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

[Ian Grant]

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

And many Kodak developers are also derived from other manufacturers formulae, in Kodak's case they evolved a number of developers from the Wellington & Ward Fine Grain Borax MQ developer including D76. Other Kodak developers acme from companies they acquired.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

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.

There's a reference somewhere, maybe Mason, but I also know it's true from experience using Adox Borax MQ which gives better film speed compared to ID-11/D76 as well as finer grain and better sharpness, the Agfa & Orwo 44 (Anso 17) fine grain developer is similar, as is Defender 4-D, all use Sulphite at around 75-80g/l. These are close to the old ASA standard developer used for film speed testing. Ilford ID-68/Microphen uses Phenidone and gain a lower level of Sulphite 85g/l compared to their PQ version of ID-11/D76 Autophen.

The problem was that D76 had become the standard developer for Cine film in the 1930's and it was made by almost all companies under their own name, this was to ensure consistent processing regardless of location.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

And many Kodak developers are also derived from other manufacturers formulae, in Kodak's case they evolved a number of developers from the Wellington & Ward Fine Grain Borax MQ developer including D76. Other Kodak developers acme from companies they acquired.

Ian

This is quite true, however I could not name them as they have pretty much vanished from the market. The ones I named are enduring and probably will endure.

PE

 

[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.

Really? What about metol? Where can you get it for a business?

 

[Pixophrenic]

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.

True, but such experiments should have been done somewhere around 1920s, otherwise we are forced to conclude that D-76 contains an arbitrarily chosen amount.

 

[Pixophrenic]

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

This is an interesting note . HC110 contains catechol, a chemical that is considered toxic, but which is also produced in huge amounts to be used elsewhere in chemical synthesis, so there is absolutely no danger that it is no longer available. HC110 also contains HQ, which is used in cosmetics. Other constituents of it, indeed, are out of reach.

 

[Pixophrenic]

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.

These are two contrasting strategies, when you formulate a developer for commerce and try to cover as much ground with regard to films and shelf life as possible, and when you aim to make it for yourself, and do not mind that it has to be used within half an hour and for one film. There is a lot in between, obviously.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

True, but such experiments should have been done somewhere around 1920s, otherwise we are forced to conclude that D-76 contains an arbitrarily chosen amount.

This is somewhat common to arbitrarily pick a arbitrary weight. For D-76 it is 100 g for Perceptol 125 g which is close to the amount of sulfite that can remain in solution below 65F. Then there is the famous 777 developer.

 

[MattKing]

Really? What about metol? Where can you get it for a business?

Some of these might have it: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Metol#section=Chemical-Vendors

 

[Pixophrenic]

This is somewhat common to arbitrarily pick a arbitrary weight. For D-76 it is 100 g for Perceptol 125 g which is close to the amount of sulfite that can remain in solution below 65F. Then there is the famous 777 developer.

aka Germain's Finegrain Developer? Yes, this person had a sense of humor. I have long suspected that the use of sulfite parallels the story of sugar vs fat, and the sulfite industry similarly bribed someone influential, and ever since that point in time 100 g/L sulfite became the "principle" of fine-grain development.

 

[Pixophrenic]

Some of these might have it: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Metol#section=Chemical-Vendors

Thank you, I am aware of this database, but one can spend a long time finding the link that is usable. Certainly not Sigma, too expensive. But you are right in that if Sigma carries it, it must have been used recently somewhere else than photochemistry.

 

[Pixophrenic]

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

PE, obviously this part of your prospective book would be highly informative for those interested in truly up-to-date info. Also, it occurred to me that one may hesitate to write a monograph, but a book with chapters written by different experts may be a more feasible, and perhaps even a better idea.

 

[Ian Grant]

This is quite true, however I could not name them as they have pretty much vanished from the market. The ones I named are enduring and probably will endure.

PE

Well Dektol (D72) and D76 are old formulae and the liquid versions of some Kodak developers substituting Metol with Phenidone/Dinezone are still in production, the other difference is Agfa. Ilford. Kodak etc substituted Sodium Carbonate with Potassium Carbonate and Hydroxide (sodium or Potassium) to make liquid concentrates.

Of course all companies particularly Eastman Kodak have made newer developers in recent years.

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.

Kodak sold p-aminophenol developers on the basis that they were less toxic than MQ and the Metol they contained. They also used Pyrocatechin in HC110 for a while and sold many Prro developers, I'm not suggesting that they don't need careful handling but then so do colour developers.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

To answer the above, HC110 contains any catechin or pyro compound in nearly trace levels. I have that from Dick Henn in a discussion. I have to look the formula up, the one that he gave me.

HC110 is problematical as mentioned above, because it uses Sulfur Dioxide adduct with Triethanol Amine and Hydrogen Bromide adduct with Triethanol amine. It uses no water. Now, I doubt that anyone can make that in their darkroom or their home. Even Rodinal is difficult to make due to the use of concentrated KOH (Potassium Hydroxide) which will take the skin off of an elephant! I once dissolve a shirt from a splash of concentrated alkali when a beaker broke. It went through both a lab coat and a shirt! Either of these could cause you serious injury or other problems due to fumes and etc.

Kodak developers D76, D72 (Dektol) and others are replicated by many manufacturers but other developers have fallen by the wayside that were once made by many companies. Basically, the market is reducing to the few best!

PE

 

[MattKing]

As I read through this thread, I cannot help but think of a bit of Tom Waits that I heard a wonderful performance of last weekend.
Here is one of Tom Waits' performances:

 

[iandvaag]

Basically, the market is reducing to the few best!

It is certainly not saturated!

 

[Photo Engineer]

If it were not, then the films and papers would not be discontinued right and left.

PE

 

[iandvaag]

Sorry, I'm not trying to obfuscate things, it was just my attempt at a lame chemistry pun. AFAIK the common developing agents have a component with a conjugated pi system and hence are unsaturated. Your witty comment is a tough act to follow.

 

[Photo Engineer]

My contact with reducing agents and oxidizing agents have sometimes been quite violent. I try to tread softly.

PE

 

[Pixophrenic]

As I read through this thread, I cannot help but think of a bit of Tom Waits that I heard a wonderful performance of last weekend.
Here is one of Tom Waits' performances:

I am not a fan of Tom Waits, but what is your association about exactly, Matt? Is it about the repetitive nature of the song, or is it as in "I am getting suspicious of the true agenda of the original poster?" The conversation veered off into discussing chemical toxicity and how some chemicals are inaccessible to a home darkroom worker, far from types of films, anyway. My original "agenda" was, way back in summer, to try to collect opinions which films I can entrust to a lab, and which films I cannot, or perhaps I should forget about the labs altogether, since I learned that our local labs use either D-76 or Kodak T-max developer. I have got an impression that many are convinced that ultimately, most films can be properly developed in D-76 or its clones. Now, in October, after some experimentation with films and developers, I am strongly convinced that there are films that behave badly in D-76, while there are many others that do very well. So, speaking very generally, this thread was productive and I am gratetful to everybody who contributed. However, from some reading I also know that there always have been film groups, Jacobsons' book defines groups, Crawley and Anchell do too, but these groups are mostly obsolete. So, I expected that someone would talk about contemporary groups. Is that too much to expect?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Since Grant Haist published his two volumes on photography there has been little R&D done. My question is therefore what groups are you thinking about other than the much older ones in Jacobson, Crawley and Anchell? There is of course the newer T-grain or Delta not discussed by Haist ones but I am unaware of any others that could be assigned to a new group.

As far as D-76 is concerned it is considered a universal developer. On what basis do you consider this not to be true. I would not base any decision on what commercial labs produce as their work is usually pretty slipshod.

 

[Pixophrenic]

Since Grant Haist published his two volumes on photography there has been little R&D done. My question is therefore what groups are you thinking about other than the much older ones in Jacobson, Crawley and Anchell? There is of course the newer T-grain or Delta not discussed by Haist ones but I am unaware of any others that could be assigned to a new group.

As far as D-76 is concerned it is considered a universal developer. On what basis do you consider this not to be true. I would not base any decision on what commercial labs produce as their work is usually pretty slipshod.

Well, of those available in Canada, which groups are those in:
1. Current Rollei Films, 80S, 400S, RPX series, ATP 1.1, Superpan
2. Current Adox films, i.e. Silvermax.
3. Current ORWO films, UN 54 and UN 74
4. Current assorted BW, like Ultrafine Extreme series
5. Bergger Pancro
6. Fujifilm Acros
There are more, only available in Europe.

As for D-76, I shall not be repeating Riuji Suzuki's article "75 years of D-76". There was also a related very long thread here that I personally enjoyed very much. If one reads the Jacobsons' book a little between the lines, they question the overabundance of formulas, which in their opinion can be reduced to a few, and that "fine-grain developers" of a certain kind are not really advantageous to even the films available in the 1970s. But this will drive us away from the subject of films.

 

[Ian Grant]

XTOL was essentially the first (and last) developer to "beat" the D-76-type when it comes to the overall balance of granularity/sharpness/speed, and the improvement is very slight.

When it comes to T grain films it's very hard to beat Rodinal it's no better than Xtol and vice versa bot give superb results.

Ian

 

[Craig75]

However, from a simple encounter with Rollei Retro 80S, one can conclude that there are classes of films that may develop similarly only within a class. So, which current films are "retro" and which are not?

If rollei 80s is indeed an aerial film it will have a higher contrast index than a pictorial film designed for terra firma. So shoot it on terra firma and develop it then it will naturally come out high contrast. Its not the type of film but the contrast index it was designed for.

 

[Anon Ymous]

For the record, I've developed Rollei Retro 80S in dilute homebrew Perceptol and probably got a true ISO40. Not box speed, has a pronounced S curve, but perfectly usable. Actually looks very nice. I wouldn't call Perceptol exotic. Given some testing, I'd bet that it gives good results in D76 too, but not at box speed.