Microdol-x replacement

[Ray Rogers]

Grant has an errata list of his 2 volume book PE

Thanks Ron. That's good to know.

 

[billtroop]

Dan wrote,

>Bill launched,
from out of the clear blue, an attack on Ian.

quoting a hilariously erroneous remark of Steve's:

>Somewhere along the line he has taken a dislike to Ian Grant.
He will take any opportunity to malign Ian’s character.

Steve, Dan, please go back to message no. 9 in this thread, where Ian began his unprovoked, and unsubstantiated attack on me.

I have acted only to defend my book.

Ian has yet to substantiate the remark he made.

What he wrote was,

>This is the correct formula Jim, I've had it from way before the Film Developing Cookbook came out.

From where, Ian? If you have the formula, you can cite where it came from. Personally, I suspect you made it up for the express purpose of making FDC look bad by comparison with the book you have just 'edited', DCB3. That's the opinion I will hold until you can cite the publication you found it in. I never cite a formula without citing the publication. Unless I am the author of the formula, in which case I claim the authorship.

>Troop makes some glaring mistakes unfortunately.

We're still waiting for your list, Ian.

I had never seen Ian Grant's name on a forum until I saw his comment about my glaring mistakes. The fact is, 'Troop' and the 'Film Developing Cookbook' do not contain glaring mistakes.

Ian - - who is also the technical editor for DCB3 -- seems to be trying to create some pretty crude spin here.

Dan - - - - don't fall for it. We've had enough crude spin from Steve.

The impression I get of Ian is that he's a pretty bright fellow who likes to talk about photochem but who never checks his facts and consequently often gets them wrong.

By contrast, and this is something I can very truthfully say, I have never, once, in more than a decade of posting on photography forums, said anything I couldn't back up with a published source -- or several. I often spend hours before I post, looking up and double checking.

I don't post often, and I don't post for the pleasure of it. I post to provide the best possible information. And that takes time.

One person who hasn't said I made an unprovoked attack on Ian, is Ian himself. That's because Ian knows he made the unprovoked attack himself - - #9 in this thread. Dan, if you can't be bothered to read a thread carefully before making a remark on it, that's OK. But it's not a thing I can afford to do.

Ian, Steve, we're all still waiting for some facts.

Steve, what do you want? What about binding arbitration as was suggested earlier? I'm all for it. And of course, we'd love to have your participation - - as a photographer, and even as Dutch Uncle.

 

[Ian Grant]

Dan wrote,

>Bill launched,
from out of the clear blue, an attack on Ian.

quoting a hilariously erroneous remark of Steve's:

>Somewhere along the line he has taken a dislike to Ian Grant.
He will take any opportunity to malign Ian’s character.

Steve, Dan, please go back to message no. 9 in this thread, where Ian began his unprovoked, and unsubstantiated attack on me.

I have acted only to defend my book.

Ian has yet to substantiate the remark he made.

What he wrote was,

>This is the correct formula Jim, I've had it from way before the Film Developing Cookbook came out.

From where, Ian? If you have the formula, you can cite where it came from. Personally, I suspect you made it up for the express purpose of making FDC look bad by comparison with the book you have just 'edited', DCB3. That's the opinion I will hold until you can cite the publication you found it in. I never cite a formula without citing the publication. Unless I am the author of the formula, in which case I claim the authorship.

>Troop makes some glaring mistakes unfortunately.

We're still waiting for your list, Ian.

I had never seen Ian Grant's name on a forum until I saw his comment about my glaring mistakes. The fact is, 'Troop' and the 'Film Developing Cookbook' do not contain glaring mistakes.

Ian - - who is also the technical editor for DCB3 -- seems to be trying to create some pretty crude spin here.

Dan - - - - don't fall for it. We've had enough crude spin from Steve.

The impression I get of Ian is that he's a pretty bright fellow who likes to talk about photochem but who never checks his facts and consequently often gets them wrong.

By contrast, and this is something I can very truthfully say, I have never, once, in more than a decade of posting on photography forums, said anything I couldn't back up with a published source -- or several. I often spend hours before I post, looking up and double checking.

I don't post often, and I don't post for the pleasure of it. I post to provide the best possible information. And that takes time.

