Restrainer: Combating the flat highlights of pyro + MG paper

[Jarin Blaschke]

I have a formula somewhere for Ilford ID6 developer and ID6R replenisher which is a Pyrogallol, Metol and Hydroquinone process.
Whether or not it is suitable for cinematography I don't know.

If you find it, post it!

There are no more optical steps in motion picture cinematography. Everything is scanned from the start although Chris Nolan is a mainstream exception.

Even if some purely analog show prints are made, these days they will be few enough (<20) to warrant a direct contact print after the film has been scanned and edited and all the rest.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

I wouldn't blame the paper. I've gotten excellent "sharpness and dimensionalty" with Galerie Graded with the right negatives, my personal amidol formula, and full paper development to DMax completion. But the percent of out of the ballpark home run prints from Galerie were noticably fewer than with other classic graded papers like Oriental Seagull G and Brilliant Bromide, and less than premium VC papers like Polygrade V, Kentmere Fineprint, and MGWT. But other than the MGWT, all of this is paleontology talk by now.

I'd have to literally look at your negatives to see why you had trouble with that particular combination. It's academic at this point in time anyway because Galerie has gone the way of the other dinosaurs. But did you ever tell us yet what specific film or films were involved? It's the combination of the film curves involved, not just that of the paper.

And if you're using a stained neg in relation to a graded blue-sensitive printing paper, you can look at the neg through a blue filter and get a better approximation of how the highlights might respond.

FP4.

It makes no sense because there is no magnification but the images on Lodima had more detail and sharpness than Galerie, for reasons I can’t understand. To a blatant degree.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

If you find it, post it!

There are no more optical steps in motion picture cinematography. Everything is scanned from the start although Chris Nolan is a mainstream exception.

Even if some purely analog show prints are made, these days they will be few enough (<20) to warrant a direct contact print after the film has been scanned and edited and all the rest.

Ilford ID6 Developer

Metol 25 grams
Sodium sulphite (crystalline)700 grams
Sodium bisulphite 400 grams (see note below)
Hydroquinone 135 grams
Pyrogallic acid 25 grams
Sodium carbonate (crystalline) 2000 grams
Potassium bromide 2 grams
Water to make 40 litres

The bisulphite can be replaced with an equal weight of potassium metabisulpite.

ID6R replenisher

Metol 12.5 grams
Sodium sulphite (crystalline) 200 grams
Sodium bisulphite 100 grams
Hydroquinone 37.5 grams
Sodium carbonate (crystalline)600 grams.
Water to make 4 litres.

Pyrogallol is not mentioned in the replenisher.

I don't know the working capacity.
Sorry if this is not suitable for your needs.
At least you may be able to use the formula as a starting point to create your own developer.

 

[Lachlan Young]

@Milpool @Jarin Blaschke ID-6 seems to largely have Pyrogallol onboard to tan less well hardened emulsions, probably not for much in the way of stain (carbonate buffered developer hitting acid stop could damage less well hardened emulsions in the now long-ago past, hence why Kodalk was innovated in the early 1930s). It was categorised as a D&P industrial developer (replenished by top-up method) for amateur films and seems to have been swept away by Autophen and successors (ID-68, Microphen and eventually DD) within a few years of the arrival of PQ (and there is evidence that Dimezone S seems to have tanning ability, unlike regular Phenidone, on unhardened/ very low hardness emulsions).

 

[Lachlan Young]

FP4.

It makes no sense because there is no magnification but the images on Lodima had more detail and sharpness than Galerie, for reasons I can’t understand. To a blatant degree.

Probably from higher MTF at very low frequencies. Possibly a combination of more monodisperse crystal forms and/ or more contrast in parts of the scale of the chloride emulsion. Galerie probably has/ had absorber dyes to try and improve sharpness too, but wasn't as monodisperse in crystal character.

 

[Milpool]

It’s a strange looking formula (posted above by Keith). The concentration of pyrogallol is relatively low and I would expect it to be depleted/oxidized relatively quickly. If the formula posted is correct and pyrogallol is not present in the replenisher, I would guess it is there for some other purpose than as a developing agent - perhaps playing some sort of stabilization, antioxidant or “starter”/seasoning role? The concentration of sulfite also seems too high for much tanning/staining action.

@Milpool @Jarin Blaschke ID-6 seems to largely have Pyrogallol onboard to tan less well hardened emulsions, probably not for much in the way of stain (carbonate buffered developer hitting acid stop could damage less well hardened emulsions in the now long-ago past, hence why Kodalk was innovated in the early 1930s). It was categorised as a D&P industrial developer (replenished by top-up method) for amateur films and seems to have been swept away by Autophen and successors (ID-68, Microphen and eventually DD) within a few years of the arrival of PQ (and there is evidence that Dimezone S seems to have tanning ability, unlike regular Phenidone, on unhardened/ very low hardness emulsions).

