Metol problem

[David Allen]

Dear All,

Maybe my original post was too specific - so to everyone using Metol:

I have been using Barry Thornton's Two-Bath developer for more than a decade.

1 litre was always good for at least 15 films and kept for at least 6 months.

I have always used a pre-soak so that Bath A does not become full of the dye.

Recently, both myself and a former pupil have been experiencing Bath A turning a mid grey colour after only 4 - 5 films and after only a couple of months.

So, finally to my question, the only thing that has changed is that both our recent batches of Metol were not white but a light tan colour. Could this be the cause of the problem?

Many thanks for your help,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[zanxion72]

What you see, could be silver nitrate turning grayish black (in Sodium metaborate). Are you storing the solutions in a dark and cool place? It is usually light (and the presence of some organics) that causes this.

 

[David Allen]

Both Bath A and B are mixed with distilled water and stored in chemist's dark brown glass bottles in a cool cupboard in the darkroom.

My former pupil also mixes Bath A and B with distilled water and stores them in chemist's dark brown glass bottles in a cupboard at room temperature.

Bath B has the Sodium Metaborate and this slowly turns a light yellow colour over 15 films which has always been normal and does not effect the effectiveness of the two-bath.

It is principally Bath A with Sodium Sulfite
 and Metol that is turning grey unusually quickly and after only a limited number of films. This is something that has only started to happen since we both received Metol that was not a pure white colour but rather a light tan colour.

Thanks for your thoughts.

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Anon Ymous]

I've seen something like that happening to me with homebrew Perceptol. The solution turned murky and gray - tan after the first use. Eventually, it settled down and made a precipitate in the bottle. Using the same, most definitely not white Metol, I've also made Adox Borax MQ, which I used replenished, but never experienced such cloudiness with it. I suspect it is Metol related, perhaps an oxidised form? In the case of the Adox developer, Hydroquinone probably helps get rid of it.

 

[Peter Schrager]

The real question is whether it still works or not to make negatives....does it??

 

[Rudeofus]

One thing you could try is find out whether it has something to do with water hardness, i.e. an impurity in your Metol forming a precipitate with Calcium/Magnesium ions over time. Take a small beaker of this cloudy developer and see what a decent sequestering agent does to it.

 

[koraks]

What you see, could be silver nitrate turning grayish black (in Sodium metaborate). Are you storing the solutions in a dark and cool place? It is usually light (and the presence of some organics) that causes this.

No silver nitrate is formed during processing film.

 

[David Allen]

Bump

 

[David Allen]

Just as a follow up should this be of use to others.

I talked to several other photographers here in Germany who make their own developer and all had experienced the same problems with dramatically reduced capacity from the light tan coloured Metol from the same supplier. All said that it worked fine at first but then quickly discoloured to a point where they did not want to use it for fear of ruining their films.

One of the people I talked to was Wolfgang Moersch (https://www.moersch-photochemie.de/content/news) who makes and sells a wide range of interesting products. He had tried the discoloured developer and found that "the only directly visible disadvantage is the grey colour of the solution and a dark, uncomfortable precipitation at the bottom of the bottle. Such solutions are still effective, but I cannot guarantee that exactly the same densities will occur during film development" and this pretty much mirrored my own experience.

I then sourced some Metol from a supplier in Poland and that was white and the developer worked as expected and retained the capacity for 15 films and only had the expected slight discolouration by the last batch of films.

I then contacted my usually reliable and competitively priced chemical supplier (Fototechnik Suvatlar in Hamburg whose price list you can see here: http://moersch-photochemie.de/moersch/webroot/files/Preisliste_online_2018final.pdf) and they agreed that the light tan Metol was substandard and confirmed that they had, after I had purchased my last 50g of Metol, changed to another source.

They then supplied me with new Metol for free and this was white in colour as normal. Subsequently, my former pupil also contacted them and they also supplied him with new Metol free of charge. So heads up to Fototechnik Suvatlar for very good customer service.

