Maximum speed split developer. And effect of more Phenidone?

Or any developer to get a bit more speed out of TX. I know this has been discussed, and I've read everything I can find. I recently shot in at a dark as a dungeon dance and ended up shooting Tri-X at a meter reading of about 1200. I don't really care for the extreme contrast push process look, so was hunting for a way to get as much speed as possible without pushing the highlights up any more than necessary (what people usually call compensating development).

I decided that Diafine was my best bet, but couldn't get any in time so made the substitute formula that has been published here before (in next post). My first test run showed fairly weak results overall, so I tried a double run. A/B, running water rinse, the A/B again. The results were very good and I ran my 4 rolls that way with better results than it was reasonable to expect. I'm overall so happy with the negs that I'm tempted to work more with this formula, but have a few question.

My initial results seem weaker than I expected. I made a solution of Phenidone in 91% Isopropol Alcohol, so that dissolved well. I wonder if my Phenidone powder could be going off a bit giving the weaker results. It seems obvious to be working since I got such good results with good shadow detail in the double run. I'm tempted to try a bit more Phenidone.

Does anyone have an idea what the effect of increasing the amount of Phenidone in this formula would be? I was thinking a trying a 50% increase using half the quart of A; if that seems promising, but too much I can pour it back in with the rest and have a 25% increased Phenidone A solution to try. I know I will have to test, but would like to know if this is just a waste of time.

BTW, I'm getting no noticeable base fog, and actually wouldn't mind seeing a touch if that helps push the shadow detail up even a little; I'm very close to what I need now. Also, the grain was surprisingly fine, not as much as Xtol, but at least as good as Acufine.

The formula I used.

Diafine Substitute:
>Sol. A
>Water 750ml
>Sodium Sulfite 35.0gr
>Hydroquinone 6.0gr
>Phenidone 0.2gr
>Sodium Bisulfite 6.0gr
>Water to make 1.0 L
>
>Sol.B
>Water 750ml
>Sodium Sulfite 65.0gr
>Sodium Metaborate 20.0gr
>Water to make 1.0 L

In those very low light conditions, Acros at an EI of 100 becomes the fastest film available because of its reciprocity characteristics.

Jim Noel said:

In those very low light conditions, Acros at an EI of 100 becomes the fastest film available because of its reciprocity characteristics.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but that isn't going to be very useful at a dance. I would really like 1/60 at 1.4 but am not getting quite that even rating the film at 1200.

First, let me say that Diafine produced negatives are always very thin. What matters is the quality of the print that can be obtained.

Second, film speed is a matter of some confusion among photographers. The speed of a film is built into the emulsion during its manufacture, this is the true or intrinsic speed . There is very little that the user can do to increase it. They can change the apparent or effective speed but not the true speed. The only thing that can be done is to take full advantage of the intrinsic speed. Now developers like Microdol do not fully utilize what speed a film has intrinsically. In this case film speed is sacrificed for finer grain. So if you are familiar with developers like Microdol and D-76 then a developer like Diafine does seem to produce more speed. However this is an illusion. The intrinsic speed of a film cannot be changed by choice of developer. The only think that can be done is to better utilize the intrinsic speed. The only developers that can do this are based on ascorbic acid rather than hydroquinone and a phenidone rather than metol. (There are several derivatives of Phenidone including Phenidone B, Dimezone and Dimezone S.) This point was strongly made by the two former Kodak engineers who developed Xtol. They used the analogy of a pillow, push it in and another portion of the pillow will pop out. Pull on a corner and the center will fall. Think of speed, grain, and contrast as the dimensions of the pillow rather than width, length and height. Try to change the speed of a film and grain and contrast will also change. Attempt to change the grain and speed and contrast will change. Like so many chemical processes, development is subject to the rule quaintly put as "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." In other words you can change the apparent film speed but not its true speed. This is a very important point which many people miss.

Historically film manufacturers rated their films to produce a wide latitude to over and under exposure. Typically 4+ stops over and 2+ stops under. The reasoning being was that the user wished to get an image rather than the best quality image. Therefore the published speeds were typically 2 stops less than the true speed. Manufactures like Baumann who produced Diafine and Acufine took advantage of this fact and claimed that their developers produced wildly optimistic speeds. There was a modest speed increase (about a third of a stop) gained by the use of Phenidone as a developing agent. But most of the claimed speed increase was at the benefit of the generous latitude given the film. Barnum would have been proud. Then with the advent of better metering films manufactures eliminated most of this latitude by publishing a more realistic speed.

Additionally ascorbic acid, like Phenidone, allows for better usage of the intrinsic film speed and together you do get a usable increase in film speed without sacrificing grain or contrast. So may we have the winner please! That would be a developer like Xtol which uses both ascorbic acid and a phenidone derivative Dimezone S as developing agents. So forget the hyperbole surrounding Diafine and use Xtol or a similar developer.

Note that Phenidone and Dimezone are trade-names of Ilford and Kodak respectively and should always be capitalized to avoid confusion. When used without a capital phenidone refers to any of the phenidone family of developing agents. The letter after a name is also important as it indicates a different developing agent. Phemidone B is the methyl derivative of Phenidone.

I'm familiar with the Kodak analogy, but I think the point of it was that Xtol actually did give a slight, but real, gain in speed without making other compromises. In this case, I am willing to make compromises to get a bit of shadow detail.

I did use Xtol as my comparison developer and was getting similar deep shadow detail to what I could get with somewhat extended development in Xtol, but with less highlight density. That is what I was looking for.

My question is mostly about what effect increasing the Phenidone in the formula I gave might have. Part of my concern is that my Phenidone might not be quite up to par, but your comments on Diafine lead me to believe that it might be. Still, I don't recall getting this weak a result with real Diafine. I will get some Diafine to compare eventually, but as you rightly point out it is the quality of the print that matters. In that regard are am relatively satisfied, but would like just a hint more density to work with in the darkroom.

Kodak states that 400TX developed in HC-110 can be shot at an effectively speed of 800 with a small loss of shadow detail. At 1600 there is a further change in quality that is acceptable to most people. It does not recommend a speed higher than 1600. Read the section under PUSH PROCESSING.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

For any super-additive combination of developing agents such as Phenidone and hydroquinone there is an optimal ratio between the two. Manufacturers usually use something near this ratio. Mason discusses this in his book specifically for Metol and Phenidone in combination with hydroquinone. Adding more Phenidone to a developer will probably NOT increase the speed of a film and may lead to increased fog and loss of contrast. It sounds like you do not have the time to experiment. Kodak recommends HC-110 as the best choice of developers for pushing 400TX, Xtol would also be good. If you can live with an EI of 1600 then 400TX in HC-110 seems to be your best bet. Just follow Kodak's recommendations for development time.

Gerald C Koch said:

For any super-additive combination of developing agents such as Phenidone and hydroquinone there is an optimal ratio between the two. Manufacturers usually use something near this ratio. Mason discusses this in his book specifically for Metol and Phenidone in combination with hydroquinone. Adding more Phenidone to a developer will probably NOT increase the speed of a film and may lead to increased fog and loss of contrast. It sounds like you do not have the time to experiment. Kodak recommends HC-110 as the best choice of developers for pushing 400TX, Xtol would also be good. If you can live with an EI of 1600 then 400TX in HC-110 seems to be your best bet. Just follow Kodak's recommendations for development time.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I thought adding more Phenidone might cause increased fog, but really just a guess on my part. I don't mind doing a couple more tests, but just wanted to get some ideas of what I might expect. I already have the Phenidone in solution, so it will be easy to add a set amount. I'm a little suspicious of the freshness of my Phenidone, plus this is not a manufacturers formula with a research department behind it, so just wanting to see if I am near an optimal amount. One person had actually reported a lot of fog with this formula (in repeated trials), and I'm not seeing any beyond the normal base fog level for Xtol. I'll give a pretty big bump to see what happens, then back off if it looks promising.

As I mentioned, I'm already getting better results for my immediate purpose than with extended development in Xtol (straight, or dilute). I also tried Acufine, which generally gives less highlight contrast than Xtol, as I need for this.

I really need to compare to Diafine eventually, but this seems like a promising path at the moment.

The ratio of hydroquinone to Phenidone is the formula given 1:30 is VERY close to the optimal ratio mentioned by Mason which is 1:28.

Gerald, you know your stuff I see... Help me as it's been a few years since my photo science classes, but the way I remember it Phenidone or Metol are the low contrast agent and the hydroquinone or other accellerant is what controls the amount of high contrast. Correct?

I found some old notes that says you could substitute Phenidone for Metol if you divide the Metol by 100. It has a very sweet smell and you can usually tell Phenidone once you know what it smells like.

While super-additive combinations usually contain a soft working developing agent and a agent capable of creating contrast. This situation is not required for super-additivity which is determined by the Kendall-Peltz classes to which each of the two developing agents belongs. One developing agent must contain two hydroxyl groups like hydroquinone and the other must contain an amine group and a hydroxyl group.

Gerald C Koch said:

The ratio of hydroquinone to Phenidone is the formula given 1:30 is VERY close to the optimal ratio mentioned by Mason which is 1:28.

Click to expand...

Good to know.

And Michael R 1974's comments are right on for what I'm trying to do here. Just seeing if I can make something out of a challenging situation. I got 2 pictures I'm very happy with last weekend, and that was the worst of the venues. Plus I was also trying a couple lenses there, so should have a much better idea what to expect all around the next time. I would like to see just a hint of base fog to know I'm getting all there is to get. I am not sure, but wonder if a touch of base fog might push the faint detail I'm getting in some deep shadows up to a more printable point on the curve. I don't do sensitometry so will just try it and see how it works.

Any other thoughts on development to get the result I'm working toward are welcome and appreciated.

BTW, this is is the series I'm working on. Lots of fun, and almost like stepping back in time:
http://mountaindancetrail.org/communities/
Helvetia has been the most challenging. Ireland, WV is this weekend and I can actually manage to make pictures there with a 35 Summicron (f2 for those don't speak Leica).

Gerald C Koch said:

While super-additive combinations usually contain a soft working developing agent and a agent capable of creating contrast. This is situation is not required for super-additivity which is determined by the Kendall-Peltz classes to which each of the two developing agents belongs. One developing agent must contain two hydroxyl groups like hydroquinone and the other must contain an amine group and a hydroxyl group.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification Gerald.

I've had great results (in 6x7cm) with Tri-X semi-stand developed in 1:100 for 2 hours.

If you want more speed, or rather, at least more development in a split-bath developer, you will need more time in bath A. I would try double. The other thing you can do is developer it twice, Bath A->Bath B->wash/rinse->Bath A->Bath B, etc.

Or you can have a more concentrated Bath A.


The best results in terms of getting the most speed out of Tri-X will be pre-flash with extended development. It's known technique, but I haven't tried it on Tri-X, I've done it on Superia 800 shot at 12800.

12800 with no preflash

12800 with preflash ('Zone III' at 12800 rating)

Mark Crabtree said:

My initial results seem weaker than I expected.

Does anyone have an idea what the effect of increasing the amount of Phenidone in this formula would be?

Click to expand...

It's possible your pH is just a touch too low. In my experience with brewing split-bath developers, -some- development (small/low contrast development) must be present in Bath A for the carryover into Bath B to make a good self-limiting image.

Athiril said:

I've had great results (in 6x7cm) with Tri-X semi-stand developed in 1:100 for 2 hours.

I... The other thing you can do is developer it twice, Bath A->Bath B->wash/rinse->Bath A->Bath B, etc.

Or you can have a more concentrated Bath A.

...

It's possible your pH is just a touch too low. In my experience with brewing split-bath developers, -some- development (small/low contrast development) must be present in Bath A for the carryover into Bath B to make a good self-limiting image.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I did A/B, running water rinse, A/B.

What would a more concentrated A bath be, increase just the two developing compounds by an equal percentage?

Stand development is not something I want to fool around with on negs I actually care about. I know that sounds odd since I'm using a non-standard developer, but I did run tests first. With stand, I just can't count on not have uneven development issues. Also testing times for that were impractically long for me the night I started this developing. As is, I didn't get the real film in the tank until after midnight. That said, it might well work with the right developer.

If you increase phenidone and phenidone alone, what I would expect is more increase in density in lower density portions of the image, and not much increase in dMax, flatter image with less contrast/separation in the low regions of the image.

I'd keep both at the stock ratio, and go up or down to get the desired overall density. I'd only change the ratios then to change the general contrast of the image, higher ratio of phenidone to hq for less (ie: more phenidone, less hq), reverse for more.

I would measure pH first though.

Athiril said:

I would measure pH first though.

Click to expand...

The development reaction and additivity are each dependent on pH a more consistent result could be obtained with a formal pH buffer in both baths.

Your base speed ie shadow image will be dependent on fog and a restrainer may improve the effective ISO, fog level and preflash are different processes.

