How Good Ansco 130

[haryanto]

Very good subject and print. I understand that P. Formulary
is our only source for Glycin and that they only ship it freshly
compounded. How often they manufacture I couldn't say but
expect back-orders must meet a minimum. Dan

thanks Dan,
I've read many posts here said that glycin is very poor shelf life, unles it's mix in stock solutions

anybody know is that true that kept glycin frozen in freezer will prolong it's life, with test for sure
thanks

 

[dancqu]

Equal results but no contrast reducing
waterbath effect with the 130...Shawn

If two bath developing is a method you use for
contrast control and you'd like to see results from
Ansco 130 perhaps you should try A. Adams' two
bath version of Ansco 130. Dan

 

[DeBone 75]

Ansco 130

I have some glycin that is easly 20 years old. Looks like Nestlys Quick. Works just fine, although it does leave alittle stuff floating aroud the bottom. Ansco 130 also makes a pretty good film developer. I've used it at 1:5 dilution.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Does Ansco 130 respond to a water bath?

I got it to work in a water bath at 1:1 and 1:2. Its not quite as strong as amidol but I could see it continue to develop in the water for a good 30-45 seconds.

 

[eclarke]

I got it to work in a water bath at 1:1 and 1:2. Its not quite as strong as amidol but I could see it continue to develop in the water for a good 30-45 seconds.

What kind of times in the developer at 1:1 and 1:2??.Evan

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

In standard development procedure, with Ansco 130, 1:1, I give 3 minutes.

 

[eclarke]

In standard development procedure, with Ansco 130, 1:1, I give 3 minutes.

Interesting, I print on Ilford Warmtone and give it 1 1/2 minutes at 70 deg.. I was curious about how long before the water bath or if Alex is doing it dbi..EC

 

[Alex Hawley]

What kind of times in the developer at 1:1 and 1:2??.Evan

About 40-45 seconds in the developer Evan. Then another 45 seconds in the water bath, for 90 seconds total. I think one has to work these times out based upon the paper being used. I left the paper in the developer long enough to start showing strong low values.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Adding another twist to things, has anyone tried adding more KBr to the tray solution to warm up 130 a bit?

 

[eclarke]

About 40-45 seconds in the developer Evan. Then another 45 seconds in the water bath, for 90 seconds total. I think one has to work these times out based upon the paper being used. I left the paper in the developer long enough to start showing strong low values.

Thanks Alex, I agree but this is a good starting point. I have many negatives made in an old grove of oak trees on a wonderful foggy day, some of the best I made last year. The recipe I posted above gives a very nice rendition of the fog and nice tones on the Warmtone but one is always looking for better...EC

 

[matthewbetcher]

so does anyone dilute their 130 more than 1:1? will this effect the contrast significantly going to 1:2 or even 1:3 and beyond?
...

yeah, yeah, i'll be running a ton of tests to see once the glycin arrives, but thought i'd look for a little insight first. hey, if i know it's not gonna work, no need to go there.

 

[craigclu]

Don't laugh at me but I substitute 30cc 1% benzotriazole for the bromide (I make 2L of stock) dilute 1+1 and print on Ilford Warmtone FB. It produces a lovely steely color in the print. This mix seems to turn less brown with time..Evan Clarke

I imagine it was you who had mentioned this some time ago. I tried it at the following: (a paste from my spreadsheet, hopefully the formatting won't scramble too badly).

Water at 125°F 750 ml
Metol 2.2 g
Sodium Sulfite 50 g
Hydroquinone 11 g
Sodium Carbonate 80 g
Benzotriazole 1% 15 ml
Glycin 11 g
Water to make 1000 ml

I had a very large supply of WT FB Ilford that had been uninspiring to use. This version of 130 really brought it to life with bold, velvety blacks that still conveyed shadow detail well. It's become my favorite combination. Skin tones seem especially well depicted, too. It just seems to pull everything out of the paper so well.

 

[mikebarger]

I use it 1:2, but have never used it any other way.

Mike

 

[matthewbetcher]

thanks mike, that actually helps a lot... i print in large trays and the cost of one printing session at 1:1 would be pretty high. unfortunately, it's just too difficult (and space consuming) to leave the developer in such large trays for too long. i think i'll start there and see what happens.

 

[juan]

Remember that the developer can last a year or so. So, while your initial cost for large trays may be high, the length of time you can use the developer will greatly reduce the cost over time. Get some large glass bottles and store the developer between sessions.
juan

 

[eclarke]

I imagine it was you who had mentioned this some time ago. I tried it at the following: (a paste from my spreadsheet, hopefully the formatting won't scramble too badly).

Water at 125°F 750 ml
Metol 2.2 g
Sodium Sulfite 50 g
Hydroquinone 11 g
Sodium Carbonate 80 g
Benzotriazole 1% 15 ml
Glycin 11 g
Water to make 1000 ml

I had a very large supply of WT FB Ilford that had been uninspiring to use. This version of 130 really brought it to life with bold, velvety blacks that still conveyed shadow detail well. It's become my favorite combination. Skin tones seem especially well depicted, too. It just seems to pull everything out of the paper so well.

