Help Ian G once again

I'm glad Mr. Anchell is right on top of it!

Anyway, according to a handout I have from John Wimberley, it should say "sodium bisulfite 20.0 g" It goes in the list of ingredients right after the metol.

I'd suggest taking a pinch of bisulfite and dissolve it first before adding the metol.

Kirk

Bob

This is an authentic Canadian Formula of Kodak's D-52.
It is similar to Dektol, but has a different balance of metol and HQ , for a more useful contrast.

I've only used it for 40 years, but it shows promise.

It does everything Dektol will do, but you won't have to use the 2x4.
Don't tell Les.

PM me for how you can easily use Bromide as a control.

Dead Link Removed

It's identical to D-52 except for the 12.5 g of Hydroquinone instead of 12 g. It's similar to Selectol, rather than Dektol so is slightly softer working.

Ian

Here is an official Kodak formula for D-52, Photo Almanac, Anchell 1st Ed.

Water 500 ml 500 ml 500 ml
Elon 1.5 g 1.5 g 1.5 g
Sodium Sulfite (anh) 22.5 g 22.5 g 21.2 g
HQ 6 g 6.5 g 6.0 g
Sodium Carbonate (monohydrate) 17g 15.0 g 17.0 g
Potassium Bromide 1.5 g 1.5 g 1.5 g

Water to 1 liter in each case.

I also have the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics version and I'm sure some others, but they are basically all in the range of the above.

The formatting of the above, while neat in the original, turns into crap when posted. Sorry! I've tried to patch it as best as possible but nothing helps.

PE

Ian Grant said:

It's identical to D-52 except for the 12.5 g of Hydroquinone instead of 12 g. It's similar to Selectol, rather than Dektol so is slightly softer working.

Ian

Click to expand...

Yes. And we should note, that we aren't talking about Selectol Soft !!!!!

Softer working, but fully capable of printing a proper #2 negative on #2 paper with full Dmax blacks. It is just a lot easier to control than Dektol.

And if you can make D-72, you can make this.

df cardwell said:

Bob

This is an authentic Canadian Formula of Kodak's D-52.
It is similar to Dektol, but has a different balance of metol and HQ , for a more useful contrast.

I've only used it for 40 years, but it shows promise.

It does everything Dektol will do, but you won't have to use the 2x4.
Don't tell Les.

PM me for how you can easily use Bromide as a control.

Dead Link Removed

Click to expand...

Interesting how Kodak Canada was offering metric equivalents as early as 1926!

wogster said:

Interesting how Kodak Canada was offering metric equivalents as early as 1926!

Click to expand...

And describing the alternative as "avoirdupois" .

Matt

MattKing said:

And describing the alternative as "avoirdupois" .

Matt

Click to expand...

Because that's the correct name for the system. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoirdupois

The British and US systems vary because the British included the "stone" unit and wanted to make larger units easily divisible by 14, which is what the "stone" mass equals in pounds.

The greek drachma was the equivalent to the avoirdupois "dram".

Lee

Lee L said:

Because that's the correct name for the system. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoirdupois

The British and US systems vary because the British included the "stone" unit and wanted to make larger units easily divisible by 14, which is what the "stone" mass equals in pounds.

The greek drachma was the equivalent to the avoirdupois "dram".

Lee

Click to expand...

I know that to be true Lee, but it is so rare to actually see "avoirdupois" used, I had to comment on the Canadian correctness of it all!

Matt

MattKing said:

I know that to be true Lee, but it is so rare to actually see "avoirdupois" used, I had to comment on the Canadian correctness of it all!

Matt

Click to expand...

Got it. I see it all the time on my uncle's 1930's Pelouze balance that I've used for 40 years for my darkroom weight measurements, so I guess I'm overly accustomed to it. FWIW, I have some US photo chemical company books from the 1930's that also have two columns for many formulae, one for avoirdupois and one for metric.

Lee

wogster said:

Interesting how Kodak Canada was offering metric equivalents as early as 1926!

Click to expand...

Well I have Eastman Kodak Formulae from around 1912 and possibly earlier that are listed as metric as well a avoirdupois from the outset. Ron (PE) raises the issue of the Photo Lab Index/Photo Almanac's etc problems, many conversions between anhydrous and mono-hyrdated/crystalline forms of sulphites/carbonates were incorrect, as well as metric/avoirdupois conversions. The only reasonably reliable sources are the original manufacturers publications, even these have the odd error but these are few and far between.

Ian

Lee L said:

Because that's the correct name for the system. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoirdupois

The British and US systems vary because the British included the "stone" unit and wanted to make larger units easily divisible by 14, which is what the "stone" mass equals in pounds.

The greek drachma was the equivalent to the avoirdupois "dram".

Lee

Click to expand...

There is also a major difference in liquid measure, A US Gallon is 3.85L, a British Gallon is 4.5L, so if you require 5 grains of something per gallon, then you need to know which gallon.