H&W control from Frugal Photographer

[MCB18]

I’m seriously considering getting the ingredients for H&W control because I’ve heard that it is great for techpan, and could potentially be amazing for the microfilm I’m planning to get.

Does anyone have any advice for using this developer? I saw a thread on here about dissolving part a in propylene glycol to prolong shelflife, is that worth trying?

 

[Dan Fromm]

I’m seriously considering getting the ingredients for H&W control because I’ve heard that it is great for techpan, and could potentially be amazing for the microfilm I’m planning to get.

Does anyone have any advice for using this developer? I saw a thread on here about dissolving part a in propylene glycol to prolong shelflife, is that worth trying?

I used it in the early 70s. It oxidized very quickly after opening. If the formulation is the same, use with care.

 

[MCB18]

I used it in the early 70s. It oxidized very quickly after opening. If the formulation is the same, use with care.

Yes, so I’ve heard. That’s why I was interested in the propylene glycol variant, apparently that lasts much longer.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Here is the propylene glycol version:

H&W Control developer in glycol

Low contrast developers for microfilms are discussed in The Film Developing Cookbook 2020 p129-138 and in FDC 1998 p95-102. Amongst commercial developers are Adotech IV, Rollei RLC and Photoformulary TD-3. Dilute "ordinary" developers may work if the film EI is reduced sufficiently from box...

www.photrio.com

I gave up on it for Adox CMS 20 II because of posterization, but I believe H&W intended it for a less contrasty film and it may well work better with microfilms other than CMS 20 II.

 

[MCB18]

Here is the propylene glycol version:

H&W Control developer in glycol

Low contrast developers for microfilms are discussed in The Film Developing Cookbook 2020 p129-138 and in FDC 1998 p95-102. Amongst commercial developers are Adotech IV, Rollei RLC and Photoformulary TD-3. Dilute "ordinary" developers may work if the film EI is reduced sufficiently from box...

www.photrio.com

I gave up on it for Adox CMS 20 II because of posterization, but I believe H&W intended it for a less contrasty film and it may well work better with microfilms other than CMS 20 II.

Yep! Exactly what I was referring to.

Was told that this stuff is pretty good at taming microfilm and can potentially be used with Techpan as high as EI 100, so thought I’d give it a shot. As well as Techpan, I’m getting a film called Kodak 2465, which I have no information on other than what my friend who bought a roll has told me (basically that it’s ultra-high contrast, ortho, and works pretty well at EI 12 in pyrocat-HD).

 

[F4U]

I remember it very well. It was specifically formulated for Kodak High Contrast Copy film, or their own H&W film, which was probably re-spools of the same film.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I remember it very well. It was specifically formulated for Kodak High Contrast Copy film, or their own H&W film, which was probably re-spools of the same film.

Are you sure? I ask because when H&W came out with their film we speculated that it was Agfa microfilm. I don't recall the number. We could have been mistaken.

Given your screen name I assume that you're one of the last surviving WWII pilots and were around when H&W launched their Control film and developer.

 

[MCB18]

Well, when I get the film here, I’ll mix up a batch. I don’t have any small bottles so I don’t expect this first batch to last long at all, but I’ll at least get some idea of what it’s like.

 

[F4U]

Yes it could have been Agfa. It was just an assumption. a further assumption would be the Agfa film was similar to the Kodak emulsion. As for my screen name, I simply looked over at the latest WWII model plane I had built and used that. It is one of my finest builds., aside from my huge Guillows B-29. If i was one of those great guys, you'd know it. America's finest ever.

 

[MCB18]

My scale came in the other day, and my chems are supposed to get here today, so hopefully I can mix a batch of developer. I’ll probably test it first on some sound recording film I have to see what it does, as I don’t have the microfilm yet and my Techpan is limited

@Alan Johnson did the ethylene glycol 2-bath solution you made up have a reasonable shelf life, even once opened?

 

[Alan Johnson]

Propylene glycol. I did not keep that particular sample but similar solutions eg for PC-512 Borax are reported to keep for years in containers with a lid (PG is hygroscopic and will absorb water from the air with no lid).

 

[MCB18]

Propylene glycol. I did not keep that particular sample but similar solutions eg for PC-512 Borax are reported to keep for years in containers with a lid (PG is hygroscopic and will absorb water from the air with no lid).

That’s good to know, and yes, I did mean propylene glycol not ethylene glycol. I’m pretty sure putting your film in antifreeze wouldn’t work out super well.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I’m pretty sure putting your film in antifreeze wouldn’t work out super well.

Some process their film in coffee and beer and every other damn thing, so maybe antifreeze is not so far off?

 

[Alan Johnson]

It has been advised to steer clear of ethylene glycol, eg:

PROPYLENE GLYCOL

A few months ago I got some (1Gal.) of Propylene Glycol to mix Solution A of Pyrocat HD. It is still as good as it was when I mixed it. Now I am wondering where else I can use Propylene Glycol. Are there solid chemicals to be avoided? Maybe Mytol or Hydraquione, Ascorbic Acid; or maybe it...

www.photrio.com

 

[MCB18]

Well, I mixed up a 100ml batch of this stuff, hopefully I did it correctly. The Phenidone took forever to dissolve but it did eventually. Will load a test roll of film sometime this weekend and shoot it.

 

[koraks]

, I did mean propylene glycol not ethylene glycol. I’m pretty sure putting your film in antifreeze wouldn’t work out super well.

Propylene glycol is also 'antifreeze'. I'm quite sure that you could substitute ethylene glycol for propylene glycol without any problem in a photographic developer. AFAIK the main reasons why people prefer propylene glycol is the good availability in the consumer/retail market (it's used for various applications, including e-smokes/'vapes' and it's fed to livestock to facilitate lactation) and in particular the fact that the propylene species is non-toxic, whereas ethylene glycol is toxic.

If someone happens to have ethylene glycol on hand, it would be a perfectly fine alternative. The toxicity argument is really moot if you start loading stuff like hydroquinone into it anyway. Just mark the bottle and store it where pets and kids can't get to it. As you'd always do for developers.

The Phenidone took forever to dissolve but it did eventually.

If you heat the glycol to something like 60-80C (140-180F) and put it on a stirrer, phenidone will dissolve completely within about a minute.

One thing to note w.r.t. propylene glycol is that some of it is sold specifically for use in technical installations (e.g. as a non-toxic antifreeze), in which case it may contain photographically active chemicals to prevent corrosion in the target application. In particular this can include triazole compounds, which we of course know and use for their strong inhibiting action in photographic development! Food-grade glycol most likely does not contain such chemicals.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Propylene glycol is also 'antifreeze'. I'm quite sure that you could substitute ethylene glycol for propylene glycol without any problem in a photographic developer.
If someone happens to have ethylene glycol on hand, it would be a perfectly fine alternative. The toxicity argument is really moot if you start loading stuff like hydroquinone into it anyway. Just mark the bottle and store it where pets and kids can't get to it. As you'd always do for developers.

I dissent from this on the grounds that it may be dangerous to the inexperienced

 

[koraks]

I dissent from this on the grounds that it may be dangerous to the inexperienced

Not any more dangerous than handling e.g. the dry hydroquinone that goes into the developer. It's a moot point. We trust consumers to be able to top up the coolant in their cars in case it's necessary (which is ethylene glycol + water). By the same logic, someone can safely poor 500ml of ethylene glycol into a cup.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Not any more dangerous than handling e.g. the dry hydroquinone that goes into the developer. It's a moot point. We trust consumers to be able to top up the coolant in their cars in case it's necessary (which is ethylene glycol + water). By the same logic, someone can safely poor 500ml of ethylene glycol into a cup.

Leaving sweet tasting poisonous liquids lying about for years is asking for trouble if they are forgotten.

 

[koraks]

I think we can go on a little longer offering arguments why the other party is 'dead wrong', but let's leave it at this. My point is clear for those willing to consider it.

 

[Alan Johnson]

The formula of H&W Control with glycol posted by me uses propylene glycol in accordance with best practice established for many years. Dissent from such best practice is a novelty.

 

[koraks]

God forbid, of course!

 

[MCB18]

back onto the actual topic of the thread, I took some images on some film that I know is extremely high contrast, I think it’s a sound recording film, it exposure is bracketed five stops starting at EI 12 going to 200. I’m planning on developing it for 15 minutes just as a starting point.

 

[Vaughn]

The formula of H&W Control with glycol posted by me uses propylene glycol in accordance with best practice established for many years. Dissent from such best practice is a novelty.

Considering the wide scope of photographic knowledge and experience on a public forum (granted, getting more and more weighted towards the experienced), and considering the educational and historical value of the information here, such 'best practices' are always best to be considered and be brought forward.

I managed a university darkroom for students and having easily 50 to 60 new students every quarter who had never been in a darkroom before (assuming 15 to 25 of them might have wandered into one in high school or had parents with darkrooms). I really did not need one more toxic chemical around when non-toxic equals exist. We went through a lot of Photo-flo.

The PhotoFlo-200 uses the non-toxic form, but the PhotoFlo-600 uses (or used) the toxic form. It would have been more convienent for me, but we did not need that in our small busy film development space. So I bought a gallon of PhotoFlo-2100, which uses the same glycol as the 200. Interesting stuff to work with! I made it work for us, but I certainly do not recommend it's use on a small scale. I have been retired for over a decade but if I was still working there, I'd probably still would be on that original bottle (perhaps an exaggeration...)

I use Kodak Professional Copy Film and have some Tech Pan also. So far I have had good luck with the copy film in low contrast landscape situations. Much trickier to control with high contrast scenes -- and it is easy to get a response in the higher values that do not 'match' well visually with lower values. By which I mean that for me, the total response to the light in the scene by the Copy Film and its development, no longer matches the feel of the light that I want.

While I looking for negatives of very high contrast, I am interested in your results.

 

[MCB18]

Well, the first test went extremely well! I’m seeing an acceptable level of density and contrast at EI 100. For reference, this is (probably) the same as Washi S, and I have found in normal development using their times it makes thinner negs that are still extremely high in contrast.

Strips below have bracketed exposures at 1 stop intervals starting from the top at EI 12.