Help Ian G once again

I hope Ian see this as last year he gave me some wonderful chemical breakdowns for some various toning and I know want to mix from scratch Dev, Rapid Fix*non hardening* and hypo clearing agent.

I usually work in 8 litre, 16 litre to 25 litre working solutions*yes I know big trays* so if anyone has any formulas that would help me along I would appreciate it.

I like Kodak Dektol and a rapid fix and buying packaged products are killing me these days.

thanks
Bob

Bob,

Dektol is essentially (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

I imagine you could just use sodium sulfite as a hypo clearing agent.

Joe

Get the Darkroom Cookbook by Anchell. Lots of recipes in there.

jim appleyard said:

Get the Darkroom Cookbook by Anchell. Lots of recipes in there.

Click to expand...

Just back from the wonderful Greek city of Athens, where we saw the battle-scars and the riot police in action just feet away . . . . here's some initial comments.

Along with a couple of others I cross-checked as many of the DCB formulae as I could with Steve for the 3rd Edition. Unfortunately virtually all US publications took formulae from publications like the Photo Lab Index's which are riddled with errors and these errors have been repeated in numerous publications

We checked where we could with the original manufacturers publications and found a significant errors, these are scientific formulae not recipes and accuracy is more important.

While D-72 = Dektol in practice, the commercial formula for Dektol will almost certainly vary slightly. I'm far more familiar with how liquid PQ developers are re-formulated using different alkali's to allow higher concentrations and more economic manufacturing costs.

The formula linked to isn't 100% correct as Kodak themselves state the Metol as 3.1g and the KBr as 1.9g in Professional publications,

An effective HCA is just a 1%-2% Sodium Sulphite solution, that's all that's needed. There are various formulae for Kodak Rapid fixer, it's evolved over the years, I'll PM you Bob.

Ian

Ian Grant said:

........... Unfortunately virtually all US publications took formulae from publications like the Photo Lab Index's which are riddled with errors and these errors have been repeated in numerous publications.....................

Click to expand...

You're not kidding! I bought the Photo Lab Index in the late 1960s or early 1970s and the briefest glance from an inexperienced photographer revealed countless obvious errors. What a debacle! I could never understand how it came to be popular.

D-72 = Dektol.

The major differences are minor. Dektol is packaged in such a way that the HQ and Metol are protected from being destroyed by oxygen, and there is a sequestrant in the prepackaged version. The last formula I saw used Quadrofos.

PE

john_s said:

You're not kidding! I bought the Photo Lab Index in the late 1960s or early 1970s and the briefest glance from an inexperienced photographer revealed countless obvious errors. What a debacle! I could never understand how it came to be popular.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately many US writers/photographers thought and a few still think it's accurate, and Silvergrain/Ruyuki Sukuzi is one of the worst culprits, when he quotes formulae correctly I might try and spell his name correctly too.

Ian

Look in: www.apug.org/forums/articles.php for the formulae you need.

C

So, Ian...you're saying that the 3rd edition of DRC would have very accurate formulas in it?

I had been thinking about picking this up...

PVia said:

So, Ian...you're saying that the 3rd edition of DRC would have very accurate formulas in it?

I had been thinking about picking this up...

Click to expand...

Found my copy under the tree. AFAIK, there are no errors, however, Steve Anchell has a spot on his website for any errors that come up:
Dead Link Removed

Not quite all the Formulae could be checked, as sources weren't available. Of course there may be a very small number of errors but far far less than in the past editions etc, and previous US books of Formulae. One problem is that Typesetters introduce new errors

Certainly any errors I spotted were backed up with references to the correct sources, ie official Agfa/Ansco, Ilford, Kodak etc publications. Many Lab Index errors are with the type of Sulphite & Carbonate used, and incorrect conversions between Anhydrous, Crystalline etc.

So the 3rd Ed of the DCB is probably the most accurate book for Formulae so far, since WWII, but there are still minor errors which Steve will list on the website.

Ian

Bob Carnie said:

I like Kodak Dektol and a rapid fix and buying packaged
products are killing me these days. thanks Bob

Click to expand...

Consider Beer's and Adams' version of Ansco 130.
Both are contrast control developers. Beer's I know
will allow a grade or better control. I've not tried Ansco's
Adams' version but likely it will do as well. Both add a
hydroquinone component for increased contrast.

Beer's is frugal in it's use of chemistry. Dan

Hi Dan

I take it that you are talking about the two bath dev, for contrast control. Les McLean is still using a double dev and has been pushing me to try it.

Unfortunately 1/2 my fibre printing these days is mural size and Harmon Digital Fibre which is a red sensitive emulsion so all processing is in the dark.
For single images I think the control would be amazing but in complete darkness with large sheets of paper 30inch x 60 inch, the transitions from dev to stop/fix is critical and delicate. Introducing a third tray in the dark may be a bit more than I could handle. I would need a second set of hands to minimise damage on the larger prints.