 

[pentaxuser]

Here's the formula I found from an Ilford book presented in Photomemorabilia It looks as if Keith has assumed "gr" to be grammes when in fact this is grains( now long out of date measurement) The grammes equivalent (g) are much less

"An energetic pyro-metol-hydroquinone developer for the bulk development of roll films in D. & P. tanks. Metol Sodium sulphite, cryst. 1 oz. Sodium bisulphite Hydroquinone Pyrogallic acid Sodium carbonate, cryst. Potassium bromide Water, up to Use in tank without dilution. 21 gr."] 175 gr. 350 gr. 119 gr. 21 gr. 4oz. Ifgr. 80 oz.^ >or= 0.6 g. 17.5 g. 10 g. 3.4 g. 0.6 g. 50 g. 0.05 g. 1000 c.c. ID-6 P.M.Q. Roll Film Tank"

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

Here's the formula I found from an Ilford book presented in Photomemorabilia It looks as if Keith has assumed "gr" to be grammes when in fact this is grains( now long out of date measurement) The grammes equivalent (g) are much less

"An energetic pyro-metol-hydroquinone developer for the bulk development of roll films in D. & P. tanks. Metol Sodium sulphite, cryst. 1 oz. Sodium bisulphite Hydroquinone Pyrogallic acid Sodium carbonate, cryst. Potassium bromide Water, up to Use in tank without dilution. 21 gr."] 175 gr. 350 gr. 119 gr. 21 gr. 4oz. Ifgr. 80 oz.^ >or= 0.6 g. 17.5 g. 10 g. 3.4 g. 0.6 g. 50 g. 0.05 g. 1000 c.c. ID-6 P.M.Q. Roll Film Tank"

pentaxuser

Keith's transcript is correct, the formula gives grains and grams, and he's transcribed the grams. Remember, it's for 40 litres!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Tanning was also related to handling properties. Not all formulas produce a stain.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It’s a strange looking formula (posted above by Keith). The concentration of pyrogallol is relatively low and I would expect it to be depleted/oxidized relatively quickly. If the formula posted is correct and pyrogallol is not present in the replenisher, I would guess it is there for some other purpose than as a developing agent - perhaps playing some sort of stabilization, antioxidant or “starter”/seasoning role? The concentration of sulfite also seems too high for much tanning/staining action.

I'd be inclined to agree - as a matter of fact, the same Ilford manual gives a pyro-metol formula without sulphite that it explicitly states will create a yellow-green stain/ coupler. The same manual is very blunt about the poisonousness of Pyrogallol and unsubstituted PPD, and gives a certain measure of side-eye at the real-world effectiveness of things like Glycin, Chlorohydroquinone etc.

Seasoning, starter, antioxidant, or a role (source of semi-quinone?) that wasn't understood at the time it was formulated, but where it seemed to deliver the necessary behaviour all seem like reasonable possible causes of its inclusion - matrix tanning developer has a lot more Pyrogallol per litre of working strength than the 0.625g/l of ID-6.

 

[pentaxuser]

Keith's transcript is correct, the formula gives grains and grams, and he's transcribed the grams. Remember, it's for 40 litres!

Thanks.

Apologies to Keith.

pentaxuser

 

[john_s]

It’s a strange looking formula (posted above by Keith). The concentration of pyrogallol is relatively low and I would expect it to be depleted/oxidized relatively quickly. If the formula posted is correct and pyrogallol is not present in the replenisher, I would guess it is there for some other purpose than as a developing agent - perhaps playing some sort of stabilization, antioxidant or “starter”/seasoning role? The concentration of sulfite also seems too high for much tanning/staining action.

Maybe its function is like that of the pyrocatechol in Kodak HC-110.

 

[peter16]

I'm not sure how helpful this might be, and none of my negs are developed in pryo, but I've been recently experimenting with lupux and PF 130. (Only done 4 sessions) But the other day in frustration at having my lupex print be way too flat compared to my initial flatbed scan and epson proof (I'm printing a backlog of 5x7 negs that were processed to be either enlarged or drum scanned not contact printed) I threw the lens back on the enlarger and printed ilford warmtone with a 4.5 filter with what I've settled on as a good developer combo - Moerch se6 with their finisher blue restrainer.

I have found previously that the sweet spot for me is mixing the Se6 around 1:12 and only adding 5 or 6 ml of restrainer per 1000ml of working. It's a very cold tone look that I don't have to selenium tone at the end the way I do with lupex. The idea of using ultra coldtone dev with IMGWT has been posted several places and I think it looks great.

this is not a scientific observation but I found that using closer to 10ml of the finisher blue would give a colder tone but slowed the developer way down - I swear I could actually see that image get darker in the fix - which made no sense to me...

 

[peter16]

i love the surface of lupex but I'm not sure it's worth the headache of all the flashing and or mixing different trays of developer to control contrast – I may just switch back to warmtone VC. But I will say when I have a neg that fits the lupex contrast it is ever so slightly more special looking.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

... - I swear I could actually see that image get darker in the fix - which made no sense to me...

Depending on the paper, the undeveloped silver halides can veil the image, which then appears to darken and clear when these are made transparent and dissolved away by the fix.

Best,

Doremus

 

[MattKing]

It is similar to watching a scrap of film clear in the fixer.

 

[Lachlan Young]

this is not a scientific observation but I found that using closer to 10ml of the finisher blue would give a colder tone but slowed the developer way down

Phenylmercaptotetrazole (or PMT - the key ingredient in finisher blue) is something far more worthwhile investigating than pyrogallol, catechol or glycin. Especially in film development.