Paper Developers with Higher Shadow Separation than Dektol

Is there a paper developer which produces more shadow separation than Dektol? I use EMAKS graded as a base paper.

Before you go changing developers, the first step to having tonal separation in the shadows on the print is to have tonal separation in the shadows on the negative. Do you have that? You cannot print what is not there, no matter what developer you use.

You should be able to print most negatives perfectly well with D-72. You may be better off using a variable contrast paper, try Adox MCC 110.

Tom

I have the shadow detail in the negative.

A friend mentioned Liquidal paper developer, available through The Photographers Formulary (PF). The PF description advised Liquidal produces similar results to Dektol but with enhanced shadow separation. Does anyone have a report on Liquidal? Is Formulary 130 different in shadow contrast than Dektol?

After posting my question I came across this info:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I limit my materials for consistency. I've settled on EMAKS Graded for a base paper and need a few tricks to tweak the image. Liqudal may be worth trying when I make my next chemical purchase.

Dektol/D72 is quite a high contrast paper developer (it was originally designed for plates/films) and you can definitely open up the shadow details with a softer working developer.

I'd use Selectol (D52) or Selectol Soft (D165/ID-3), or Dr Beers Variable Contrast developer and perhaps 2 bath development.

Ian

Thanks Ian

My perception is Dektol is contrasty in the low tones. I got the print I wanted when I switched from a condenser to dichro head. That experience started me thinking of other controls such as print developers.

Richard Jepsen said:

Is Formulary 130 different in shadow contrast than Dektol?

Click to expand...

I would guess you'd have to check curves specific to a paper in mind to compare Dektol with Formulary 130. Personally, I feel that it is easier for me to get better shadow separation with 130 than with Dektol on MGIV FB. I like to have fully black areas on my prints with adjacent progressive separation of shadow, like here Dead Link Removed and I found that 130 gives me that more easily than Dektol. I also feel that selenium toning further helps me achieve that goal - I tone 3-3.5 mins in 1:9 KRST at 24C.

I really like both of those developers.

I'd love to know if my experience is founded on a fact supported by a specific curve (would Ralph be on duty today?) or a combination of parameters related to the way I print.

By the way, the separation is even more pronounced on the actual print than in the web image.

Rafal, about 8 months ago I had the same theory about using 130 and Dektol. The 130 got used up by a student and I really did not fully test it.

The link below indicates 130 is warmer, with softer highlights than Dektol. The chart suggests there is a meaningful difference in highlights/contrast between the 130 and Dektol.

http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/silvergrain_tektol.php

Past experience is 130 (1:4) changes characteristics during a print session. Dilution is a factor. I also have a print with a light yellow stain which may be the glycine glow. I'm not smart with chemistry but does a bromide build up from printing affect 130 development.

Fred Picker and Zone VI Studios, when they existed, marketed a Zone VI Print Developer, which they claimed avoided Dektol's "aggravating dumping of the shadows." Which means that they, at least, believed Dektol pushed the shadow detail up onto the shoulder of the paper. I believe their developer was the equivalent of Ilford Bromophen. I still use it. (Note that "dumping shadows" is similar to blocked highlights on a negative.)

Curves for different print developer/paper combinations would tell you the story. More information squeezed onto a rather flat rounded shoulder = "dumping of the shadows." A long, steep shoulder = great shadow detail separation.

A different paper with a straighter, steeper shoulder will give you more shadow detail.

The film used would make a bit of a difference as well. Shallow long toe on the film coupled with the flat rounded shoulder on the paper and you get a double whammy... The opposite would help shadows. If you're shooting a film with a long toe (e.g., Trix-320) then switching to a film with a steeper toe (or overexposing the Tri-X to get the shadows up on the straight-line portion a bit more) will gain you more shadow detail from the same developer/paper combination.

That said, I don't plot curves myself. There is, however, a lot of info out there and, doing a few comparisons in the darkroom with the same neg and paper tells this and a few other tales.

To answer your question from personal experience. I, too, have found Dektol to dump shadow detail a bit (in comparison to some of the other developers I use), something that can be gratifying at times when you want to move some of that detail to black. I think this is a characteristic of standard MQ developers in general. PQ developers like Bromophen seem to deliver a bit better shadow detail while retaining a similar overall contrast as the MQ developers. Bear in mind, this is for "standard contrast" or "harder-working" developers. Softer-working developers will always give more shadow detail, by definition, and softer general overall contrast. There are lots of special formulas with other developing agents and their own special characteristics. Some swear by Amidol, others by Ansco 130, etc.

So, try switching to a PQ developer or a softer-working formula and see if you like it. Also, search the web for various paper/developer curves and see if that gives you any hints as to which specific developer might fit your needs. Read up on the families and characteristics of paper developers to find what candidates for experiment appeal most to you.

Hope this helps,

Doremus Scudder
www.DoremusScudder.com

Amidol and a waterbath will open up the shadows on graded paper.

See Michael Smith's article here:
http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/azoamidol.html

Good luck,

Thanks for the comments. My observations are being confirmed. I prefer more open shadows in prints. In the past I used LPD, switched to Ilford PQ because it was liquid and two years ago switched to Arista Premium. Arista has brilliant mid tones and cleaner whites than PQ. Not for sure how Arista treats shadows but I believe it has better shadow retention than Dektol. BTW, just who makes Arista Premium?

Richard Jepsen said:

Thanks for the comments. Your confirming my observations. I prefer more open shadows in prints. In the past I used LPD, switched to Ilford PQ because it was liquid and two years ago switched to Arista Premium. Arista has brilliant mid tones and cleaner whites than PQ. Not for sure how Arista treats shadows but I believe has better shadow retention than Dektol. BTW, just who makes Arista Premium?

Click to expand...

So how did LPD compare in print?

Mark, LPD is very similar to Ilford PQ. After toning PQ was a touch cooler than LPD on Forte Polywarmtone Plus, the previous Oriental WT emulsion and the discontinued Bergger WT. In fairness, I used a 1+3 ratio with LPD to save pennies. LPD shelf and tray life is longer than PQ and LPD shifts tones slightly with dilution. I read PF 130 works well with EMAKS graded, my base paper. However 130 likes it 4 degrees warmer than 20c, the winter temp of my DR. I'll try 130 again in the Spring.

I tried a water bath with EMAKS and Dektol but paper speed changed more or as much as the contrast. The change in contrast was slight; the print values were very close but not a perfect match. So, it's possible I may be wrong about the effectiveness of a water bath with that paper/dev combo.

Richard Jepsen said:

Past experience is 130 (1:4) changes characteristics during a print session. Dilution is a factor. I also have a print with a light yellow stain which may be the glycine glow.

Click to expand...

Richard, I haven't used 130 diluted as much as you have. I have always used it at 1:1 from stock. My experience was that it was stabler over a long printing session than Dektol, and I had consistent results, but I usually print short runs: 6-12 prints all seemed identical to me. I have not experienced the yellow stain either, but I will watch out for it.

I also agree with your finding that 130 gives a slightly warmer tone than Dektol. In turn, selenium cools it down nicely on MGIV FB. Indeed, when using 130, selenium produces only a very small, but perceptible, and to me a very pleasing effect. Dektol and MGIV FB produce a gentle olive-green cast, which selenium removes very visibly, and perhaps has a more pronounced overall effect. 130 does not seem to produce that olive cast on MGIV.

After switching from Dektol to Ansco 130, I would never switch back. I used it 1:1 in my Nova vertical slot processor and the stuff had amazing shelf life even at working strength (we're talking multiple weeks, including multiple printing sessions of 8-10 8x10 prints each). My biggest goal in switching was to get rid of the olive green undercast you got with Dektol, especially on warm-tone papers like the Bergger VCCB I favored. The 130 cured that in a big way. It also had the added side benefit of opening up the shadows without losing d-max.

Another nice developer to look for is the Ilford Warmtone developer. At one point they made an Ilford Cooltone companion developer, but have since killed that off.

I recall why I moved away from 130. Paper made a larger difference in tonal shifts and color. Liquid developers seem more convenient and cost less. When I first used 130 I mixed 24 oz at (1 + 5). I was cheap. Development time was 4 min and I got a yellow highlight stain on one print at the end of a long DR session. The stain was glow-like. I read 130 mixed at a lower ratio (1 +1 or 1+ 2) is the developer of choice for long print runs with little change. Since I'm looking for a softer developer to complement Dektol or Arista Premium I'll give 130 another try. Reports are it works well with Emaks Graded which I appreciate since the demise of Forte/Bergger.