But you may be squeezing pips already a different film like delta 3200 @1000 ISO in same soup may give an easier to print image.

A summilux 35 /1.4 ditto try pre and post Asph.

Delta 3200 is the logical choice, but I haven't personally cared much for the results I got the few times I used it. I did better with the old Kodak P3200 TMax. I probably will try some of the Ilford again next time I order, and see if I can get a more normal tonality out of it than I did previously. And hopefully less grain. I actually liked the looks of this Tri-X result better but it was at the ragged edge for shadow detail.

A borrowed 35 Summilux was one of the things I was trying there. I really liked the lens overall, but the 1.4 performance wasn't what would pull that kind of cash out of my pocket. The 35 Summilux Ashperic would probably be dandy, but I just don't see that in my future. For now, I'm going to use my 40 Nokton which works pretty well at 1.4. My impression was that the focal length might actually have worked better for me that particular evening.

Relatively low contrast, with maximum shadow detail is what I'm wanting in that situation. But as I keep mentioning, I'm not seeing base fog, even in my double run through A and B, so am wondering if I do have the Penidone up to the right amount. Mine is old. It is obviously working, but I wonder if it is off a little from age.

I did mix in distilled water, which I guess can vary a lot in pH, but I wouldn't have thought pH would be much of an issue with this formula. Surely that B bath is basic enough to activate every bit of developer in the emulsion. Or isn't it?

I hope to get a chance to do a couple tests today. I shot my test roll in my office with incandescent light, so should be able to have a good comparison to my previous results.

I did notice your Phenidone stock was dissolved in less than 100% isopropyl alcohol. There may be enough water there to allow the Phenidone to deteriorate over time (quite quickly actually). Perhaps 100% denatured alcohol or glycol would give your stock solution a longer life?. Just a thought.

It's a good thought. I just used what I could find. Am I likely to find the glycol locally? I believe I read someone mention it being used with livestock. We have a Southern States farm supply here.

I figured the 91% alcohol would be good enough for a percentage solution to allow easier measurement, and to help dissolve the Phenidone. I really didn't plan on keeping the solution long. I mixed it about 5 days ago. Should I start over on the Phenidone solution?

You can also get methyl alcohol (wood alcohol) from home improvement or hardware stores as it is used as a solvent for shellac. This product would not contain water.

Mark Crabtree said:

It's a good thought. I just used what I could find. Am I likely to find the glycol locally? I believe I read someone mention it being used with livestock. We have a Southern States farm supply here.

I figured the 91% alcohol would be good enough for a percentage solution to allow easier measurement, and to help dissolve the Phenidone. I really didn't plan on keeping the solution long. I mixed it about 5 days ago. Should I start over on the Phenidone solution?

Click to expand...

To be fair I think it would last longer than 5 days but it is something to consider. You didn't say. For longer life in future use something with no water in it. Methyl, ethyl alcohol or glycerol (glycerine) propyl or even ethylene glycol. Trawl thru the shelves at the farm supply. I am in Australia, as you can see, so I can't be too specific.

Given that most recipes ask for Phenidone in minuscule quantities, you don't have to worry much about the cost of your Phenidone solvent. If farm supply stores don't have suitable solvents in the quality you need, I would assume most pharmacies would be able to help. With US$ 10 worth of Propylene Glycol or Diethylene Glycol you should be able to make yourself a lifetime supply of Phenidone stock.

Note that Methanol is quite toxic, its small cost savings may make things more expensive in the long run if you consider all the extra safety precautions you will need when handling it.

I'm happy to buy a bit of Propylene Glycol, just don't know anything about it, what it is sold for, or where to get it. I'll poke around next week and see what I can find. As is, if my mixing in 91% Isopropol will not cause a problem for the stability of the formula then I don't mind just dumping what I don't use. This jar of Phenidone, that is already old enough to be suspect, must have enough for a hundred lifetimes in it.

Summer's here (not really, but it feels like it this week). Bike riding needs to be done. Ramps are up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allium_tricoccum. So it's getting hard to find time for darkroom experiments. I think the light level will be better at the dance tonight, but may end up with some more shots that need the push.

I'm a little surprised the Diafine fans haven't piped in here; it seems like there are a lot of them on APUG. I do intend to find out eventually whether the real formula will do better for me. I did see someone in my readings that preferred this substitute to the real thing, but can't recall why. I was particularly surprised by the fine grain, especially considering my double run through the baths.