Phenidone in D-76?

Rusifizio · Nov 24, 2005

Friends!
I want to change metol for phenidone in D-76. Any use? What do you think?
My thoughts:
1. economy - 5-10 times.
2. low eghaustibility
3. expands latitude
4. grain is the same as with metol.
5. safe for hands.

Keith Tapscott. · Nov 24, 2005

Rusifizio said:
Friends!
I want to change metol for phenidone in D-76. Any use? What do you think?
My thoughts:
1. economy - 5-10 times.
2. low eghaustibility
3. expands latitude
4. grain is the same as with metol.
5. safe for hands.

Microphen & Xtol are suitable substitutes for D-76 & ID11 if you are worried about a Metol allergy. Ilford DD-X can be considered if you prefer not to dissolve powder form chemicals.

srs5694 · Nov 24, 2005

In theory, you should be able to take a D-76 formula, substitute 1/10 the phenidone for the metol, and get pretty similar results. I've not tried that myself, though. To go a bit further, you can substitute ascorbic acid for the hydroquinone (with some extra borax content to get the right pH) for further safety/environmental benefits. The result is Chris Patton's E-76. I've never used E-76, but I've seen claims that it's more active than D-76, so you might need to adjust your development times.

As to the specific benefits you ask about:

Homemade D-76 costs $0.10/roll, according to my cost spreadsheet and assuming a 250ml tank, 1:1 dilution, and one-shot use. Substituting an appropriate amount of phenidone for the metol lowers the cost to $0.09/roll. You can judge for yourself how important that $0.01/roll is.
I don't know about exhaustibility of metol vs. phenidone. Personally, I use all my film developers one-shot and at fairly common dilutions, so I'm not concerned about capacity. If you want long storage life, though, you might want to look into Dimezone S rather than phenidone.
I also don't know about the practical effects of phenidone vs. metol on latitude.
AFAIK, grain is the same with the two developing agents, but this certainly isn't a reason to change.
IMHO, this is the biggest benefit, especially if you're starting to suffer from contact dermatitis. Another option would be to wear gloves when doing your processing.

As Keith says, there are other commercial metol-free developers. In addition to the ones he's mentioned, Paterson FX-50 springs to mind. Rodinal is also metol-free, but it uses a metol precurser, p-aminophenol. I'm not sure if this would be an improvement in terms of contact dermatitis, though. There are lots more mix-it-yourself formulas for metol-free developers, too. Suzuki's DS-10 and Gainer's PC-TEA both seem popular.

Of course, if you're concerned about contact dermatitis, you might want to look into phenidone-free paper developers, too. Chris Patton's E-72 is a modified D-72 (Dektol) similar to his E-76 modification of D-76. I've not used it, though. Personally, I've begun using Suzuki's DS-14, which works pretty well, although it's a bit slower than Dektol (1:45 vs. 1:15 for the papers I use).

Tom Hoskinson · Nov 24, 2005

Of course, Kodak HC-110 also provides a Metol Free alternative for film developing.

Tom Hoskinson · Nov 24, 2005

Rusifizio said:
Friends!
I want to change metol for phenidone in D-76. Any use? What do you think?
My thoughts:
5. safe for hands.

If you are concerned about your skin safety, dermatitis, etc., you should not be putting your skin (i.e. hands) in contact with your processing chemistry. Tank processing is one answer. Wearing Nitrile gloves is another - my personal choice is the Kimberley Clark Nitrile Safeskin gloves - from the drugstore. many of my developers contain Glycin, Metol, Hydroquinone, Catechol, Pyrogallol, Amidol, etc.

I will not buy or use any pre-mixed chemistry where no Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) is available. It seems that Ilford,Kodak, Agfa and PF, all make their MSDS sheets easily available. Good Luck finding an MSDS for a Patterson product

nworth · Nov 24, 2005

srs5694 said:
In theory, you should be able to take a D-76 formula, substitute 1/10 the phenidone for the metol, and get pretty similar results. I've not tried that myself, though. To go a bit further, you can substitute ascorbic acid for the hydroquinone (with some extra borax content to get the right pH) for further safety/environmental benefits. The result is Chris Patton's E-76. I've never used E-76, but I've seen claims that it's more active than D-76, so you might need to adjust your development times.

...

Hydroquinone is not active in the usual sense in D-76. The pH is too low. Instead, it regenerates and activates the metol. I'm not sure what happens in a PQ developer at this pH, and I'm sure the action of a PC developer is quite different. All the combinations work, however, and you can choose whatever works best for you. Since D-76 is generally used diluted 1+1 as a one-shot with modern films, economy and capacity are probably not factors in the various formulas. Shelf life may be. Diluted D-76 spoils quickly and must be used within a few hours. The stock solution also changes over time and should be used within two weeks or so. I don't know how the others hold up. Any ideas people?

gainer · Nov 24, 2005

nworth said:
Hydroquinone is not active in the usual sense in D-76. The pH is too low. Instead, it regenerates and activates the metol. I'm not sure what happens in a PQ developer at this pH, and I'm sure the action of a PC developer is quite different. All the combinations work, however, and you can choose whatever works best for you. Since D-76 is generally used diluted 1+1 as a one-shot with modern films, economy and capacity are probably not factors in the various formulas. Shelf life may be. Diluted D-76 spoils quickly and must be used within a few hours. The stock solution also changes over time and should be used within two weeks or so. I don't know how the others hold up. Any ideas people?

It would be difficult to prove that. Anyway, phenidone in place of metol works just fine.

The pH requirement for hydroquinone applies to hydroquinone alone. Either phenidone or metol energizes hydroquinone by reducing the induction period. If phenidone actually is oxidized, hydroquinone will not bring it back. Maybe I can't prove my statement either, but it really makes no difference. When it makes a difference is when you are using either theory to design a developer.

dancqu · Nov 25, 2005

[QUOTES=gainer]
"Either phenidone or metol energizes hydroquinone
by reducing the induction period."

I may have missed something some where along the way.
I'll have to think about that. By "Either ... or" do you mean,
one and not the other?

"If phenidone actually is oxidized, hydroquinone
will not bring it back."

So, leave the hydroquinone out? Dan

gainer · Nov 25, 2005

dancqu said:
[QUOTES=gainer]
"Either phenidone or metol energizes hydroquinone
by reducing the induction period."

I may have missed something some where along the way.
I'll have to think about that. By "Either ... or" do you mean,
one and not the other?

"If phenidone actually is oxidized, hydroquinone
will not bring it back."

So, leave the hydroquinone out? Dan

There are cases where using both metol and phenidone will give lower activity than using either. I meant that using 1/10 the amount of phenidone in place of metol will produce about the same results, with maybe a little more shadow speed from the phenidone.

Heavens no, I did not mean leave the hydroquinone out. I meant that IMO and that of some others, the hydroquinone does the work. It is the agent that is oxidized. If you were to use the developer until the hydroquinone is used up, you would see the reddish color of oxidized phenidone and the activity would be very much weaker. The role of metol or phenidone is to shorten the induction period of hydroquinone. Phenidone alone is not of much use for most films. We use it in POTA for extremely long exposure ranges or for very high contrast films that we want to use for normal contrast scenes. Metol alone is much more useful, as D-23 demonstrates.

If you have used hydroquinone alone in a developer, you will notice that it takes a while to get started and then accelerates, sometimes producing more density than you wanted before you can stop it.

There is a hazard in using rules of thumb to predict the performance of combinations of developing agents. It is not as sure as knowing what should be in a new dish you are cooking up by what you know about the individual spices. "Hmm. It needs a dash of Oregano." What may happen is that a particular combination may behave just as you expected in one case. Trial and error may produce a combination of ingredients that behaves as desired, but the behavior might also be obtained without one of the ingredients.

Ian Grant · Nov 25, 2005

D76 and ID-11 are for all intents and purposes the same, the published formulae are !

Ilford did reformulate ID-11 with Phenidone a few years ago and it was only sold in the US market, they quickly reverted back to the MQ version, I've no idea why.

The Darkroom Cookbook lists an Ilford PQ developer which they claim is similar to Microphen, in fact it's an Ilford published PQ variant of ID-11. They also list ID-68 which is in fact intercahngeable with Microphen.

Ian

dancqu · Nov 25, 2005

Rusifizio said:
Friends!
I want to change metol for phenidone in D-76.

Don't change it ADD it. How does Acufine-76
sound to you? Or maybe FX-4-76? FX-4 is
touted as a substitute for Acufine.

