Neofin Blau

[jjstafford]

I'm stupid, or at least innumerate and can't figure out the dilutions for Neofin Blau. I got a five pack of "300-700ml" bottles. I wish to use it for AXP 100 and Efke 25 4x5 in tanks of 900cc and 1600cc, respectively.

Time, temperature, dilutions? Can a kind soul sell me a clue?

(I have way too much time on my hands lately. Forgive all the posts. They will cease fairly soon. Promise.)

 

[Gerald Koch]

Neofin Blau was designed to get the best results from 35mm film. Using it with 4x5 is just wasting your money because you will not see its unique characteristics with the small magnifications used by LF negatives.

Neofin Blau is a commercial version of the Beutler formula. It's dirt cheap to make if you are so inclined. The formula is on the unblinkingeye website.

 

[Ole]

Use two or three, depending on the size of the tank. Or one, depending on the area of the film. Temperature 20 C, time - that depends. It's the same for one 35mm film in 300 to 700ml developer, but you might have to increase that with one bottle in 1900ml!

While you will not see the edge effects and smooth yet crispy grain on sheet film, you will still get the benefit of increased speed and smooth scale. But I have to agree that it's a lot cheaper to mix your own.

 

[jjstafford]

Use two or three, depending on the size of the tank. Or one, depending on the area of the film. Temperature 20 C, time - that depends. It's the same for one 35mm film in 300 to 700ml developer, but you might have to increase that with one bottle in 1900ml!

Two or three bottles in what size tank? Regardless, it seems spendy.

Maybe I'll save it for the day I use the 1/2 frame camera. Okay the Neofin goes back into storage.

 

[Ole]

Two bottles in the 900ml tank, three in the 1400ml one. Or, as I sait one bottle per 35mm-roll-equivalent, which just happens to be about one 8x10" sheet or four 4x5" ones.

By the way the formula is here too - in the Recipes section. As well as the other Beutler formulas.

 

[John Cook]

JJ - Neofin instructions are intentionally ambiguous. They are written by old men who can still make change for a dollar without a computer. It's their little joke on the youngsters. (Which I also enjoy.)

The key factor is stated in JandC's website, "5 one shot vials. Each can process 2 rolls of film."

As you know, a roll of film equals one 8x10 sheet or four 4x5 sheets. Therefore, there is sufficient active ingredient in one vial to develop eight sheets of 4x5 film.

My Combi tanks hold six sheets. Less than my limit of eight sheets. So I use one vial of developer plus distilled water to fill the tank.

Time depends of course upon dilution, agitation, brand of film, enlarger light source, etc. My times for most all developers, including popular dilutions of things like Rodinal, run about ten to twenty minutes. Perhaps a bit less if running only one sheet, as per Neofin directions. I try to keep the tank full to even out the results, even if it means running a scrap sheet or two left from an old aborted film test.

One or two test runs should have you zeroed-in just fine for your equipment and method.

 

[Helen B]

I've never used Neofin Blue. Does it smell of catechol?

As Neofin Blue and the Beutler formula have been mentioned, I thought that someone might be interested in Geoffrey Crawley's notes on the difference between a 'modified Beutler formula' and FX-1. GC discusses Beutler type developers at some length, much more than I quote here.

Condensed from Geoffrey Crawley's Notes... - the 1960/61 articles in the BJ frequently referred to, not least by Anchell and Troop in the Film Dev Cookbook. All the following is according to GC (I'm not saying he's right and I'm not saying he's wrong, just passing it on):

- Neofin Blue is derived from the Beutler formula and includes catechol;

- the Beutler formula is best modified for 'modern' (ie 1960) film by halving the quantities of metol and carbonate, this lowers the contrast and improves definition;

- the modified Beutler formula becomes an entirely different developer for some films if one part in twenty million (by weight) of potassium iodide is added. This is called FX-1 to highlight the difference from the modified Beutler. "The effect probably works by shortening the inductance period, thus 'setting' fine surface detail early on (the effect on the inductance period of similar concentrations of oxidation products of some developing agents has been known for some time). The presence of iodide ion may just enfeeble the developing agency and predispose it to produce adjacency effects. ... Highly corrected lenses are necessary, particularly those with good red corrections, as the adjacency effects occur preferentially on long wavelength exposures, and if these are not fairly well focussed at the same point as the shorter blue rays, the resultant spread of focus will prevent sharpening up, and definition may actually be reduced to below that were the iodide ion not present at all." Elsewhere GC mentions that Pan F shows the sharpening effect of iodide only when an orange or red filter is used.

- "The author has carefully examined negatives from all the available slow and medium speed films in the Beutler developer and particularly the modification given above, [the halving of the metol and carbonate] and he believes the improvement in definition given on Grain Groups 1 and 2 is really due to the low concentration of developing agent and preservative. There is very little evidence of an actual rise in edge contrast, such as would be found were the true adjacency effect present."

Best,
Helen
PS Crawley mentions other interesting wavelength effects that result in discrimination at the developing stage.

 

[Ole]

Neofin may have contained catechol in the 1960's when Crawley wrote that, but it doesn't now and didn't originally. For a while (the plastic ampoule period) it used phenidone and metol, but the present version (glass bottles) is back to metol only.

Considering that Neofin was formulated for the first of the "modern" films Crawley mentions, I find it strange that it should need to be modified for them?

I'm not doubting Crawley's word, he certainly knew his developers. I use FX-2 quite often, and find that it does exactly what he said it should. I just find it strange that...

 

[Helen B]

Ole wrote: "Considering that Neofin was formulated for the first of the "modern" films Crawley mentions, I find it strange that it should need to be modified for them?"

I think that GC was referring to the original Beutler formula, not Neofin Blue, when he said that it needed modification. The modification results in FX-1 without the tiny amount of pot. iodide. According to the Notes he believed that the addition of iodide was responsible for the adjacency effect, but only with certain films. He also believed that the same method (ie the tiny amount of iodide) was used in Kodak HDD.

I find a lot of GC's notes to be interesting, and often strange. He certainly did a huge amount of work on acutance developers.

Best,
Helen

 

[Gerald Koch]

Speaking of Kodak HDD does anyone know anything more about this developer. It was never marketed in the US. Crawley speculated about the composition of the working solution as given below.

Distilled water (50°C) ................. 750 ml
Metol ....................................... 2.0 g
Sodium sulfite (anhy) .................. 1.0 g
Sodium hydroxide‡ ...................... 0.5 g
Potassium iodide, 0.001% ............. 5.0 ml
Distilled water to make ................ 1.0 l

 

[Alan Johnson]

I also have a copy of Crawley's interesting articles.His grain group 1 included the then Adox 17,similar to Efke 50 today.He said there is very little evidence of an actual rise in edge contrast (in the Beutler) such as would be found were the true adjacency effect present.
OTOH on p240 of Controls in Black and White Photography by R.Henry is a diagram in which a border (adjacency) effect is clearly shown with Tri-X in tht Beutler.Maybe there was no microdensitometer available in 1960 to show the effect.

 

[gainer]

I have not seen that particular illustration of edge effect, but I have see claims of compensation bolstered by theoretical characteristic curves that I could not duplicate in practice. These published curves were not described as "wishful thinking" so anyone without the equipment to check them might just pass the theories on as fact.

 

[Helen B]

Alan wrote: "OTOH on p240 of Controls in Black and White Photography by R.Henry is a diagram in which a border (adjacency) effect is clearly shown with Tri-X in tht Beutler."

This could be more accurately worded: "OTOH on p240 of Controls in Black and White Photography by R.Henry is a diagram in which a border (adjacency) effect is clearly shown in a print made from Tri-X which had had a preliminary low base pre-exposure and which was then developed in the Beutler." The microdensitometer readings are from the print, not the negative. This may or may not be unimportant, but it is the full story.

The 'Beutler high definition' developer that Henry refers to appears to be the AH-16 formula by Altman and Henn (1 g/l Metol, 10 g/l sulphite, 4 g/l Kodalk). Henry also comments that the Beutler High Definition developer markedly increases the acutance of Tri-X Pan but not Panatomic-X or Royal-X Pan. Crawley specifically refers to tests on slow and medium speed films - Tri-X would be classified as 'fast' by him.

As far as a quick scan through the bibliography shows, Henry does not appear to have referred to Crawley's Notes..., but attributes the trace iodide idea to an article by A Kramer in Modern Photo in '68. Kramer's claims, according to Henry, go beyond Crawley's.

Best,
Helen

 

[Woolliscroft]

I'm not doubting Crawley's word, he certainly knew his developers. ...

What's with the "knew". He's still around you know. David.

 

[Ole]

What's with the "knew". He's still around you know. David.

I knew that - I mean I know that - I mean I knew it should be "knows"...

Mistyped.

 

[Lee L]

I knew that - I mean I know that - I mean I knew it should be "knows"...

Mistyped.

So you're saying no "knew"s is good "knew"s?

Lee

 

[garryl]

So you're saying no "knew"s is good "knew"s?

Lee

Or - all the "Knews" that fit to print.