Metol-phosphate "acutance" developer of Rudolf Jarai

[Pixophrenic]

Pixophrenic submitted a new resource:

Metol-phosphate "acutance" developer of Rudolf Jarai - a lesser known alternative acutance developer

A film developer published by a Hungarian photographer Rudolf Jarai in the 1950s. Belongs to the category of "acutance" developers, using low metol concentration at relatively high alkalinity. Intended for moderate to low sensitivity films (up to ISO 100).

Water…………………………………………750 ml

Metol………………………………………….4.0 g

Sodium sulfite anhydrous…………………..100 g

Tri-sodium phosphate (TSP)………………..80 g

Sodium chloride……………………………...16 g

Potassium bromide…………………………..0.2 g

Water to 1 liter.

Usage:...

Read more about this resource...

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Does this have more micro-contrast than dilute Rodinal?

 

[Pixophrenic]

If you could tell me how to devise a test to compare, I might be able to say. Off my head, it should be close.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

If you could tell me how to devise a test to compare, I might be able to say. Off my head, it should be close.

I can't answer your query other than to suggest using various dilutions, times, and agitation methods for both. If they are very similar then it's likely a microscope is needed to see the differences.

 

[Photo Engineer]

With a high pH developer like this, I doubt that it would have any significant advantage with today's high Iodide films.

PE

 

[Pixophrenic]

With a high pH developer like this, I doubt that it would have any significant advantage with today's high Iodide films.

PE

What do you mean by "advantage"? Advantage over what? Is FP4 a high iodide emulsion? It seems to respond well.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Advantage over any other developer now in production, and yes, most modern films run over 3% Iodide compared to older films which were generally under that.

PE

 

[Pixophrenic]

Advantage over any other developer now in production, and yes, most modern films run over 3% Iodide compared to older films which were generally under that.

PE

With all due respect, you are being too cryptic. Does "in production" mean Kodak/Ilford, other European vendors, Photographer's Formulary, or anything else? Most of the formulas here do not claim any advantage over anything in production, and neither was I. It is a historically interesting acutance developer, easy to make, no hard to get components. You said it yourself that practice always trumps theory, so this could be a case in point.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, the Formulary for example, does not make fiilm. They only make processing solutions. So, your comments are cryptic to me. Most modern films respond well to current, in-force developers, but older formulas do not. You must understand that there are families of films being released to the public.

PE

 

[Pixophrenic]

With all due respect, PE, I do not understand what you are trying to do here. We already had this conversation, with you participating,
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/film-categories-which-are-retro-and-which-are-not.147416/
and it ended up with me accidentally finding this info in a "cookbook".
You may be limited by your NDA to give informative answers online, I get it. On my side, I would not be posting this formula if I thought it was worthless.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have no NDA to worry about now, so I can post what I know. In almost every case though, I can not show data as I turned it all in when I left Kodak.

I've said before that there is no magic bullet. That said, I also add - use what works for you. Thus, I assume you have data to support the fact that this developer is very good with a wide variety of films currently sold on the market. Cookbooks are no more reliable than internet posts unless accompanied by data. I'm merely pointing out that there is no comparable data when for example, your reference says that speed is increased. If there is an increase in contrast, it can often be mistakenly judged to be a speed increase.

Is there any supporting data for this, or do you just have a page in a cookbook that says it is so? I am asking for more information, but sadly I cannot show any. I no longer have any to show.

That is where I am coming from.

PE

 

[Pixophrenic]

I have no NDA to worry about now, so I can post what I know. In almost every case though, I can not show data as I turned it all in when I left Kodak.

I've said before that there is no magic bullet. That said, I also add - use what works for you. Thus, I assume you have data to support the fact that this developer is very good with a wide variety of films currently sold on the market. Cookbooks are no more reliable than internet posts unless accompanied by data. I'm merely pointing out that there is no comparable data when for example, your reference says that speed is increased. If there is an increase in contrast, it can often be mistakenly judged to be a speed increase.

Is there any supporting data for this, or do you just have a page in a cookbook that says it is so? I am asking for more information, but sadly I cannot show any. I no longer have any to show.

That is where I am coming from.

