Non-solvent developer with high film speed

cl3mens · Jun 26, 2015

With the risk of starting a pie-throwing contest I am going to ask a "Which developer is best" question.

However, I have some guidelines here. Hear me out.

* Assume that I am going to use HP5+ (i.e. nothing too fancy, but a good flexible film).
* I do like the look that Rodinal produces with it (gritty grain, do not mind the tonality for now).
* But I want higher true speed (shadow detail). Let's assume that I am not going to push the film beyond this. (For example, I am hearing that Microphen gives me around EI 640, rodinal maybe half of that).
* Most speed enhancing developers I've seen (Microphen, XTOL, T-Max Dev) have solvent action

Now, let's get down to business.

The contenders I've found:
* Crawley FX-1 (looks like I have to mix my own to avoid shipping from US? I am in the EU).
* Crawley FX-37
* HC-110 (not exactly speed increasing, but probably faster than Rodinal).
* Paper developer (I am not joking). Would have to do my own testing but I doubt that they have any solvent action?

And to stray away from my carefully drawn guidelines, but also dismiss it:
* Will extreme dilution of a solvent developer be good enough or is it impossible to get rid of the noticeable solvent action?
* The downside here: HP5+@400 needs between 18 and 23 minutes in 1+3 dilutions of Xtol, Microphen and D76. Too slow..

So basically:
I want high effective speed and high acutance.
I will do my own testing
I do realise that grain is only hidden or emphasized by developing, there is no "make golfballs" soup

Gerald C Koch · Jun 26, 2015

A film's speed is determined by its manufacturer. The ISO standard details how this speed is determined. Certain developers that contain phenidone or one of its derivatives (Dimezone) will produce a real speed increase of 1/2 to 2/3 stop. But this is true only for low pH, high sulfite containing formulas, Any attempt to obtain greater speed will result in loss of shadow detail. People who believe that they can get greater speed ignore this limitation. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. I would suggest Microphen as probably your best choice.

There are ways to increase the film speed such as pre-flashing or hypersensitisation. But they all have their down-sides.

If you need even greater speed your best bet is to switch to a faster film.

RobC · Jun 26, 2015

If I understand you correctly, you are looking for a magic bullet that no one else has ever found. So in the real world your best bet would be to Ilford Delta 3200 developed in DDX which wil give a speed of 1600 with full shadow detail and normalish contrast and grain which is NOT golf bal size.

cl3mens · Jun 26, 2015

RobC said:
If I understand you correctly, you are looking for a magic bullet that no one else has ever found. So in the real world your best bet would be to Ilford Delta 3200 developed in DDX which wil give a speed of 1600 with full shadow detail and normalish contrast and grain which is NOT golf bal size.

Well, maybe.

But seriously, I am just wondering if there is a developer that will give me a somewhat higher EI than Rodinal (or HC-110, which doesn't really give me the same look sharpness-wise) that is a non-solvent type. Microphen without solvent, if you like.

I do understand that I am unlikely to find something that will put me over EI 500 or maybe 640 with HP5+. But that sure beats Rodinal in terms of speed.

People often use the phrase "speed - low grain - sharpness, pick two" around here. Well, I pick speed + sharpness.

Edit: And I thank you for the tip about Delta 3200@1600 + DDX. I have shot a few rolls of Delta but never tried DD-X. Will look into it. But I do prefer HP5+ for it's low cost (I bulk load, D3200 is not available in bulk).

Paul Verizzo · Jun 26, 2015

As we were recently reminded on another thread, pre-exposure flashing of film works miracles. There is a latency, for lack of the proper term, in silver halides. Once having been "kicked" hard, get that toe activated, they are ready to go work with far less exposure than if not flashed.

DREW WILEY · Jun 26, 2015

Flashing needs to be very carefully done or it will result in muddy, poorly resolved shadow tonality/texture/detail. With sheet film this is best done in a lab/darkroom where you can monitor all the variables. In the field or for small formats you can make a diffused flashing attachment and shoot something like an oversized gray card (there are some nice collapsible fabric ones); but this involves precise metering. A knowledge of Zone System theory is helpful too, or even better, experience plotting film curves with a transmission densitometer. In other words, a headache for any beginner trying to do this consistently. For this reason, I regard flashing as a last resort, when nothing else more practical seems to work.

Gerald C Koch · Jun 26, 2015

Astronomers who must often get the very fastest emulsion speed do not rely on developers to provide it. They must resort to latensification, hypersensitisation or pre/post flashing to gain any increase in film speed. As I pointed out before high sulfite, phenidone based developers are the only class of developers that will provide a modest speed increase. This is discussed in L F A Mason, Photographic Processing Chemistry.

Xmas · Jun 26, 2015

The extreme solvent developers lose about a stop of toe speed.

Rodinal and Microphen you will only separate in speed with a step wedge.

If you want different in bulk try a single cassette of

Kentmere 400
or Fomapan 400
or Delta 400

Or even the new Foma 320 in bulk

Or in cine Orwo 400 or Kodak 5222

If you believe in silver bullets ...

Mick Fagan · Jun 27, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
Flashing needs to be very carefully done or it will result in muddy, poorly resolved shadow tonality/texture/detail. With sheet film this is best done in a lab/darkroom where you can monitor all the variables. In the field or for small formats you can make a diffused flashing attachment and shoot something like an oversized gray card (there are some nice collapsible fabric ones); but this involves precise metering. A knowledge of Zone System theory is helpful too, or even better, experience plotting film curves with a transmission densitometer. In other words, a headache for any beginner trying to do this consistently. For this reason, I regard flashing as a last resort, when nothing else more practical seems to work.

Generally I would agree with you, but anyone can pre-flash or pre-expose film easily, consistently and really quickly, especially with a 35mm camera. How, simply get a Wallace Expo Disc and pre-expose a frame of film by placing the Expo Disc on the end of your lens, then stop down to a predetermined f stop, then select a predetermined shutter speed and trip the shutter. One then uses a multiple exposure facility on the camera to take another exposure on the same film frame and you're away like a rocket on heat.

Dead Link Removed

I purchased a couple of Expo Discs from George Wallace last century, 52mm and 72mm, with which I exposed a frame pointing towards the light to get a perfect colour balance for my home printing, first EP2 then later RA4 colour negative processes. The process worked a treat with correct colour balance done literally in seconds using my first model Lici Color Star colour analyser, which I still have and still use, albeit for B&W work these days.

Many moons ago we used the Expo Discs to pre-expose some film to lower contrast when we were push processing, worked a treat. We used HP5+ in the end. Tri-X was too expensive and Agfa wasn't around where we were at the time.

There are sometimes many ways to do the same thing, some are just a little left of field. The Wallace Expo Discs were never intended to do this, but they certainly do it well.

Mick.

Rudeofus · Jun 27, 2015

There seems to exist some misconception about solvents and their effect on achievable ISO speed. While excessive solvent action can decrease speed, complete absence of solvent does not automatically translate into higher speed - to the contrary, PC-TEA with no solvent action at all loses at least half a stop compared to Xtol, with the same developing agents!

If you are desperate for higher speed than HP-5+ gives you, use Delta 3200 and some of athiril's preexposure techniques, and a decent, speed maintaining developer like DD-X, TMAX, Microphen or Crawley's FX-11.

RobC · Jun 27, 2015

what speed do you actually want?

Rudeofus · Jun 27, 2015

RobC said:
what speed do you actually want?

Since "as high as possible" isn't all that high compared to box speed, I guess the likely answers to your question are "as high as possible" or "as high as easily possible", depending on ambition of thread starter.

Gerald C Koch · Jun 27, 2015

Rudeofus is correct. The action of sulfite in a developer is complex. Trying to equate low sulfite content with greater film speed will not work. The oxidation products of a developing agent can actually reduce film speed unless they are removed promptly. Citing Mason again a moderate amount of sulfite (<= 100 g/l) is needed to see a speed increase with phenidone.

Thinking of the ingredients of a developer as acting independently of each other is a false premise. Often two ingredients will work against each other. The actions of all the chemicals in a successful formula have been balanced to achieve the best results. This is why it is important not to tinker with things. For example the misguided notion that you can mix developers together and get better results.

Gerald C Koch · Jun 27, 2015

What the OP wants are two conflicting and mutually exclusive desires. An acutance developer like Beutler works due to local exhaustion of the developing agent. It therefore cannot produce a real speed increase. That it is based on metol as the developing agent also precludes a speed increase. A speed increasing developer like Acufine or Microphen both contain substantial amounts of sulfite needed to make them work. Acufine contains 60 g/l of sulfite, Microphen probably somewhat higher.

The best he can hope for is by using Aculfine, Microphen, Xtol, ... at 1+1 or perhaps 1+2 dilution. Perhaps Diafine might also work for him.

Rudeofus · Jun 27, 2015

Gerald C Koch said:
The oxidation products of a developing agent can actually reduce film speed unless they are removed promptly. Citing Mason again a moderate amount of sulfite (<= 100 g/l) is needed to see a speed increase with phenidone.

Sulfite does all kinds of things in developers (oxidized developer scavenger, oxygen scavenger, alkali, solvent), but if you look at Xtol vs. PC-TEA, the role of Sulfite (only present in Xtol) is limited: alkalinity is provided by other ingredients (Metaborate, Borax, TEA), and Ascorbic Acid needs no oxidized developer scavenger or oxygen scavenger. This leaves solvent action as the main reason for having Sulfite in Xtol, giving us ample reason to believe that well dosed solvent action is essential for reaching full emulsion speed.

Alan Johnson · Jun 27, 2015

Here are the speed increases given by Crawley:

FX-1 and FX-2 80% speed increase (BJP Annual 1962)
FX-37 1+3 50-67% speed increase (BJP 03 27 96 p25

The speed increase with FX-1 is the result of low concentration of the developing agent restricting density growth in the highlights while the shadows continue to develop.

Nodda Duma · Jun 27, 2015

What about Diafine?

Gerald C Koch · Jun 27, 2015

In the article cited below the two authors compared the three film attributes; speed, acutance, and grain to a three-sided pillow. Push in one corner and another pops out. So at best you have a choice of two. Want faster speed and better acutance then you will get more grain.

The origin of Xtol is described in detail in "The Genesis of Xtol," by Dick Dickerson and Silvia Zawadski (Photo Techniques Magazine, Vol. 20, No. 5, 1999, p. 62 ff).

Rudeofus · Jun 27, 2015

This article's description of the issue, and similar statements frequently seen here on APUG, gives rise to threads like this: "I want HP-5+ at ISO 1600, regardless of the effect on grain and sharpness". Either we find another visual model for describing the interaction of speed, grain and sharpness, or we create more confusion than insight.

Mark Antony · Jun 27, 2015

My initial thoughts were of the Crawley FX recipes, probably FX39 which is speed increasing and high acutance. Adox still make FX 39 so it might be worth a try. Some of the other Crawley products marketed by Patteson were Acutol and Acuspecial (FX21) the latter being very nice with Pan F and APX 25.

Rudeofus · Jun 27, 2015

Alan Johnson said:
Here are the speed increases given by Crawley:

FX-1 and FX-2 80% speed increase (BJP Annual 1962)
FX-37 1+3 50-67% speed increase (BJP 03 27 96 p25

Speed increases vs. which developer? D-76?

Gerald C Koch · Jun 27, 2015

Alan Johnson said:
Here are the speed increases given by Crawley:

FX-1 and FX-2 80% speed increase (BJP Annual 1962)
FX-37 1+3 50-67% speed increase (BJP 03 27 96 p25

The speed increase with FX-1 is the result of low concentration of the developing agent restricting density growth in the highlights while the shadows continue to develop.

I would disregard Crawley's comments on FX-1 and FX-2 as providing a speed increase. Film speeds are no longer determined as they were 50 years ago. In particular films were assigned a greater exposure latitude than they are now. ISO rating replaced ASA speeds in 1982. Around this time companies like Bauman with their Acufine and Diafine has to lower their expected film speeds. In fact the films from this era (1962) are long gone except in new formulations. The comment on FX-37 is a bit more relevant and closer to what is expected from the formulation.

Alan Johnson · Jun 27, 2015

@Rudi, yes, D-76
@Gerald , you will find a full-page expanded version of what I wrote re FX-1 on p54 of The Film Developing Cookbook so you disagree with both Crawley and Bill Troop?

Gerald C Koch · Jun 27, 2015

Alan Johnson said:
@Rudi, yes, D-76
@Gerald , you will find a full-page expanded version of what I wrote re FX-1 on p54 of The Film Developing Cookbook so you disagree with both Crawley and Bill Troop?

I question applying 50 year old data to today's films. I certainly do not place Troop's book on the same level as say that of Grant Haist. Of course the books were written with a different intent in mind. But that does not excuse Troop from using the most up to date material.

As far as I have been able to determine Crawley had no technical training. So his formulas might best be described as the work of a skilled amateur. In this he would have been continuing a long tradition at the BJP.

baachitraka · Jun 27, 2015

I am curious why FX-39 is not recommended for high-speed films?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Non-solvent developer with high film speed

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency