Glycin stand development

The two solution glycin film developer has been around since 1910, including a version with added metol:
A formula with no metol emerged around 1950, Ilford ID-60.
In BJP 1961 Jan 8 p10 Crawley noted that the old method of producing sharp negatives for lantern slides was glycin stand development.
He formulated FX-2 which does have added metol but noted that glycin supplemented by metol would not give marked adjacency [edge] effects.

Since I am looking to get sharpness with some edge effects it seems ,without testing, that it is better to leave out the metol.
I tested an example formula with and without sulfite since read in the book by LFA Mason that, unlike metol, glycin will develop in absence of sulfite.
Photographs were taken of a dark grey card on top of a light grey card, including for reference a resolution chart taken from the correct distance.
Old style Efke 100 film was used to better show up any edge effects.
Development was in glycin-carbonate, 1g glycin, 5g sodium carbonate anh, water to 1L and
glycin -carbonate-sulfite, 1g glycin, 5g sodium carbonate anh, 5g sodium sulfite, water to 1L.
Both were developed for 1hr at 22C with agitation at 30 min only.
All dissolved in a few minutes at 35C. Results are shown in the attachments, processed identically. The width of the full 35mm frame is about 14 times the width of the test chart.

Conclusions to date:
Added sulfite makes no visible difference on the attachments but it does prevent the slight fogging/tanning seen with glycin alone.
There is a dark line at the border of the dark grey card with the light grey card. Hopefully in field tests using FP4 this may provide the sharpness from edge effect wanted.
I think it is called a Mackie line.

I have done all manner of (semi)stand and EMA testing with a variety of developers and films and have concluded that adjacency effects are really only found with older emulsions like TX320 and Efke PL200M. FP4+ and HP5+ are still an open question but APX 100, Arista 100, 400TX, 100TMAX, Fomapan 100 and 200, Double X, et all seem to not show this effect even with standing techniques. (Note that there are other possible reasons to use standing for those films, notably the compensating and midtone expansion effects of semistand and EMA.)

This was true across a variety of developers include Pyrocat-HD[C], DK-50, and HC-110, though I did not test every possible film/dev combo. There is some hope with highly dilute (1+9) juiced with 0.5 g/l sodium hydroxide, at least with FP4+.

I thus (non scientifically) opine that the older emulsions were far more inclined for edge effects irrespective of developer. I would love to be very wrong about this and your work gives me hope

Boy do I miss Efke ...

Have you seen what John Finch got out of Rodinal 1:200?

Vetus said:

Have you seen what John Finch got out of Rodinal 1:200?

Click to expand...

Interesting, but to my eye, at least, I do not find that acutance or "look" compelling.

My own best FP4+ results are with D-23 1+9 + 0.5g/l sodium hydroxide. Shooting 35mm at box speed I get almost no grain, excellent acutance, and some edge effects:

chuckroast said:

Interesting, but to my eye, at least, I do not find that acutance or "look" compelling.

My own best FP4+ results are with D-23 1+9 + 0.5g/l sodium hydroxide. Shooting 35mm at box speed I get almost no grain, excellent acutance, and some edge effects:

View attachment 417826

Click to expand...

Looks lovely, what was you're development time and agitation routine.

Vetus said:

Looks lovely, what was you're development time and agitation routine.

Click to expand...

I don't recall off hand but it was likely 3 min presoak, 1 min continuous agitation, 5 seconds agitation at 16 min, out at 30 min.

chuckroast said:

have concluded that adjacency effects are really only found with older emulsions

Click to expand...

This is massively inaccurate at a visual, never mind quantitative level. What you are seeing is probably more defined by whatever developers you are using not being capable of sufficiently accessing modern emulsion structures to release their relevant components and/ or that your imaging chain is inadequate to the point of being unable to actually see the effects in question (either via lack of sufficient MTF transfer, or confusing heightened visual granularity with heightened 'sharpness').

Modern (i.e. post mid-50s) emulsions can produce very strong (and potentially even visible enough to see the edge effect clearly if your imaging chain is adequate) adjacency effects when used in the mainstream developers and normal agitation patterns they were designed for. They were not designed for use in amateurish formulations dredged from primitive and ancient formularies and muddled around with in people's garden sheds until they worked within the designed-in margin for gross user error.

Any level of agitation sufficient to produce adequately even development will generally not produce any difference any visually significant difference in edge effects over and above those designed in. Absolute standstill (i.e. zero or very near zero) can potentially deliver heightened effects, but at the cost of significant uneveness - one initial solution for specialist purposes was thickened developers (to the level of the Polaroid paste) applied with a coating blade, but it's very obvious from the literature and the MTF results that emulsion building techniques could do the same job both better and more universally.

Lachlan Young said:

This is massively inaccurate at a visual, never mind quantitative level. What you are seeing is probably more defined by whatever developers you are using not being capable of sufficiently accessing modern emulsion structures to release their relevant components and/ or that your imaging chain is inadequate to the point of being unable to actually see the effects in question (either via lack of sufficient MTF transfer, or confusing heightened visual granularity with heightened 'sharpness').

Modern (i.e. post mid-50s) emulsions can produce very strong (and potentially even visible enough to see the edge effect clearly if your imaging chain is adequate) adjacency effects when used in the mainstream developers and normal agitation patterns they were designed for. They were not designed for use in amateurish formulations dredged from primitive and ancient formularies and muddled around with in people's garden sheds until they worked within the designed-in margin for gross user error.

Any level of agitation sufficient to produce adequately even development will generally not produce any difference any visually significant difference in edge effects over and above those designed in. Absolute standstill (i.e. zero or very near zero) can potentially deliver heightened effects, but at the cost of significant uneveness - one initial solution for specialist purposes was thickened developers (to the level of the Polaroid paste) applied with a coating blade, but it's very obvious from the literature and the MTF results that emulsion building techniques could do the same job both better and more universally.

Click to expand...

Your views are noted.

Alan Johnson said:

Conclusions to date:
Added sulfite makes no visible difference on the attachments but it does prevent the slight fogging/tanning seen with glycin alone.
There is a dark line at the border of the dark grey card with the light grey card. Hopefully in field tests using FP4 this may provide the sharpness from edge effect wanted.

Click to expand...

Very interesting! Looking forward to see what results your FP4 tests will produce.

In reply to Lachlan, this quote from The Film Developing Cookbook 2020 p78:
"Crawley appears to be one of the few published researchers to have recognized as early as the 1950s that high acutance developers cannot be properly evaluated unless intermittent agitation is used.
Unfortunately, little else has been published on the subject, aside from a few vague references in the literature"
It quotes this reference p956:
Since this is not generally available to borrow and the book is over $100 there is nothing else published to refute Lachlan's view except mainly the observations on Photrio in relation to Pyrocat HD.

Alan Johnson said:

In reply to Lachlan, this quote from The Film Developing Cookbook 2020 p78:
"Crawley appears to be one of the few published researchers to have recognized as early as the 1950s that high acutance developers cannot be properly evaluated unless intermittent agitation is used.
Unfortunately, little else has been published on the subject, aside from a few vague references in the literature"
It quotes this reference p956:

SPSE handbook of photographic science and engineering : Thomas, Woodlief, 1929- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

xii, 1416 p. 24 cm

archive.org

Since this is not generally available to borrow and the book is over $100 there is nothing else published to refute Lachlan's view except mainly the observations on Photrio in relation to Pyrocat HD.

Click to expand...

You're assuming that Crawley's views and the views of the industry didn't change. The SPSE handbook is heavily self censored and pre-dates the disclosure of DIR couplers and the innovation of analogues into B&W emulsion structures. It also has a lengthy segment that make more complex comments about agitation that your reference to a reference about a reference suggests, especially in regard to getting really even development (brush agitation if you want to experiment). In a relatively thick emulsion like the Adox/ Efke ones (by the standards of pre-1955 they were 'thin', but are thicker than most late 1970s 400 speed emulsions, never mind today), that had relatively inaccessible 'buried' iodide and which were not engineered to release significant iodide or bromide, the Crawley comments may have some relevance, and more so with some of the other 'fast' thick emulsion materials (some of which were easily as thick as later E-6 emulsions - 25 microns) that were steadily being superseded by the end of the 1950s.

Also, if we take your assumptions about Crawley at face value, why do his late era commercialised products largely operate on a PQ/ PA basis? He had good contacts with the industry, and I have little doubt that he got some insights off Ilford when they were contract manufacturing for him, at least going by comments they made at the time to others (that have been recounted on here). Equally, it will have suited the industry to only disclose to him where he was in error at a point where it was no longer going to hand competitive advantage to their peers.

IMO the main advantage of glycin is not related to the above but to its resistance to streaking, as explained in the Photoformulary guide to their version of FX-2:
That means that edge effects can be increased in stand developing so the idea is worth testing.
I noticed that the working solution I am using is very similar to Jay DeFehr's GSD-10 diluted 1:20 so that concentrate could be used if a stock solution is required.

Alan Johnson said:

IMO the main advantage of glycin is not related to the above but to its resistance to streaking, as explained in the Photoformulary guide to their version of FX-2:

https://www.digitaltruth.com/products/photoformulary_tech/TFX-2%20High%20Definition%20Developer%20[01-0090].pdf

That means that edge effects can be increased in stand developing so the idea is worth testing.
I noticed that the working solution I am using is very similar to Jay DeFehr's GSD-10 diluted 1:20 so that concentrate could be used if a stock solution is required.

GSD-10 mixing instructions

To make GSD-10 you'll need a 1 liter mixing container, the constituent chemicals, and standard lab safety equipment, including; dust mask or...

gsd-10.blogspot.com

Click to expand...

After the better part of 5 years of fiddling around with low agitation development, I have repeatedly found (usually, the hard way!) that streaking/drag is directly related to some form of the byproducts being trapped on the film. Most usually, I saw it with framed sheet film holders or plastic roll film reels with high walls.

Once I stumbled upon this, the solution was relatively simple. First, the film needs to be suspended in developer with absolutely minimal contact with its support mechanism. For sheet films, I found old Kodak #6 pinch hangers to do the trick. For rollfilm and 35mm, the only thing that seemed to work well was Nikor style stainless reels. These have a low profile, well spaced spiral that tends to leave room around the sides of the film. For all films, I found that the daylight plastic 4x5 systems and reels were deadly prone to streaking.

Secondly, I found that getting the film well off the bottom of the tank make all the difference in the world. This means hanging sheet film horizontally in my 1/2 gal Kodak rubber tanks. For rollfilm and 35mm, I process in a double height tank with a single reel. The reel rests on an inverted funnel to raise it off the tank bottom. My (unproven) hypothesis is that this gives gravity room to pull the development byproducts away from the film and come to rest toward the bottom of the tank.

Thirdly, I found that no matter what I did, I could not get true stand reliably avoid streaking. Sometimes it did, sometimes it didn't. That is, agitating at the beginning only. I found that semistand did the trick - once at the beginning and once at the approximate midpoint in time.

I look forward to your glycin-based findings.

Conclusions from a field test using Adox CHS 50 (~Efke 50) and FP4 type 517 cine film semi stand developed:

High contrast subject:
Adox CHS 50 shows edge effects at high magnification (On computer click the image twice).

FP4 cine film shows somewhat less edge effect:

Low contrast subject (pics of piling rig on Flickr) -edge effects not visible with either film.

The glycin -sulfite- carbonate developer gave streak free images using plastic reels with semi stand development for 1 hr 22C.
This suggests it may be possible to get a better result using stand development with no halfway agitation in the case of glycin.

Interesting findings. TFS Alan!

Keeping edge effect aside, it's also interesting to compare the Glycin results with PC-512 results in your flickrstream.

I used GSD-10 1:20 to develop FP4 cine film semi-stand 45m 22C. There was some unevenness in the sky in some cases.


With full stand the sky was mottled, ruling this out.
For comparison ,half the film strip was developed in PC-512 Borax.


Conclusion- using semi-stand glycin any edge effects are hard to see. They only show up in contrasty lighting with shots taken against the sun, post 14,and not too clearly there.
The grain is coarser in the glycin developer pH~11 than in PC-512 Borax pH<9.

Thanks for the comparison Alan.

