Microdol-x replacement

Ian Grant said:

ID-11 Add ammonium chloride to ID-11 in the proportion of 20 g. per 500 cc working solution. Camera exposures should be increased by about 50 per cent and the development times are double those specified for ID-11.

ID-2 To ID-2 diluted 1 + 2 add ammonium chloride in the proportion of 5 g. per 500 cc. developer.
________________________________________________________

So adding Ammonium Chloride to ID-11/D76 is one alternative.

There is another alternative formula that I have somewhere that included NaCl instead of Bromide, it gives results very similar to Perceptol or Microdol-X. I have it here somewhere I'll try & find it later.

Ian

Click to expand...

Ian, thanks for the info on ammonium chloride as it relates to film developers. Before I read your post I was only aware of its use in rapid fixer formulas.

I found 2 unopened 500g containers of ammonium chloride in the industrial research lab that was being trashed at my old job. I guess I'm well supplied with the stuff, now.

Paul

and to a lesser degree, there were many, many justified complaints from European readers that I did not pay sufficient attention to the vast range of European products and the vast literature from Europe, particularly Germany.

Click to expand...

Instead of Microdol-X, you can try W665 (Windisch) published in 1941 and later sold for decades under Perutz W665. Perutz was also merged under Agfa-Gevaert which was formed by Agfa (Germany) and Gevaert (Belgium) in 1964.

The W665 formulae based on Ortho Phenylene Diamine:

W665:
700ml water,
65 grams Sodium Sulphite,
8 grams Ortho-phenylene Diamine,
8 grams Metol
7 grams Potassiummetabisulphite

Developing temperature 18-20 degrees C.

After the fix process you have to remove a solarisation layer with 2-3% Acetic Acid (HAc) or 2-3% Hydrochloric Acid (HCl). A very fine grained negative is comming up then.

Here my results on:
1) Rollei Pan 25 (E.I. 25)



Small part of the 35mm negative:



2) Fomapan Creative 200 (E.I. 100) on 35mm:



Best regards,

Robert

Robert, it's fantastic to see these great results with W665. I would not have guessed the results would be so sharp. Nevertheless, it's the particular pictorial quality of the gradation that is so impressive. Windisch would have recognized the aesthetic. To get just that atmospheric feeling is very difficult. I wonder how much is due to the quality of light in the scene, and how much to chemistry and technique.

Well, the Rollei Pan 25 is a kind of modified NP15 (OrWo) emulsion, made by Filmotec for the Rollei-Maco company. On 40x50cm there still was no grain to focus on with my Peak focusser on above picture.

About the (Czech) Fomapan Creative 200 film: Here is an E.M. picture of the film. Classical cubical Silverhalide crystals and Hexagonal type crystals.



On 40x50cm there is some possibility to focus on in combination with this W665 (Windisch) developer from the 35mm negative.

Compared to a Para Amino Phenol type developer (Rodinal R09) there is a huge difference. See next picture (View over the city Prague).
All examples has been made with Leica-M optics.
I have a Heiland TRD-Z densitometer to optimize every film-developer combination. The difference of W665 and e.g Perceptol 1+1 is clear to me.

Maybe this version is better:

All this seems to be a reaction to the fact that "further progress" is hampered due to the PROTECTION afforded by a copyright. It might be of use to re-visit the INTENT of a copyright - to prevent anyone from gaining profit from the unfair use of their work. I can't help but wondering about a Judge's reaction to, "Your honor, I know that (fill in the blank) and I OWN the copyright, jointly ... but he didn't DO anything..."
Probably the next from the judge would be: "How is that again..? You admitted that you BOTH own the copyright?" The minutia leading to that joint ownership would be of little interest.

A copyright in itself has value ... is offering to buy out/ compensate Steve in some way, out of the question?

One comment ... try to intimidate anyone from exercising their RIGHTS under the copyright laws by accusing them of only having the "blocking of progress" as motivation is to me a "cheap shot". Very CHEAP!

billtroop said:

By the time Microdol was being formulated, Kodak had realized that fine grain without sharpness was not a worthwhile goal.

Click to expand...

What Kodak said seems very logical, as modern films already have very fine-grain as it is. The most useful developers for todays B&W films would be those that save speed well, while providing good grain shape (not mushy) without emphasising it. D-76 remains the standard by which all others are judged by and still provides a good balance of speed, grain, sharpness and gradation. I still believe that an Elon based developer of the Xtol type is worth considering for the latest films for a fine allround yield.

Ed Sukach said:

All this seems to be a reaction to the fact that "further progress" is hampered due to the PROTECTION afforded by a copyright. It might be of use to re-visit the INTENT of a copyright - to prevent anyone from gaining profit from the unfair use of their work. I can't help but wondering about a Judge's reaction to, "Your honor, I know that (fill in the blank) and I OWN the copyright, jointly ... but he didn't DO anything..."
Probably the next from the judge would be: "How is that again..? You admitted that you BOTH own the copyright?" The minutia leading to that joint ownership would be of little interest.

A copyright in itself has value ... is offering to buy out/ compensate Steve in some way, out of the question?

One comment ... try to intimidate anyone from exercising their RIGHTS under the copyright laws by accusing them of only having the "blocking of progress" as motivation is to me a "cheap shot". Very CHEAP!

Click to expand...

Before I got to your post, I was thinking on the exact same lines. Playing Judge Judy, as it were.

Pick a new title. Problem solved. Now, let's get back to the intent of this thread.

Barry Thornton's favorite commercial developer was Perceptol diluted, IIRC, 1:2. Maybe three. So basically you had D-23 with a smidge of salt.

Ed, you always make good points.

You know- this site and others proves that there remains a sizable core of people who are committed to silver-based image making for artistic reasons- commited to what is fast becoming a type of specialty art supplies.

Problem is- the manufacturers of these specialty art supplies are based on economies of scale from a time when these materials were used for snapshots, and wedding photogs, and newspapers, and scientists, etc etc etc- that time is gone.

I would love to see a new FDC that approaches these techniques solely from the perspective of the remaining user of these material- the artist- and is wholly geared toward the new reality:

-exploring in depth the materials from the smaller manufactuers who have stated thier long term commitment silver image making...

-and: exploring every possible approach to home-crafted materials or starting points for the aspiring niche "cottage-scale" manufacturer-

What could be better that having PE and his emulsion magic involved?...

I say a new book for a new reality- "The Silver Image-Makers Cookbook"

ghost said:

Ed, you always make good points.

You know- this site and others proves that there remains a sizable core of people who are committed to silver-based image making for artistic reasons- commited to what is fast becoming a type of specialty art supplies.

Problem is- the manufacturers of these specialty art supplies are based on economies of scale from a time when these materials were used for snapshots, and wedding photogs, and newspapers, and scientists, etc etc etc- that time is gone.

I would love to see a new FDC that approaches these techniques solely from the perspective of the remaining user of these material- the artist- and is wholly geared toward the new reality:

-exploring in depth the materials from the smaller manufactuers who have stated thier long term commitment silver image making...

-and: exploring every possible approach to home-crafted materials or starting points for the aspiring niche "cottage-scale" manufacturer-

What could be better that having PE and his emulsion magic involved?...

I say a new book for a new reality- "The Silver Image-Makers Cookbook"

Click to expand...

Quick! Copyright the title, ghost! Oh, wait, we don't need more petty strife in our little world, do we? Or, "The Film & Paper Developer Cookbook." My, wasn't that easy?

Excellent thoughts, ghost. I realize, for instance, that PE spent most of his Kodak life working with color, but how many people are going to mix their own color developers these days? Even shipping those chemicals is becoming problematical what with Hazmat and security. (Be very afraid of that CD-4!) Some reversal formulas and notes wouldn't hurt, but again, we are talking a small fraction of a small fraction of photographers.

I really like the idea of going more into the 'how do you think your way through making a new formula'. For color, and given space (and mindshare) limitations, I'd say we'd have to focus on information that could not be had anywhere else, even if that means excluding a lot of material we'd ideally like to cover.

Bill,

It sounds as though you could be on your way to a thousand pages.

Tom.

