Polydol proprietary formula

[trendland]

Another magic bullet. Seemingly the more obscure the better.

No it isn't the obscure - the better.
For example : Some years ago I got Agfa Refinal developer. I can't remember how many 5Liter packs - more then 10
I would say - for less.
May be I payed USD 7,- to all - it was real cheap because they wanted to give it to the scratch. Refinal is like D76/Id11 but with phenidone.

with regards

 

[Werewolfman]

The long discontinued Polydol (powdered) developer was used by portrait photographers and gave superb tonal values. Although the formula was proprietary, does anyone know at least which developer(s) were used in the formula? - David Lyga

I still use Polydol this very day. Back in the 80's, I inquired about Polydol after it was discontinued back in 1984. I remember a Kodak rep, Ruth Leach, telling me that Polydol IS the Microdol-X formula, with the addition of Sodium Carbonate. I just don't remember what that PH level was. But I can positively and truly confirm that it is Microdol-X with Sodium Carbonate added. P-Methylaminophenol Sulfate is its only developing agent. Polydol Developer was formulated back on October 13th of 1961.

Also, the brownish image tone it produced in negatives gave more printing contrast that can be seen with the naked eye and a very wide array of tones. You did not lose the 1 stop in film speed as Microdol-X does when using it full strength. I used DK-50 1:1 as a backup if I ever ran out of Polydol. That developer needs to be put back on the market as it's fantastic with the newer emulsion films. I can't emphasize that enough!

 

[John Wiegerink]

I still use Polydol this very day. Back in the 80's, I inquired about Polydol after it was discontinued back in 1984. I remember a Kodak rep, Ruth Leach, telling me that Polydol IS the Microdol-X formula, with the addition of Sodium Carbonate. I just don't remember what that PH level was. But I can positively and truly confirm that it is Microdol-X with Sodium Carbonate added. P-Methylaminophenol Sulfate is its only developing agent. Polydol Developer was formulated back on October 13th of 1961.

Also, the brownish image tone it produced in negatives gave more printing contrast that can be seen with the naked eye and a very wide array of tones. You did not lose the 1 stop in film speed as Microdol-X does when using it full strength. I used DK-50 1:1 as a backup if I ever ran out of Polydol. That developer needs to be put back on the market as it's fantastic with the newer emulsion films. I can't emphasize that enough!

I agree with you about DK-50 and think I could get by with very easily if it were the last developer on earth. It's a very versatile developer and does a fine job even with modern emulsions. As to what you say about Polydol being the same as Microdol-X with sod. carbonate added and it imparting that brownish stain/color to the negative? The Polydol that you are using is it old stock or homemade? If homemade does the homemade also impart the same brownish tone? I'm just curious since PE says Kodak Microdol-X contains some ingredient that has never been published. So, if homemade it's probably not the same as what Ruth Leach told you about. Just curious! JohnW

 

[Werewolfman]

I agree with you about DK-50 and think I could get by with very easily if it were the last developer on earth. It's a very versatile developer and does a fine job even with modern emulsions. As to what you say about Polydol being the same as Microdol-X with sod. carbonate added and it imparting that brownish stain/color to the negative? The Polydol that you are using is it old stock or homemade? If homemade does the homemade also impart the same brownish tone? I'm just curious since PE says Kodak Microdol-X contains some ingredient that has never been published. So, if homemade it's probably not the same as what Ruth Leach told you about. Just curious! JohnW

The Polydol that I use is new old stock, packaged in a can with a net weight of 1 pound. The brownish image tone makes it better and gives a brilliant contrast and a wide tonal range, than some of your typical developers with the flat or charcoal type of image tone on its processed negatives. As with Ruth Leach, she told me to add Sodium Carbonate to the Microdol-X from Kodak to bring its PH balance up to Polydol's PH.

In my years of experience, film developers that use P-Methylaminophenol Sulfate (aka Elon or Metol) as its primary developing agent, it will produce negatives with that brown image tone which gives a better printing contrast and a wide tonal range that meets the naked eye. A few Metol-Quinone developers will do this as well, but not as well as with the Metol exclusive based developers, such as D-23, DK-20, D-25, Microdol, Microdol-X, and Polydol.