A 1/4 gram of phenidone will convert that ho-hum
jug of 76 into a knock-your-socks-off demon
of a developer. Dan

dancqu · Nov 25, 2005

Ian Grant said:
The Darkroom Cookbook lists an Ilford PQ
developerwhich they claim is similar to Microphen,
in fact it's an Ilford published PQ variant of ID-11.
They also list ID-68 which is in fact intercahngeable
with Microphen. Ian

PQ-FGF, or Ilford Universal Developer, according
to a reading in Patrick Dignan's Classic B&W Formulas
has the exact same formula as Microphen's apparent
formula.

S. sulfite, Q and P; 100, 5, and .2 grams.
Borax and Acid and Bromide; 3, and 3.5, and 1 grams

All that Borax and it's acid for buffering. I think it may
be omitted depending on use. Dan

phfitz · Nov 27, 2005

Hi there,

dancqu:"Don't change it ADD it. How does Acufine-76
sound to you? Or maybe FX-4-76? FX-4 is
touted as a substitute for Acufine.

A 1/4 gram of phenidone will convert that ho-hum
jug of 76 into a knock-your-socks-off demon
of a developer. Dan"

Thanks for kicking me in the head. Has anyone tried this yet? More to the point, has anyone tried this as divided P-76?

Thanks.

dancqu · Nov 27, 2005

phfitz said:
Hi there,

Thanks for kicking me in the head.
Has anyone tried this yet? More to the point,
has anyone tried this as divided P-76? Thanks.

Is this the accepted substitute formula for
Acufine? Crawley's FX-4:

Metol, Phenidone, Hydroquinone, 1.5, .25, 5, grams
S. Sulfite, Borax, Bromide, 100, 2.5, 1, grams
H2O to make 1 liter

Save for the phenidone D-76 and Acufine are
very nearly the same developers. D-76 has a
1/2 gram more metol and 1/2 gram less borax,
and of course no phenidone. Off the shelf
D-76 is ???. Do you compound you own?

Borax and Bromide may not be needed. That
would depend on use. Dan

phfitz · Nov 28, 2005

Hi there,

dancqu, I can mix it up for scratch. If phenidone kicks it off this far, I'll try 2.0g for both metol and HQ, maybe leave out the HQ for the second batch to see the difference. I think I'd lower the sulfite to 75g also. Oops, that would make it P-96. 4 min. in each bath should work. Now to order in some phenidone.

Should be fun to try with Aerocon II films. I need to find a base line for each of them.

Gerald Koch · Nov 28, 2005

Some years ago, a product called Crone Additive was popular. It appeared to be merely a solution of Phenidone in isopropyl alcohol. It was added to ordinary D-76 to convert it to "C-76". It added some film speed and better shadow detail. So yes you can add Phenidone to D-76.

lee · Nov 30, 2005

Mr. Huff,

Could you at least send apug.org $24 and become a subscriber? This is not YOUR space to spam every post containing a chemistry question. I am offended that you think you have a right to just show up and hawk your wares and not be a subscriber at least. How about applying for a sponsorship to APUG.ORG? Have you no shame?

lee\c

gainer · Nov 30, 2005

Ian Grant said:
D76 and ID-11 are for all intents and purposes the same, the published formulae are !

Ilford did reformulate ID-11 with Phenidone a few years ago and it was only sold in the US market, they quickly reverted back to the MQ version, I've no idea why.

The Darkroom Cookbook lists an Ilford PQ developer which they claim is similar to Microphen, in fact it's an Ilford published PQ variant of ID-11. They also list ID-68 which is in fact intercahngeable with Microphen.

Ian

That version of ID-11 didn't have phenidone, from what I have read. It had an EDTA or similar salt to prevent physical development, thereby increasing acutance. It was removed, IIRC, because it was not compatible with the high iodide T-grain films.

pentaxuser · Nov 30, 2005

lee said:
Mr. Huff,

Could you at least send apug.org $24 and become a subscriber? This is not YOUR space to spam every post containing a chemistry question. I am offended that you think you have a right to just show up and hawk your wares and not be a subscriber at least. How about applying for a sponsorship to APUG.ORG? Have you no shame?

lee\c

I wasn't a believer in telepathic powers but now I am not so sure. I was literally about to post a reply containing the exact sentiments well stated above.

It must be getting to the stage of being counterproductive to Clayton Chemicals reputation as a company.