With the digital wet prints, making slight contrast adjustments are time consuming as though the Lambda has a curve for this adjustment it is basic and like a sledgehammer on a finishing nail, finetuning is better in the L channel which means leaving the darkroom, going back to the original print file make the changes , reload to the Lambda and then rehit. When all the chems are mixed and ready to go this is a pain in the ass adjustment to do and if you are working on multiple images running back and forth can kill the day. maybe just a longer time in the soft dev or longer in the hard dev would do the trick as most of the time the contrast adjustment is very little.
Thanks for the suggestion I will give one of these devs a try and hopefully add it to my weapon list.

I think my main area of need now is a rapid fix which I can easily mix to large working solutions.
I never reuse my chems so each day is a challange to set up my trays with fresh chemicals so I not only am looking for a great combination that works with my current workflow, but as well it must be easily mixed from a stock solution.
I thought with a 40ft sink I would be in good shape but I need a extra 20ft for toning purposes. You cannot imagine how labour intensive doing a full print run from exposure to final tone in one day is like. Any way to save time though seemingly insignificant adds up in a big way.

People make fun of my orange jumpsuit, but it saves my wife killing me when I get home with ruined clothes.
All suggestions are greatly appreciated about simple chemical mixtures as this is not a strong area for me in my printing knowledge.

best regards

Bob

dancqu said:

Consider Beer's and Adams' version of Ansco 130.
Both are contrast control developers. Beer's I know
will allow a grade or better control. I've not tried Ansco's
Adams' version but likely it will do as well. Both add a
hydroquinone component for increased contrast.

Beer's is frugal in it's use of chemistry. Dan

Click to expand...

Bob, I'll send you all the information in the next day or so with a fixer that will work well in you processing machine or in large trays, I've used it for 16ft by 4 ft images, and larger

Ian

Thanks Ian

No processing machine just large trays.

though I did think of making the worlds largest dip and dunk machine for fibre prints and large film production, but I will leave those plans for the next big adventure.

Bob

Ian Grant said:

Bob, I'll send you all the information in the next day or so with a fixer that will work well in you processing machine or in large trays, I've used it for 16ft by 4 ft images, and larger

Ian

Click to expand...

Bob, I have a copy of Kodak publication J-1, which has formulae for many of Kodak's developers. I think it was printed in 1977, but it has D-72 among other paper developers, fixers, toners, etc. I can scan it and email a copy to you if you want it.

- Thomas

Hi Thomas
I would appreciate that..

Bob

It's about 6MB scanned. I'll email it in a couple of minutes.

- Thomas

J-1 can be downloaded from here. It's a bit more than 6mb more loke 20 but it's a high quality PDF

Ian

Hey Ian,

Don't really need High quality for any of this. As long as you can read the text... But it's a great link for those that want to download it. Since it's published by Kodak it's pretty much guaranteed to be accurate too.

From reading it: Elon = metol, correct?

- Thomas

I found one error in the latest edition so far. Formula #57 WD2H+ (John Wimberley). No preservative in solution`A` on page 236.

Yes, Elon is Kodak's trade name for Metol. There are various other trade names for Metol

Ian

Bob Carnie said:

Hi Dan I take it that you are talking about the two bath dev,
for contrast control ... Bob

Click to expand...

No Way! I'm one of a few who process single tray using one
shot chemistry.

Beer's and Adams' contrast control developers have low
and high contrast components. The high contrast components
contain the hydroquinone along with sodium carbonate and
sulfite and a little potassium bromide. That last possibly
optional.

Beer's 1 is equivalent to Ansco 120 and likely Selectol Soft.
Seven blends are specified; Beer's 1 has only the metol portion.
Beer's 7 has little of the metol but much of the hydroquinone
portion. IMO, 7 blends are more than enough to fine tune
contrast. Blends 1-3-5, and 7 may do for most purposes.
Steve Anchell rates 7 a bit more contrasty than Dektol.

Adams' 130 works the same way although no exact amounts
are specified. With Adams' you'll have that Glycin touch. One
big difference; while the portions of both A and B vary with
Beer's, Adams' Ansco 130 varies the B portion only. That
is, to increase contrast he mixed in some B portion
until he got it just right. Dan

Good eyes, Keith. Sodium bisulfite is what's missing. I looked up the amount, but the formula has changed a bit in the last few years and the original amount was 5g, but the new version uses different amounts of chems.

jim appleyard said:

Good eyes, Keith. Sodium bisulfite is what's missing. I looked up the amount, but the formula has changed a bit in the last few years and the original amount was 5g, but the new version uses different amounts of chems.

Click to expand...

I reported the error Jim to Steve Anchell but no reply yet.