Meritol - (Johnsons's formula) Ian? or others for paper dev

[VaryaV]

Greetings! Nice to see you all again!

I am really wanting to try Meritol as a paper developer. I've been schlepping through old threads and I see Ian has a lot of knowledge regarding the Johnson's formulas. (or anyone else who has feedback)

I would like to make sure I have the correct formula from putting together all the info I gathered. I would like dilutions for both paper and film (for the future). I will be starting off with paper first.

Is this the correct and will catechol work without hitches instead of pyro-catechin?


Meritol - 13.7g
(16gms Metol = 7gm PPD + 9 gms pyro-catechin
Metol - 2.3gms
Sodium Sulphite (anh) - 90gms
Water to 1L

What are the correct dilutions for paper as I am assuming this was formulated for film?

I greatly appreciate anyone's input and please mention any quirks or idiosyncrasies I should be aware of.

I am planning on using it with Foma MG Classic, film souped in Finol. There's a certain look I am going after for a new series I am starting.

Thanks for feedback and have a great day!

 

[pdeeh]

pyrocatechin and catechol are the same thing,I think.

The formulas on Ian's page list Sodium sulfite not sulfide - definitely not the same thing

 

[VaryaV]

Thank you for correcting me, pdeeh. you are entirely correct. I have sulphide on the brain lately as I have been using it for toning.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I really see can't that using a developer containing catechol offers any advantage over a standard MQ or PQ paper developer. Catechol is probably more expensive and is more toxic than hydroquinone. P-phenylenediamine is a possible carcinogen and mutagen and is well established as a skin irritant. It's use in the modern darkroom is to be discouraged.

We always need to ask why some developing agents and formulas are no longer used. Do they offer any advantages for modern emulsions. The answer is usually that they do not. This is why most of them have found their way to the dustbin of history.

 

[VaryaV]

Moersch uses HQ in his SE30 formula, (well I thought he did I can't find the info now for back up, will keep looking I have it somewhere). I ordered it from Germany as I can't get it anywhere in the states and it is taking for ever (so far 3 weeks) to get through customs, hence the need to put it together on my own.

I am going to do this guys and hopefully with your support 'we' can make this happen - Meritol has a look I am going after, a look that totally blew me away when I first saw prints. Wolfgang Moersch and Willi Moralis have done some great things with it and I am envisioning using it for a new body of work.

ps. I had thought that Catechol and pyro-catechin were the same thing I wanted verification. Thanks.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

According to the MSDS for the Moersch Meritol SE-30 developer it DOES NOT contain Meritol as described in the Johnson product. In this respect it does not contain the p-phenylenediamine that is present in the Johnson chemical. Neither does it contain metol. It contains however one of the color developing agents derived from ppd.

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/msds/moersch/Moersch_SE30_Meritol_Developer.pdf

It appears that Moersch has appropriated the name Meritol to mean something different from Johnson product. So attempting to mix your own developer may not achieve what you want.

When using the Moersch product observe all the cautions and warnings in the MSDS. In addition wear nitrile gloves and safety goggles when working with the product. A single drop of the developer in your eye could cost you your sight. This can be nasty stuff.

 

[Ian Grant]

I really see can't that using a developer containing catechol offers any advantage over a standard MQ or PQ paper developer. Catechol is probably more expensive and is more toxic than hydroquinone. P-phenylenediamine is a possible carcinogen and mutagen and is well established as a skin irritant. It's use in the modern darkroom is to be discouraged.

We always need to ask why some developing agents and formulas are no longer used. Do they offer any advantages for modern emulsions. The answer is usually that they do not. This is why most of them have found their way to the dustbin of history.

Pyrocatechin is a very warm tone developer and gives superb tones, definitely worth trying.

I prefer to use a different route and process in a normal developer then us Ilford IT-8 toner which used=s a bichromate bleach followed by a simple Pyrocatechin developer. As this can be done in daylight with plenty of ventilation, gloves etc it's much safer.

Left un-toned Polywarmtone/ID-78, right toned in IT-8.

When it comes to safety remember HC110 was Pyrocatchin based for a few years.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

According to the MSDS for the Moersch Meritol SE-30 developer it DOES NOT contain Meritol as described in the Johnson product. In this respect it does not contain the p-phenylenediamine that is present in the Johnson chemical. Neither does it contain metol. It contains however one of the color developing agents derived from ppd.

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/msds/moersch/Moersch_SE30_Meritol_Developer.pdf

It appears that Moersch has appropriated the name Meritol to mean something different from Johnson product. So attempting to mix your own developer may not achieve what you want.

When using the Moersch product observe all the cautions and warnings in the MSDS. In addition wear nitrile gloves and safety goggles when working with the product. A single drop of the developer in your eye could cost you your sight. This can be nasty stuff.

There's a phenyldiamine compound present (as you say) so while not Meritol as such there may well be huge similarities.

Ian

 

[VaryaV]

Yes, that's it, thanks for posting, Gerald. I realized I have it stored on my work computer.

To make a long story short, it was the Moersch/Moralis images I saw using Meritol SE30 that originally sparked my enthusiasm for this developer.

I wasn't able to get it from Freestyle so I did a search for the formula on Apug and came up with many threads on it. I saw the Johnson's and thought one might be able to 'tweak' it to make it viable for paper. (I was hoping) I know you can do that with some developers. I decided to try and get it sent from Germany. I don't remember where I saw the .pdf posted originally but I did save it. I saw that the two formulas were different but I didn't know precisely what that meant. I figured someone here might be able to fill me in and/or offer suggestions. As you can see, there has been a bit of confusion surrounding the 'Johnson's' name. Not that I am not intrigued by their product, I am still indeed.

At present, I need to sit down and figure this out in lay terms and hope the
Formulary or Fisher Sci. carries everything I need to get started. My only problem is I don't know how to convert %'s to weights. (thanks to google I just figured it out.) Awesome!

Oh, and I have gotten my protective gear for mixing pretty well covered I hope, I have been watching Ron's Emulsion DVD's in the evening.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

There's a phenyldiamine compound present (as you say) so while not Meritol as such there may well be huge similarities.

Ian

Maybe yes maybe no. Changes to the substitution group on a benzene moiety can lead to very different properties. One would have to compare the redox potentials of the two developing agents.

This is a rather complicated developer containing 4 different developing agents. In fact the first listed is named incorrectly although the CAS number is correct. The term monosulfonate is left out of the name. This chemical was used by Kodak as a "balanced developing agent" in developer starters since it is found in used developer solutions as a normal product. It has low developing power and when used alone produces a warm image tone.

I agree that it is usually easier to tone a print after development rather than to use a warm tone developer. In my experience one has better control as you state.