It may be that the subscriber(or non subscriber apparently) has no intention of contributing to threads other to those where he can hawk his wares but if he continues in this way his credibility is in danger of being fatally damaged, should he have something to say - like his statement that 10 mins fibre washing is enough. .

There must be a policy to prevent this or if there isn't there should be now.
I had an open mind about his statement yesterday but that was before his pithy replies began multiplying exponentially and all on the same track. I am rapidly losing the open-mindedness I had.

As things stand we are getting to the stage of his posts constituting a no cost advertising highjack.

Pentaxuser

lee · Nov 30, 2005

yeah I agree. His spamming has been noted by the modorators. Maybe something can be done about him.

lee\c

jd callow · Nov 30, 2005

pentaxuser said:
There must be a policy to prevent this or if there isn't there should be now.
I had an open mind about his statement yesterday but that was before his pithy replies began multiplying exponentially and all on the same track. I am rapidly losing the open-mindedness I had.

As things stand we are getting to the stage of his posts constituting a no cost advertising highjack.

Pentaxuser

We have received a number of complaints (more than any other in such a short time period) and have sent him at least one PM. I agree that it is spam, that it would be different if he were in some way adding value, and that his actions have the potential of hurting the company he is so ardently promoting. If it continues we will be more aggressive.

There is a way to promote your product on APUG. It starts by offering value to the threads, and continues on through to subscribing or being a sponsor. There are a fair few examples -- B&W Mag, Satin Snow, J and C and now Ilford all come to mind (and I am sure I've missed many).

pentaxuser · Nov 30, 2005

mrcallow said:
We have received a number of complaints (more than any other in such a short time period) and have sent him at least one PM. I agree that it is spam, that it would be different if he were in some way adding value, and that his actions have the potential of hurting the company he is so ardently promoting. If it continues we will be more aggressive.

There is a way to promote your product on APUG. It starts by offering value to the threads, and continues on through to subscribing or being a sponsor. There are a fair few examples -- B&W Mag, Satin Snow, J and C and now Ilford all come to mind (and I am sure I've missed many).

Thanks. I had a look for Clayton Chemicals. It seems to have been in business for over 50 years and can be reached via Digital Truth. It seems to sell only in N. America but unless it is a tiny company, run by people who all have the same misplaced outlook on what constitutes good practice, I'd have thought that some senior manager would have realised this isn't the way to attract business.

Pentaxuser

jim appleyard · Nov 30, 2005

I wouldn't mind so much if Mr. Huff's posts added something. Lots of folks could benefit from his knowledge and Clayton products; I'm sure Clayton products are 1st rate. Mr. Huff, please add to a thread by telling a time, a temp and *WHY* your F-%$#@ dev may be good for film "X". Don't just leave a simple, tacky statement like, "F-*&^ dev is super, it's been known to stop Kryptonite!"

Plus, I'm sure the home office would would approve of you spending a couple of $ for advertising and supporting apug.

Paul Sorensen · Nov 30, 2005

Interestingly I just got some spam from them at my work email and also a phone call. Neither one was very enticing. The text of the email was hilarious. Apparently Clayton is "interested in marketing to the market our products." I think that they need some new marketing folks. I am surprised that they would be acting like this since they are indeed an established company with established products. I wonder if this Huff fellow is new perhaps or they are having some financial issues and are desperate. None of this makes me want to use them as our chemistry supplier.

pentaxuser · Dec 1, 2005

Paul Sorensen said:
Interestingly I just got some spam from them at my work email and also a phone call. Neither one was very enticing. The text of the email was hilarious. Apparently Clayton is "interested in marketing to the market our products." I think that they need some new marketing folks. I am surprised that they would be acting like this since they are indeed an established company with established products. I wonder if this Huff fellow is new perhaps or they are having some financial issues and are desperate. None of this makes me want to use them as our chemistry supplier.

Wow!This would seem to confirm it. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
If they didn't try these tactics before then it suggests these are the new marketing folks they think they need.

Maybe we're lucky that their market doesn't extend to the U.K. If the threads so far do not bring about a change in their approach despite all our friendly advice then our worst fears about their attitude is confirmed.

By the way being a capitalist hyena myself with a eye on the fast buck,I claim the copyright to this episode when I submit it the Harvard Business School as a lesson in how not to do things. In anticipation of being invited to address the school, I am practising my "Steve Jobs" dynamic jump as I emerge on stage.

Pentaxuser

Phenidone in D-76?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency