film categories: which are "retro" and which are not?

[Pixophrenic]

The film manufacturers aren't going to test every developer, so you are going to have to rely on the experiences of others as reported in forums like this.

I can't agree more.

 

[Pixophrenic]

The film manufacturers aren't going to test every developer, so you are going to have to rely on the experiences of others as reported in forums like this.

I am sure every manufacturer has their favorites.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Many developers are just takeoffs of some Kodak developers such as D76, Dektol, HC110 and etc.. The same is true of fixers. The reason is that there are only a few such "good" formulas out there. Kodak was working on a whole family of these new B&W products when I retired. IDK if Kodak is still using D76 for release testing.

PE

 

[Pixophrenic]

I am sure every manufacture has their favorites.

I can't agree more. Jacobsons' book states the same. Isn't it time that we face this problem head on? I am sure in the 21st century we could at least attempt to bring some order into this overabundance of formulas? It is not so much the point who was there first, but that most of formulas are redundant to the point it is confusing without reason. What do you think?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Some formulas do not work the same way with modern films as when they were designed with older emulsions.

PE

 

[MattKing]

#6 - the availability of constituent components - is really not relevant to developers like D-76/ID-11, X-Tol, Rodinal, D-72/Dektol and probably a bunch more.
The constituent components of these are really common chemicals which are used outside of photography, and aren't subject to special safety or security concerns.
Whether or not they are conveniently obtained by individuals (especially in Canada) is a different question - most of the sources are really only set up to deal with businesses.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Rodinal, and any Pyro developer come to mind as being problematical due to toxicity, and HC110 is totally out of reach of the home darkroom worker.

PE

 

[Pixophrenic]

I can't agree more. Jacobsons' book states the same. Isn't it time that we face this problem head on? I am sure in the 21st century we could at least attempt to bring some order into this overabundance of formulas? It is not so much the point who was there first, but that most of formulas are redundant to the point it is confusing without reason. What do you think?

Rodinal, and any Pyro developer come to mind as being problematical due to toxicity, and HC110 is totally out of reach of the home darkroom worker.

I am sorry but I do not understand what do you mean by out of reach? With regard to components? Do you seriously think that HC110 is the only solution for a developer with similar qualities?

 

[Pixophrenic]

Some formulas do not work the same way with modern films as when they were designed with older emulsions.

PE

My thought exactly, but somehow you refrain from elaborating on that.

 

[Pixophrenic]

#6 - the availability of constituent components - is really not relevant to developers like D-76/ID-11, X-Tol, Rodinal, D-72/Dektol and probably a bunch more.
The constituent components of these are really common chemicals which are used outside of photography, and aren't subject to special safety or security concerns.
Whether or not they are conveniently obtained by individuals (especially in Canada) is a different question - most of the sources are really only set up to deal with businesses.

So, there appears to be a way to formulate new developers, so that they can be sourced exclusively from components used elsewhere. Oddly, one example is Caffenol,.no matter how you may despise the idea. We are not going to be deprived of coffee, are we? Another is phenidone and ascorbate, both are used in medical research. Triethanolamine is sold in beauty and wellness shops, So, phenidone-ascorbate on TEA with an appropriate amount of drain opener (NaOH) is a safe bet for the future?

 

[Pixophrenic]

#6 - the availability of constituent components - is really not relevant to developers like D-76/ID-11, X-Tol, Rodinal, D-72/Dektol and probably a bunch more.
The constituent components of these are really common chemicals which are used outside of photography, and aren't subject to special safety or security concerns.
Whether or not they are conveniently obtained by individuals (especially in Canada) is a different question - most of the sources are really only set up to deal with businesses.

You are right, but the interesting question here is that do we really need such copious amounts of sodium sulfite for modern films as we are led to believe reading 60+-year old formulas?

 

[MattKing]

So, there appears to be a way to formulate new developers, so that they can be sourced exclusively from components used elsewhere. Oddly, one example is Caffenol,.no matter how you may despise the idea. We are not going to be deprived of coffee, are we? Another is phenidone and ascorbate, both are used in medical research. Triethanolamine is sold in beauty and wellness shops, So, phenidone-ascorbate on TEA with an appropriate amount of drain opener (NaOH) is a safe bet for the future?

Things aren't nearly this desperate.
It is reasonably easy for small manufacturers to make up developers. Maybe not HC-110 (whose major distinguishing feature is its longevity while in concentrate) but certainly most of the others.
If there is a market, there will be someone out there packaging it.
Hell, the people who make illegal drugs in a kitchen can probably do it.
All those little soap making ingredients sellers can probably do it easily.
If things go full "Blade Runner", maybe we are in trouble.
But if that happens, developers will be the last thing we will be worrying about.
And by the way, Caffenol isn't something to despise. It is just a bit unreliable, until tamed.

 

[Pixophrenic]

With regard to Caffenol. I just submitted to Digital Truth two formulas intended to increase the reliability, featuring new sources of alkalinity in lieu of sodium carbonate. It is now up to Jon to include them. However, my bet is still on phenidone and derivatives, as these are used in medical research.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

You are right, but the interesting question here is that do we really need such copious amounts of sodium sulfite for modern films as we are led to believe reading 60+-year old formulas?

Solvent developers like D-76 and Perceptol contain 100 or more grams per liter. We now know that the optimum concentration is closer to 75 g/l. More sulfite actually decreases the effectiveness.

