non solvent carbonate developers

[Harold33]

Until the mid-sixties the major companies (Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Gevaert, Adox) recommended non solvent carbonate developers like Ilford ID2, ID3, Agfa 20, Agfa 42, etc. as "universal". For more specific job, extra-fine grain developers like Microdol, Microphen, Atomal, etc. or "professional" (studio) developers like DK50 were avaible. The so-called fine grain formulas (D76, ID11, Agfa 17) were quoted only as alternative to the others.
Today, "universal" developers are fine grain developers (D76/ID11, XTol) or Rodinal. Extra-fine grain developers still have proponents, the others are no longer marketed.

Are the objective qualities of fine grain solvent developers sufficient to explain this evolution ? Of course, grain is less visible, but mid-tone tonality and sharpness are not better (at least), they are often less flexible for contraction-expansion, not easier to prepare, nor cheaper. Why are non solvent carbonate almost completely forgotten, in spite of their excellent qualities ?

 

[gzinsel]

dude ! that's the 64 thousand dollar question. if anyone can answer that question correctly, you get. . . . I don't know, but somethin' good.

 

[gzinsel]

ya, , , but, , , ,ya, , , , but . . . . .o.k. you win michael!!!! I don't know exactly what I will send you, but something.. . .

What I think, just my two cents, Is. . . . The public always want something new. advertizers, marketing people want to sell something new. It usually doesn't take much to convince people to try something new with given "talking points". I would also add, that roll film issues( as mentioned above) , combined with a "driven In" mentality of extracting every last little "edge" as in "competitive" from film/developer to gain advantage. I mean . . . . who wants large grain? doesn't grain make your photographs look bad? is usually the default assumptions. ( i do not think so) although a misnomer for sure,but. . . . anyway. If i understand the time line of the history of film developers. . . . then the rise/peak of fine grain developers peaked in late 80's, early nineties. digital came two days later. so what film had at "the end" is what most people stay with. If you were to take a poll here on apug. I think a majority would agree that solvent based developers are the way to go for roll film. I think most people do not like tack sharp grain.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Kodachrome.By the late 1950s there were many 35mm cameras that could shoot color slides with some B/W.
35mm worked better with fine grain developers.

 

[Harold33]

Generally speaking (which is problematic but anyway) (...)

I'm obviously speaking in general.

fine grain developers became increasingly popular as enlargement factors increased (D-76 was originally a cine developer) and film sizes decreased.

Do you think that 135 film became popular after the sixties only ?

Tastes changed too, although not quite the same in N. America and Europe (Europe seems to have taken longer to move to the fine grain preference, and at various times Kodak and Ilford marketed some different products on different continents).

I admit that tastes (fashion, etc.) may change but how do you explain the fact that Rodinal (not a fine-grain developer by no mean) still remain popular ? Grain does'nt matter here.

The reason I posted here this question is that I recently discovered Ilford ID-3, a really interesting developer: mid-tones are superb, with a kind of personality I never achieved with any other developer, acutance/sharpness is very good with no loss of speed. Grain is more obvious than with a solvent developer but not disturbing.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Ilford appear to have replaced ID-3 (p13 here):
http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology/Ilford_Formulae_Dev_1953.pdf
by Ilfosol-S, the predecessor of Ilfosol-3:
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/msds/ilford/ILFOSOL-S.PDF
Likely by using a superadditive mixture they could keep a reasonable developing time and reduce the pH and grain.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Until the mid-sixties the major companies (Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Gevaert, Adox) recommended non solvent carbonate developers like Ilford ID2, ID3, Agfa 20, Agfa 42, etc. as "universal". For more specific job, extra-fine grain developers like Microdol, Microphen, Atomal, etc. or "professional" (studio) developers like DK50 were avaible. The so-called fine grain formulas (D76, ID11, Agfa 17) were quoted only as alternative to the others.
Today, "universal" developers are fine grain developers (D76/ID11, XTol) or Rodinal. Extra-fine grain developers still have proponents, the others are no longer marketed.

Are the objective qualities of fine grain solvent developers sufficient to explain this evolution ? Of course, grain is less visible, but mid-tone tonality and sharpness are not better (at least), they are often less flexible for contraction-expansion, not easier to prepare, nor cheaper. Why are non solvent carbonate almost completely forgotten, in spite of their excellent qualities ?

std developers such as Id11 or D76 are still a great compromise between grain, sharpness and speed and hard to beat.There are no silver bullets.