PPD for Edwal 12 developer......................where to buy????

[JW PHOTO]

JW PHOTO:

If you want to try to use a PPD deriviative such as CD-2 in place of PPD, one logical starting point would be to use a mol/mol weight substitution. As an example:

Mol. weight of PPD: ~108g
Mol. weight of CD-2: ~215g

So you would start out by using approximately 2x the amount of CD-2 (suppose the the formula calls for 5g PPD, you'd start with 10g CD-2).

However you would likely also need to adjust the final pH of the developer when making this kind of substitution. CD-2 is an acid salt as opposed to PPD free base.

Nothing wrong with experimenting of course, but my advice would be to listen to Ron. Really, this is all ancient history - which includes magical formulas such as the infamous 777 with totally unfounded reputations.

Regarding Sigma, they will not sell to us photogs. A while back I tried to open an account with them as legitimately as possible, filled out all the forms etc. No dice.

Thanks Michael and thanks for explaining the starting point and mol. weight of each. This experiment/project is not at the top of my priority list at the moment and as Ron points out it probably shouldn't be either, but it's still fun and something to do in my elderly years since chasing women and closing bars seems out of the question now. John W

 

[ritternathan]

I think this is what you are looking for?

http://stores.photoformulary.com/film-developer-12/

and the data sheet:

http://stores.photoformulary.com/content/01-0210.pdf

 

[JW PHOTO]

I think this is what you are looking for?

http://stores.photoformulary.com/film-developer-12/

and the data sheet:

http://stores.photoformulary.com/content/01-0210.pdf

Yes, my friend has already order that from them. I'll be using PF's Developer 12 as a reference for my mix with the CD-2 when I'm ready to try it.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The Sease developers, and there are a number of them, are not particularly good choices as they depend too much on the developing action of PPD. This means poor tonality and poor film speed. Developers that contain one or two other developing agents are better choices. PPD is a slow developing agent and so it was easier to move development to another development agent.

 

[Monday317]

Yes, my friend has already order that from them. I'll be using PF's Developer 12 as a reference for my mix with the CD-2 when I'm ready to try it.

Sorry to be late to the party, but there's news:
1. PF now carries PPD, just bought 20 grams, not expensive.
2. Search on Jay DeFehr's Halcyon developer formula; it contains PPD and ascorbic acid, which is super additive and makes for a superb soup. Like most developers with PPD, you'll need to also mix up a replenisher and season the developer with a few rolls to reduce initial graininess in your negs. Like real 777, your developer will get nasty looking after a couple years, but it'll work fine.
3. Another nice PF kit is their "Harvey's 777", which even they admit is actually Morris Germain's Fine Grain formula. It also contains PPD. Highly recommended for Olde School films like Tri-X, FP4-+, Fomapan, Adox, etc.

Hope it's good news for all!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

As I mentioned before PPD is a better silver halide solvent than it is a developing agent. Using the older PPD developers may result in dichroic fog with newer fast emulsions. There is a reason why these developers fell out of favor. Think about it.

PPD is also a sensitizing agent and can produce severe allergic reactions. Always use nitrile gloves when working with it or its solutions, Use a dust mask and face shield while working with the solid. A particularly nasty side effect of PPD is that it can act as cross sensitizer The unfortunate may suddenly find that they are now allergic to metol or some other developer. As a chemist and as someone sensitized to the color developing agents I would recommend not even bringing it into one's house.

 

[Monday317]

As I mentioned before PPD is a better silver halide solvent than it is a developing agent. Using the older PPD developers may result in dichroic fog with newer fast emulsions. There is a reason why these developers fell out of favor. Think about it.

No real argument. Halcyon also has salicylic acid, which is also a factor, and we don't see much in the way of fog, if at all. It's actually an older formula of Jay's, made for modern film. Good stuff!

 

[Petraio Prime]

Any use of a color developer in B&W formulations done years ago are bound to be very primitive based on what can be done. I would dismiss them entirely for any useful purpose. Remember that there is no magic bullet (unless a NEW approach is taken).

PE

Precisely. The old PPD developers are grossly inferior to what we have today, and in some cases injurious to one's health. Forget about it!

 

[Photo Engineer]

I did not say they were inferior.

I said that the experiments and use years ago were very primitive based on current knowledge (at EK and other companies).

PE

 

[Monday317]

I did not say they were inferior.

I said that the experiments and use years ago were very primitive based on current knowledge (at EK and other companies).

PE

Hence the use of ascorbic and salicylic acids, along with the PPD--an approach not tried prior to Halcyon.

 

[trendland]

I bought PPD from Photographers Formulary, 3 or 4 years ago, might have additional restriction on selling bulk, I hope it does not become too expenwsive as it is used MCM 100 my current go to developer.

As I remember MCM 100 uses in a very
simple formular additional metol.
And as a result of this combination it is an absolute finest grain developer.

Or have I mixed up some facts? And thats wrong?

The developer I meant is the original from the 30th may be it is older.

They changes a little the amound of
metol but the basis was the combination
with paraphenyle diamine.

MCM 100 was the original - or not ?

Johnsons - just comming in mind -
yes Johnson was the company wich
creates it out of older formulations.

with regards

 

[greg zinselmeier]

it seems to me, that . . . . "the glory days" a.k.a "this film + this film developer+ this paper + this paper devloper" was awesome !!! the thing is . . . .. the film, itself ( chemical make up, process of ) has changed, along with paper itself. Many times a company will change or tweak it's formulae without telling. placing "null and void" over the testing you just carried out. It would not surprise me, EVEN If you find your chemical of choice, that once mixed in for your favorite soup de jour, that it will respond as as well as it did in 1972! just sayin . . . .

In other words, the moment has gone, it was a great moment, but like all things, they are only special for a brief time. I wouild say. . . you're lucky that you had that moment ( I didn't get to use Edwall-12 with Agfa 25 ASA or whatever) . And those images that you made are INDEED special. and probably can't be repeated again. You might get something close. but then again every other developer is gonna get you pretty close. just my 2 cents, or 2 shillings ???

 

[trendland]

An old friend and I were talking about film developers and he mentioned that he wished he could get his hands on Edwal's 12 film developer again. He said it was one of his favorites from years gone bye and now he wants to start doing his own developing and printing again. I told him he could mix his own with chems from Photographers Formulary or just buy their ready made Developer 12. I told him if he bought the chemicals (I gave him the recipe from the cookbook) he could use my scales and magnetic stirrer to make his batch. He emailed me a couple of days later and said you can't buy PPD (p-Phenylenediamine) at Photographers Formulary and bought the Developer 12 mix instead. I was curious and checked myself and he was right. I then started looking for a place to buy it and came up empty handed. Does anyone no where to buy PPD? Also, I remember Gerald Koch, I think, saying something about color developer CD-1 or CD-2 could be used instead of PPD. What about P-Aminophenol Hydrochloride as a substitute?

Just have a look on the chemical structure - I have it not realy good in mind now.
These you have 4 substances of "para"
diamines.
Para 1-4 correct me may be it is wrong.
Paraphenyldiamine you lokking for is
1,4 paraphenyl............

Ok - not very correct facts out of mind -
but I just wanted to say that no one of the other 3 penyldiamines should work
as a substitute for PPD.
As they are very near to PPD from their
structure on the first side they have total different effects on the other side.
I would guess there is no substitute.

Of cause you can use many other developing agends As substitude and you will reformulate your recipe.
That was the way in the past when PPD
comes out of use (it began in the 40th may be some years earlier)

But as I read your reply I noticed that you whant to have it origginaly.

Well the price from chemical suppliers is as High as they marked PPD as "chemical
reagents".

You can get it from china.It is with much
less costs but it is not practical. .

The minimum orders are 25kg and they
increases to 200kg (with very smal prices).

I suppose you will not get this stuff shipped to you at home.

It is a actual need for PPD in tatoo studios and in the hair - industrie as I have it in mind.
But there you can't get the "pure" substance.

I thing it is a realy stonished way to get
it.

with regards


PS - and of cause it is a bit harmful -
a bit more harmful as metol for example.
You could have alergical reactions and
in worstes cases for livetime.
Then you have to avoid this substance
It may become to a very more problem
if you react to newspapers because there
may be also PPD.

But never mind thats not very often -
normal use in darkroom should need
the normal safety handling (often not in use) but by working with PPD you should
realy notice to safety in darkroom.

 

[Ian Grant]

Hence the use of ascorbic and salicylic acids, along with the PPD--an approach not tried prior to Halcyon.

Salicylic acid and similar were used with PPD many years ago, definitely before WWII so not a new approach at all.

As I remember MCM 100 uses in a very
simple formular additional metol.
And as a result of this combination it is an absolute finest grain developer.

Or have I mixed up some facts? And thats wrong?

The developer I meant is the original from the 30th may be it is older.

They changes a little the amound of
metol but the basis was the combination
with paraphenyle diamine.

MCM 100 was the original - or not ?

Johnsons - just comming in mind -
yes Johnson was the company wich
creates it out of older formulations.

with regards

Johnsons used their own developing agent Meritol which was a fusion of PPD and Pyrocatechin.

Ian

 

[trendland]

I did not say they were inferior.

I said that the experiments and use years ago were very primitive based on current knowledge (at EK and other companies).

PE

As you mentioned "experiments" PE -
as I read some years before PPD was a very very pore "allone" developing agents at first (before 1900 ? ?)
Then it was in combination with other
agends and due to these superadditives
it workes very fine.
Could you immagine that PPD as "allone"
develloper agend will have the very finest
grain?

The sensibility of films should "crash" from ISO50 to ISO 3 ( in the "best" way )
and of cause you will have very bad contrast on your films.

Because to the lost of any superadditives.

But is it a way - when you whant to have
very low rates of speed in bw - and when
you will use PPD as contrast compensation developer agend as "allone develloper agend" to lith Film
for example because there you need a develloper as very low contrast.

Or would you say - it will not work as
" Super extren fine grain low contrast "

Because you will not have very fine grain.

Thats the question - theoretically ?

with regards

 

[trendland]

Salicylic acid and similar were used with PPD many years ago, definitely before WWII so not a new approach at all.



Johnsons used their own developing agent Meritol which was a fusion of PPD and Pyrocatechin.

Ian

Quite right "Meritol" was the name -
just remember it.
Yes - realy phantastic - the simlple combination of PPD with metol as "hight tech" develloper agent in the 20th,30th.

thank you - I will have to look on some infos I coppied some years before
with these phantastic company logos
from "Johnsons" a great company at this time.


with regards

 

[trendland]

Oh sorry - I was wrong a little - yes meritol was the combination of PPD and
PYROCATECHIN of cause.

I just mixed it up with the original Johnsons developer "Meritol-Metol Developer"

here is the recipe :

Meritol 13,7g = Pyrocatechin 7,7g
PPD 6 g
Metol 2,3g

Sodium
Sulphite 90g

Water to 1 L


with regards

 

[trendland]

I did not say they were inferior.

I said that the experiments and use years ago were very primitive based on current knowledge (at EK and other companies).

PE

As you mentioned "experiments" PE -
as I read some years before PPD was a very very pore "allone" developing agents at first (before 1900 ? ?)
Then it was in combination with other
agends and due to these superadditives
it workes very fine.
Could you immagine that PPD as "allone"
develloper agend will have the very finest
grain?

The sensibility of films should "crash" from ISO50 to ISO 3 ( in the "best" way )
and of cause you will have very bad contrast on your films.

Because to the lost of any superadditives.

But is it a way - when you whant to have
very low rates of speed in bw - and when
you will use PPD as contrast compensation developer agend as "allone develloper agend" to lith Film
for example because there you need a develloper as very low contrast.

Or would you say - it will not work as
" Super extren fine grain low contrast "

Because you will not have very fine grain.

Thats the question - theoretically ?

with regards

 

[Petraio Prime]

I did not say they were inferior.

I said that the experiments and use years ago were very primitive based on current knowledge (at EK and other companies).

PE

No, I did. At least with contemporary films. One must remember that the films of the 1930s were much slower and grainier than what we have today. Just watch some old B&W movies from the early 1930s to see what I mean. The PPD developers were used at that time to reduce graininess, albeit at a considerable loss of film speed.

 

[Petraio Prime]

It's really hard to beat D-76 1:1 for most films. I use FX-39 and adore it.

 

[Photo Engineer]

PPDs can be used with other ingredients to give good speed, contrast and grain. As noted above, some addenda gave quite good developers. PPDs often did not need auxiliary developers.

PE

 

[Petraio Prime]

PPDs can be used with other ingredients to give good speed, contrast and grain. As noted above, some addenda gave quite good developers. PPDs often did not need auxiliary developers.

PE

Yes, but there is no earthly reason to fool with that crap nowadays.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I'm sure you are expert in this, but I have seen very fine grain and excellent sharpness from such developers.

PE

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The color developing agents CD-1, CD-2, CD-3, and CD-4 can all be used as substitutes for PPD in fine grain developers. CD-1 and CD-2 are chemically very similar to PPD. They are also cheaper than the other two. However, they also produce allergic reactions and cross sensitization. CD-3 and CD-4 are somewhat safer to use. Interestingly the color developing agents have also replaced developing agents that are no longer made such as Atomal.

Kodak's answer to the Sease formula was D-25. By lowering the pH of the developer development times were lengthened thereby the solvent action of the sulfite has more time to work. Same fine grain without the danger of PPD.

 

[trendland]

I'm sure you are expert in this, but I have seen very fine grain and excellent sharpness from such developers.

PE

Comming back to my question above.
Sorry to post it twice - just a technical problem.

PE - could you imagine that PPD would
work as a "alone agend" developer without superadditive "assistence" from
Metol,Phenydone,Pyrocatechine a.s.o.

It is clear to me that you will lost massive
speed and much contrast in that case.

But if you want to have extreme long exposure times - it doesn't matter.

And with document films ? It could be
a need (low contrast developer)

The theoratical fact is : " Would it work
additionaly as extremest fine grain Agent
(as alone agent) - or does it not ? "

I am not sure if it could work extreme fine grained - I just guess.

What would you suppose - are there facts of chemical concerns wich are
against - theoratically , PE ?