When I mix Microdol-X, it has a slight Peach/Light Tan color; if not, clear like water. When I mix the Polydol, it is a bright yellow color, like HC-110 Dilution B, whereas the coloring looks identical to Lemonade!
Another note on those Metol/Elon exclusive developers. Those developers yield a wide forgiveness range with overexposures, as it will not block or bleach out the highlights as with other developers. As long as you don't water Microdol-X by diluting it, Microdol-X gives a one stop loss in film speed, which means that whatever film that you shoot, you must shoot that film at ½ of that film's ASA/ISO rating. If you want full film speed with Microdol-X, then you dilute that developer 1:3, and it has a 1/4 stop overexposure forgiveness, but with longer development times.

The only developer that mimics Microdol-X today is Ilford's Perceptol. However, it uses Phenidone instead of Elon/Metol (p-methylaminophenol sulfate). It doesn't give that really unique brownish image tone that acts as a developed-incorporated filter like Microdol-X and Metol/Elon developing agent exclusive developers do. Prints from these negatives are not flat, but produces pure blacks, pure whites and EVERY shade of grey in between. The DK-50 achieves that, and now, Kodak discontinued the DK-50 back in 2012. These discontinued developers work far better than these new brews that they keep on coming up with!

In most cases that I've also experienced, the developer you use will determine your film speed and how you expose your film, which is why many film manufacturers today use E.I. (Exposure Index) instead of the typical ASA/ISO ratings.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Hmm pretty certain that Ilford Perceptol does only contain Metol with no Pheindone.....

 

[Arklatexian]

My 1970 Kodak Darkroom Dataguide describes Polydol as "A long-life, high capacity developer designed for portrait, commercial, and school photography." Features include "good speed-grain ratio, superior tonal reproduction characteristics, and stable replenishment properties for consistent negative quality throughout its use."
Apparently, it also included a preference for the Oxford comma. .
Interestingly enough, when I review suggested development times, for some films like Verichrome Pan and Panatomic-x the recommended times are longer than for D-76 1:1 whereas for other films like Tri-X Pan and Plus-X Pan Professional the recommended times are shorter than for D-76 1:1.
There is no reference to Polydol in my 1940 materials.

While I may be wrong, I don't think Polydol existed until after 1950 along with Microdol-X. That is Microdol-X, not Microdol which was around during WW2 and maybe before.......Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

I still use Polydol this very day. Back in the 80's, I inquired about Polydol after it was discontinued back in 1984. I remember a Kodak rep, Ruth Leach, telling me that Polydol IS the Microdol-X formula, with the addition of Sodium Carbonate. I just don't remember what that PH level was. But I can positively and truly confirm that it is Microdol-X with Sodium Carbonate added. P-Methylaminophenol Sulfate is its only developing agent. Polydol Developer was formulated back on October 13th of 1961.

Also, the brownish image tone it produced in negatives gave more printing contrast that can be seen with the naked eye and a very wide array of tones. You did not lose the 1 stop in film speed as Microdol-X does when using it full strength. I used DK-50 1:1 as a backup if I ever ran out of Polydol. That developer needs to be put back on the market as it's fantastic with the newer emulsion films. I can't emphasize that enough!

Regarding DK-50, +1, although I don't think it is that hard to mix from scratch........Regards!

 

[John Wiegerink]

Regarding DK-50, +1, although I don't think it is that hard to mix from scratch........Regards!

Yes, it's not much harder to mix than D-76, but with just a couple more added chems. More folks here who mix there own should really try this developer. It works a treat and used diluted is just as good a the high-definition Beutler developer. When my existing Xtol replenished system starts going south I'm going to try DK-50 as a replenished system developer. I don't use 35mm hardly at all anymore so a little bolder grain/added sharp grain is actually a plus for me. We'll see further down the line. JohnW

 

[removed account4]