Yes, It is a good combination and the best thing is that it doesn't go brown in KRST...Evan Clarke

 

[eclarke]

Yes, It is a good combination and the best thing is that it doesn't go brown in KRST...Evan Clarke

P.S. I like it best a 1+3...EC

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

1+3

That's how I use it too, Evan, for most of the time. With Forte Polygrade I need a bit more zing to it so I use it 1+1 for that, but all other papers 1+3.
I keep the chem at about 75*F for a bit more activity and the time is 3 minutes sometimes 4. With papers like Fotokemika I like it best that way, brings out the last of the blacks.
I save the chemicals in tightly capped bottles and reuse them many times. I replenish the print developer with 100ml fresh stock and 300ml water every time.

- Thomas

P.S. I like it best a 1+3...EC

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Ansco 130 is on the list of cold tone developers that I have and it is considerably colder than say 135. I ran pretty extensive tests with 130 under a very well known darkroom master and concluded 130 does not produce a better black than your regular developers. I was looking for it to becasue of all the myths about it but I could not back it up with results. As far as the other attributes you'de have to look at my book of test prints in hand there are way too many to scan.

Coincidentally, just last night I was poking around the internet on Ansco 130 and glycin. Silvergrain says that glycine is just an old fashioned precursor molecule on the road to Metol!

http://silvergrain.org/wiki/Glycin

"Glycin once was a popular developing agent, and for this reason, it's described with very favorable words in old literature. They are also blindly cut and pasted in some darkroom cookbook literatures. However, the reality is that glycin disappeared from mainstream because Metol was superior developing agent. Glycin is "chemically weakened Metol." At least in early age of Metol production, Metol was manufactured from glycin by decarboxylation (removal of -COOH at the right end of the picture above). That is, they used to make Metol out of glycin because of Metol's superiority. (In that sense, it is probably better to call Metol a "chemically disinhibited glycin.") That is, the photographic characteristics of glycin and Metol can be matched rather easily by adjusting the quantity, pH and other usual variables of developer formulation. MQ developers with different M-to-Q ratios and different pH could cover a very wide range of developer needs.

Therefore, using glycin is literally reinventing inferior wheels."

Note: I've never used glycin. I'm only reporting this interesting chemistry point of view.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

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'.

Murray

 

[craigclu]

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.
​

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Coincidentally, just last night I was poking around the internet on Ansco 130 and glycin. Silvergrain says that glycine is just an old fashioned precursor molecule on the road to Metol!

http://silvergrain.org/wiki/Glycin

"Glycin once was a popular developing agent, and for this reason, it's described with very favorable words in old literature. They are also blindly cut and pasted in some darkroom cookbook literatures. However, the reality is that glycin disappeared from mainstream because Metol was superior developing agent. Glycin is "chemically weakened Metol." At least in early age of Metol production, Metol was manufactured from glycin by decarboxylation (removal of -COOH at the right end of the picture above). That is, they used to make Metol out of glycin because of Metol's superiority. (In that sense, it is probably better to call Metol a "chemically disinhibited glycin.") That is, the photographic characteristics of glycin and Metol can be matched rather easily by adjusting the quantity, pH and other usual variables of developer formulation. MQ developers with different M-to-Q ratios and different pH could cover a very wide range of developer needs.

Therefore, using glycin is literally reinventing inferior wheels."

Note: I've never used glycin. I'm only reporting this interesting chemistry point of view.

More like a Suzuki opinion.

My hands-on experience with Agfa 8, Crawley's FX-2 and Ansco 130 disagrees with Suzuki's Glycin opinion.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It is sad to read writings like that. All choices with respect to developers, papers, films, and complementary chemistry is subjective, based on opinion. One is not better than the other, just different. To claim that something is inferior because it's old fashioned is just rubbish and sad.

I wish some more humility was applied. One man's ceiling is another man's floor, as Paul Simon put it. I like Ansco 130 for what it does with regards to tonal range, and its ability to eke out blacks from the paper that I can't seem to get with most other developers. I also use it because it's what I'm used to. If I compared it to Dektol or Ilford Multigrade I'm sure I'd be able to achieve prints I like with those developers too.

- Thomas

Coincidentally, just last night I was poking around the internet on Ansco 130 and glycin. Silvergrain says that glycine is just an old fashioned precursor molecule on the road to Metol!

http://silvergrain.org/wiki/Glycin

"Glycin once was a popular developing agent, and for this reason, it's described with very favorable words in old literature. They are also blindly cut and pasted in some darkroom cookbook literatures. However, the reality is that glycin disappeared from mainstream because Metol was superior developing agent. Glycin is "chemically weakened Metol." At least in early age of Metol production, Metol was manufactured from glycin by decarboxylation (removal of -COOH at the right end of the picture above). That is, they used to make Metol out of glycin because of Metol's superiority. (In that sense, it is probably better to call Metol a "chemically disinhibited glycin.") That is, the photographic characteristics of glycin and Metol can be matched rather easily by adjusting the quantity, pH and other usual variables of developer formulation. MQ developers with different M-to-Q ratios and different pH could cover a very wide range of developer needs.

Therefore, using glycin is literally reinventing inferior wheels."

Note: I've never used glycin. I'm only reporting this interesting chemistry point of view.

 

[Alex Hawley]

More like a Suzuki opinion.

My hands-on experience with Agfa 8, Crawley's FX-2 and Ansco 130 disagrees with Suzuki's Glycin opinion.

That was written by Suzuki and I challenged him on it a couple years ago. The article on Wikipedia is written to promote his products, so its far more subjective than it is objective. His definition of "obsolete" was tailored to his agenda.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

That was written by Suzuki and I challenged him on it a couple years ago. The article on Wikipedia is written to promote his products, so its far more subjective than it is objective. His definition of "obsolete" was tailored to his agenda.

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.