Obsidian Aqua developer... baby!

Regular Rod (RR) already knows about this catechol based developer. You know, the staining pyro developer descendent? Anyway, I decided to take a whack at mixing a batch of the stuff and hazarding a precious roll of 6x7 Tri-X 220 that I exposed in the Grand Tetons. I know what you're thinking: "Why not try your home brewed developer on some ultra-boring (mind numbing?) test roll you shot against a standard target?". Because I like to live on the edge, that's why.

But seriously, I have confidence in the formula and my ability to follow the recipe. Not to mention, RR has had success with it. To make a long story short, my nicely stained and gorgeous negatives are hanging up to dry in my darkroom as I type this. Tomorrow, I will print. After that, I'll scan on my Epson V700 so you may (if you are interested) see what I got.

I'm excited. This is the first time I've ever cooked up a developer from scratch. I've got 3 bottles of HC-110 concentrate in my cabinet along with a couple of packages of XTOL powder. I'll save them for another day.

I'm interested to see the prints. I am considering trying Obsidian Aqua.

great stuff!

let us know your dilution and agitation regime.

Tried its close kin, Hypercat (catechol + Ascorbic acid in propylene glycol) ... when it was good it was very very good ... but when it was bad it was horrid

I either got janglingly sharp grainless negatives (even from the incredibly cheap and much-maligned Polypan-F) or no development at all (every roll of Acros I tried)

No development on the Acros? Wow. That seems pretty odd considering that Acros reacts well to all of the other developers I use. D76, HC 110, and XTOL all develop Acros perfectly. I'll have to try the Acros - Obsidian Aqua myself.

Ordering supplies for obsidian Aqua is on my to-do list. Look forward to hearing how it works for you, and to trying it for myself.

well. . . I like to say. . . . just Dave-o and Rodge(r) from Men in Blazers, wowwwww, Paul Carr blows your mind, say , Paul Carr blows your mind, say what? Cachechol developers will blow your Mind!!! so get PREPARED. strap your self "in" and get ready for Lift off!!!!!!!!!!!

Jay DeFehr is a pretty brilliant guy, and I've seen plenty of prints from people I know that use his formulas, (he's formulated many developers). The prints are very beautiful.

The pictures themselves are no more interesting than when they used D76 or Rodinal, of course. It's not going to make or break any photograph, not even close, but there is something to be said for mixing from scratch and doing it yourself. That's cool. There is also something to be said for liking the stuff you use. That's important, of course. Having a good time makes all the difference.

Sly do you have a source for the Cachechol in Canada? I wouldn't mind giving this a shot one day but it looks like one of those chemicals that is tough to ship across the US border.

Nymoc has it.

Ok!
I am typing this post in my darkroom (on my most excellent MacBook Pro. And yes, I do enjoy working for Microsoft) while my prints from the best negative on the roll hang on a wire above me.
I printed onto several papers at contrast grades 3.5 to 4. I understand that the stain that Obsidian gives the negative is a yellowish color... which favors harder papers. I use MC paper from Adox, Ilford, Kodak, and Forte. This is why I selected a harder contrast filter, to compensate for the contrast softening stain in the negative.
I will post scans from these gorgeous (yes indeed, gzinsel was right) negatives either late tonight or tomorrow, after the prints have dried.
I printed on:
* Forte Elegance Polywarmtone FB Plus
*Adox MCC 110 glossy
*Ilford MG IV
* - Old - Kodak Polymax Fine art. Forget about it! Paper aged and lost contrast and speed. Wasn't worth printing

One of the papers brought a heart-stopping reaction in me. I won't tell you which until I post the prints and offer a blind test. These papers are all wonderful and difficult to tell apart. I didn't tone any of them because my only selenium stock is a tad out of date and I fear tainting the test. To me, anyway, on of the papers is better than the others. Won't tell you which I *believe* is better. You decide.
Unfortunately, you won't be able to see the prints with your own eyebones. You'll have to rely on me to scan them with the Epson flatbed scanner and use my vaguely dubious scan software skills to present the most un-manipulated (yet fair) digital image of the prints.
Stand by for 24+ hours until I can scan and post.

Ok, the prints were gorgeous except that I printed them too dark. It was more than a failure to anticipate the dry down effect. They were just too dark. A few people eyeballed them and 4 of the people preferred the Ilford MG IV print (which was less dark) and one liked the Forte print which was the darkest. I don't want to scan these print. Rather, I'll print the best neg again and correct my error.

Meanwhile, I developed a roll of Tri-X 220 film of more dalias in my garden. These new negatives are as nice as the first batch. Agitation was 1 minute at start and then 10 seconds every 3 minutes for a total of 13 minutes, at 70 degrees. 2ml of stock A solution into 1 liter of B solution (6.6gm of Potassium Carbonate in 1l of tap water). Yes, the A stock solution is VERY concentrated.

I will print from this roll tomorrow. I hope to show you gorgeous dalias again. The last pictures I put into the gallery were from 35mm Tri-X in HC 110b

You may have stumbled upon one of the things about pyrocatechin developers in that they make negatives that are kind of heavy in the mid-tones and shadows. They often lend a dark quality to the prints.
I tend to think of those developers in musical terms where pyrocat style developers are kind of like bass guitars or a double bass. It's as though many of the tones are drawn toward a darker tonal representation, for better or worse.
A developer like D76 is like an electric guitar, a little rough around the edges but with good mid-tones. A developer like Harvey's 777 is like a cello, with brilliant mid-tones and high notes that soar, and Edwal 12 is kind of like a piccolo flute where the highlights are brilliant, bright, and vibrant.

So many tools. So much to choose from. Good luck with Obsidian Aqua. I hope you find a way to make it suit your needs.

I've been using OA for the past six months. It gives relatively fine grain. These are on Neopan 400, which I find I must rate at ASA 200 to get necessary shadow detail. Scans, not prints. One ml Part A and 5 ml Part B in 400ml water (so somewhat concentrated) at 69F for 13 minutes, agitated gently on the minute. I think I'd want to extend development somewhat to add density to the highlights. Camera: Leica IIIa with 5cm f/3.5 Elmar.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

You may have stumbled upon one of the things about pyrocatechin developers in that they make negatives that are kind of heavy in the mid-tones and shadows. They often lend a dark quality to the prints.
I tend to think of those developers in musical terms where pyrocat style developers are kind of like bass guitars or a double bass. It's as though many of the tones are drawn toward a darker tonal representation, for better or worse.
A developer like D76 is like an electric guitar, a little rough around the edges but with good mid-tones. A developer like Harvey's 777 is like a cello, with brilliant mid-tones and high notes that soar, and Edwal 12 is kind of like a piccolo flute where the highlights are brilliant, bright, and vibrant.

So many tools. So much to choose from. Good luck with Obsidian Aqua. I hope you find a way to make it suit your needs.

Click to expand...

Ha ha. This is awesome Thomas, love the descriptions. Very accurate!

No wonder I like OA, I'm a bass player!!!

Sly do you have a source for the Cachechol in Canada? I wouldn't mind giving this a shot one day but it looks like one of those chemicals that is tough to ship across the US border.

Click to expand...

adelorenzo, I get most of my chemicals from Nymoc in Toronto. Email John Burrows. nymoc@bellnet.ca


OA is indeed a very nice developer, and easy to mix up. Requires very little chems. It's good for tray or rotary. Very nice tonalities and sharp as a tack.

I think it was Michael R. who suggested that a condenser head would give me better results than the cold light head I have been using. He's right. I switched back to the condenser and the contrast of my prints improved by at least half a step. Alas, even the condenser could not save my dalias. OA is tricky. I got fairly poor contrast out of these negatives. As I recall, I made these images under sunlight conditions rather than overcast. I think that if I gave more frequent agitation or more development time, I'd get better negatives. Oh well. Maybe there's a reason why people do testing on film/developer combinations.

There is a pyro group on flickr that Jay DeFehr frequents. I suggest you join that group and post any questions you might have there that he might be able to directly answer.

Regards,
Rob

SchwinnParamount said:

I think it was Michael R. who suggested that a condenser head would give me better results than the cold light head I have been using. He's right. I switched back to the condenser and the contrast of my prints improved by at least half a step. Alas, even the condenser could not save my dalias. OA is tricky. I got fairly poor contrast out of these negatives. As I recall, I made these images under sunlight conditions rather than overcast. I think that if I gave more frequent agitation or more development time, I'd get better negatives. Oh well. Maybe there's a reason why people do testing on film/developer combinations.

Click to expand...

You might want to experiment a little bit with how you shoot and process the film, and print from different versions. It does us a few things to do so.

It's also hilarious to print on graded papers using these developers. They turn out completely different.

Good luck!

Glutton for punishment that I am, I just developed a sheet of 8x10 Arista.edu ultra 100 in the OA for 10 min at 70degrees with 10 seconds of agitation every 2 minutes with a 55 second initial agitation.
Visual inspection of the neg in the wash tells me that it is pretty contrasty. I'll scan it tonight when it is dry and then post the neg scan.

Gakk!!

f.64 ain't my friend. The diffraction kills the enjoyment of the scan. Not to mention that the soft emulsion is sooo fragile and I was slightly careless when developing. Oh, and the weird lens flair. The sky is marred. With that in mind, are you still interested in seeing the scan? If so, I can upload it.

I'm interested! Have ordered my catechol, etc and plan to be doing my own testing in the New Year.

https://www.flickr.com/search?text=%22OBSIDIAN%20AQUA%22&sort=relevance are all developed in OBSIDIAN AQUA.

RR

Holy Cow, RR! those images give me some hope indeed.