 

[Pixophrenic]

Gerald,
Do you have a credible source for this mysterious 75g/l? Even XTOL (the most modern solvent developer we have) contains close to 90g/l sulfite.

Citing Crawley, first section of the BJP series on sodium sulfite: "...speaking very generally, the solvent action becomes detectable when the concentration rises above 45 g/L, the effect on film speed begins at about 70 g/L, and developers maintaining normal emulsion speed may begin to lose this at concentrations much above 100 g/L. If the formula is such that it has exceptional threshold energy, then at about 125 g/L, film speed and contrast begin to rise again <...> With careful adjustment of the alkali restrainer system dichroism can be avoided. The concentration of sodium sulfite can now be raised to saturation without much further effect." He claims this was a result of his own studies.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Modern films are less prone to dichroic fog due to the newer addenda used when making the emulsion.

PE

If one is interested in retro as in an old look, then consider using uncoated lenses and ortho films [blue sensitive and blind to red].

 

[Photo Engineer]

I was intrigued by the idea of writing a historical timeline of emulsions and film types in spite of any real interest expressed here (only Pixophrenic). I am currently writing one for my new book and may post it here as well.

As for HC110, mixing anything approaching its longevity and usefulness is problematic, but there are close approaches. One former APUG participant reportedly devised an XTOL work alike, but has found no market and has vanished.

There are many problems with Crawley formulas with modern film, as I have noted many times. Older films were either pure bromide or iodo/bromide with low iodide or iodide in the core. These gave enhanced edge effects with Crawley developers. Today, emulsions have up to 10% iodide and are immune to this same effect.

However, there are a number of methods to formulate better developers for modern or older emulsion types with common chemistry. It will just take a year or more of R&D to come up with a suitable formula.

PE

 

[Pixophrenic]

I was intrigued by the idea of writing a historical timeline of emulsions and film types in spite of any real interest expressed here (only Pixophrenic). I am currently writing one for my new book and may post it here as well.

As for HC110, mixing anything approaching its longevity and usefulness is problematic, but there are close approaches. One former APUG participant reportedly devised an XTOL work alike, but has found no market and has vanished.

There are many problems with Crawley formulas with modern film, as I have noted many times. Older films were either pure bromide or iodo/bromide with low iodide or iodide in the core. These gave enhanced edge effects with Crawley developers. Today, emulsions have up to 10% iodide and are immune to this same effect.

However, there are a number of methods to formulate better developers for modern or older emulsion types with common chemistry. It will just take a year or more of R&D to come up with a suitable formula.

PE

There is certainly a need for such a book, because, for every time period, one needs a guide. As I was trying to show from the example of Anchell, no offense and nothing personal, the book is rather entertaining, but being technically "contemporary" it is just as outdated in many places, as the discussed Crawley FX series of 1960. After a few months of searching I am convinced that there is no book in English (though there may be in French and German) that is truly contemporary in content, while the web is awash with useful information, but just as much desinformation.

 

[tih]

I was intrigued by the idea of writing a historical timeline of emulsions and film types in spite of any real interest expressed here (only Pixophrenic). I am currently writing one for my new book and may post it here as well.

Please do! I'll order a copy of your book the moment I learn how to.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I don't consider Crawley to be a truly credible source. I'm thinking more of James, Haist etc. I can't find any reference to 75g/l being somehow "optimal" for a solvent developer. And of course what is optimal also depends on the emulsion.

Don't sell Crawley short. He was untrained but quite creditable. His formulas are better thought out and tested than say some of the stuff that the 'pyromaniacs' adore.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I don't consider Crawley to be a truly credible source. I'm thinking more of James, Haist etc. I can't find any reference to 75g/l being somehow "optimal" for a solvent developer. And of course what is optimal also depends on the emulsion.

The figure of 75 g/l is approximate. It could just as well be 80 g/l. Another poster has cited Crawley in the BJ for me. Thanks Pixophrenic for that by the way.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

There is certainly a need for such a book, because, for every time period, one needs a guide. As I was trying to show from the example of Anchell, no offense and nothing personal, the book is rather entertaining, but being technically "contemporary" it is just as outdated in many places, as the discussed Crawley FX series of 1960. After a few months of searching I am convinced that there is no book in English (though there may be in French and German) that is truly contemporary in content, while the web is awash with useful information, but just as much desinformation.

The most up to date books are the two volume set by Grant Haist. Nothing on photographic theory has been published since then. R&D has pretty much dried up since then.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

As PE mentioned making your own HC-110 is problematic. Some of the chemicals are not commercially available and even Kodak was forced to synthesis them. In addition very toxic gases (is hydrogen bromide and sulfur dioxide) and special equipment are required. Certainly not something an APUGer can do in their garage.

While some of the older formulations do not work well with modern emulsions SOME work very well like D-76 and D-23 as two examples. So be of good cheer.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

There is nothing difficult in measuring the solubility of the silver halides in various strength sulfite solutions. Any second year chemistry major could do it.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, in answer to the above comments, I write books about emulsion making not processing! Volume #1 is now out of print except for the commitments I have right now. I am working in volume #2. As long as supplies last, the Formulary in the US and Fotoimpex in the EU both sell the first volume.

I have said many times that EVERY book on photography and specifically emulsion making or which refer to emulsions is incorrect or has errors. Many are duet to redaction by the authors employer!

Crawley did do some good work, but the work on Iodide developers with enhanced edge effects is obsolete, but this brings up the question of how many other formulas are suspect.

PE