I agree with you about DK-50 and think I could get by with very easily if it were the last developer on earth. It's a very versatile developer and does a fine job even with modern emulsions. As to what you say about Polydol being the same as Microdol-X with sod. carbonate added and it imparting that brownish stain/color to the negative? The Polydol that you are using is it old stock or homemade? If homemade does the homemade also impart the same brownish tone? I'm just curious since PE says Kodak Microdol-X contains some ingredient that has never been published. So, if homemade it's probably not the same as what Ruth Leach told you about. Just curious! JohnW

dk50 is a great developer, even for small rolls. used it for a long time as a lab rat for a portrait photographer
5x7 sheets .. also used it with 4x5, 120, 35mm .. the trick to using dk50 ( aside from replenishing it! )
is to store it in a deep tank, keep track of the rolls through it, and when you hit the magic number
( i can't remember what it was, its been 30 years, 500 sheets? 800 sheets? )
you get rid of 2/3 of the tank and season the new tank with 1/3 the olde tank.
the seasoned tank is the biggest photographic secret ( not really a secret ) of all ...
the works like a charm when using 777 ( harvey's panthermic ), ansco130, sumatranol 130/Dsumatranol and others ...
in order to process rolls in a deep tank you take a metal coathanger and straighten it out ... THEN
you use a pair of pliers and make the butterfly at the bottom ... you string your rolls on the wire and
slowly put it in the tank in the dark ( cheapo dollar store nesting food storage bins work great as deep tanks btw )
to agitate you raise and lower the coathanger a little bit every minute for 5-10 seconds depending on your methodology ..
or you can just let it sit there suspended off the floor of the tank ( of course ! ) and semi/ stand if that's your flavor.
i used to always read about people complaining " too contrasty, too much grain, to "crisp" " they didn't season the tank.

 

[Werewolfman]

I have the dataguide and the MSDS for Polydol and still have all the info on it. Polydol was produced back in October of 1961. Also, info on Polydol can be found in The Compact Photo Lab Index by Ernest M. Pittaro Page 413 by Morgan & Morgan Publishers, Inc. Copyright 1977. I also have info online about the history of Polydol. This book has all the times listed on Polydol as it was a highly recommended film developer for all of Kodak's films. It's times are identical to those of full strength D-76, but only ½ minute longer, and I apply this to all the films I process today by using D-76's full strength times as a guide and adding 30 more seconds to its processing times with brilliant results!

I hope that I've shed more light as to the use with Polydol, its history, etc. Again, Polydol has only 1 developing agent, Metol aka Elon (P-Methylaminophenol Sulfate) It is the Microdol-X formula with Sodium Carbonate added. Polydol has NO LYE in it. Polydol's REPLINISHER does!

 

[Trask]

Werewolfman — can you post some of that Polydol history here in this thread? And any other info you think we’d like to read? Thanks!

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Ok then lets work on this and figure out a good home-brew version of Polydol; Metol, Sodium Sulfite and Sodium Carbonate (perhaps some Potassium Bromide me thinks). Sprinkle in some magic Photo Engineer mercapto dust and we've got it!!
My guess:
Metol 5g
S.Sulfite 80g
S. Carbonate (Mono) 25g
Pot. Bromide 1.0g
Photo Engineer Magic Mercapto Dust 0.0001% in an Everclear solution.
I'm calling it Probabble-dol

 

[Down Under]

Gee, golly! This takes me bag a long, long way. I cut my teeth on Polydol in my home darkroom as a 14-year old and still have the most incredibly beautiful, full-toned, brilliant (and easy to print)negatives from it from the long-gone, also greatly lamented (by me) Verichrome Pan.

My one surviving notebook from that distant era (1961-1968) indicates I processed all my films in Polydol for a set time of 10 minutes. My negatives today are somewhat thicker than I like them and they scan more slowly, but still produce fine tones. Enlarging was no problem. I was more into soot/whitewash effects back then, but this isn't to say Polydol alway produced those, quite on the contrary in fact. Mid-tones were lovely, like 1940s studio portraits.

RidingWaves, please will you tell us what your experiences and results are with your home-brew version?

I will await with great interest and then go about mixing my own...

 

[Down Under]

Another magic bullet. Seemingly the more obscure the better.

You have overlooked one notable advantage of magic bullets - you can shoot yourself with one, and it doesn't hurt...

 

[darkroommike]

Ok then lets work on this and figure out a good home-brew version of Polydol; Metol, Sodium Sulfite and Sodium Carbonate (perhaps some Potassium Bromide me thinks). Sprinkle in some magic Photo Engineer mercapto dust and we've got it!!
My guess:
Metol 5g
S.Sulfite 80g
S. Carbonate (Mono) 25g
Pot. Bromide 1.0g
Photo Engineer Magic Mercapto Dust 0.0001% in an Everclear solution.
I'm calling it Probabble-dol

Did you change this from last night?

 

[trendland]

Hmm pretty certain that Ilford Perceptol does only contain Metol with no Pheindone.....

That is not quite clear - it would be nice if Ilford behold on a single developer agend conception from metol.
But they change intregients (in very small percentage ammounds) every few month - I have an idea of.....

with regards

PS : I bought different Perceptol on E bay. From the 79th - 96th but the characteristics is indeed 100% identical.

 

[trendland]

The Polydol that I use is new old stock, packaged in a can with a net weight of 1 pound. The brownish image tone makes it better and gives a brilliant contrast and a wide tonal range, than some of your typical developers with the flat or charcoal type of image tone on its processed negatives. As with Ruth Leach, she told me to add Sodium Carbonate to the Microdol-X from Kodak to bring its PH balance up to Polydol's PH.

In my years of experience, film developers that use P-Methylaminophenol Sulfate (aka Elon or Metol) as its primary developing agent, it will produce negatives with that brown image tone which gives a better printing contrast and a wide tonal range that meets the naked eye. A few Metol-Quinone developers will do this as well, but not as well as with the Metol exclusive based developers, such as D-23, DK-20, D-25, Microdol, Microdol-X, and Polydol.

When I mix Microdol-X, it has a slight Peach/Light Tan color; if not, clear like water. When I mix the Polydol, it is a bright yellow color, like HC-110 Dilution B, whereas the coloring looks identical to Lemonade!
Another note on those Metol/Elon exclusive developers. Those developers yield a wide forgiveness range with overexposures, as it will not block or bleach out the highlights as with other developers. As long as you don't water Microdol-X by diluting it, Microdol-X gives a one stop loss in film speed, which means that whatever film that you shoot, you must shoot that film at ½ of that film's ASA/ISO rating. If you want full film speed with Microdol-X, then you dilute that developer 1:3, and it has a 1/4 stop overexposure forgiveness, but with longer development times.

The only developer that mimics Microdol-X today is Ilford's Perceptol. However, it uses Phenidone instead of Elon/Metol (p-methylaminophenol sulfate). It doesn't give that really unique brownish image tone that acts as a developed-incorporated filter like Microdol-X and Metol/Elon developing agent exclusive developers do. Prints from these negatives are not flat, but produces pure blacks, pure whites and EVERY shade of grey in between. The DK-50 achieves that, and now, Kodak discontinued the DK-50 back in 2012. These discontinued developers work far better than these new brews that they keep on coming up with!

In most cases that I've also experienced, the developer you use will determine your film speed and how you expose your film, which is why many film manufacturers today use E.I. (Exposure Index) instead of the typical ASA/ISO ratings.

By the way (just from interest) wich microdol - x versions formula type did you use for your homebrew film developer?

with regards

PS : This thread from the intention of David Lyga (who just wanted to know wich developer agend is within his Poydol developer) becomes more and more interisting.

 

[trendland]

It is quite clear. The only developing agent in Perceptol is metol.

May be I am mixing some infos. I just remembered Ian Grand who stated it different.
But the failure must be on my side - it may be there is just "pure" metol in perceptol. ....

with regards

 

[Werewolfman]

Werewolfman — can you post some of that Polydol history here in this thread? And any other info you think we’d like to read? Thanks!

Sure. Here are some links regarding Polydol.
https://trademarks.justia.com/721/30/polydol-72130689.html
https://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/items/2186218
https://archive.org/details/aa143-PhotoLabIndexCompactEdition

 

[trendland]

View attachment 197068 View attachment 197068 View attachment 197069 View attachment 197071 View attachment 197068
Sure. Here are some links regarding Polydol.
https://trademarks.justia.com/721/30/polydol-72130689.html
https://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/items/2186218
https://archive.org/details/aa143-PhotoLabIndexCompactEdition

Very interisting thank you much too by the way.
With regards

 

[Werewolfman]

Very interisting thank you much too by the way.
With regards

You're welcome. In one of those links I've shared, you can download The Compact Photo Lab Index for free in PDF. Every Kodak film in that book has times listed for Polydol among all of the other film developers. Those times are almost the identical times for D-76, but usually 30 seconds longer. ALSO, you can dilute Kodak Polydol Replinisher 1:1 and use it as a developer as Kodak recommended this for tanks holding 4 gallons, as their packaged developers made 1, 3½ and 10 gallons, in order to top it off to capacity with no change in their processing times. So, a 1 gallon can/package of Polydol Replinisher actually makes 2 gallons of Polydol Developer! I've tried this and IT WORKS!

