High Acutance Develper

Ian Grant submitted a new resource:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) - High Acutance Develper

In his book "Photographic Processing Chemistry" (1974 Focal Press), L.F.A. Mason lists a typical High Acutance Developer.

This may possibly be the formula for Hyfin, which was Ilford's High Acutance developer, available from 1961 until the early 1970's. Mason calls it a typical formula:


High Acutance Developer

Metol 0.5g
Sodium Sulphite (anhyd) 5g
Sodium Carbonate (anhyd) 5g
Water to 1 litre

Development times 15-25 minutes
Requires a minimum of 600ml of chemistry per 35mm or...

Click to expand...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Pan F & FP3 - 18 minutes @ 20°C
Continuous agitation for the first 10 seconds then 5 seconds every minute.
Gives 1 stop more effective film speed

Click to expand...

Information about ILFORD Perceptol tends to suggest film speed is lowered so it is interesting that this developer apparently gives a 1 stop increase in effective film speed. At first consideration, I'd have thought exposing Pan F Plus at E.I. 100 would result in rather high contrast.

Tom

The high level of Sodium Chloride used as a restrainer & silver solvent in Perceptol & Microdold-X greatly reduces the effective film speed.

Ilford claimed a speed increase for Hyfin, but the 1 stop is more likely with FP3 or FP4, I'd have to agree that it might not be as much with Pan-F. The solvent effect of Sulphite in D76/ID-11 does drop the effective speed, so a developer like Adox Borax MQ with less Sulphite give half a stop more speed.

With such a low level of Metol these Beutler type developers are compensation so shouldn't be over contrasty they were designed to be used with films like Pan-F & FP-3/4, and Kodak tailored its HDD for Pan-X etc. The low level of Sulphite allows greater effective film speed, remember we use high sulphite developers like ID-11/D76 as our benchmark.

Ian

Ian Grant said:

The high level of Sodium Chloride used as a restrainer & silver solvent in Perceptol & Microdold-X greatly reduces the effective film speed.

Ian

Click to expand...

If I recall correctly there was some debate here on APUG as to whether the formula given in the 'Film Developing Cookbook' as Microdol is correct. Has a Perceptol or Microdol-X type formula actually been published?

Tom

There's no debate on the three main constituent parts in Microdol-X or Perceptol but we don't know the trace additives for sure. They are known to be based on D23 with Sodium chloride, as the MSDS sheets clearly used to show Metol, Sulphite & Sodium Chloride - mistakenly listed a Bromide for a while on the Perceptol sheet.

D23 with 25g Sodium Chloride behaves like Perceptol.

Ian

Interestingly, the formula in the OP is rather ancient compared to the HDD formulas being worked on in the latter days of B&W R&D at EK. It is also interesting to add here that according to a note I made to myself over 30 years ago, and which I just found yesterday, there are two ingredients in Microdol X that are not listed in the MSDS. I assume that is due to the trade secrets law or whatever. Perhaps they are omitted due to low concentration. I do not have the formula, just that old notation.

PE

You could enlighten us Ron, what routes were being used for HDD ?

Ian

Ian Grant said:

You could enlighten us Ron, what routes were being used for HDD ?

Ian

Click to expand...

Well, to clarify something I posted earlier, A&T do describe the extra ingredient(s) in Microdol X, as described in the patent by Henn. I wanted to dispel that mystery.

Now, on to HDD developers. As I have explained before, electron pump or electron transfer agents were at the top of the list for investigation. I have already implemented that in Liquidol for papers. They give long lived developers with good activity and high capacity. For films, they can give High Definition by alteration of the basic formulas.

Iodide was seen to be an inhibitor of edge effects kind of like a buffer against them taking place. With higher iodide levels this became more apparent, and therefore HDDs with iodide were viewed as being somewhat passe.

In fact, on the triad of Sharpness, Speed and Grain, it was found that at best you could strike a happy medium getting 2 out of 3, but getting a slight optimum of #3 by the right formula and this is what an HDD tries to do. It gets Sharpness at its best and then gets the best of the other 2. This is achieved by moderation in the activity of ingredients that control the other two. For example, Sulfite controls grain, is a simple statement but can serve as an example. At high concentration, you lose sharpness but improve grain.

