How Good Ansco 130

Alex Hawley · Mar 15, 2008

Tom Hoskinson said:
I agree, Alex, for some objective opinions on Glycin, see Photography, It's Materials and Processes, sixth edition, 1961, C.B. Neblette, pages 232,233. Also see The Film Developing Cookbook, Anchell and Troop, Elsvier 1998, pages 22,37,45,48,65,97. Goeffrey Crawley in The British Journal of Photography Annual, 1960, 107 and 1970, 211,213.

Thanks Tom.

Paul Verizzo · Mar 15, 2008

I'll make a stab at the chemistry here.....

MQ developers have maximum activity at about a 1:4 ratio by weight (Haist), PQ at 1:9. However, MQ's have a very broad, shallow curve of ratios whereas PQ's is very narrow with sharp slopes on either side of the optimum.

A developer like DK-50, with equal parts M and Q is known to be very forgiving of misuse and has a very long life in tanks.

The M to Q ratio of Ansco 130 is 1:5. However, we need to factor in the glycin. If it is indeed of less activity to Metol, I'll just use 50%. Now we have an MQ ratio of 1:1.4. Definitely closing in on that 1:1 .

Turning to the sulfite, 50 grams is moderately high, especially for a paper developer. This would account for some of the long life.

Turning to the carbonate, 80 grams is a whopper! This is a reason for the excellent blacks, high alkalinity. Probably about pH 11, without looking at my notes.

None of this takes into account dilutions, of course.

I'm slowing getting a dark room set up again, although it is still some time away to complete. I just might try something like dropping the glycin and making the MQ 1:1 and see what the brew is like.

As an aside, don't forget that Metol costs twice as much as hydroquinone; there is a financial motive to use higher MQ/PQ ratios.

Tom Hoskinson · Mar 15, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
MQ developers have maximum activity at about a 1:4 ratio by weight (Haist), PQ at 1:9. However, MQ's have a very broad, shallow curve of ratios whereas PQ's is very narrow with sharp slopes on either side of the optimum.

A developer like DK-50, with equal parts M and Q is known to be very forgiving of misuse and has a very long life in tanks.

The M to Q ratio of Ansco 130 is 1:5. However, we need to factor in the glycin. If it is indeed of less activity to Metol, I'll just use 50%. Now we have an MQ ratio of 1:1.4. Definitely closing in on that 1:1 .

Turning to the sulfite, 50 grams is moderately high, especially for a paper developer. This would account for some of the long life.

Turning to the carbonate, 80 grams is a whopper! This is a reason for the excellent blacks, high alkalinity. Probably about pH 11, without looking at my notes.

None of this takes into account dilutions, of course.

I'm slowing getting a dark room set up again, although it is still some time away to complete. I just might try something like dropping the glycin and making the MQ 1:1 and see what the brew is like.

As an aside, don't forget that Metol costs twice as much as hydroquinone; there is a financial motive to use higher MQ/PQ ratios.

Paul, remember that, in solution, Glycin is very stable and resistant to oxidation, even in low sulfite solutions. Glycin is additive with Metol in terms of development activity and also adds resistance to aerial oxidation and fog. Glycin also has a reputation for preventing bromide streaking when developing with continuous agitation.

The Crawley FX-2 Metol-Glycin combination gives strong midtone gradation/separation, translucent highlight discrimination and high acutance.

In my experience, FX-2 also works very well as a highly diluted Minimal Agitation and Stand developer.

Paul Verizzo · Mar 16, 2008

Tom Hoskinson said:
Paul, remember that, in solution, Glycin is very stable and resistant to oxidation, even in low sulfite solutions.

Yes, I should have mentioned Glycin's resistance to oxidation. Of course, if developer Y uses more sulfite to get the same life, it's a wash.

Tom Hoskinson · Mar 16, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
Yes, I should have mentioned Glycin's resistance to oxidation. Of course, if developer Y uses more sulfite to get the same life, it's a wash.

Or, developer Y might replace the sulfite and some or all of the Glycin with ascorbic acid or ascorbate???

dancqu · Mar 16, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
Yes, I should have mentioned Glycin's
resistance to oxidation.

Resistant as it may be I'd be using it
one-shot. Resistance to oxidation is not
an issue with one shots. Dan

Paul Verizzo · Mar 16, 2008

Dunno.

Tom Hoskinson said:
Or, developer Y might replace the sulfite and some or all of the Glycin with ascorbic acid or ascorbate???

I've read about ascorbic acid in developers but have not played with it/them. Regardless, the AA replaces hydroquinone to become part of the superadditive mix, not sulfite the preservative/silver solvent. Two different tools.

