• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Microdol-x replacement

Tom, Bill;

Sorry, but I missed that earlier and I can answer the question. Yes, micro and macro contrast can be normalized. I have posted the examples here derived from the work of Mike Kriss when he was at EK. Basically, you try to get higher micro contrast to improve the images from small format by adding sharpness (edge effects) and micro contrast as opposed to LF images which need much less.

Normally, a film can be designed such that in the same developer will satisfy both ends of the size spectrum, but an excess of micro contrast can leave one with halos around some tiny objects or funny looking images.

Ideally, you would need an LF and 35 version of such a film or an LF and 35mm developer pair for such a film. This latter approace appealed to Grant, and there are several approaches to solving it that I am aware of. So, you might say that I have a "solution" to the problem, and if not a full formula I have a very good starting point for designing one.

PE
 
RobertV's excellent pictures using W665 got my curiosity up. I loaded up a couple of short rolls of TriX and mixed up the following:

Water (warm) 700 ml
Metol 8 g
CD-2 15 g
Sodium sulfite (anh) 65 g
Sodium metabisulfite 5.5 g
WTM 1 l

This is roughly W665 substituting a roughly equi-molar amount od CD-2 for OPD and sodium metabisulfite for potassium bisulfite. Incidentally, the mixing order is important. Metol forms an insoluble adduct with sodium sulfite and CD-2 oils out in high concentrations of sodium sulfite.

I did some test shots (bookcase, gray card, paper gray scale, that sort of thing) and compared the results developed in the above brew and in D-76 (1+1). D-76 is hard to beat with TX, but this stuff is highly competitive. Grain was much less noticeable, and gradation was similar to D-76. It was hard to tell which was sharper, they seemed similar, but the W665-CD2 mix may have won out. The W665-CD2 mix showed the same film speed as D-76 (1+1). Twelve minutes is a good starting developing time for TX.

Incidentally, Acros Organics has pretty decent prices on both OPD and PPD. I don't know if they ship to individuals.
 
The original W665 receipture nach Windisch:

----------------------------------------

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

Developing temperature 18-20 degrees C.

----------------------------------------

More info in this data sheet:
http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/W665 Windisch.pdf

Best regards,

Robert

(Just busy with testing more different films in this W665)
 
http://glsmyth.com/Misc/Bascom/TMax.htm
 

My curiosity was led in two directions: one, the outstanding results you got from W665; two, the possibility of substituting color developing agents (which are derivatives of PPD) for other phenylenediamine developing agents. I had CD-2 but not OPD, so I mixed it up as above. I was frankly surprised (happily) at the results. I can't account for the fact that the film speed is the same in this brew as in D-76 (1+1). It might be that CD-2 affects film speed less or it might be that modern films are less affected, or both. I'm not sure that the results I got with a CD-2 developer are similar or as good as what you got with the original W665, but I was impressed. The development time I gave (12 minutes) is not optimized, but the contrast on negatives developed that long was visually similar (not measured) to that of Tri-X developed for 10 minutes in D-76 (1+1).
 
Usually, all things being equal, a PPD developer is slower than an MQ or similar developer. Also, they require higher alkali particularly in the case of CD2 which is supplied as the salt of a strong acid. Thanks for letting us know.

PE
 
I have a photographic formula booklet called RAYCO REVEALS from the former `Rayco Chemicals Co. Ltd` in the UK. On pages 25-27, there is a section called `IN SEARCH OF FINE GRAIN`. On page 27 is a formula called RAYCO ULTRA-FINE GRAIN NEGATIVE DEVELOPER. I have copied this below along with their time for FP4 Plus and their suggestions.

Sodium Sulphite (Anh)= 100g
Hydroquinone = 6g
CD4 = 8g
Borax = 4g
Boric acid = 3g
Water to make 1 Litre.

Develop Ilford FP4 Plus for 8 minutes at 20*C. Other films by test strip and don`t forget to experiment with the formula.
 
Anchell & Troop - the Soap Opera

With all due respect to the participating members of APUG this has to be one of the most interesting threads I have ever read, jumping back and forth between erudite discussions of Microdol-X, opd, ppd, esoteric film development and then to Bill blasting me for a lubber and a cad, then firing pot-shots at Ian Grant. Whoooeee! For some this is fun. For me, it is the reason you rarely see my presence on forums. I am interested in photography and technique, not egos.

I thought the discussion about the copyright on FDC had ended on page 4 when I “b**ch slapped” Bill (his words). For curiosity sake I decided to check this thread this morning to see if any more had been said and was surprised at the amount of vitriol Bill has been pouring forth.

I am trying hard not to allow Bill to drag me into a tit for tat. However, I feel that it is only fair that I have a chance to rebut and hope Sean will bend the rules just enough to allow me my say.

My release of the copyright to Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with money – it never did and never will. However, Bill thinks in terms of money, law suits, and his standing in the photo community as a paragon of chemistry.

To understand what is going on you must understand Bill’s character. When we were collaborating on the FDC he confided in me that he had never worked on a project with anyone that had not eventually ended in a law suit. He hoped, he said, this would not happen to us. Several years later, in another conversation he confided that he was the defendant in a law suit that had been dragging on for years. He said that he was in the wrong, and would probably loose, but he was going to make the plaintiff pay through the nose to prove it.

So, if anyone from APUG thinks Bill is kidding about forcing me to sue him, he’s not. It’s the kinda guy he is.

Somewhere along the line he has taken a dislike to Ian Grant. He will take any opportunity to malign Ian’s character. I personally believe it is because he views Ian as a threat to his preeminence as a pundit of photographic chemistry.

All that said, go back to page 3 of this thread and read the unedited e-mail he sent me. In a phone conversation prior to that he had threatened to assassinate my character if I did not release the copyright to him, free and clear. He offered me money. He said he was going to hold a fundraiser on APUG and there would be plenty of money for everyone – how much did I want to release my copyright?

I told him money was not the issue. He then wrote on APUG (in this thread, page 4) that I was withholding my permission for more money. It seems that Bill can write anything he wants.

As far as what he says about me and our dealings with Focal it is mostly untrue and that which is partially true he has twisted for his own purposes. Bill was unable to wrest the copyright from Focal and so I stepped in and offered to write the 3rd Edition of the DCB if they would release the copyright to both of us - we were still friends at that time. Since Bill and I had previously received advances for FDC2, as part of the arrangement with Focal I agreed to forgo any advance for DCB3. To my knowledge Bill was allowed to retain the advance he received for FDC2.

Once the copyright was released Bill informed me that I was to have nothing to do with FDC2 other than provide photographs to illustrate his and Ron’s points. If I behaved myself they would include me in the Acknowledgements and photo credits. When I said I wasn’t interested in being placed on the back bench he turned on me in a manner as vicious as you have seen in his posts here against Ian and others. He wanted full ownership of the copyright and I was to be pleased to have my name in the Acknowledgements.

He was so mean-spirited that I basically told him to bugger off. He then informed me that he had been secretly recording every conversation we ever had and intended to use them against me when I sued him for copyright infringement, which he intended. As a result of this threat I am no longer able to communicate directly with Bill on this or any other matter, by phone or e-mail.

I do not believe I need to say more than the above. You may draw your own conclusions as to what sort of person you are dealing with in the form of Bill Troop. As for FDC2 - Bill is free to produce information about film development and publish it however he chooses. He just needs to come up with non-copyrighted material and a new title.

As he said in an earlier post to this thread, he’s done his part on the subject of film developing – he’s relying on Ron will come up with the new material.

And for the record, I never told Bill I was more involved in digital than film – that is pure fabrication on his part. I was out last night, from 5pm until sunset, photographing architecture with my Agfa-Ansco and Efke 25 film developed this afternoon in ABC Pyro, my personal favorite. The day before I was photographing street kids with my Leica M3 and FP4 developed in Pyrocat-HD. I am first and foremost a silver-based photographer. I mentor senior students from South Salem High on darkroom technique. I keep the enlargers aligned every 3 months for Willamette University. I teach a workshop in large format techniques for the Photographers’ Formulary. It is sad that I am forced to re-establish my bona fides every time Bill wants to say “Anchell’s gone digital!”

The forum discussions regarding film, chemistry, and technique which I find on APUG are of great value and, in my opinion, should be made into their own book. Let’s stop the bickering and petty rivalries and get back to our art. Those are fine images posted by RobertV on page 6. Makes me want to go back out again tonight. You will excuse me while I go load some more film.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve, I don't wish to get involved in this back and forth. I can say two things for the record though.

1. Grant Haist and Bill Troop had extensive communications. Grant is a personal friend of long standing and has mentioned the exchanges he had with Bill. He has verified the accuracy of the material in the book with regard to what he and Bill discussed.

2. While working on Liquidol and TF-5 with Bill (as well as Super Universal Fix), I found Bill to be a pleasure to work with and, as part of the "diagnostics" in improving the formulas, I was given the chance to see the original formulas courtesy of Bud Wilson at the Formulary. I can state that they are not like any extant Kodak formulas, but do echo things told to Bill by Grant, at least as far as TF-4 is concerned. TF-4 is a more robust version of TF-3 published in your book.

Now, this does not address the issue of what Bill may have told you. That I don't know, but these are two facts I do know.

I wish to add that Bill told me about the lawsuit. He also told me that it was clear from the facts that he would win. I was with Bill when he was notified that he had won and that a check was on its way to him as settlement of what appeared to be a serious matter. He was quite relieved to have such a serious matter put behind him.

I would also add that from the first hint of FDC2 involving me, I was of the opinion that you and Bill would complete and modernize the task started in the first edition and that I would be a junior member adding information as needed on developers, fixes, bleaches, blixes and etc.... Bill did say that he thought that you could contribute some excellent comparative photos for the book, and he posted that, I believe, earlier here.

Of the rest you say, I know nothing, and as Bill said, I saw much of his material for the first time posted here.

Ron Mowrey
 
Ron,

Thank you for your insights and clarification. I wish you all the best working with Bill.

SA
 
As Ron has suggested, the post by Steve does not contain a lot of truth. As far as I can gather, these are the facts:

1. Focal Press asked for FDC2 with Ron Mowrey and without Steve Anchell.
2. Steve told Focal we didn't want to do the book.
3. Steve is now preventing us from writing FDC2 in spite of the fact that he had nothing to do with the book other than to put his name on it and get a substantial boost to his reputation -- and a substantial paycheck.
4. We still don't know what he wants.

Tell us, Steve. What do you want? You can't write, you don't know anything about photochem, and you don't want to do the pictures we would still be delighted to have from you. What on earth is it you do want? A lot of us in photography would like to know.

I just don't see you as Steve Anchell, the guy who stopped Ron and me from writing what would, I can honestly say, because of Ron's expertise, be the most important book about photographic chemistry to come out of the early 21st century. In fact it will be the only one, if only because nobody of equivalent expertise is motivated to put the information out there.

But you've been sitting on the project, quashing it, for four years. Time is running out. Neither of us may be around here next year. Is that the legacy you want to leave?
 
Focal Press asked [WHO?]
for FDC2 with Ron Mowrey and without Steve Anchell.

Did Focal ask you and Ron?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ray;

I have never communicated with Focal on any level. All of my information comes via Bill and Steve.

PE
 
Yes - that is understood.

I was just wondering if they asked Bill or Steve...

It is not that hard to imagine not jumping at the opportunity to be willingly demoted.
It does make me wonder how this combination ever came about in the first place...
Was it an arranged marriage set up by the publisher?

Or was there a time when the two were actually good friends?

I certainly don't want to get in anyone's face.
I just wish the two could talk it out like gentlemen...
or flip a coin
or arm wressel! (on You Tube perhaps?)

And if they can't get what they both want,
it's still a wonderful opportunity to be a good sport!
 
Ray, sorry if that wasn't clear to you. Focal asked for FDC with me and Ron because Steve had made clear he did not want to contribute.
 
Ray;

I have made clear that the first information I had was that the authorship was to be Anchell, Troop and Mowrey with the bulk of the book being an update of FDC1 with about 15 - 30 added pages that I was asked to consider writing to augment the developer, fixer, stop and some additoinal sections. This was all in notes between me and Bill. Bill was in communication with Steve and both were talking to Focal.

There was to be no demotion AFAIK. I knew nothing about TDC3. I do not know if Bill knew a new edition was in the offing.

PE
 
billtroop said:
As Ron has suggested, the post by Steve does not contain a lot of truth. As far as I can gather, these are the facts:..
Click to expand...

Where in Ron's post does he suggest that Steve's post does not contain a lot of truth??? Howard Tanger
 
Ray,

>It is not that hard to imagine not jumping at the opportunity to be willingly demoted.

No, but he didn't want to do any work, either.

>Was it an arranged marriage set up by the publisher?

I signed with Focal for the book in 1981 and stopped work about 1985. When Focal was still asking for the book in 1995, I asked for a co-author and they suggested Steve. There was never any suggestion that Steve was to have any rights in the book, although he would get some credit. Of course, I would not have agreed to this had I known how little he was going to do. We did not know one another, and only became friends well _after_ the book had been published.

I've been looking from my old correspondence. In 1997, for example, Steve sent me a chapter which began with the immortal words, 'Recently I have become interested in using monobaths to develop film.' None of it was useful. Then he disappeared for six months.

'Recently I have become interested in using monobaths to develop film.'

Thanks, Steve. That's kinda just the kinda book I kinda like to kinda write. Kinda.

You may ask, why did he write 'I' when FDC is all written as 'We' - - and the answer is that Steve's job ostensibly was to help me with my voice. The book would be his interpretation of 'my' voice. Quite generously, I think, I let the book speak for both of us. And in the end I found it necessary to put the book entirely in my own words.

I remember the few months we actually worked together as being quite a lot of fun. Steve certainly does deserve some credit for the book. This is how we wrote it. He would send me some stuff, and I would be outraged at its awfulness, and I'd send him something bearable. We kept on doing this day after day, at white heat. Had I not been so mad, I don't think I could have done it -- certainly not in such a short time. Because it is a good book, and I am proud of it, and I can say that in spite of being chronically self-critical. But it wasn't just that. Steve had great enabling energy, in my opinion, and I mean that in the best sense of the word. And this is why I say to this day that Steve would be one of my top choices for a photography workshop or tuition.
 
>Where in Ron's post does he suggest that Steve's post does not contain a lot of truth???

Howard, if you read the two posts one after the other, Steve wrote some things that I did not respond to. Ron did respond, and contradicted the points about which he had personal knowledge. That's about it. That's how it sounded to me, and that's why I said what I did.

Personally, when I look at what Steve wrote, I don't think anyone would take any of it seriously. But it would surely be very boring to refute it point by point. Why bother? None of it explains why he is wrecking a worthwhile project: FDC2. The only thing I want to know is: why is he doing it and is there any way to get him to stop? We would be delighted to hear any reasonable proposal.

I'm grateful to Ron for having responded, but he certainly didn't have to, and I certainly didn't ask him to. There's a mystery here, and I hope at the end of the day it gets unravelled. I am as clueless as everyone else.
 
Bll Troop said:
"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."
Click to expand...

Would you consder sharing your lists of errata?

From my perspective, it would be of immense value to the serious student.

Ray Rogers





...
 
I'll publish my list one of these days. It's only fair to point out that the largest proportion of the errors derives not from Haist but from the publications he is citing from. When you consider the huge number of formulas and references in Haist's book, it is probably the most error-free book of its kind ever published. Speaking of errata, Henn told me that someone at Kodak compiled 13 pages of errata for Crabtree and Matthews's 'Photographic Chemicals and Solutions' - - but I have never seen it. Wouldn't that be wonderful to have?
 
Grant has an errata list of his 2 volume book and his book's references and it was his intent to publish those someday in an updated version. He was also working on at least 2 other books when he retired. Events following have prevented him from completing that work, but it is my understanding that all of those notes still exist. It may contain the ones Bill refers to above, but who knows, maybe Grant was the person Henn was talking about. Grant and Dick had offices a few doors apart, and Dick was Grant's direct supervisor until Dick retired.

PE
 
[QUOTES=Steve Anchell;787375]

Somewhere along the line he has taken a dislike to Ian Grant.
He will take any opportunity to malign Ian’s character.
I personally believe it is because he views Ian as
a threat to his preeminence as a pundit of
photographic chemistry.
Click to expand...

I took note of a post some few pages back where Bill launched,
from out of the clear blue, an attack on Ian. Ian's large supply
of reference material and many years of experience may be
seen by Bill as a challenge to his expertise. Ryuji Suzuki,
Eddie Ephraums, and likely others have endured his
slippery mix of name dropping and uncategorical
repudiation of other's text.

By the way, how about all that text you yourself have
contributed to many periodicals? I've quite a few issues
of Camera and Darkroom with your included interesting
and well written articles.


Well Well! How about that! South Salem. My Alma Mater,
Class of 1957. Willamette University, my brothers, about
1952. We may live in the same city. Salem. Dan
 
billtroop said:
I'll publish my list one of these days.
Click to expand...
By "publish" do you mean put on online for free? Like here on APUG?

That would be nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register