Minox Fine Grain Developer

Donald Qualls · 2025-10-17T07:20:16-0400

The Minox daylight loading developing tank I just purchased came with a (partially used) package of Minox Fine Grain Development chemicals -- sealed packets each to make 40 ml of developer (enough for the Minox tank), Developer A and Developer B and Fixing Salts (I presume the Wetting Agent was long ago mixed -- it would have made a liter for reuse instead of 40 ml for one-shot).

The packets are still sealed, and the contents are still powdery (not clumped). This raises two questions:

First, is it likely that these chemicals are still usable?

Second, does anyone know what the Fine Grain Developer formula was? The instructions make mention of "won't stain clothing and hands like other PPD based developers" -- but I don't know if that's indicating it's not PPD based, or that it is and has some special qualities to prevent staining. Given I'll likely be shooting T-grain films (TMX/TMY or Delta 100/400) for the most part, would this developer formular have any effect on the visibility of film grain for these films?

RalphLambrecht · 2025-10-17T07:36:52-0400

Donald Qualls said:
The Minox daylight loading developing tank I just purchased came with a (partially used) package of Minox Fine Grain Development chemicals -- sealed packets each to make 40 ml of developer (enough for the Minox tank), Developer A and Developer B and Fixing Salts (I presume the Wetting Agent was long ago mixed -- it would have made a liter for reuse instead of 40 ml for one-shot).

The packets are still sealed, and the contents are still powdery (not clumped). This raises two questions:

First, is it likely that these chemicals are still usable?

Second, does anyone know what the Fine Grain Developer formula was? The instructions make mention of "won't stain clothing and hands like other PPD based developers" -- but I don't know if that's indicating it's not PPD based, or that it is and has some special qualities to prevent staining. Given I'll likely be shooting T-grain films (TMX/TMY or Delta 100/400) for the most part, would this developer formular have any effect on the visibility of film grain for these films?

grain is a characteristic of the film, not the developer

koraks · 2025-10-17T07:46:58-0400

Donald Qualls said:
First, is it likely that these chemicals are still usable?

I'd say so, yes.

Donald Qualls said:
Second, does anyone know what the Fine Grain Developer formula was?

IDK, sorry. Maybe @Ian Grant has come across these formulae?

Donald Qualls said:
"won't stain clothing and hands like other PPD based developers" -- but I don't know if that's indicating it's not PPD based, or that it is and has some special qualities to prevent staining.

Given the formulation, I'd lean towards this being PPD-based, but possibly with a large amount of sulfite that would likely prevent dye staining - to an extent.

Donald Qualls said:
Given I'll likely be shooting T-grain films (TMX/TMY or Delta 100/400) for the most part, would this developer formular have any effect on the visibility of film grain for these films?

It'll work as a fine-grain developer just the same, but I doubt this will make a whole lot of difference on an already very fine-grained film like TMX.

RalphLambrecht said:
grain is a characteristic of the film, not the developer

Sure, but we all now and have been able to demonstrate to ourselves that development has some influence on how the grain comes out in the end result.

Donald Qualls · 2025-10-17T08:41:18-0400

RalphLambrecht said:
grain is a characteristic of the film, not the developer

Grain size and spacing, unavoidably. Grain sharpness and obtrusiveness, somewhat adjustable. Develop the same film in Rodinal and compare to D-76 or XTOL and make a huge enlargement; the grain will look different and appear finer with the high-sulfite developer. A PPD based developer will generally smooth out the appearance of the grain further compared to an MQ or PC formulation.

When working with an 8x11 mm image area and wanting to print to human-viewable sizes, it is a consideration.

Donald Qualls · 2025-10-17T08:46:47-0400

koraks said:
Given the formulation, I'd lean towards this being PPD-based, but possibly with a large amount of sulfite that would likely prevent dye staining - to an extent.

The A and B packets contain similar volume of powder. The A packet (presumably the developing agent(s)) seems like a lot for 40 ml of solution, while the B packet (alkali and preservative, most likely) looks like more than I'd expect for D-23 in that volume. So, it might well be that -- a high-sulfite PPD based developer. There might be something in the Darkroom Cookbook to match, if I can find my copy...

xkaes · 2025-10-17T08:52:03-0400

Don't forget about "staining" developers -- PMK and all that. Great for small negatives, but not everyone's "cup o' tea".

Donald Qualls · 2025-10-17T09:00:05-0400

xkaes said:
Don't forget about "staining" developers -- PMK and all that. Great for small negatives, but not everyone's "cup o' tea".

I haven't heard much about using those with T-grain films. Yes, I'm aware the stain image reduces appearance of grain, especially with optical prints (due to the color of the stain, which reduces contrast locally on multi-grade paper) -- and I won't rule out developing in 40 ml of Caffenol to see if that stain makes a difference. Otherwise, I've never used pyro or procat based developers (though I've heard a lot of good about Pyrocat HD and Obsidian).

koraks · 2025-10-17T09:11:31-0400

Donald Qualls said:
I haven't heard much about using those with T-grain films.

Works fine, that's for sure. I'd have to root around for examples, but I've developed TMX in Pyrocat and other staining developers several times. I never specifically optimized for small grain (reduced grain appearance) although the combination will perform fairly well for that purpose. But you could just as well use something like xtol or one of its DIY clones.

Donald Qualls said:
Caffenol to see if that stain makes a difference

IDK about that; it's unclear to me whether the caffenol stain is image-wise, which you'd want for any grain-reducing effect. The idea behind the reduced graininess is that the stain sort of blends grains together by forming localized dye clouds. If the stain is constant, it'll just add overall density, which won't do anything for the grain in any way.

Donald Qualls said:
Otherwise, I've never used pyro or procat based developers (though I've heard a lot of good about Pyrocat HD and Obsidian).

Pyrocat is easy to mix and use. I frequently use it; it's a robust and convenient developer.

Alan Johnson · 2025-10-17T09:22:10-0400

Donald Qualls said:
Second, does anyone know what the Fine Grain Developer formula was?

ChatGPT has a go:

Typical Composition (historical approximation)

A PPD-based fine-grain developer might look like this (not Minox’s exact formula, but typical of the type):

Ingredient	Function	Amount (per liter)
p-Phenylenediamine sulfate	Developing agent	2.0 g
Sodium sulfite (anhydrous)	Preservative	50 g
Sodium carbonate (monohydrate)	Alkali/activator	25 g
Potassium bromide	Restrainer	0.5 g
Water to make	—	1 L

This gives low contrast and fine grain, ideal for small negatives (like 8×11 mm Minox, 16 mm, or microfilm).

Toxicity & Safety

p-Phenylenediamine is highly toxic and a known allergen:

Can cause skin sensitization and respiratory reactions.
Avoid skin contact or inhalation.
Modern developers have replaced PPD with safer compounds (e.g., Phenidone + Ascorbic acid, or Metol + Hydroquinone).

Donald Qualls · 2025-10-17T09:47:12-0400

koraks said:
IDK about that; it's unclear to me whether the caffenol stain is image-wise, which you'd want for any grain-reducing effect. The idea behind the reduced graininess is that the stain sort of blends grains together by forming localized dye clouds. If the stain is constant, it'll just add overall density, which won't do anything for the grain in any way.

I've done color-channel scans of Caffenol negatives and found the image contrast higher in blue channel than in red channel -- which would imply that there's at least some imagewise stain. I haven't, however tried to optically print a Caffenol negative because by the time I had an enlarger I wasn't using straight Caffenol (and Caffenol with ascorbate produces much less stain).

My other likely path for Minox film is XP2 Super -- it doesn't care about trading off temperature for time (no color shifts or crossover when all the dye image is black anyway) and bleach bypass gains ~2/3 stop (from my experience) with no time increase => no grain increase. And even used one-shot, a liter of Color Developer will develop 25 rolls in the Minox tank, which makes small-package kits or color developer more economical.

koraks · 2025-10-17T09:54:25-0400

Donald Qualls said:
I've done color-channel scans of Caffenol negatives and found the image contrast higher in blue channel than in red channel -- which would imply that there's at least some imagewise stain.

Maybe, although the silver grain developed by caffenol is not necessarily neutral density, so you may just have been looking at the silver density. In cases like these it can be informative to bleach back the silver image so only the stain is left. This allows you to verify whether the stain is image-wise. I suspect that with caffenol, most of the stain is overall density.

Donald Qualls · 2025-10-17T10:30:10-0400

koraks said:
with caffenol, most of the stain is overall density

Oh, no question, most of the stain density is general stain. Silver image with color, yeah, possible -- wasn't the yellow filter layer in Kodachrome colloidal silver (so it bleached away cleanly during processing)?

koraks · 2025-10-17T11:20:03-0400

Donald Qualls said:
wasn't the yellow filter layer in Kodachrome colloidal silver (so it bleached away cleanly during processing)?

Yeah, absolutely; Carey Lea silver. You can get silver particles to render anywhere between pale yellow to brown to black. Since caffenol is a fairly slow developer, it wouldn't surprise me if it favors formation of fairly colorful, brown silver deposits.

Milpool · 2025-10-17T17:22:25-0400

You can certainly use staining developers with tabular grain films, but they aren’t “fine grain” developers if that’s what you’re after.

As for the Minox developer, I suppose another possibility could be a PPD-glycin type (Sease etc.).

Donald Qualls said:
I haven't heard much about using those with T-grain films. Yes, I'm aware the stain image reduces appearance of grain, especially with optical prints (due to the color of the stain, which reduces contrast locally on multi-grade paper) -- and I won't rule out developing in 40 ml of Caffenol to see if that stain makes a difference. Otherwise, I've never used pyro or procat based developers (though I've heard a lot of good about Pyrocat HD and Obsidian).

Paul Howell · 2025-10-17T19:38:20-0400

I use MMC 100 which has both PPD and catechol. MCM stands for Miniature Camera Magazine, a British publication, I think it dates from the 50s when film was very grainy. I would not call it compensating, rather semi compensating. give the age of the camera might be a version of it as well. I find it works well with most fast films including Foma 400.

Minox Fine Grain Developer

Donald Qualls

RalphLambrecht

koraks

Moderator

Donald Qualls

Donald Qualls

xkaes

Donald Qualls

koraks

Moderator

Alan Johnson

Typical Composition (historical approximation)

Toxicity & Safety

Donald Qualls

koraks

Moderator

Donald Qualls

koraks

Moderator

Milpool

Paul Howell

Minox Fine Grain Developer

Moderator

Moderator

Typical Composition (historical approximation)​

Toxicity & Safety​

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Typical Composition (historical approximation)

Toxicity & Safety