One person who hasn't said I made an unprovoked attack on Ian, is Ian himself. That's because Ian knows he made the unprovoked attack himself - - #9 in this thread. Dan, if you can't be bothered to read a thread carefully before making a remark on it, that's OK. But it's not a thing I can afford to do.

Ian, Steve, we're all still waiting for some facts.

Steve, what do you want? What about binding arbitration as was suggested earlier? I'm all for it. And of course, we'd love to have your participation - - as a photographer, and even as Dutch Uncle.

Troop, there are opinionated mistakes in the FDC, which rightly or wrongly I've attribute to you. As the same opinions aren't in the DCB 2 or 3 (not read the first) then I have to assume they are yours. I'm certain I'm not the only person to disagree with you, as I've had email correspondence and conversations about some of the comments you make in the FDC, particularly about PPD developers.

There are also some errors in formulae but to be fair these come from a variety of sources and mainly originate in the Photo lab Indexes which are riddled wit errors.

I don't have a copy of the FDC with me while I'm in the UK or I'd happily quote & list the many I've found so far. Earlier in the thread you ask why comment now - years after publication, that's easy I hadn't seen or read the FDC until last Autumn.

Being critical isn't making a personal attack on you, there are differing opinions on what constitutes the best developers fixers etc.

Lastly you say "Ian - - who is also the technical editor for DCB3" thats news to me, yes I proof read the formulae, provided corrections and gave Steve the sources for the information, but so did others and the book had already been written.

Ian

 

[billtroop]

A lot of words Ian, but no answers. Where are the 'glaring mistakes' ?

If you don't know what they are, why did you write about them? You can't just say that a book is filled with 'glaring mistakes' unless you are willing to substantiate them. If something is 'glaring' one would think that it must be 'glaring' enough so that you could actually remember what it was.

Ýou write here,

'There are also some errors in formulae but to be fair these come from a variety of sources and mainly originate in the Photo lab Indexes which are riddled wit errors.'

How can you write that the formulas I discuss 'originate' in the PLI ? I have never used that book as a reference. Never. Nor is it listed as a source for anything in my book, and I doubt it is listed in my bibliography.

And where are the errors that you speak of?

You make these sweeping statements of (mis)fact and you don't substantiate them -- ever.

I'm waiting for the specifics. As I've said before, nobody is more interested in correcting mistakes than me - - nobody. I am the only author of a photochem book who went to the extent of setting up a webpage specifically to list errata. (Although graphos.org is currently down, all errata accumulated so far can still be found on Steve's website.)

I think I can honestly say that of all people who have ever participated in photochem, I am the one who most wants to get mistakes out of the formulas. That's how FDC came about. In 1980, I read Jacobson's 'Developing' and sent back a copy to Focal with about 150 factual errors enumerated -- with citations. They then invited me to write my book. It remains the most accurate book on its subject.

You say you don't have a copy of FDC with you in England, so may I suggest you can easily access relevant pages through amazon.com?

I am especially looking forward to hearing about the errors that derive from PLI.

C'mon Ian! We're waiting!

 

[Ian Grant]

Troop, you'll have to wait

I'm not about to take part in one of the long slanging threads you're known for on this and other forums, and that is why I have not replied directly to one of your posts in this thread before today.

One area we both agree on is the mistakes that have been published over the years in a variety of publications, of those in US publications I've traced a substantial number back to the PLI, which unfortunately other later authors seem to have used as their main source, where as usually in UK publications (Focal Press etc) the errors creep in with Metric/Imperial conversions and anhydrous/crystalline forms of chemicals. I did not say you had used the PLI as your source.

I will cross check the FDC formulae with the data sources I have, and pass on any errors I might find with references.

Ian

 

[billtroop]

>Troop, you'll have to wait

I shall humbly obey this imperious injunction.

Would it be too much to ask how long we are expected to wait for word from on high?

Waiting. Good thing.

Maybe it was you who should have waited?

Before shooting off about 'glaring errors' -- not a single one of which you can now recall? Still, it started an interesting thread, which has raised a lot of questions. And though no answers have emerged, I still have high hopes that you and Steve will eventually provide some.

For me, it's all about legacy. What do you guys want to leave?

 

[Alan Johnson]

I have a question about the PPD derivatives mentioned earlier.
2-bath Emofin gives me an EI=160 with Delta 100 cf D-76 EI=80.
The Part A is listed 50-90% PPD derivate,5-10% Sodium disulfite,25-50% p-methlaminophenol sulfate.
Part B is sodium sulfite and sodium carbonate
It's hard to believe the metol can give the speed increase found.
Is the PPD derivate involved in this? That it can give a speed increase is not something considered in FDC1.

 

[nworth]

It seems to me that neither Bill Troop nor steve Anchell would be a very good person to write a book with. They both need far too much adult supervision. That might help here, too.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have a question about the PPD derivatives mentioned earlier.
2-bath Emofin gives me an EI=160 with Delta 100 cf D-76 EI=80.
The Part A is listed 50-90% PPD derivate,5-10% Sodium disulfite,25-50% p-methlaminophenol sulfate.
Part B is sodium sulfite and sodium carbonate
It's hard to believe the metol can give the speed increase found.
Is the PPD derivate involved in this? That it can give a speed increase is not something considered in FDC1.

Alan;

Earlier, I wrote a short post on the reason for superadditivity being based on adsorption to the surface of the grain. Metol is tightly adsorbed, but then so are PPDs in general, so it seems that these may not be the best when mixed. IDK for sure, but I hope to run some tests. Typically, there are other superadditive agents to use with PPDs, and generally PPDs give a truer emulsion speed, but this can be mistaken due to contrast changes and changes in the form of the silver metal that is deposited.

It is rather tricky to evaluate. You need speed/grain/sharpness and then you need to balance the 3 off to get a real measure.

PE

 

[billtroop]

It's interesting. This is a mystery whose solution may lie in an undisclosed ingredient. For example, I remember a boisterous thread some years ago when someone asked how hydroquinone could work so well in HC-110, since it was the only developing chemical listed on the then-MSDS. The poster simply would not believe that HC-110 contains a phenidone derivative as well. Kodak was not legally obliged to mention it on the MSDS, and did not, at that time, do so.

However, let's assume that the MSDS here contains all the information we need. It's somewhat counterintuitive. Nobody has ever claimed you could get a speed increase out of a ppd derivative. Let's assume therefore that the primary developer is metol and that the ppd derivative is mostly there to control grain, and that superadditivity is not very pronounced.

The alkali is carbonate. So altogether, we have a pretty alkaline, unbuffered, two-bath solution.

I don't see why, carefully balanced, that shouldn't work out as a speed-increasing developer, somewhat in the way that FX-1 can. Developer is quickly exhausted in the highlights, but continues for a longer time in the shadows. (This strong compensating action is inherent in two bath developers.) The result could well be a practical speed increase of up to one stop -- depending on the film.

Mixing ppd and metol with carbonate to produce a speed increasing two bath with moderate to fine grain is not an approach I would intuitively take, but I don't see why it shouldn't work. Tetenal certainly has the experience to figure out how to do it. A high degree of superadditivity would not be desired here, because just what you don't want is a mechanism where the developers regenerate - - that would defeat the speed-increasing mechanism that I guess is in use here.

Crawley tried to formulate a version of FX-1 with an additional 40 or 45 grams/L of sulfite that would have finer grain, and found with experience that it did not perform well. Same, by and large, with those who add about that amount of sulfite to Rodinal. But Tetenal's technique may be to produce that kind of developer using the ppd derivative to achieve finer grain, rather than appx 50g/L of sulfite. Sounds good to me. I can see this approach working in a way that FX-1 or Rodinal + extra sulfite would not.

And, of course, there might be an undisclosed ingredient. But I don't see why Tetenal's approach shouldn't work. They have over fifty years experience working with speed-increasing acutance developers (Neofin) and it would be natural for them to have figured out this other approach. Clever people.

And of course, with all claims of speed increase, as Ron says: 'tricky to evaluate'. Wiser words were never spoken. Ron is suggesting something rather sophisticated here: that, for example, you may be able to get a given developer to perform a speed increase, but sharpness and grain may be sub-optimal; while the same developer, used for normal speed, may have very good sharpness and grain. So is it a speed-increasing developer or is it not? Ron is suggesting that image quality (in terms of grain and sharpness) should be one of the criteria of speed evaluation which classically (Jones, ANSI, DIN, etc.) speaking, it is not.

 

[billtroop]

The more I think about it, the more I think Tetenal's approach is an ingenious application of practical experience with simple chemicals. PPD and metol share an important characteristic: that the reaction products inhibit development. This is just what we want in a speed increasing developer, since it lets the shadows keep on developing long after development has slowed down in the highlights. Hence, speed increase. My guess is that the ppd derivative is additive but not superadditive with metol. What would be interesting, based on the percentages you quote, would be to work out what the actual amounts in the formula are per litre of working solution. Could you do that? It would provide us with a better basis to try and pick out what's happening here.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, the interesting thing is that both Metol and PPD compete for the surface of the grain, and HQ does not. Also, the reaction of PPD and Metol oxidation products with sulfite, although fast, are much slower than the reaction of HQ oxidation products with sulfite. This is why MQ developers are "superadditive" and why I think that PPD Metol developers may not be. Certainly, PPD developers alone give good grain and speed, but are very slow to develop. The grain is good due to the type of silver developed.

The criteria for developer quality include shelf life of the concentrate, shelf life of the working solution, capacity of the working solution, speed, contrast, grain and sharpness. Also included is a reasonable time of development generally considered to be 4' or greater but not over about 30' at 20 C.

PE

 

[dancqu]

The poster simply would not believe that HC-110 contains
a phenidone derivative as well. Kodak was not legally obliged
to mention it on the MSDS, and did not, at that time, do so.

Kodak was not obliged and likely was not because of the
work done by Patrick Dignan in having phenidone certified
to be NON Hazardous. Non hazardous at least to the extent
of the small amounts used.

I've his book Classic B&W Formulas. In that book there
is an article by Ronald W. Anderson. From the Kodak
publication Processing Chemicals and Formulas for
Black and White, 5th edition, 1956, he has
formulated a substitute Microdol-X.

Metol 7.5 - sodium sulfite 100 - sodium bisulfite 7.5 -
water to make 1 liter. All chemistry in grams.

He claims exact same results with same times and
dilutions. Packaged Microdol-X is much heavier.

Actually I wonder if there exists a published
formula for packaged Microdol-X. Dan

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

What about Ethol UFG? When mixed, it sure smells like it might have some PPD in it, and it says it does have metol as well.
Ok, great thread even with the back and forth, I still think doing a whole new text micro published is the way to go, don't start from the beginning just add on the good stuff.

 

[Ray Rogers]

Dan
I am not sure it was all THAT out of the blue, Ian did mention there were many mistakes in the book... and unless I am still asleep, Bill admits this by providing us with a reference to his errata web.
see for example:

www.steveanchell.com/books/errata/fdc_errata.pdf

I do not own any of their books so perhaps I am confusing book/authors I don't know...
but wouldn't these mistakes qualify as 'glaring mistakes' ?
The fact that they are known, doesn't make them glare less...

But your point about ego friction is noted, and no doubt plays a large role at times, but is this one of them?

Personally, I think they should each work alone.

They each have something to contribute.

While Bill waits Ian, I am still looking for Bill's corrections... if not of Haist then at least of the Theory....
"rather than making generalized, non-specific accusations in public forums." and leaving it at that.

It is one thing to make a few mistakes along the way, but it is quite another thing to disrespect someone's work and refusing or not being able to improve upon it. I feel we should help each other when we spot an error and share it THE CORRECTION openly.

A lot of bruised egos could be avoided if we corrected each other in a supportive way.

Perhaps I should take my own advice - But I have a terrible migraine and am not at my best...

I still don't understand why if Bill was the primary author, he got second billing....
perhaps Steve was the more establshed author?
(I tried to check the dates of pub. on amazon but came up sort of empty 1998, 2008 or something)

Anyway my head hurts too much to type anymore...
If Steve doesn't want a new edition
(with or w/o the authors that Bill may want)

OK.

If Steve has the legal right to say no, then why not just let it go?
Can't you just respect his choice?

Anything Billl does of real value should be able to stand up by itself, and not need the crutch of 10-20 year old book's skeleton.

Best wshes, Ron, Ian, Bill - everyone.

I'm off in search of Acetylsalicylic...

 

[billtroop]

Dan, the formula you give is a form of D-25. Pat Dignan's book (which was the inspiration and indeed the basis of DCB) is riddled with errors, and the assertion that D-25 = Microdol or Microdol-X is quite erroneous. Indeed, the main editing task in DCB 1 and 2 was to remove the residual errors from Dignan.

Microdol always contains appx 30g/L of sodium chloride. The difference between Microdol and Microdol-X is that X contains the anti-dichroic fog agent. What remains interesting is that the point of Henn's work in the late 1940s and early 1950s was to produce simple, super fine grain developers that were as easy to mix as possible, as cheap as possible, and as little toxic as possible. So: in D-25, bisulfite is added to decrease development and increase the amount of time the film spends in the solvent sodium sulfite. The ideal amount is that just before the amount which creates dichroic fog. A strong sulfite solution will eventually fix film, so I suppose you could use a form of D-25 as a very slow-acting monobath -- in theory. In practice, it probably wouldn't give good results. This is all discussed in adequate detail in FDC chapter 7, most of which is available from google books here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=lzAKYgLtTd4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=film+developing+cookbook+troop

Ray, to address your concerns about residual errors in FDC, all that I discovered were removed in subsequent printings. Any printing from the last five or six years should contain very few or none. The history of the revision of the book is documented in the online errata. As regards the order of the authors in FDC, Steve was uncomfortable with that, but A does come before T, so we left it that way. Maybe you think that was over-generous, but as I have said before, I don't think the book would have come out, certainly not so quickly, without Steve's energy and boundless generosity in playing the stooge. One thing Steve really does know how to do is to activate creativity. This is a gift almost impossible to qualify or quantify, but he has it, or at any rate he did when I knew him. It's a gift that depends on an inexhaustible reserve of good will.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Bill,
I have a fresh pack of Emofin and will weigh out the ingredients and post the results as g/L.It seemed interesting to me too, it is one of the European developers that largely passed unnoticed.

 

[billtroop]

Great Alan, looking forward!

 

[dancqu]

... the assertion that D-25 = Microdol or Microdol-X is quite erroneous.

No such assertion was made. Mr. R. W. Anderson's formula is stated
to be a "Substitute for Microdol-X". My just previous post this thread
makes that plain. Out of context the statement is erroneous but
none of my or Mr. Anderson's doing. Your invention alone.

I doubt there exists an official, or by Kodak, a published
formula. Dan

 

[Photo Engineer]

As a reference back in this thread while reviewing some of the posts, I should comment that earlier, it was suggested that one use ammonium halide salts in a developer. This is generally considered to be a bad idea.

Ammonium developers were used for quite a while as solvent developers and gained a very bad reputation for giving the worst of all possible worlds in terms of solvation effects such as dichroic fog and speed loss. Besides, they smell pretty bad! They were all abandoned.

IDK what they would do with modern emulsions, but I suggest you avoid this or run sufficent tests to be satisfied it will work for you.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Dan
I am not sure it was all THAT out of the blue, Ian did mention there were many mistakes in the book... and unless I am still asleep, Bill admits this by providing us with a reference to his errata web.
see for example:

www.steveanchell.com/books/errata/fdc_errata.pdf

I do not own any of their books so perhaps I am confusing book/authors I don't know...
but wouldn't these mistakes qualify as 'glaring mistakes' ?
The fact that they are known, doesn't make them glare less...

But your point about ego friction is noted, and no doubt plays a large role at times, but is this one of them?

Personally, I think they should each work alone.

They each have something to contribute.

While Bill waits Ian, I am still looking for Bill's corrections... if not of Haist then at least of the Theory....
"rather than making generalized, non-specific accusations in public forums." and leaving it at that.

It is one thing to make a few mistakes along the way, but it is quite another thing to disrespect someone's work and refusing or not being able to improve upon it. I feel we should help each other when we spot an error and share it THE CORRECTION openly.

A lot of bruised egos could be avoided if we corrected each other in a supportive way.

Perhaps I should take my own advice - But I have a terrible migraine and am not at my best...

I still don't understand why if Bill was the primary author, he got second billing....
perhaps Steve was the more establshed author?
(I tried to check the dates of pub. on amazon but came up sort of empty 1998, 2008 or something)

Anyway my head hurts too much to type anymore...
If Steve doesn't want a new edition
(with or w/o the authors that Bill may want)

OK.

If Steve has the legal right to say no, then why not just let it go?
Can't you just respect his choice?

Anything Billl does of real value should be able to stand up by itself, and not need the crutch of 10-20 year old book's skeleton.

Best wshes, Ron, Ian, Bill - everyone.

I'm off in search of Acetylsalicylic...

Thanks Ray for pointing out that PDF file, that and links to threads on this and other forums, that others have sent me via emails/PM's over the past few days, totally vindicate my comments.

My comments aren't entirely "Out of the Blue" here's a very similar comment (not mine) from over 4 years ago "Do not automatically trust Anchell and Troop. There are a lot of unsupported assertions that are not widely accepted by other authorities; many opinions masquerading as statements of fact: and some flat errors". I should add that the first time I saw the FDC was last Autumn when I bought a second-hand copy from the US.

I would add that my comments about glaring mistakes are mainly to do with Troop's opinions in the FDC and , and it transpires that others have made similar comments in the past including Roger Hicks as well as another participant in this thread.

Bill Troop is well aware of Roger Hick's comments and those of others as he has participated actively in those threads.

I will NOT trawl over the FDC highlighting the paragraphs I'd disagree on, everyone has a right to there own opinions and I have a right to disagree with Troop

Bill, I have no wish to attack the FDC, (hence no links to those threads), people have to make up their own minds by reading it themselves. The fact that I would & do recommend the DCB in preference is purely because it is broader based and contains formulae for printing & toning etc in addition to film developers.

Ian

 

[Alan Johnson]

Emofin 2-bath developer
Here is the content by weighing the packs and reading the % ingredients fom them:
PART 1
part A Weight =17.7g
p-phenylenediamine derivate 50-90%.........................8.8-16 g/L
Sodium disulfite 5-10%...............................................0.9-1.8 g/L
p-methylaminophenol sulfate 25-50%...........................4.4-8.8 g/L
part B Weight =72.5 g
Sodium sulfite >90%..................................................72g/L
Measured pH on making up to 1L ~7
PART 2
Weight=88.2 g
Sodium Carbonate 25-50%..........................................22-44 g/L
Sodium Sulfite 25-50%................................................22-44 g/L
Measured pH on making up to 1L ~12

I obtain a speed increase of about 1 stop cf D-76 with this.
It's not clear if PPD derivate is involved in this speed increase or why it is there.

 

[panastasia]

As a reference back in this thread while reviewing some of the posts, I should comment that earlier, it was suggested that one use ammonium halide salts in a developer. This is generally considered to be a bad idea.

Ammonium developers were used for quite a while as solvent developers and gained a very bad reputation for giving the worst of all possible worlds in terms of solvation effects such as dichroic fog and speed loss. Besides, they smell pretty bad! They were all abandoned.

IDK what they would do with modern emulsions, but I suggest you avoid this or run sufficent tests to be satisfied it will work for you.

PE

PE,
At the very beginning of this thread Ian Grant suggested adding Ammonium Chloride to ID-11/D76, I assume you're referring to that post.

I was one that was interested in the use of Ammonium Chloride for the stated reason. Thanks for the heads up. I choose to abandon the idea based on your suggestion.

Paul

 

[Photo Engineer]

Paul;

If it works though, it works, so don't abandon it just based on my comment. You might find something interesting. As Kirk Keyes said recently, both he and I like to play in the lab to see what happens. I just have had more time to play (such as 15 years 8 hours / day at EK just on process chemistry ) but I never ran this type of experiment as I was discouraged from it by the old timer's reports on the problems.

PE

 

[panastasia]

Dissolving the silver halide crystal while minimizing dichroic fog does seem like something to play with, for achieving fine grain. I'm no chemist but you guys make photo chemistry sound so interesting. It seem to be all in the balance - the amounts to use.