Photographer's Formulary TD-30 & Formulary 130 Developers

Running through the PF site and section for paper developers, I ran across these two developers. The TD-30 purports to be an improves sub for Dektol with "cleaner" attributes. Anybody used this mix with Ilford RC papers and can speak to this?

The Formulary 130 claims to be a good chase in the Amidol race. Again, seeing as some of these developers prefer a FB and/or bromo composition for best effect, has anyone used this with the Ilford RC's and what sort of paper seems best if not the RC?

I can only say that every pre-packaged product from the Formulary that I have used or tested has lived up exactly to their claims and specifications.

I can add that this is not true of some of the other suppliers of pre-packaged chemistry.

I use the BW65 developer regularly and find it is an exact match for Dektol.

PE

Patrick,

I have only used PF 130, and have only used it one time.I wouldn't hesitate to use it again however. It is relatively inexpensive and does have good black tone to it. Matter of fact, Iwill be ordring some in the next few days.

g

we have used the 130 off and on for years, and it works fine when a wide variety of papers, RC as well as fiber.

I also used the 130 paper developer and loved the deep rich blacks it gave. I haven't used it recently because I have a ton of Neutol and Dektol lying around but I definitely plan on revisiting 130.

I mix my own Ansco 130.

Ilfords RC is famous for it's stability - it gives exactly the same result in any developer. I have managed to "torture" MG IVRC into giving a slightly warmish tone, but only by using a warm-tone developer so diluted and exhausted that no other paper would develop at all. As to the subtle differences between develope A and developer B - forget it. Use Ilford RC for what it is, which is remarkably consistent across the whole range of possible developers (including weak, exhausted and contaminated developers).

I've used the PF 130 and mix my own Ansco 130. They are good developers that give very good blacks. They are not the same as amidol - I find amidol gives better separation in the shadows - but they are very good and I prefer 130 with some negatives.
juan

If there is a quick way to characterize the difference between Glycin and Amido, itl is that Amidol is about blacks and Glycin is about highlights. This doesn't mean Glycin can't make dazzling blacks or Amidol, never ending whites.

The context is that any significance depends upon a technique built to exploit the differences. For one looking to make a good looking print, use Dektol. If you have a particular vision and are willing to fight for it, explore Amidol and Glycin.

This is all predicated on a mastery of technique unified with clarity of vision. It is EXACTLY like arguing the virtues of tonewoods in fine guitars. To appreciate the differences, first become a superb guitarist, then pick the wood that, in the hands of a sympathetic luthier, will help you get where you are capable of going, regardless.

The problem, however,is that RC is pretty darn limited. As Ole say, it is consistent.

Ansco 130 is my standard developer for fiber, and since 95% of my work is fiber, when I do RC, I use 130. Works wonderfully well. But if I did 95% of my work on RC, I'd use Ilford and I'd use -- oh, gosh --- BW 65. I use TF4 from Formulary, and might as well order their developer at the same time.

.