Tom Hoskinson · Mar 16, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
I've read about ascorbic acid in developers but have not played with it/them. Regardless, the AA replaces hydroquinone to become part of the superadditive mix, not sulfite the preservative/silver solvent. Two different tools.

See: http://www.unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Preserv/preserv.html

Ascorbic Acid is a developing reagent in its own right. As part of a developer formulation Ascorbic Acid plays multiple roles and can play both additive and/or superadditive roles when combined with other developing reagents. Since Ascorbic Acid is a powerful oxygen scavenger, it is an effective developer preservative. As Pat Gainer (see URL above) has shown, Ascorbic Acid can replace Sulfites in developing formulae - and it also can act in concert with sulfites. In addition, Ascorbic Acid acts as a fog reducer and as a Developer pH management component.

Ryuji · Apr 12, 2008

MurrayMinchin said:
Here's my theory; one reason manufacturers would prefer not to use Glycin in their formulas is because it lasts for so long. Why would they want you to keep your working solution for months (with replenishment) when if you had to discard your developer after each session they could sell more developer? From the manufactures point of view Metol is therefore 'superior'.

If glycin was without disadvantages, it would be used more to take advantage of that fact. However, glycin has rather low processing capacity compared to PQ developers, so it got replaced. Also, processing capacity of print developers were increased very much when the enlarging papers decreased their bromide content.

Photo industry made a lot of effort in reducing chemical waste from late 80s and on, because London dumping convention banned disposal of photographic waste chemicals to ocean. (It was allowed before.)

Glycin is not difficult to make from its precursors (you can make it from two ingredients in a flask in a well ventilated room). If it were such a wonderful agent, why wouldn't anyone make and use it? Photographic manufacturers usually own chemical plants within their group (Kodak and Fuji do for sure) and make many compounds they need but has no use outside photography. Glycin is a lot easier to make than most dyes, dye couplers and stabilizers. But it's not used.

Ryuji · Apr 12, 2008

craigclu said:
I used his DS-14 with good success but I've had a streak of trouble with 2 successive batches of Dimezone-S. I don't recall the exact timing but I was buying too much at a time and having batches show little to zero activity but a batch made the month before showing normal behavior. It's gotten me a bit nervous about it. Perhaps there's a way to keep the Dimezone-S in a solution of some sort to avoid this? It's one thing to see a paper developer not working right and correcting the situation but I had things happening with his DS-10 related to this and lost some important images because of it. I really liked the results with DS-10 and Delta films but became paranoid about the combo.

I have tested a few different samples of Dimezone S made by at least different plants. One stock I bought from Sigma Aldrich was most stale, but it still develops. They discontinued Dimezone S soon after, though. Other stocks are still fine. I keep small vials at room temp, but the rest is stored in vacuum in refrigerator.

The best way to keep Dimezone S I know of is to keep it as dry as possible, and at a low temperature.

Ryuji · Apr 12, 2008

Tom Hoskinson said:
See: http://www.unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Preserv/preserv.html

Ascorbic Acid is a developing reagent in its own right. As part of a developer formulation Ascorbic Acid plays multiple roles and can play both additive and/or superadditive roles when combined with other developing reagents. Since Ascorbic Acid is a powerful oxygen scavenger, it is an effective developer preservative. As Pat Gainer (see URL above) has shown, Ascorbic Acid can replace Sulfites in developing formulae - and it also can act in concert with sulfites. In addition, Ascorbic Acid acts as a fog reducer and as a Developer pH management component.

There were some attempts to use ascorbate as a preservative (mostly in some experimental color developers, where sulfite content must be kept very low, and other preservatives like hydroxylamine derivatives are also used), but none became very common. The reason is that ascorbate and sulfite have very different kinds of reaction with molecular oxygen. Basically, unprotected ascorbate and oxygen can go through a chain of self regenerating oxidative reactions to rapidly deteriorate the developer, with or without sulfite. Many ascorbate developers work perfectly when fresh but after a certain point they quickly lose power for this reason.

Ryuji · Apr 12, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
As an aside, don't forget that Metol costs twice as much as hydroquinone; there is a financial motive to use higher MQ/PQ ratios.

If you say that, Phenidone costs more, and Dimezone S even more. Ascorbic acid and isoascorbic acid are significantly more expensive than hydroquinone.

If there is any economy in the range of modern developing agents, the industry selected the fewest agents that would maximize the area of applications covered in 1960s. Simply put, it's cheaper to give up some of the "redundant" agent that could be covered by some others. People like Henn of Kodak wrote a lot on this topic and he was one of the strongest advocates of MQ developers. Levenson was another.

