Microdol-x replacement

[Photo Engineer]

.

More recent layoffs or those made in the 1980s?

Tom.

All of them from 1988 onward.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

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?

I have been trying to contact him for almost exactly 1 year. He has 3 homes for summer, fall and winter. This last week, his winter home phone in Fla was disconnected and no longer in use. This may mean that he is on vacation (as I know he had planned one which was cancelled due to an illness) or it may mean that he is on his way to Rochester. IDK.

You have to remember that he is 87, has had a very severe stroke and has a bit of a problem getting around.

What I do know is that he was working on at least 2 books when he retired from Kodak, but things happen. His notes exist, but I have no idea what state they are in. My last visit to his home, he gave me a pile of his personal memorabilia and his unprocessed EPP from the last work he did.

I read a comment you made earlier Paul that I spent a lot of time in color. Actually, I spent about 15 years in color product development and about 15 years in emulsion process automation and scaling. All emulsions start out B&W for test purposes. I've worked with X-Ray, color and B&W products during that time. So, I have moved around and gained an eclectic combination of all aspects of Kodak work, even emulsions. A friend of mine recently called said that although I was not primarily an emulsion maker, I was a comparitive emulsionologist.

I've seen a lot and learned a lot. Grant was one of my big helpers. I taught him color and he taught me B&W.

PE

 

[RobertV]

@ Bill: I have sent you a PM.

@ Ghost: Indeed W665 is based on Ortho Phenylenediamine, an ultra fine grain developer from Hans Windisch (1941) where the Ortho version is less toxid then the Para version (like in Sease III) and this Ortho gives no stain of any importance on the film and your skin.


MQ (Metol/Hydroquinone) : Well in the W665 is also used Metol.

About the ATP (Advance Technical Pan) : This Scientific film from the Rollei-Maco comapny has to be tamed in contrast with a low contrast Document developer. The film is available in 35mm and 120 roll film now.
It has about the same problems in handling like the Kodak TP has.

Here some logD curves worked out with RLC:
Dead Link Removed

The best fitting curve I found out with E.I. 20 and RLC 1+5 dilution, 6:00 minutes.


Best regards,

Robert

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

@ Bill: I have sent you a PM.

@ Ghost: Indeed W665 is based on Ortho Phenylenediamine, an ultra fine grain developer from Hans Windisch (1941) where the Ortho version is less toxid then the Para version (like in Sease III) and this Ortho gives no stain of any importance on the film and your skin.


MQ (Metol/Hydroquinone) : Well in the W665 is also used Metol.


Best regards,

Robert

Perhaps this was the forerunner of Agfa Atomal FF. These extra fine-grain developers are at the expense of a very noticeable drop in effective film speed with reduced acuity. It`s hard to see the point of these developers with modern films.

 

[RobertV]

Well the exact formulae is published in Hans Windisch WWII "Die neue Fotoschule" 1941 Im Heering-Verlag in Harzburg:

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

Developing temperature 18-20 degrees C

In a revised version by U. Raffay (Sammlung Fotografischer Rezepte, 1992)there is only added (1,5g) Calgon or Photoplex 3 in case you are making it from tap water instead of Demi- or destilled or R.O. water.

An interesting test would be W665 (Windisch) versus Microdol-X (Kodak) with some popular slow speed B&W films like Efke 25 and Rollei Pan 25 on 35mm.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Well the exact formulae is published in Hans Windisch WWII "Die neue Fotoschule" 1941 Im Heering-Verlag in Harzburg:

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

Developing temperature 18-20 degrees C

In a revised version by U. Raffay (Sammlung Fotografischer Rezepte, 1992)there is only added (1,5g) Calgon or Photoplex 3 in case you are making it from tap water instead of Demi- or destilled or R.O. water.

An interesting test would be W665 (Windisch) versus Microdol-X (Kodak) with some popular slow speed B&W films like Efke 25 and Rollei Pan 25 on 35mm.

If your goal is to use a developer which produces the finest grain as is practicable, then that should be your choice, but it will always be at the expense of reduced film speed and reduced acutance, no matter how carefully it was formulated.

 

[RobertV]

Therefore I think this is most interested for 35mm useres and maybe small MF (6x4,5cm) only.

The effective film speed of Pan 25 is iso 32 in most developers however my example with this film in W665 has been made on iso 25 where you have still good details in de shadows.

It's a compromise whatever you are going to do but it can be a good compromise.

 

[ghost]

What is the extra layer that had to be removed that you mentioned? It this unique to this formula?

 

[RobertV]

What is the extra layer that had to be removed that you mentioned? It this unique to this formula?

I will try to translate it (from German) from the original book: "Die neue Fotoschule".

"The (W665) developing process is half physical process. The Silver is dissolved and in the same time a layer is formed. This , with the eyes, almost non-visible layer is dissolved after the fix process with a 2-3% Acetic Acid or 2-3% Hydrochloric Acid solution and a very fine grain is appearing then."

So I think this is pretty unique to this type of formula.
2-3% Acetic Acid is a regular Stop bath, so nothing very special for not trying this W665 (Windisch) developer.

If you turn the negatives to the light you can see the layer and after 1-2 minutes in the acid you can also see it's not there anymore. It looks like a kind of solarisation.

 

[nworth]

Color developing agents are sometimes used as substitutes for PPD and OPD in superfin grain formulas. Crawley FX-9 and FX-10 are examples:

Crawley FX-9 superfine grain film developer

Sodium sulfite (anh) 100 g
CD-2 7.5 g
Chlorohydroquinone 7.5 g
WTM 1 l

Develop 5 - 11 minutes
Speed increase of about 30%

Variations:

If dichroic fog appears, lower the sulfite content.

For finer grain (with a loss in film speed), decrease pH by adding sodium bisulfite.

Possibility to use with tabular grain films if diluted 1:3.

Crawley FX-10 superfine grain film developer

Sodium sulfite (anh) 100 g
CD-2 7.5 g
Hydroquinone 6 g
Borax 4 g
Boric acid 4 g
WTM 1 l

Develop 5 - 11 minutes
Speed increase of about 30%

Variations

If dichroic fog appears, lower the sulfite content.

For finer grain (with a loss in film speed), decrease pH by adding boric acid.

Possibility to use with tabular grain films if diluted 1:3.

Kodak published this formula in a patent as a superfine grain black and white developer: (I found this in another APUG post.)

CD3 or Mydochrome 6 g
Sodium Sulphite (anh) 30 g
Sodium Carbonate (anh) 30 g
Water to 1 l

Use full strength; develop for 20 mins at 20°C.
Wash 30 secs

 

[billtroop]

I'd just like to point out that the variations here, and the suggestion to use CD2 in FX 10 are not part of the original formulas, but result from talks I had with Crawley in 1997 and 1998 about how these developers might be made useful with modern films. The sulfite/boric acid suggestions are mine; the suggestion to try dilution with tabular films is GC's. These were incorporated into FDC and, without permission, into DCB3. Given how hard it is to get usable CQ, it would be hard to recommend FX 9 today. A small amount of some kind of anti-silvering agent would help with borderline films. CQ has been observed to help prevent dichroic fog and other 'stains' in super fine grain developers. But the slush you can buy today is not good enough to use for film development, and the reagent grade is incredibly expensive -- though usable for those who can afford it! (I haven't checked the price lately, but developing a roll would presumably cost something around $100.)

 

[RobertV]

(I haven't checked the price lately, but developing a roll would presumably cost something around $100.)

I was already wondering for the price of Ortho Phenylene Diamine which is about € 2,50 for making a W665 stock and therefore the main cost factor.

 

[Ian Grant]

I'd just like to point out that the variations here, and the suggestion to use CD2 in FX 10 are not part of the original formulas, but result from talks I had with Crawley in 1997 and 1998 about how these developers might be made useful with modern films.

Totally untrue. The suggestion to use "or other di-ethyl paraphenylene diamine instead of Genochrome" is in the original article and formulae published by Crawley in the BJP 27th January 1961, Crawley's comment would include CD2.. Later in the 70's Crawley suggested using CD2 in the two formulae.

 

[billtroop]

>Totally untrue.

Ian, you seem to be more interested in scoring points than establishing facts. I am reporting what Geoffrey Crawley told me in 97-98. If you don't believe this, why don't you give Geoffrey Crawley a call? Regardless of what GC may have said in the past, that is what GC was advising in 97-98, and the fact that it was what he was advising as late as that has value and is of intrinsic interest because it is a statement he made in view of the films that were available at just that time.

Because of the large number of misprints that have occurred in nearly every BJP formulary since the 1961 series, I always check every formula with GC himself. Even with all that, I still managed to misprint one or two of the FX developers in the first printing of FDC, though it was quickly corrected and noted in the errata at graphos.org which is down but which can be accessed through wayback. This in spite of the fact that the entire MS was reviewed by GC before printing. But there you are, it is in the nature of photochem books to have errata. I have a huge list of errata for Haist, and if you start carefully reviewing the Theory of the Photographic Process, you will come up with some doozies.

Ian, I've always found that if one checks one's facts before one posts, one avoids a lot of embarrassment. Check, check, check, check, and check again. That's what it's all about. Before you write 'totally untrue' in bold the next time, why not pick up the phone or send an email? It only takes a couple of minutes.

By the way, I'm still waiting for that list of 'glaring errors' you mentioned earlier, and I am sure everyone else would be interested in them as well. Would you please either post them now or have the courtesy to retract your statement? As I said before, nobody is more interested in discovering errors in FDC than me.

 

[billtroop]

Still waiting, Ian. What you wrote, exactly, was,

>This is the correct formula Jim, I've had it from way before the Film Developing Cookbook came out. Troop makes some glaring mistakes unfortunately.

First of all, could you point me to the publication where you 'had it from way before' ? I only know of three places where this information, well-hidden, was published. Where did you get it and why don't you source it?

And could we, please, have evidence of a single error in FDC other than the relatively trivial ones that have been identified, well-publicized, and corrected. And could you tell me of another respected book on photochemistry that had (and will have again as soon as I find a new host!) a website specifically devoted to errata?

Surely you will grant that if anyone lives to ferret out errata, it's me? I don't think anyone has worked harder than I have to present clean data to photographers. So these unprovoked -- and apparently baseless -- remarks do rankle.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Kodak had realized that fine grain without sharpness was not a worthwhile goal. In any case, the formula is printed in Haist -- but you wouldn't know it corresponded to Microdol if you didn't have Haist around to tell you so. From a practical point of view, these developers are not worth using with contemporary films unless some form of 'antistain' or antisilvering chemical is used. These will not be found in MSDS sheets! The amounts needed are small enough not to require mentioning.

I have read some patents by Henn about antistain agents in fine-grain developers, but are these the same as the one(s) used in the current MX? Also, do Kodak, Ilford use antistain agents in other developers besides MX and Perceptol? e.g; Xtol, D-76, ID-11 and Microphen. I`m just curious.
Henn`s patents mention that they can be used in D-23, D-25, D-76 and derivatives such as SD-21.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Keith;

AFAIK, Henn's intent was to use them only in MX, which is considered ultra high solvent or only in film developers intended to prepare negatives, not positive images. I understood that in a positive process sequence these compounds could actually be detrimental depending on film.

PE

 

[billtroop]

Keith, I'd add that Silvia Zawadzki is very insistent that the XTOL patent is a 'teaching' patent and gives the precise formula of the commercial developer - - as she knew it. There is reason to suspect that the formula may since have changed. Besides Microdol-X, Henn's HC-110 has a kind of antistain agent of a completely different kind, and then Ilford's short-lived ID-11+ used a mercaptan anti-silvering agent (according to Bob Schwalberg - I don't have this direct from anyone at Ilford). I can't think of any other developers offhand that use them. Ron can probably add some interesting stuff to this.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Keith, I'd add that Silvia Zawadzki is very insistent that the XTOL patent is a 'teaching' patent and gives the precise formula of the commercial developer - - as she knew it. There is reason to suspect that the formula may since have changed. Besides Microdol-X, Henn's HC-110 has a kind of antistain agent of a completely different kind, and then Ilford's short-lived ID-11+ used a mercaptan anti-silvering agent (according to Bob Schwalberg - I don't have this direct from anyone at Ilford). I can't think of any other developers offhand that use them. Ron can probably add some interesting stuff to this.

IIRC, David Carper, the former U.S Ilford technical advisor mentioned on Photo.Net about an additive in ID-11 Plus that was good for large-tanks with replenishment, but lousy for regular use. I think the main point mentioned was the emulsion speed loss with the Delta films when they were first introduced. Another site, (Photobanter?) mentioned the use of cinnamic acid in ID-11 Plus although I haven`t seen any official verification of this.
Developers with ascorbates generally suffered from a short life, but it seems that Kodak have found a way around this problem with Xtol. I suppose that if there are any special additives in the general use commercial developers, then they will remain a trade secret.

 

[RobertV]

but it seems that Kodak have found a way around this problem with Xtol.

If you compare the lifetime of a stock with Foma's Excel W27, yes I think so.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I couldn`t find the original thread on P.N, but I found something similar there. See the post by G. D Lewis near the bottom of the page for cinnamic acid in ID-11 Plus.
http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/0083Ef

 

[Photo Engineer]

You have to be careful with the anti stain agent to prevent sludging and to prevent adsorption to grains and loss of activity and speed. This would be a problem in replenished systems. The Kodak agent AFAIK does not season out of developers. Cinnamic acid would be easy to detect in a developer due to its intense odor even at low concentrations.

HC110, for those interested, is made using hydrobromic acid gas, and sulfur dioxide gas! Not nice things to work with in the average home (or lab even).

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

I couldn`t find the original thread on P.N, but I found something similar there. See the post by G. D Lewis near the bottom of the page for cinnamic acid in ID-11 Plus.
http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/0083Ef

Keith;

I looked at this reference and Jordan is right.

Cinnamic acid, dihydroxy cinnamic acid and cinnamic acid disulfide are quite dissimilar.

PE

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Keith;

I looked at this reference and Jordan is right.

Cinnamic acid, dihydroxy cinnamic acid and cinnamic acid disulfide are quite dissimilar.

PE

As Bill mentioned earlier, the additive(s) in MX is so low that it or they are not mentioned in the MSDS. I haven`t a clue what goes into the commercial products to prevent dichroic fog with the true fine-grain developers.
As I mentioned earlier, they will probably remain a trade secret.

 

[Photo Engineer]

It is a trade secret but is also quite easily deduced by combining several patents.

PE