The Compact Photo Lab Index also has formulas and instructions for Ansco/GAF, Ilford, Ansco, Edwal and many other hard to find chemistries and info. It's a serious film photographer and the darkroom enthusiast's best friend!

 

[Down Under]

[/ATTACH]
Sure. Here are some links regarding Polydol.https://archive.org/details/aa143-PhotoLabIndexCompactEdition
https://trademarks.justia.com/721/30/polydol-72130689.html
https://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/items/2186218
https://archive.org/details/aa143-PhotoLabIndexCompactEdition

Werewolfman, you are a champion! I have long wanted a version of the Photo Lab Index as a reference tool - back in the days when I was younger and more into experimental darkroom work (I'm now returning to this in my retirememt), I had several copies of the original books, but in one of my (many) moves at the time they were lost and I haven't been able to replace them here in Australia.

All of 724 pages to peruse, oh my...!

The M&M Leica Guide books have been useful to me as well, altho by no means as detailed as this latest treasure you have given us. I have almost all the LG editions from 1935 through to the early '70s and keep adding to my lot one by one, as I find them.

The formulas will be especially useful to me, as we no longer have access to many Kodak (and other) fine darkroom products in Australia. Not even Kodak HC-110 is available here, which to me is nothing short of sinful.

It makes me want to cry to browse thru some of the older books and see how many wonderful photo products we have lost over the decades. They call it "progress"...

 

[john_s]

Werewolfman, you are a champion! I have long wanted a version of the Photo Lab Index as a reference tool...

I remember buying the Photo Lab Index in around 1970 at the Technical Book Store (long gone) in Swanston Street Melbourne. I was reading it in the train on the way home and was disillusioned to find two major mistakes before I arrived at my station (20 minutes). Others were found subsequently. Since then, I have often read of similar experiences. So, read it with interest but check the formulas before mixing, I suggest.

 

[trendland]

I remember buying the Photo Lab Index in around 1970 at the Technical Book Store (long gone) in Swanston Street Melbourne. I was reading it in the train on the way home and was disillusioned to find two major mistakes before I arrived at my station (20 minutes). Others were found subsequently. Since then, I have often read of similar experiences. So, read it with interest but check the formulas before mixing, I suggest.

From my experience one should allways see formulations as a base/starting point. But to reformulate a good formula is sometimes no need. In very much situations one can't make it better.
But just to try this (to make it better) is opening a larger field to get more experience......with every simple failure you can learn more and more.
So no problem if a single point of a formula isn't 100% correct.
Often it is caused from translation.
WITH REGARDS

 

[Werewolfman]

Werewolfman, you are a champion! I have long wanted a version of the Photo Lab Index as a reference tool - back in the days when I was younger and more into experimental darkroom work (I'm now returning to this in my retirememt), I had several copies of the original books, but in one of my (many) moves at the time they were lost and I haven't been able to replace them here in Australia.

All of 724 pages to peruse, oh my...!

The M&M Leica Guide books have been useful to me as well, altho by no means as detailed as this latest treasure you have given us. I have almost all the LG editions from 1935 through to the early '70s and keep adding to my lot one by one, as I find them.

The formulas will be especially useful to me, as we no longer have access to many Kodak (and other) fine darkroom products in Australia. Not even Kodak HC-110 is available here, which to me is nothing short of sinful.

It makes me want to cry to browse thru some of the older books and see how many wonderful photo products we have lost over the decades. They call it "progress"...

Thank you! I'm glad to have resurrected past photo techniques and formulas, along with my 41 years of knowledge in using these various products and processes. If there are any more questions, please feel free to ask me, and I'll do my best to answer them..