Also, modern chemical industry has been increasingly aware of green factors. There are lots of greenwashers and greenwash watchdogs. Compounds that are made from safer precursors by safer reactions, and using less energy and all that, come into decision factors today. However, nothing would stop any individual user from synthesizing glycin in their basement.

Paul Verizzo · Apr 15, 2008

Ryuji said:
If you say that, Phenidone costs more, and Dimezone S even more. Ascorbic acid and isoascorbic acid are significantly more expensive than hydroquinone.
.

I was only referring to the ratio within an MQ developer. The more M and less Q, the more expensive it is.

Dat's all!

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 21, 2008

Ryuji said:
If it were such a wonderful agent, why wouldn't anyone make and use it?

Same reason 'everybody' buys what's most popular on the music charts. Does being on the charts make the music better or more popular?
I love glycin and the look it gives me. You may think that you have a superior product, and in your opinion, you probably do. I haven't tried your developers, and I don't intend to either. I just know that I love my 130. No matter how popular other developing agents are, it is the best for me.

Respectfully,

- Thomas

Photo Engineer · Apr 22, 2008

Peter;

I have gotten 4 different tone scales with 4 different developers using one paper, Ilford MGIV. In particular, I have seen variations in shadow detail among papers and this varies with whether there is an incorporated reducing agent in the paper, whether the paper is MG or graded, and what type of halide is used in the paper. Using another paper, I got entirely different results.

When a sample print is developed to the same mid densities, you can see quite a variation in the highlights or shadows, most usually shadows but not always. And there are plenty of arguments that agree with this right here on APUG. I need not send you prints, you can just look up some of the posts. I read one last night here on APUG, but could not locate it after a search. I would like to have posted it here. Sorry.

PE

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 22, 2008

I don't think I will send you a print or two for this reason, but I may send you one for your other generosities in the past.
I'm not sure I agree with you, and I think I am a novice compared to you. What I look carefully for in prints is print color, as that is just as important to me as tone. With Dektol I sometimes get a green cast that I don't get with the 130 developer, especially at high dilution. With Fotokemika Varycon I get neutral color with both, but in order to get the maximum black from that paper, the only thing that I have liked so far has been Ansco 130 at 1+3 dilution and 75*F temperature. I get rich fat blacks this way, and I haven't been able to achieve it with other developers.
Now, I am normally not interested in technicalities such as these, the 130 is the only paper developer I use anyway, no matter how good something else might be (except Amidol, which I love working with for some reason, especially old style papers, like Fotokemika Emaks, which reacts very nicely to the amidol with extremely rich tones with incredible separation in the shadows). With 130 I know what to expect, it's as simple as that.
I think this is the type of discussion where nobody is right or wrong, since it's subjective with respect to varying taste among people.

If somebody else has the time to do a developer comparison like this, I would be interested to read the results, however.

- Thomas

Peter Schrager said:
One major point seems to be getting by everyone here..
it is my opinion that most modern papers do not change their characteristics greatly due to change in developer...over ten years ago I spent a massive amount of time doing the old formulas and toners only to find that it didn't matter very much..(great toners like the gold ones are another casualty of this...) I don't believe amidol gives richer blacks than dektol yet I use both/each for different reasons..
the paper makers have numbed down the materials
so they work easily and repeatably...someone out there want prove me wrong...send me a print so I can see it....
Best, Peter

billtroop · Apr 26, 2008

I'd like to make three points about Ansco 130.

1. It is very long-lasting -- far longer lasting than many of its modern competitors.
2. It is very consistent. It was the developer of choice for Ansel Adams when he needed to make long runs of identical prints.

It is clear how it achieves this in a very simple but ingenious way. The high amount of bromide (2-4 times normal) mitigates the effect of additional bromide during the developing run. This action alone is enough to make the developer far more consistent over a print run than nearly any other print developer. To compensate for the depressing effect of the bromide, more than the usual amount of developing agent and alkali is added.

It's a brilliant manipulation of the chemical effects available to photochemists fifty or sixty years ago.

3. There remains an open question. The developer was designed for bromide and chloro-bromide papers -- at the very least, for papers with a significant amount of bromide. What effect does this have on today's high-chloride papers? How does it differ from the way the developer reacts with bromide and chloro-bromide papers?

Kirk Keyes · Apr 27, 2008

So Bill - I see some people using a variation on it by not using any bromide by substituting benzotriazole. What effect do you see this substitution having in regards to the points you made above?

How Good Ansco 130

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency