pH of Ansco 130

Hello,

does anyone know the aim pH of Ansco 130 stock and 1+1. I was not able to find any inforomation about it in the net. My suspition is that the pH of my fresh and replenished 1+1 working solution ist too low, because over all and especially shadow contrast is substantially lower than with a PQ Formula.

Thanks
Gerhard

What kind of paper do you use? There are very few papers where you can control contrast through developer formulation, unless you don't allow development to completion. Yes, Ansco 130 is a rather slow acting developer.

Rudeofus said:

What kind of paper do you use? There are very few papers where you can control contrast through developer formulation, unless you don't allow development to completion. Yes, Ansco 130 is a rather slow acting developer.

Click to expand...

That's totally incorrect, all the major companies used to sell a range of print developers, in Kodak's case it Dektol (D72) - a contrast developer, Selectol (D52) - medium contrast, and Selectol Soft (D165)- low contrast.

There's also Dr Beers variable contrast paper developer, and people use two bath techniques, All papers (with the exception of those which are developer incorporated - I don't know of any now) respond well to contrast control through developer choice, that includes VC papers.

Also Papers aren't developed to completion if you did that you'd distort the tonal range. They are developed long enough to reach their full D-max anything past that is over-development.

Ian

Unless there was a serious error in compounding the developer I seriously doubt that your problem has anything to do with lower pH. There are other sources for your problem. It could be as simple as your thermometer not giving correct readings. You need to check all aspects of your method from exposure to fixing to narrow a source for the problem you describe.

Ian Grant said:

That's totally incorrect, all the major companies used to sell a range of print developers, in Kodak's case it Dektol (D72) - a contrast developer, Selectol (D52) - medium contrast, and Selectol Soft (D165)- low contrast.

There's also Dr Beers variable contrast paper developer, and people use two bath techniques, All papers (with the exception of those which are developer incorporated - I don't know of any now) respond well to contrast control through developer choice, that includes VC papers.

Click to expand...

Hold your horses ... there have been significant changes to photographic paper in the last few decades, and all these "special contrast" paper developers won't make much of a difference with modern multigrade paper. I've tried both Centabrom S and Dektol with Ilford MGIV, and there was no observable difference in results whatsoever, and I was not the only one making this judgement during that session.

Ian Grant said:

Also Papers aren't developed to completion if you did that you'd distort the tonal range. They are developed long enough to reach their full D-max anything past that is over-development.

Click to expand...

Time for experiments then. The attached image (source data is in the attached ods file) shows the density over exposure curves for a transparent step wedge (Stouffer TP 4x5) contact printed onto Rollei Vintage 312 paper (IIRC that's some Foma paper). The different curves show the effect of different amounts of time the paper spent in the developer (some crazy concoction of mine, who cares). There is a visible difference between 2 minutes development or less, 3 minutes and 10 minutes, but it's more in terms of effective paper sensitivity than tonality. One could argue that dev times below three minutes give a slighty convex curve, whereas 3 minutes and above give a straight curve. If you want reproducible image brightness, keep your dev times consistent, but beyond that overdevelopment is not nearly as scary as it sounds.

Development times of 60 seconds and below gave uneven results, therefore the curves start at 70s. I know from sulfur toning, that Foma paper doesn't like incomplete processing, and that Ilford MGIV is more tolerant in that regime. I would dare a guess, that schlger used standard dev times, and didn't account for the fact that Ansco 130 is quite a bit slower in action than commercial PQ developers.

My developing time is 3:15 at 24°C, with an emergence time of low values of about 37 sec. I made the Glycin myself and while adding it to the stock solution, carbon dioxide gases out, because it is somewhat acid. I suppose the buffering effect of the sodium carbonate will compensate for that but I want to be shure, whether my developer has the right pH.

Gerhard

Try a test strip for five minutes in stock. It is not a PQ soup.

schlger said:

My developing time is 3:15 at 24°C, with an emergence time of low values of about 37 sec. I made the Glycin myself and while adding it to the stock solution, carbon dioxide gases out, because it is somewhat acid.

Click to expand...

Can you confirm that you made this Glycin, not this one?

schlger said:

Hello,

does anyone know the aim pH of Ansco 130 stock and 1+1. I was not able to find any inforomation about it in the net. My suspition is that the pH of my fresh and replenished 1+1 working solution ist too low, because over all and especially shadow contrast is substantially lower than with a PQ Formula.

Thanks
Gerhard

Click to expand...

Are you assuming that the paper curve produced by Ansco 130 should be the same as some other developer and if so why?

My observation of my limited use of ansco 130 is that it doesn't produce a DMax as high as some other developers. If all developers gave the same results then we wouldn't need to be using lots of different ones. Of course there are differences and those differences produce largely subjective differences in the print. You pick the developer to suit the negative and the look you want. You don't try and make all developers give the same result. What would the point of that be? If you want it to give same result as another developer its easier to just use that other developer.

RobC said:

Are you assuming that the paper curve produced by Ansco 130 should be the same as some other developer and if so why?

My observation of my limited use of ansco 130 is that it doesn't produce a DMax as high as some other developers. If all developers gave the same results then we wouldn't need to be using lots of different ones. Of course there are differences and those differences produce largely subjective differences in the print. You pick the developer to suit the negative and the look you want. You don't try and make all developers give the same result. What would the point of that be? If you want it to give same result as another developer its easier to just use that other developer.

Click to expand...

ansco 130 likes warmer development because of the glycin, instead of 68º
it enjoys 70-72º

for film, dilute somewhere between 1:6 and 1:10
and do some tests people like their film to look "just so" so what works for me
might not work for you ..

i will never prescribe to the notion that one needs to have a pantry full of
developers. one developer works just fine.

but to each their own i suppose

YMMV

In older books that describe the developing agents Glycin is usually described as being a slow but powerful developing agent. Therefore with a developer like 130 it is advisable to make sure that enough time is given for satisfactory development.

Having used Ansco (Photographers Formulary version) 130 for a good few years as my main paper developer, while I was using Ilford MGIV FB paper, I found it delivered the same DMax as other developers did. I used to develop at 20-22 C, usually for about 3 to 3.5 minutes. I used it because of the image tone—graphite greys and blacks—which I liked, plus amazing longevity and capacity.

When I switched over to using MGWT FB I kept using 130 for a little while, while looking for a cooler toned developer (I described my search in a couple of extensive threads (there was a url link here which no longer exists)). I did not find that the DMax was lesser than that obtained with other developers I used.

schlger said:

My developing time is 3:15 at 24°C, with an emergence time of low values of about 37 sec. I made the Glycin myself and while adding it to the stock solution, carbon dioxide gases out, because it is somewhat acid.

Click to expand...

Gerhard, your developing time and temperature seem right, emergence is a little slower (28-32 s for me). I am intrigued, however, that you have made your own glycin. I understood the process was rather complex. Could you describe it?

Hello Rafal,

yes I made my own glycin from p-aminophenole, monochloro acetic acid and sodium acetate. The reaction is not complex but the tweaking of parameters (time temperature, ..) made several test runs necessary. My main problem was the drying. I am doing it now in a film drying cabinet as fast as possible at about 48°C after I have pressed out as much fluid as possible. My glycin is nearly white with a slight yellowish hint. If totally dry, it will keep so in the freezer. I didn´t wash it with destilled water after filtering it from the fluid, brecause my oservation was, that it will keep whiter being acid (pH 4,75). The raction products are Glycin, acetic acid and sodium chloride. The sodium acetate, that is present in excess forms a buffer with the acetic acid, that will keep the pH at 4,75. I am curious about the intented pH of Ansco 130 because my Glycin adds some acid to the developer and so the pH might be too low. At present I am not able to test the developer densitometrically because my reflection densitometer is out of order. Is anyone out there, who uses Ansco 130 and can measure the pH?

I have to correct my emergence times, they also range from 28 to 35 sec with Adox MCC paper. Im am using it with Ansco 130 since nearly one year mainly because the image tone suits me better and because A 130 reaches the sanme Dmax but has a lower shadow contrast so I can add that contrast to midtones. This works fine with many negatives but some could benefit from a higher shadow contrast.

Thaks
Gerhard

If your final product is a dry powder, how can it contain excess Acetic Acid? Sodium Acetate should not significantly change the pH of your developer, but Sodium Chloride may act as a restrainer on some papers.

Monochloroacetic acid is a very dangerous chemical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroacetic_acid

Both PE and myself tried to discourage people from attempting the synthesis of glycin. I am happy that the poster has so far suffered no ill effects. However ...