I believe that Kodak has this triad mapped out in a graph on their web site along with developers placed on the chart to show how they affect these three characteristics of film. If you look at the chart, and compare with formulations, you will see what I mean in the above.

In the final analysis though, there is no magic bullet and we cannot go backwards in time and expect improved results, especially with modern films. This was the bottom line with our R&D.

PE

PE,

Are there any general principles that might dictate whether more modern films such as TMY-2 or Delta 100 may respond to a greater or lesser extent to changing developer compared to conventional grain films?

A&T makes a statement that new technology films are only really for the benefit of the manufacturer; but as the vast majority of my film usage has been with designer grain films, I don't really have anything to compare their statement to.

Tom

Photo Engineer said:

I believe that Kodak has this triad mapped out in a graph on their web site along with developers placed on the chart to show how they affect these three characteristics of film. If you look at the chart, and compare with formulations, you will see what I mean in the above.

PE

Click to expand...

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...wFilmProcessing/selecting.jhtml?pq-path=14053

Lee

Steve Anchell states quite clearly he doesn't like Tmax films in the DCB. Others would disagree with him.

Tmax films actually respond extremely well to some older developers that had gone out of favour, Rodinal being a good example, it may have to do with the high iodide content of the emulsions.

Ian

Tom Kershaw said:

PE,

Are there any general principles that might dictate whether more modern films such as TMY-2 or Delta 100 may respond to a greater or lesser extent to changing developer compared to conventional grain films?

A&T makes a statement that new technology films are only really for the benefit of the manufacturer; but as the vast majority of my film usage has been with designer grain films, I don't really have anything to compare their statement to.

Tom

Click to expand...

Tom;

There are no general rules except one: "there are no general rules"!

No joke.

Also, I would disagree with that statement in A&T, as I have seen the great improvements possible with newer emulsions in spite of the difficulty encountered in making the emulsion, so there is maximum advantage on the part of the user and not the manufacturer.

Modern making equipment is very complex due to the nature of these emulsions and that is inconvenient for the manufacturer.

I assure you that if there is a new edition of FDC, and if I have anything to do with it, that statement will be changed and I will offer proof. If you want proof though just consider the difficulty of making a graded core shell emulsion to get high speed with small grains!

Lee;

Thanks much for that reference. You can all see that Microdol X is nothing to be excited about! However, a lot can be done with developers and the Kodak family just about covers the gamut. IDK where you can find anything better, but I'm working on that! Others claim to get superb results with this or that home-made formula, but I have yet to see one of those compared exactly to the best of the best on that chart!

PE

Ian Grant said:

Steve Anchell states quite clearly he doesn't like Tmax films in the DCB. Others would disagree with him.

Tmax films actually respond extremely well to some older developers that had gone out of favour, Rodinal being a good example, it may have to do with the high iodide content of the emulsions.

Ian

Click to expand...

Ian;

I agree!

I also am reminded that Steve said the same in his interview on Inside Analog Photography with very strong emphasis. I would say, based on results and comments here, that many disagree with his evaluation.

PE

PE,

I was amazed by the image quality of TMY-2 when I tried it for the first time recently in 35mm format, processed in Pyrocat-HD.

Tom

Tom Kershaw said:

PE,

I was amazed by the image quality of TMY-2 when I tried it for the first time recently in 35mm format, processed in Pyrocat-HD.

Tom

Click to expand...

And there you go!

But, I would bet that even better results could be obtained somehow someway. Maybe I'm wrong, but I know that there is a lot out there. There is no magic bullet, but there are improvements to be had.

PE

Ian,

I know not to believe all read on the internet but Site Admin here says Hyfin was glycin based.Did the old stuff go brown?
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=1129

Photo Engineer said:

Lee;

Thanks much for that reference. You can all see that Microdol X is nothing to be excited about! However, a lot can be done with developers and the Kodak family just about covers the gamut. IDK where you can find anything better, but I'm working on that! Others claim to get superb results with this or that home-made formula, but I have yet to see one of those compared exactly to the best of the best on that chart!

PE

Click to expand...

Good morning, Ron;

Funny thing that this should come up right after our discussion. And, I agree that the reference provided by Lee is very useful. It would seem that there is great merit in looking at what Xtol will do for us now that Microdol-X is no longer available.

Alan Johnson said:

Ian,

I know not to believe all read on the internet but Site Admin here says Hyfin was glycin based. Did the old stuff go brown?

Click to expand...

It may be Hyfin uses Glycin as well,the details Mason gives for using the Formula here are identical to the Hyfin instructions.

Mason does say other formula contain "Glycin in addition to the Metol at about the same concentration" these need Pinacryptol Yellow as well a few ml of !:2000 solution. This was the way Crawley formulaed FX-2.

I'd have to re-read Crawley's original 60/61 BJP Articles. I tried the Formula that Mason fgives in the late 70's and the Acutance was like other High Acutance developers of the time.

Ian

Photo Engineer said:

Iodide was seen to be an inhibitor of edge effects kind of like a buffer against them taking place. With higher iodide levels this became more apparent, and therefore HDDs with iodide were viewed as being somewhat passe.PE

Click to expand...

Erm... you've lost me a bit here. Not difficult, maybe!

I thought the Iodide solution we added to FX1 and the like was suppossed to *Increase* the edge effects? With modern film it appeared (so I've witnessed myself) to have little or no effect. Why would you want to prevent edge effects in a HDD developer? Does this explain why I always found FX1 to be a bit lacking when it came to the pronounced mackie lines I was hoping for?

Your right Steve, Iodide was used by Kodak themselves in developer to get edge effects, but the level is so low it's like Homoeopathic medicine

But these days the iodide is in the emulsions, and at higher levels than the trace use in FX-1 etc.

Ian

Ok, here goes the chemistry.

If you add a tiny amount of iodide to a developer which uses a low level or no iodide, then the iodide goes onto the grains instantly, but then is released imagewise proportional to development. It therefore concentrates in areas of high development and causes edge effects.

With a high iodide emulsion, the iodide is already there in the emulsion ready to be released imagewise to do the same thing, but additional iodide acts to supresss this effect, kind of like buffering the iodide ready to be released from the grain. Also, todays emulsions vary in iodide content, and so it is hard to choose the level of iodide appropriate for use in a developer and so results (accentuation or supression) might vary from film to film. In addition, it is important to remember that some modern emulsions are core shell with iodide in the core but not on the surface. These react in a totally different manner.

So, there is no one answer except to say that adding iodide is a bad idea as a general rule. It may work, it may not work at all, or it may work counter to expectations. It is therefore considered best left out with modern emulsions.

That is why I have said before that older developer formulas may not be best for modern emulsions and vice versa don't use modern developers on old style emulsions.

Does this help?

PE

Photo Engineer said:

That is why I have said before that older developer formulas may not be best for modern emulsions and vice versa don't use modern developers on old style emulsions.

Does this help?

PE

Click to expand...

Does 'old style emulsions' include FP4 Plus, HP5 Plus, Tri-X etc. or are you referring to the Efke type films?

Tom

Tom Kershaw said:

Does 'old style emulsions' include FP4 Plus, HP5 Plus, Tri-X etc. or are you referring to the Efke type films?

Tom

Click to expand...

Tom;

I hesitate to guess. Try it yourself and let us know.

PE

Anecdotally Agfa Rodinal would seem to be a reasonably popular choice for developing T-max type films, however this developer was originally formulated in when, the 1890s? Your comment would suggest Rodinal may possibly be best suited to films such as FP4 Plus or CHS100, or are your comments more directed towards developers such as FX-1? According to A&T (FDC): Stock solution A: metol 5g, sodium sulphite anhydrous 50g, potassium iodide 0.001% 50ml, water to make 1 lt. Solution B: sodium carbonate anhydrous 25g. water to make 1 lt

Tom

Tom;

IIRC, Rodinal has no iodide and lets the emulsion determine the resultant imaging characteristics. This is probably best under the circumstances. The lack of Iodide is probably in Rodinal's favor and was the result of understanding the ideas put forth in my post above.

PE