Paper Developers

[Rlibersky]

I have compiled some paper developers from various publications.

Photo-Lab Index 1949
Edwal Modern Developing Methods 5th printing 1946

The rest came from cut sheets or the little books that the companies put out.

I needed to confirm that the formulas are what I have, the yellow highlighted ones have not been confirmed yet. Those that were in grains were converted and rounded to grams

I have not used all these yet but it is of interest.

Randy

 

[Lee L]

Very nice. Can I make one suggestion? I think it would be more readable if you left out the 0.0 quantities, and it would be easier to see which developers are similar in composition.

I'd also appreciate it if you could post it in spreadsheet format. It would be nice to have in that form or additions or editing.

Lee

Last edited by Rlibersky; Today at 09:46 PM.. Reason: Putting in excel file

Thanks!

 

[Anscojohn]

My copy of the formulary for Ansco 103 is 3.5 gms metol per liter; not 3.9.

 

[bwfans]

Thanks this is very good work.

 

[nworth]

Your spreadsheet is an excellent idea. I compared the quantities you listed with those in my files, and I found many differences. Some were just minor differences that probably occurred in the conversion from English to metric units; these were ignored. The most common differences were in the quantity of sodium carbonate. I think that some of those were due to your formulas calling for anhydrous sodium carbonate, while mine called for the more common monohydrate. Some differed markedly. My listings for Agfa 120 and 123 were much more concentrated, probably because they were intended for brown-tone development of warm-tone papers. My listings for Dassonville D-1 and Ilford ID-20 were completely different from yours, and Kodak D-73 differed considerably. I didn't have the formulas for the Kodak Velox and Azo Potrait developers or for the Cyko, Velour Black Portrait, or Ilford ID-36 developers, so these were not checked. I have marked up your spreadsheet to show the changes, and I am attaching it. Yellow highlighted formulas show significant change; blue highlights show those I couldn't check.

It isn't unusual for more than one formula to be listed for a given developer. Manufacturers' recommendations frequently changed over time, especially with changes in papers, and often we find listings for personal variations. Most still work, and the point is to find something you are happy with. Many of my listings are n-th hand copies, and they are not guaranteed. If your formulas came from the manufacturers' literature, they are probably better.

 

[Ian Grant]

Unfortunately your spread sheet contains a number of errors, the Lab Index's were extremely inaccurate. Those errors are in many subsequent books & websites including the first two editions of the Darkroom Cookbook, and Silvergrain.org.

For instance ID78 should have 1.25g Bromide not 0.2 as you're showing, ID-20 should be very similar to ID-62/78 with Metol instead of Phenidone and less bromide than ID-78, it's incorrect as is ID-36, . Ansco 103 is wrong as John says, there are two versions but only the sulphite varied, it was dropped to 45g /litre from 57g/litre in 1941 and no longer recommended as a Universal developer for films as well, it should also be 11.5g Hydroquinone.

I've not checked all of thers but there will be more errors, many of the concentrations are wrong as nworth says. These errors are the Publications not you BTW, it goes to show just how unreliable they are, you need to refer instead to the manufacturers own published data, rather than 3rd party sources like the Lab Index.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

Just dropped all your data into my database and cross checked the rest:

Agfa Ansco - 103, 110, 120, 123, 125 are all incorrect, the Agfa Ansco formulae are vavailavle online in two different Agfa Ansco publications. Agfa 100 is also wrong, Kodak D73 is an odd dilution. D72 is the correct commercial version, but there's also another published version with some of the weights rounded to the nearest whole gram.

My data for the Defender/Haloid formulae etc is from a Lab index. Of the Lab Index formulae I have been able to cross check over the years the error rate is around 75% which is excessively high, that doesn't include wrong dilution/strengths, so I don't trust it at all.

Ian

 

[Rlibersky]

I have noticed differences as well. This is what was the most interesting to me.

Right or wrong there could and have been changes made over time. Even though the formulas are different they do work.

Why should there be a trust level at all. We could change the names a to for example D73-1949, D73-1970. this would make the comparisons work. If you add or send me the formula I will reedit the database so all the same named formulas are next to each other.

nworth did make some changes but I think the changes were made to my formulas rather then adding new ones the yellow highlighted formulas in the original have not been confirmed. These are the Ilford formulas that Ian mentioned.

I will also go throught the data to get accurate information on where the formula came from.

Randy

 

[jgjbowen]

Randy et al,

thanks for sharing,

 

[Lee L]

I will also go through the data to get accurate information on where the formula came from.

Randy

Thanks. That would be helpful, and something that's often missing in other published data, making it harder to track errors.

Lee

 

[Ian Grant]

I have noticed differences as well. This is what was the most interesting to me.

Right or wrong there could and have been changes made over time. Even though the formulas are different they do work.

Why should there be a trust level at all. We could change the names a to for example D73-1949, D73-1970. this would make the comparisons work. If you add or send me the formula I will reedit the database so all the same named formulas are next to each other. . . . .

Randy

Yes, the published versions of some formulae were changed over the years but that number is very small indeed and normally the new version has a different number, like D19 - D19b

There's a huge difference between manufacturers changes and a source like the Photo Lab Index's which are just riddled with errors, some due to miscalculations between metric & avoirdupois, mistakes with anhydrous, monohydrated & crystalline versions of compounds and a vast number of typos.

Ian

 

[Rlibersky]

Here is an updated version. I've included a reference to the publications i found the formula. I also set the table up in portrait format for easier sorting.

If you want to add to the database go ahead. This could be a interesting sheet for those of us who like this stuff. I only ask that you add any formula to a new line rather then change one that already exists.

 

[Lee L]

Thanks. I'd already rotated the old copy because it was easier to read. There are a few obvious typos in the reference section, and I suspect the Agfa reference #7 was early 20th century, not early 19th. But that's just a guess.

Lee

 

[Ray Rogers]

Hi.

Nice gesture.
I had some difficulty...

a.
I find ### at certain places; mouse over gives me the "hidden" values but don't understand what is going on...

b.
Is select text and editing blocked?
I was going to make spelling etc. changes to a copy I downloaded but seemed to be unable.

c.
Does this (2nd) version include Ian's comments/corrections?

TKX

 

[Lee L]

Hi.

Nice gesture.
I had some difficulty...

a.
I find ### at certain places; mouse over gives me the "hidden" values but don't understand what is going on...

b.
Is select text and editing blocked?
I was going to make spelling etc. changes to a copy I downloaded but seemed to be unable.

c.
Does this (2nd) version include Ian's comments/corrections?

TKX

a. Widen the column, the ### indicates content that's too wide to display properly at the current column width, but it will display the content correctly when you change the column width enough.

b. Insert a new sheet, then copy and paste the "formula vertical" sheet from Rlibersky into that new sheet. It will then be editable on the new sheet. The latest version from rlibersky is locked, but a copy and paste makes it editable in the new location.

c. I haven't checked yet.

I just counted, and I've been using spreadsheets for 26 years. I should be better at it than I am.

Lee

 

[Ray Rogers]

a. Widen the column...

Yes thats what I thought... I used to do that by simply double clicking but it did not work... with your words I tried again, this time using the select and pull method and it worked... I tried this first on the apug 2nd version... just as a test no intention of saving it - but perhaps I did anyhow, as the XXXs are now all gone.

b. Insert a new sheet, then copy and paste the "formula vertical" sheet

How do I copy it?
select all does not work, nierther does mouse-dragging nor "Ctrl C"....

 

[Ian Grant]

c.
Does this (2nd) version include Ian's comments/corrections?

TKX

No it still contains Lab Index errors, Siurces 2, 3, 11 & 12 are unreliable. It's not helpful unless the data is correct. It really isn't useful putting incorrect versions of formulae online, as the mistakes get perpetuated..

For instance there have never been two versions of ID-20, although early Ilford manuals did show a weaker stock solution, but the Formula and working strenghts after dilution were the same.

ID-78 should have 4.5 g/litre Potassium Bromide not 0.4 as shown in the table. This mistake was made in the Lab Index and has been continued in all US publications, & websites (until recently). Ilford themselves published the formual correctly in a least 3 publications.

D52 (1973) is in fact D52b, the figures should be double with 12.5 g/litre Hydroquinone.

It's important to state whether a formula source is Agfa Ansco or Agfa/Orwo Germany as a number of formulae are very different

I'd love t6 see the early 19th C Agfa Formula I think he means 20th C

Ian

 

[Rlibersky]

You can put the correct data in if you like. I only blocked the cells with data. It wasn't my intention that the database was exact. It was to show the differences and allow for experimentation. All the formulas will work.

A waste of time? If people are hung up on the spelling, well I don't know. I will go in and change the spelling errors. Probably Wednesday.

I am willing to give the password out if someone really wants it.

 

[Ian Grant]

I'll send you the some of correct data later today so you can cut & paste into place.

I was taking the mickey about the 19th C as Photography only began at the end of the first half of the 19th C. Agfa of course wereinvolved earlier than Ilford or Kodak.

My database has over 450 B&W developers listed so far and I know I have at least 200 more to add, but I'll cross check your data against it in an hour or so, I have to add 2 columns to let me sort them.

You're mixing monohyrated & anhydrous forms of carbonate without saying which it should be or converting to just one form, also duplicating formulae like Gaf/Ansco 120 which are the same, one's listed with anhydrous the other monohydrated. There is i

All your errors are coming from sources 2 & 3 which were in turn used as sources for 11 & 12.

Ian

 

[Lee L]

How do I copy it?
select all does not work, neither does mouse-dragging nor "Ctrl C"....

Sorry, I can't help you there. I'm using openoffice and "select all" then copy and paste worked fine for me. It may be a difference in the way openoffice and MS Office treat locked cells. Take Rlibersky up on the password offer.

I'm putting in some other developers I want to try (for the sake of easier comparisons with other formulae) that have additional components, so my copy of the spreadsheet is already "incompatible" with the original because of added columns.

Thanks very much for your input Ian. Not all of us have the source material that you have to hand.

Lee

 

[Ian Grant]

I sent the corrections to Rlibersky, many are just mix-ups with monohydrated/crystalline/anhydrous forms, others are where the Photo Lab Index's make typos and calculation errors, they tended to convert formula published with anhydrous Carbonate to monohydrated.

It shows the huge importance of only trusting Primary sources, ie the manufacturers own published data. My academic training both at Degree level & higher always stressed that only primary sources can be trusted, secondary sources are always assumed to be fallable, and unless they reference Primary sources and the data you cross check is accurate, in the case of the Lab Index far to high a level is highly inaccurate.

Lee, my own database also contains a great many formulae from Patent, some of which were sold under various trade names, were experimental, or show commercial deviances from earlier published formulae. For instance the Swedish forerunners of Xtol , Xtol was only released after that Patent expired, others are the early version of Ilfosol. I've probably under estimated how many more dev's I have yet to add but have collected.

Ian

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Ilfosol, the commercial ILFORD product or a generic equivalent?

Tom.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ilfosol, the commercial ILFORD product or a generic equivalent?

Tom.

An Ilford formula, whether it's the final production formula it would be impossible to tell, or test against, as the original is long gone.

Ian

 

[Ray Rogers]

I must have been going to the wrong parties!

I'll send you the some of correct data later today so you can cut & paste into place.Ian

I could add them if Randy is busy, I seem to have it working now....

I was taking the mickey about the 19th C., as Photography only began at the end of the first half of the 19th C.

I have seen people slip someone a mickey in old b/w movies, but until now, I have never known anyone to take one themselves...
I think I must have been going to the wrong parties!

My database has over 450 B&W developers listed so far and I know I have at least 200 more to add....

Is there anyone here politically incorrect enough to suggest that one would not be fit for the gallows for thinking that instead of twiddling with a measly 50 or so, we should be so crass and reveal an uncivilized desire to gain access to Ian's winter stash of tasty acorns?

 

[CBG]

I have to suspect Ian has quite a few more formulae than he thinks. I have maybe eight or nine hundred formulae - granted, that does include many duplicates like D-76 and it's clones etc., - and Ian keeps showing up with stuff I don't have. I'm going to guess he has books with, and access to formulae into the thousands.