Here the same scene, made on Rollei ATP1.1 (Advanced Technical Pan ) film, developed in RLC (a low contrast document developer). E.I. 20

>It sounds as though you could be on your way to a thousand pages.

Tom, that's just the problem. Neither of us has enough years to write a thousand good pages. I can't speak for any other writer, but it took fifteen years, on and off, to get FDC to the level it is. The reader shouldn't be aware of this effort - - the whole goal is to make it all seem like it was easy. But there isn't a sentence in the book that hasn't been revised a few dozen times. Stepping back, keeping objectivity -- these are problems all technical writers face. The problems are magnified if your goal is to write a popular technical book. A book purely for scientists can be written with less effort. How do you keep the reader's attention? How do you avoid droning? Condescension? Pompousness? Dullness? How do you make sure that everything you say can only be read one way, to avoid ambiguity? And of course, how do you ensure that there are no errors? A few writers can do this on a few drafts. I'm not one of them. I go over things sometimes a hundred times.

It's for all of these reasons that -- for me -- it isn't conceivable to start from scratch. I can't do it without a basis. And I certainly can't try to restate a thousand things I've already spent my entire adult life expressing the best I could - - - to avoid infringing on an accidental copyright holder who did not contribute a word to the book though he was a fabulous sounding board and lots of fun to work with. (I very enthusiastically recommend Steve's workshops. His energy and dedication are phenomenal.)

There are other problems: we don't any longer have a publisher. In some ways, that doesn't particularly bother me. All the editing and all the production work on FDC, including typesetting, I did myself -- and Focal acknowledged that it was the best designed, best produced book they had ever published. So self-publishing doesn't hold any fears for me in that respect. But it's still a huge task. Print-on-demand is not high quality enough, and is too expensive. That means a few thousand copies have to be printed offset. Who stores them? Who distributes them? Who sells them? There is the faint possibility, with self-publishing, that one could actually make some money back from the book. By contrast, publishing with a conventional publisher, the return on investment is low: FDC was Focal's best-selling book on b/w technique. Over ten years, I don't think I got as much as $10G back in royalties. In other words, you can't make a living out of this in any conventional sense.

What I think we can realistically do is take FDC1 as a basis, revise it, and intelligently add about 200 pages of new material - - which would probably take a year, perhaps two, of pretty full-time work.

It's up to Steve.

>What's his incentive for blocking progress?

We don't know. I suspect, in a way, he's more emotionally invested in FDC even than I am. On the other hand, he doesn't even know what's in the book - - his head just doesn't work that way. Just to give you an example, in 2005, he asked me indignantly why we didn't have the formula for XTOL in FDC. It took some convincing to persuade him that we'd spent a lot of time getting it in and confirming from its formulators that what we had really was the formula. Anything technical goes in ear and out the other. To give another example, there's a quotation in FDC, attributed to Grant Haist, that says something like, 'If you've got too much fog, you've got too much alkali.' In DCB3, he attributes that remark to me, not Haist. Thanks, Steve, but . . . . . why don't you actually read the book your name is on?

The Steve I knew cared ardently for photography and wouldn't have let anything get in the way of a book about it - - not even himself. I know life hasn't been easy for him the past few years. He really wanted to edit a photo magazine, but his stints at Photovision and Focus were disastrous. Has he grown bitter? I don't know. I just want to get on with my book -- and I think I should have a right to. And, not to be melodramatic about it, time is running out. Health and enthusiasm are finite resources.

Bill,

Do you currently have an idea of how you'll go about adding the various sections?

Tom.

Bill (and Steve, if you are lurking). I don't have a dog in your fight, other than the sadness in seeing such good works being derailed. The photo public will be the big loser.

1. You repeatedly mention that Steve did not contribute to the FDC. Yet, his name is on the copyright. Obviously, you made a decision back then and you thought it was a good decision. You have to live with that. You can't change that reality, so as the Buddha taught us, you need to change your perspective or create a new reality.

2. I think, especially in this day and age and with the narrow customer base for a new FDC (F&PDC?) self-publishing is the way to go. Whether print on demand or print a thousand at a time, the flexibility and profits are so much greater. Even Amazon will list a self-published book. I can't imagine quality being an issue. Blurb.com even has "quality paper" and hard cover options. And this will allow errata to be inserted as found, which IIRC the original book had a fair amount of.

3. Is Steve completely intransigent? Have you sweetened the pot in any way? A flat fee? A free copy of the book? Joking, joking.

4. How about binding arbitration? It could be anything from a trusted mutually known party to an arbitrator or a lawyer. Your situation is simple and I can't imagine costing more than a few hundred dollars a piece for a fair settlement.

Mi tres centavos,

>Do you currently have an idea of how you'll go about adding the various sections?

To be absolutely, totally, 100% honest . . . . no.

Some things are obvious. For example, stop baths, fixing, washing, and image permanence would probably all be separate chapters because they would have to be considerably expanded, not least because of including papers. A chapter on paper developers would probably come right after the last chapter on film developers. (Indeed, that is how I originally structured the book, when it was much, much longer.)

Paul, all your points are good. I'll take them in turn, apologizing for the length.

1. Around that time, I signed two contracts, one with Focal, one with Adobe, and in each case I said to myself, I'm not going to let a lawyer look at these. I'm happy with these people, nothing can go wrong, I don't want a lawyer messing around. Dumb move! Clearly, it was a bad idea to let Focal have the copyright. Technically speaking, while Focal held the copyright, it could fire both of us at will, and did, indeed, decide to fire Steve from the book. BUT - - the minute Focal returned copyright, they were legally obligated to return it equally to the two authors of record, regardless of any other facts in the matter. At the moment, my arrangement with Focal is that they will continue to sell FDC until I advise them that another edition is in print. Astonishingly enough, its sales rank is even better today: #36,693 versus #107,200 for DCB3. These rankings make no sense to me and are completely unexpected. FDC is, after all, 11 years old.

As to the rest of this point, Paul, there are many choices. I could simply let the book go. I've done almost all I can do! I've got plenty of other things to do -- writing fiction, designing type, classical piano -- these things take time! I've done my bit for photography! Only - - I haven't done everything I could do with Ron. I can't ask Ron to go into a legally dicey situation even if it's clear that I will accept all the legal burdens, as I am willing to do. Or who knows? Maybe with the issues aired like this, here, Ron won't feel so anxious about them? I don't know. I know what I'm scared of -- committing that much time. I think what concerns Ron is not committing time, but the fear of some legal thing happening which would waste the effort and involve him in contentious issues that he has no need to be involved in.

2. Yes, self-publishing is a good option in this case, I think. Mainly because I get the sense that we can communicate with nearly everyone who would want to buy the book. If Formulary, for example, sold it - - what more would you really need? That's assuming that Formulary was willing to take the various risks onboard. I worry about quality more than you do. For example, I insisted, every time FDC was printed, that the printer image at 2400 dpi rather than 1200. They had never done this for Focal Press before. I haven't supervised a reprint for a few years now, and they are reprinting in smaller quantities, so I don't know what the latest copies are like. I have, by the way, offered to Focal Press to update FDC without changing the page count and make the one or two corrections that have emerged since we last changed anything, but they have not so far taken me up on the offer. Everyone who was involved with the book in the beginning has since left.

3. >Have you sweetened the pot in any way?

We offered him cash. Since Steve is always famously short of cash and hasn't even made an effort to up the ante, he must feel very strongly about the issue. Maybe he's harbored a secret resentment all these years? I don't know. We offered him some money. He hasn't made any kind of counteroffer. He's written back twice.

a. "You do not have my permission to use any of the co-jointly owned copyright material from our book, The Film Developing Cookbook."

b. "You do not have my permission to use the title nor any copyrighted material in the Film Developing Cookbook."

Each of these simple sentences contains an annoying mistake which illustrates why I could not use a single sentence that he presented to me for FDC. In a, 'co-jointly owned', you can co-own, or you can jointly own -- they both mean the same thing -- but you can't do both at once. In b, nor should be or. Small things, but there are no grammatical or usage errors in FDC and I am proud of the quality of the writing there, which is all mine. Steve is a wonderful photographer and a phenomenal teacher, and, when he's at his best, a fabulous and inspiring personality to be around. But the written language is not his strong point.

I don't know what else we can offer. Steve? We know you're there - - would you like to tell us just what it is you want?

4. I am perfectly willing to go to a binding arbitration. How about you, Steve?

Bill, I think the only realistic solution is......................Thunderdome! "Only one walks out."

Technical Film/ German Developer

Maybe Steve A's concern is the new book will lower royalties from the old book ?...I can appreciate not wanting to screw up an income stream...



Back to thread topic- RobertV- please consider writing a complete article about the methods and great results you are getting from this developer with tech films...

Is this a solvent developer?

Also- what is a "solarization layer" and why would it need removed?

>I can appreciate not wanting to screw up an income stream...

Annual royalties for FDC have been under $500 a year for at least the past couple of years - - so what difference could it make?

>Back to thread topic

I too want to hear more about Robert V's work. These photos are incredible. It is extremely difficult to take black and white scenes of these great European scenes and capture such a palpable feeling of the atmosphere. If the pictures look this good on the web, they must be most impressive when you actually see the prints. I am also very impressed by the way he tries out different films/techniques on the same scene. This is the kind of illustration I would have liked to see in FDC2.

The original pictures posted by Robert V used an o-phenylene diamine type developer. These and p-phenylene diamine developers were quite popular about 50 - 100 years ago, but were found to be less stable than MQ developers, slower in development rate, and tended to cause more dermatitis or other medical problems.

IDK what development times Robert used, but I would be interested to know what they were. These developers were all excellent. But, in the mean-time, work at Kodak and elsewhere solved most of the problems I cited here, but the newer developers were never used to any significant extent. This subject is one that could be covered in an updated FDC along with the material Bill has mentioned above. Several high quality developers come to my mind from the last B&W work being done at EK. They might be able to move quality (speed, grain and sharpness with good tone scale) quite a bit forward.

I view the matter between Bill and Steve to be theirs to resolve amicably between them. I view it as a disagreement between two people that I respect and who's works I have enjoyed reading. A good bit of this back and forth is new to me, as Bill noted above. I would welcome any working agreement that Bill and Steve are able to hammer out. In the mean time, I will remain silent in the interests of all concerned and remain interested in the thread topic. The answer is that there is a lot that can be done.

One last note. In deference to my associates at Kodak, I am probably not the best person to be doing any of this work, but I am the only one willing to do it. Passing on this knowldege is not being considered by anyone at EK AFAIK. In fact, if you look at things historically, few books have been published by any of the major film manufacturers. There is virtually no interest at all in this type of work.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

One last note. In deference to my associates at Kodak, I am probably not the best person to be doing any of this work, but I am the only one willing to do it. Passing on this knowldege is not being considered by anyone at EK AFAIK. In fact, if you look at things historically, few books have been published by any of the major film manufacturers. There is virtually no interest at all in this type of work.

PE

Click to expand...

Would you attribute an apparent lack of interest to concerns about protecting trade secrets?

Tom.

Tom Kershaw said:

Would you attribute an apparent lack of interest to concerns about protecting trade secrets?

Tom.

Click to expand...

No.

Or probably not, depending on person asked. Some don't care and some are quite angry over the layoffs.

We are retired. This is too much like working and with very little return as seen in Bill's post.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

One last note. In deference to my associates at Kodak, I am probably not the best person to be doing any of this work, but I am the only one willing to do it. Passing on this knowldege is not being considered by anyone at EK AFAIK. In fact, if you look at things historically, few books have been published by any of the major film manufacturers. There is virtually no interest at all in this type of work.

PE

Click to expand...

I've often reflected on the contributions you and Grant Haist have made. It will be tough on us once you are "gone." Hopefully there is plenty of film and no longer available papers up there!

Have you communicated with Grant lately?

Photo Engineer said:

No.

Or probably not, depending on person asked. Some don't care and some are quite angry over the layoffs.

We are retired. This is too much like working and with very little return as seen in Bill's post.

PE

Click to expand...

From my own selfish point of view having up-to-date, accurate photography texts is tremendously important in terms of continuing and promoting analog photography.

More recent layoffs or those made in the 1980s?

Tom.