Currently, my latest batch of Barry Thornton's Two-Bath has now been used for 8 rolls and remains, after nearly two months, pretty clear with only the usual slight change in colour.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[koraks]

Is it possible to post photos of the different batches of metol for reference?
FYI I have two small stocks of metol here; one is a fine powder tan in color sourced from Eastern Europe (further providence unknown). The other is in the firm of tiny white flakes, sourced from a Dutch supplier. I have noticed no difference in activity, but I don't run densitometry tests. Neither have I noticed any precipitates or reduced developer lifetime, so I wonder if my tan colored powder is akin to your bad batch or not.

 

[Martin Rickards]

I don't think that there is an internationally recognised standard for metol pro photo.Slight discolouration is fairly normal for organic chemicals referred to as technically pure.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Just as a follow up should this be of use to others.

I talked to several other photographers here in Germany who make their own developer and all had experienced the same problems with dramatically reduced capacity from the light tan coloured Metol from the same supplier. All said that it worked fine at first but then quickly discoloured to a point where they did not want to use it for fear of ruining their films.

One of the people I talked to was Wolfgang Moersch (https://www.moersch-photochemie.de/content/news) who makes and sells a wide range of interesting products. He had tried the discoloured developer and found that "the only directly visible disadvantage is the grey colour of the solution and a dark, uncomfortable precipitation at the bottom of the bottle. Such solutions are still effective, but I cannot guarantee that exactly the same densities will occur during film development" and this pretty much mirrored my own experience.

I then sourced some Metol from a supplier in Poland and that was white and the developer worked as expected and retained the capacity for 15 films and only had the expected slight discolouration by the last batch of films.

I then contacted my usually reliable and competitively priced chemical supplier (Fototechnik Suvatlar in Hamburg whose price list you can see here: http://moersch-photochemie.de/moersch/webroot/files/Preisliste_online_2018final.pdf) and they agreed that the light tan Metol was substandard and confirmed that they had, after I had purchased my last 50g of Metol, changed to another source.

They then supplied me with new Metol for free and this was white in colour as normal. Subsequently, my former pupil also contacted them and they also supplied him with new Metol free of charge. So heads up to Fototechnik Suvatlar for very good customer service.

Currently, my latest batch of Barry Thornton's Two-Bath has now been used for 8 rolls and remains, after nearly two months, pretty clear with only the usual slight change in colour.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

+1 on the customer support with Suvatlar even though I didn't have any problems with their Metol.

 

[David Allen]

I don't think that there is an internationally recognised standard for metol pro photo.Slight discolouration is fairly normal for organic chemicals referred to as technically pure.

All I can say is that for over over 40 years when I have purchased chemicals such as Metol, Sodium Sulphite and Sodium Metaborate they have always been white.

The first and only time I have had a problem with Barry Thornton's Two-Bath developer was when I received the Metol with a light tan colour.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[larfe]

This is interesting, I've always thought metol was very dark brown in color since it was what I was getting... Until the last batch I got, a pair of kilos, very white and powdery, easy to dilute. A delight

 

[iakustov]

The portion of metol I bought recently was grey. I have used it for paper developers with no issues.

 

[trendland]

This is interesting, I've always thought metol was very dark brown in color since it was what I was getting... Until the last batch I got, a pair of kilos, very white and powdery, easy to dilute. A delight

Some kilos of metol? What have you paid for?

with regards

PS : I feel still hungry for metol reading your post.............grrr!

 

[trendland]

My guess is the following : A color cast of the metol powder must not indicate Oxidation!
(it has normaly to do with the grade of purity = 99,99%, 99%, 97%, 95% !)
But I can imagine it is oxidation - then is it in relation of the volume of powder particles!
So it can have an impact = 94% metol but concerning massive Oxidation of powder = 81%?
with regards

PS : Inform your local Sheriffs Departement if the powder you ordered via eBay does not work!

......better you call your Sheriff before the Sheriff is on the way !

 

[darkroommike]

From my reading on Barry Thornton's developer and my own experiences with Diafine, you shouldn't use a presoak with two part developers. using a presoak reduces the amount of Part A that the film emulsion can "take up" since the gelatin emulsion is already saturated with water. the dye is harmless and the color fades in the bottle.

 

[David Allen]

From my reading on Barry Thornton's developer and my own experiences with Diafine, you shouldn't use a presoak with two part developers. using a presoak reduces the amount of Part A that the film emulsion can "take up" since the gelatin emulsion is already saturated with water. the dye is harmless and the color fades in the bottle.

My god, do we have to go down this uniformed route yet again?

The purpose of my original post was to flag up that, for me and other photographers that I know, a tan coloured Metol had produced problems.

A pre-soak was not the question. There are thousands of photographers and manufacturers that are for or against a pre-soak.

My personal experience, over some 50 years experience is that, when and only when people have development problems - especially with 35mm film - that the introduction of a pre-soak ALWAYS solves their problems with development drag or uneven development or whatever problem is that they have.

Yes the dye itself is relatively harmless but, after 6 hours looking for a good motive, do you really want to put your hard won mages into a dodgy looking developer?

Finally, please think about your argument that the film will be "emulsion is already saturated with water". How much do yo think that this will be? - the film is full with 1 litre of pre-wash or 0000,001 water???? so there is no room for the developer. - ha ha ha..

This is just lazy thinking.

I am firmly of the idea that what works is the answer to all our photographic problems

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[john_s]

From my reading on Barry Thornton's developer and my own experiences with Diafine, you shouldn't use a presoak with two part developers. using a presoak reduces the amount of Part A that the film emulsion can "take up" since the gelatin emulsion is already saturated with water. the dye is harmless and the color fades in the bottle.

One difference, compared to Diafine, is that the first bath of Thornton two bath developer procedure is a complete developer and develops quite adequately without any need for the second bath. The second bath just brings up the lower densities without much effect on the higher ones, giving another level of control.

 

[mshchem]

First you have admit you have a problem. Good job! Now start buying the super high quality XTOL made for Kodak Alaris by TETENAL in Germany. Do you really want to risk your precious film with some China Meth Lab Metol?

Once Kodak Rochester, Agfa, others, quit making photo chemicals (or having someone else make it to their specification) it's hard to find good stuff.

This could be an opportunity for Tetenal/Adox, sell fine chemicals made in countries that allow their citizens to choose their own government.

The XTOL Tetenal makes is way cleaner that the old Kodak version.

 

[darkroommike]

My god, do we have to go down this uniformed route yet again?

The purpose of my original post was to flag up that, for me and other photographers that I know, a tan coloured Metol had produced problems.

A pre-soak was not the question. There are thousands of photographers and manufacturers that are for or against a pre-soak.

My personal experience, over some 50 years experience is that, when and only when people have development problems - especially with 35mm film - that the introduction of a pre-soak ALWAYS solves their problems with development drag or uneven development or whatever problem is that they have.

Yes the dye itself is relatively harmless but, after 6 hours looking for a good motive, do you really want to put your hard won mages into a dodgy looking developer?

Finally, please think about your argument that the film will be "emulsion is already saturated with water". How much do yo think that this will be? - the film is full with 1 litre of pre-wash or 0000,001 water???? so there is no room for the developer. - ha ha ha..

This is just lazy thinking.

I am firmly of the idea that what works is the answer to all our photographic problems

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

I'm not sure why you THINK my opinion is uninformed. But OK. Your previous metol might have been strong enough that your improper application still worked, sort of, since Part A of the Thornton "soup" is a pretty good developer on it's own. Your new metol may be an issue. No need to invoke the name of the deity.

 

[David Allen]

I'm not sure why you THINK my opinion is uninformed. But OK. Your previous metol might have been strong enough that your improper application still worked, sort of, since Part A of the Thornton "soup" is a pretty good developer on it's own. Your new metol may be an issue. No need to invoke the name of the deity.

The reason that I think your opinion is uninformed is that, if you try Barry Thornton's Two-Bath developer with a pre-soak (this has been my only developer for more than a decade and I always use a pre-soak) you would observe that your previous statement of using a presoak reduces the amount of Part A that the film emulsion can "take up" since the gelatin emulsion is already saturated with water does not accurately reflect what actually happens in reality. You suggest that the pre-soak will reduce the efficacy of the developer. However, my experience is that this is not the case. My negatives are always of a consistently high quality and give me the results that suit my needs. Therefore, my use of a pre-soak is not an improper application because it works perfectly for me.

Finally, I am not arguing here about whether anyone should use a pre-soak or not - that is a matter of choice for each photographer and there have been thousands of posts with people saying they are for and against using a pre-soak with a huge range of reasons.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de