Great job Alan! Both developers rated at EI 100 and both look close in that department. At least from the shadows it looks that way, but it could be a different day and different lighting also. Hard to beat PC-512 for being a very good developer. I would have thought the Glycin developer to have a lower EI, but now see the the PH was much higher for the Glycin developer. I have never tried GSD-10 and I'm wondering how well it would work with my bulk roll of Adox HR-50. I have been using Rodinal for my HR-50 and it seems to work the best so far and it's simple to get and use. I don't mind the slight grain increase in GSD-10's since it looks like "sharp" grain and not mush. I'm mixing a batch of W130 paper developer tonight and while I have my Glycin out I might just make a small batch of GSD-10 to try with HR-50.

Alan Johnson said:

I used GSD-10 1:20 to develop FP4 cine film semi-stand 45m 22C. There was some unevenness in the sky in some cases.


With full stand the sky was mottled, ruling this out.
For comparison ,half the film strip was developed in PC-512 Borax.


Conclusion- using semi-stand glycin any edge effects are hard to see. They only show up in contrasty lighting with shots taken against the sun, post 14,and not too clearly there.
The grain is coarser in the glycin developer pH~11 than in PC-512 Borax pH<9.

Click to expand...

Thanks for doing this.

Just to be clear, are you also doing semistand with the PC-512 Borax or is that conventional development?

More details, my glycin ,stored in a refrigerator, is 5 years old and brown. It did not all dissolve in the carbonate/sulfite solution at 45 C but still worked after filtration. I suggest try 55-60C with stirring for 20 min for more complete solution of GSD-10.
The PC-512 Borax development was conventional for 7 min 20C.

Alan Johnson said:

More details, my glycin ,stored in a refrigerator, is 5 years old and brown. It did not all dissolve in the carbonate/sulfite solution at 45 C but still worked after filtration. I suggest try 55-60C with stirring for 20 min for more complete solution of GSD-10.
The PC-512 Borax development was conventional for 7 min 20C.

Click to expand...

If you're going to do this a fair amount, a magnetic stirring hot plate is recommended. they are reasonably priced and most helpful when mixing up things like developers

chuckroast said:

If you're going to do this a fair amount, a magnetic stirring hot plate is recommended. they are reasonably priced and most helpful when mixing up things like developers

Click to expand...

+2. It's one of the best investments I made for my darkroom. In fact I liked the first one I bought "used" off eBay so much I ended up buying a spare in case the first one puked.

I compared FP4 type 517 cine film and Adox CHS100 II both developed in GSD10 1:20 45m 22C semi stand. Sharpened only by scanner on auto.



Looking round the edges of the images at full magnification it seems that CHS100 II shows more edge effects.
This one rather poor test is not conclusive but it might be of interest to see if the effect is visible in a field trial.

Lachlan Young said:

This is massively inaccurate at a visual, never mind quantitative level. What you are seeing is probably more defined by whatever developers you are using not being capable of sufficiently accessing modern emulsion structures to release their relevant components and/ or that your imaging chain is inadequate to the point of being unable to actually see the effects in question (either via lack of sufficient MTF transfer, or confusing heightened visual granularity with heightened 'sharpness').

Modern (i.e. post mid-50s) emulsions can produce very strong (and potentially even visible enough to see the edge effect clearly if your imaging chain is adequate) adjacency effects when used in the mainstream developers and normal agitation patterns they were designed for. They were not designed for use in amateurish formulations dredged from primitive and ancient formularies and muddled around with in people's garden sheds until they worked within the designed-in margin for gross user error.

Any level of agitation sufficient to produce adequately even development will generally not produce any difference any visually significant difference in edge effects over and above those designed in. Absolute standstill (i.e. zero or very near zero) can potentially deliver heightened effects, but at the cost of significant uneveness - one initial solution for specialist purposes was thickened developers (to the level of the Polaroid paste) applied with a coating blade, but it's very obvious from the literature and the MTF results that emulsion building techniques could do the same job both better and more universally.

Click to expand...

I tried FX-1 with TMY-2 and got obvious edge effects. Too much for me. I switched to FX-21 and the results are far superior.

Augustus Caesar said:

I tried FX-1 with TMY-2 and got obvious edge effects. Too much for me. I switched to FX-21 and the results are far superior.

Click to expand...

Never any pictures of these claims.