PE

I am glad we have an understanding. You might have noticed that my interest is primarily in preserving historically original developers, Jean Fage's, Harvey's Panthermic to name a few. for their sometimes unique principles that, as I strongly believe, should not be lost even if they were superseded by "superior" ones. When you are asking for more information, frankly, I do not know how to present it correctly. At some point I may have to involve a digital device to present an image on the web and this introduces a bias. So, I am asking to try it out with your favorite film and decide for yourself. I am fully aware that it may not work for all films, but some photographers may appreciate the interesting effects this particular formula has to offer. Personally, I do not quite understand the pervasive interest in Rodinal, but as it does not go away, there may be something in it beyond comprehension, and I accept it.

 

[pentaxuser]

Pixophrenic, can I ask for clarification on a couple of points:

1. Is 1:10 the equivalent of 1+10 and what is the minimum stock level for roll films? I'd assume it is less than 22mls because at one part stock plus 10 parts water a 240 ml tank such as a Jobo 135 tank will only have 22mls of stock.
2. Where does the information in the "Usage Section" come from i.e. what is the source and when was this written?
3. Is there any information on what the effect on speed might be on film speeds above 100

A couple of comments now: Given the nature of this developer, the comment on it producing a half stop increase in speed surprised me but maybe this is covered by the source

The development times are particularly long by current developer standards, especially at 1:30, compared to Rodinal times. Other than a claimed half a stop speed increase there does not appear to be any other countervailing advantages over Rodinal but I may have missed what they are.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Photo Engineer]

I am glad we have an understanding. You might have noticed that my interest is primarily in preserving historically original developers, Jean Fage's, Harvey's Panthermic to name a few. for their sometimes unique principles that, as I strongly believe, should not be lost even if they were superseded by "superior" ones. When you are asking for more information, frankly, I do not know how to present it correctly. At some point I may have to involve a digital device to present an image on the web and this introduces a bias. So, I am asking to try it out with your favorite film and decide for yourself. I am fully aware that it may not work for all films, but some photographers may appreciate the interesting effects this particular formula has to offer. Personally, I do not quite understand the pervasive interest in Rodinal, but as it does not go away, there may be something in it beyond comprehension, and I accept it.

Fair answer. Thanks.

PE

 

[Pixophrenic]

Pixophrenic, can I ask for clarification on a couple of points:

1. Is 1:10 the equivalent of 1+10 and what is the minimum stock level for roll films? I'd assume it is less than 22mls because at one part stock plus 10 parts water a 240 ml tank such as a Jobo 135 tank will only have 22mls of stock.
2. Where does the information in the "Usage Section" come from i.e. what is the source and when was this written?
3. Is there any information on what the effect on speed might be on film speeds above 100

A couple of comments now: Given the nature of this developer, the comment on it producing a half stop increase in speed surprised me but maybe this is covered by the source

The development times are particularly long by current developer standards, especially at 1:30, compared to Rodinal times. Other than a claimed half a stop speed increase there does not appear to be any other countervailing advantages over Rodinal but I may have missed what they are.

Thanks

pentaxuser

1. 1:10 means 25 ml of concentrate plus 225 ml water, 1:20 means 12.5 ml plus 240 ml water for one 135 film in Paterson system 4 tank. I am sorry if there is any confusion.
2. All I have is that it was in the Hungarian journal FOTÓ in 1957, no original text. Publication of this journal stopped in 1990 and I could not find an online archive.
3. My tests with Kentmere 400 show that 1:10 dilution needs 45 min to reach box speed, dilution 1:20 does not produce box speed even in 1 hour at 20 degrees Celsius. In both cases negatives were excessively soft.

Rudolf Jarai is an actual photographer and quite a few of his impressive images are online:
https://artportal.hu/lexikon-muvesz/jarai-rudolf-658/
http://maimanohaz.blog.hu/2012/10/12/foto-kalendarium_jarai_rudolf_1913

About the speed increase. I noticed how sensitive you are to the claims of speed increase (no pun intended). This may be an illusion coming from a certain characteristic curve, no more. Respectfully, I disagree that the times are excessively long, looking at the table of Tetenal Paranol (a clone of Rodinal), at 1:50 dilution times are often into the 40 min range. IMO, the advantage of Jarai developer is that its components are easy to source, it does not seem to be critically dependent on reagent quality, no special preparation technique needed as with Rodinal, no outright harmful components except metol in small quantity, concentrated solution is reasonably stable in tightly closed vessels, and finally, a long life concentrate can be made by keeping metol separately as a 3% solution in 0.5% metabisulfite. Distilled water is now readily available, at least in G7 countries. But of course, tastes differ.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for comprehensive reply

pentaxuser