you use one, you must continue to use it or you can make huge errors in measurment.

As a former member of the Kodak Density Standards committee, I know how hard it is making up a set of rules and densities. I still have an engraved pycnometer as a remembrance of that work.

PE

 

[Ole]

PE, I was trying to avoid further confusion. I figured that anyone capable of finding the density of the solute and calculating the concentration from that might also be capable of recognising the "added complications", while those who were lost in the first step wouldn't need to know that it gets even worse

Of course you're right. We did dilution of ethanol in water as a lab exercise in university - not a good day for me as I came directly from a party and got the worst hangover I can remember in a lab full of alcohol fumes.

 

[Leon]

right - back on thread ... In desperation, I mixed some more A solution fresh and used it today as a last ditched attempt - and it worked fine, no fog, nice clear base and appropriate tones in the image. I must have been doing something wrong - whatever it was will remain a mystery I think. Thanks for everyone's help though.

 

[Steve Anchell]

Yes, the formula appeared in Beutler's book published in 1961.

However, formulas of this type (also including FX-1, FX-2, and numerous others) are designed to work on the emulsion surface and are therefore not dependent on emulsion thickness.

BTW, the number 105 should not be included in the name. This is merely the number of the formula in the Anchell book. It is not part of the formulas name and you will not see it used before Anchell's book was published.

This response is a little late, but better late than miss dinner, eh? Anyway, the formula for Buetler's high acutance developer was given to me by Lawrence Cooper. The designation Buetler #105 came from Lawrence. I have since seen it published online as Beutler's High Acutance Divided Developer and in Hans Windisch's book, The Manual of Modern Photography published in 1956, it is called "A special developer for low-speed film". According to the Formulary this is the formula for Neofin Blue which was formulated by Buetler. So call it what you like.

In Windisch's book, he makes it clear that it creates fine grain and high definition in slow-speed films. So, yes, Gerald Koch is correct, it was not meant for Tri-X.

Also in Windisch, he gives a dilution of 1+1+500, not 800 as has since been published. In the Cookbook. However, the formula in the Darkroom Cookbook as given by Lawrence has the dilution as 1+1800. From what I hear the higher dilution seems to work for those using it. I would suggest trying the 1+1+500 dilution.

I will include this along with Windisch's recommendations for time/temperature and dilution for medium-speed films in the 5th edition of the Darkroom Cookbook which I'm working on at the moment (which is why I'm parsing the Phototrio Forum to find out what the guys and gals actually using formulas like this are recommending).

 

[Steve Anchell]

Misprint "Lawrence has the dilution as 1+1+800." Left out the second "+".