Photographers Formulary Developer 12 used on Kodak 3302

[julifilm]

I have mixed up a batch of PH Film Developer 12 (equiv to Edwal 12) and am using it on Kodak 3302 fine-grain movie print stock, but it does not seem to be working; after 15 mins in the bath there is a slight fogginess to the clear areas and the emulsion stays grey rather than turning black. I dipped a strand of Kodak 100 ASA reversal into it and that turned black pretty much ok.
Am I missing something?
Any suggestions advice greatly appreciated.

JM

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

Is it your first time using that film, the first time using that developer, or the first time for both? In order to assess what could have gone wrong we need to reduce the number of variables. If you have experience with that film, that developer or both, then something else may have changed.

 

[julifilm]

Is it your first time using that film, the first time using that developer, or the first time for both? In order to assess what could have gone wrong we need to reduce the number of variables. If you have experience with that film, that developer or both, then something else may have changed.

It is the first time I am using both the film stock and the developer, yes. I have used 7302 (16mm ) in the past with D19 and D76 including PH version of D76 with no issues. Kodak's tech sheet for 3302 reads "2302/3302" so I assumed it was the same material in 35mm format. Although the color of the undeveloped emulsion is different a little bit.
I also performed a strand test with a few inches of 7302 with this PH Dev 12 and it too seemed grey - not developing all the way. I should add that I did not warm the developer when doing a strand test yesterday, so it stood at probably - hmm, -65 degrees, maybe.
More info than you asked, but, - any ideas?

thanks
JM

 

[nworth]

The emulsion on the Kodak xx02 films is a lot like enlarging paper. It is probably mostly silver chloride. I haven't heard of anyone trying that in a PPD developer like Edwal (Formulary) 12. Edwal 12 requires a considerable increase in exposure with silver bromide emulsions. I suspect 3302 would require at least another stop. Try doing some very wide range bracketing toward the overexposure side (say EI 6, 3, 1.2, 1, 0.8, 0.5) or whatever, depending on what you think the EI should be. Then narrow down the range and bracket again. 3302 is a very slow film for camera use, about half the speed of enlarging paper. I used 5302 several years ago in some darkroom projects, but I have no experience with the new material. Exposure times were reasonable under enlarger illumination, but I don't know what that translates to in film speed. Maybe someone can help. The basic speed is about the same as a paper speed of 160. That is for developing in Dektol. For a negative developer, the speed will be a quite a bit slower. xx02 films respond quite strongly for developing time vs. contrast adjustments, with corresponding variability in speed.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Edwal 12 uses p-phenylenediamine which is a powerful silver halide solvent particularly for silver chloride. This combined with a very thin chloride emulsion resulted in most of the silver chloride being dissolved before it could be developed to a silver image. The film is intended to be used like printing paper not for camera use hence the word positive in its name. This is a classic example of what happens when people use materials in an unintended manner. I assume that the combination was intended to produce the finest grained negatives as possible. The expression "fine as frog fur comes to mind."

 

[julifilm]

Thank you for this great information, I didn't know those details about the PPD silver chloride issue. (I have learned a lot reading related threads on this forum)
Today I got a chance to dip a strand into Dektol and it worked perfectly. So I will proceed with that developer instead. To add to the uncertainty with regard to the film's speed, I am using it to make photograms and exposing it by moving a light over it while objects, other bits of film, etc are on top of it. The variables are many to say the least.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Photograms can be a lot of fun. Some months ago I saw an exhibition of flowers where the images had been taken with X-rays. The prints were then toned with various dyes. The results were quit beautiful. One could be both the outside and the inside structure of the flower. You may be able to do something similar with small flowers and leaves and a bright light sufficient to pass through the objects.