SURVEY: Edwal 12 Users' Experience

[Ian Grant]

PPD is Paraphenyldiamine, a developing agent it's the free base, you can probably use CD-2 instead. Look at Crawley's FX-9 and FX-10.

Ian

 

[patrickjames]

I would be interested in knowing the difference between Edwal 12 and Harvey's 777 if anyone has that information. I have already read everything on the internet about it so there is no need to provide links. I am looking for personal information.

Thanks

Patrick

 

[Paul Howell]

I would be interested in knowing the difference between Edwal 12 and Harvey's 777 if anyone has that information. I have already read everything on the internet about it so there is no need to provide links. I am looking for personal information.

Thanks

Patrick

I tired 777 from the Frugal Photo along with Edwal 12, 777 is compensating and not as sharp as Edwal 12, softer working. I use Edwal 12 as the desert is actually low contrast, bright, but low contrast due to the amount of reflected light. In other setting I would use 777. I liked 777 with HP5. I saw that PF is now selling 777, I dont know if it is their own formula or if it is the same that the Frugal Photo is selling which I think is old stock from Blue Grass packaging.

 

[df cardwell]

I would be interested in knowing the difference between Edwal 12 and Harvey's 777 if anyone has that information. I have already read everything on the internet about it so there is no need to provide links. I am looking for personal information.

Thanks

Patrick

There is no connection between Edwal 12 and 777 !

The 'connection' was the result of well intentioned, yet uninformed, speculation over the internet, of what might be in it.

This is part of what I wrote to Ed Buffaloe:

"First, there seemed to be no glycin in BPI's 777.*

Second, there was* a much higher volume of 'stuff' to make a gallon of 777 than was needed to make Germain's. A liter’s worth of dry 777 weighs about 155 grams. A liter of Germain’s weighs 91 grams. Sixty grams of fairy dust ? Maybe.

It looked different, it smelled different, and most importantly, it behaves completely differently."

777 is closer to D-76 than Edwal 12 in how it looks, and how it behaves. It differs from D76 in one important way, it gives one stop slower shadow speed. Harvey acknowledged this in his writing in the '30s and '40s. It is not as sharp, not as fine grained, as Edwal 12.

One characteristic of 777 that is important for use in the 21st century is that it makes an absolutely wonderful curve... at a much higher CI than we are used to using. It was not an oversight, Harvey intended it to give a higher contrast, to suit the aesthetics and materials of the day. It makes a very nice developer if you let it be itself, and not expect XTOL, or D76.

Eventually I'll get around to scanning some of the primary sources I have, and post them here.

 

[Paul Howell]

THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO !

forgive me for shouting - EVERYTHING is different -

the 'connection' was the result of well intentioned, yet uninformed, speculation over the internet, of what might be in it.

I agree that both are really differnt, I have seen 777 formulas, but know if they are accurate. What is the differance?

 

[df cardwell]

Just been reading Lowe's Patents, interesting stuff.

Ian

United States Patent US 2164280 (c.1939) is VERY interesting.

Lowe advocated using thiocyanates in small quantities to get the finest grain from E-12 & E-20. Kodak used a thiocycanate in DK20 (a developer similar to D76). Lowe typically gave complete directions how to tune Edwal developers, and explained that different films might need different amounts of thiocyanate. Kodak abandoned the stuff as followed the D-25 route. AS Troop touched on in Cookbook, fogging always was a problem, and mentioned the use of Sodium Chloride to achieve Microdol.

And here is Lowe talking about just that ! Neat stuff, and talking about adding glycin to metol as needed for the proper contrast.

If I hadn't spent my scanner fund on a camera last week, I'd scan some of my Lowe literature. Just have to wait !

 

[patrickjames]

I want to thank df and Paul for the above posts. I didnt know PF is selling 777 so thanks for that too. I think I am going to mix up some E-12 and give it a go. I would still be interested in the literature that you have df when you get a chance to post it.

Patrick

 

[Ian Grant]

United States Patent US 2164280 (c.1939) is VERY interesting.

Lowe advocated using thiocyanates in small quantities to get the finest grain from E-12 & E-20. Kodak used a thiocycanate in DK20 (a developer similar to D76). Lowe typically gave complete directions how to tune Edwal developers, and explained that different films might need different amounts of thiocyanate. Kodak abandoned the stuff as followed the D-25 route. AS Troop touched on in Cookbook, fogging always was a problem, and mentioned the use of Sodium Chloride to achieve Microdol.

And here is Lowe talking about just that ! Neat stuff, and talking about adding glycin to metol as needed for the proper contrast.

If I hadn't spent my scanner fund on a camera last week, I'd scan some of my Lowe literature. Just have to wait !

That's the Patent I'm referring to, I've got it on my list to read in greater detail. You should look at Ilford's Technical Paper P10 released in I think 1965, it's about Fine Grain developers, it advocates adding Ammonium Chloride to developers like ID-11, ID-2 to achieve finer grain.

Ian

 

[Paul Howell]

I want to thank df and Paul for the above posts. I didnt know PF is selling 777 so thanks for that too. I think I am going to mix up some E-12 and give it a go. I would still be interested in the literature that you have df when you get a chance to post it.

Patrick

The only advice that I can offer is not to make any judgments about Edwal 12 until it has been well seasoned, at least 4 rolls. I also found that the posted times are too long, about 30% less works for me.

 

[df cardwell]

Amen, Paul. With the 2.5 grams of Glycin I use, D76 times are a pretty good place to begin.

I soak 4 rolls of outdated film in the developer after it is mixed, and cooling.

I suppose one could concoct a 'starter', and be clinical about it.
But 'seasoning' adds a sense of alchemy to balance living in the 21st century.

 

[Ian Grant]

Any info on edwal 20?

Edwal 20 uses a proprietary developing agent Gradol. I do have some information on Lowe's synthesis of developing agents, but haven't had a chance to go through then properly.

If at the same time as Lowe was working, Kendall at Ilford was experimenting with Phenidone, research in the UK would have been put on hold during the war but later Ilford Patents show Phenidone being used in combination with Glycin, I guess this was the work for Ilfosol.

There were a lot more European formulae which were based around similar criteria as Lowe's developers, and Atomal, Promicrol, Johnson's Meritol baesed developers are all worth looking at.

Ian

 

[Paul Howell]

Edwal 20 uses a proprietary developing agent Gradol. A couple of years ago I wrote Edwal, the current owners, and asked for information about Gardol but never got a reply.

 

[Ian Grant]

There is/was some Gradol for sale in the US, just do a Google search for Edwal Gradol. I say it a few minutes ago. My guess is itmay not be any good now.

Ian

 

[df cardwell]

Here's Lowe, on Edwal 12 & 20,
from 'Developers, fine grain and otherwise'

 

[sun of sand]

I have some vintage Edwal Super 12. Who knows about the glycin in it! I mixed up some very vintage glycin-only developer and it actually developed. Added minor amount of Dektol into it to make a weak
"130" and got a development time of 15-20 minutes. Perhaps with correct %ages of M-Q and alkali it will work well
maybe too will the Edwal 12.
I bought it to try thinking it was a compensating developer since it says on the front good for strobe photography..as produces long scale..extra speed.......extra contrast? I didn't think a developer giving more contrast would produce a longer scale. ?
1/4 to 1/2 normal exposure 8-15 diameter enlargements depending on film, negative density.
No overdevelopment for strobe lighting ..to produce a longer scale?
Perhaps the glycin is kaput and is now a longer scale developer?


Does long scale=compensating

 

[df cardwell]

Old Super 12

1. Glycin is extremely long lived in solution. If the solution is clear (clear-ish) try it. Or not. The metol will die long before the glycin.

2. In the OLD days, there was a different aesthetic, and a different relationship to the technology. SO, early Strobe shooters got flat results from the flash, and found they had to ADD development to increase the contrast. An old developer label that says GOOD FOR STROBE is promising TO ADD CONTRAST !

Long Scale might mean Compensating. Might not. They are photo phrases which are thrown around with no idea what they mean. And they often mean the opposite today of what they meant in 1960.

Compensation USED to mean that development was done in a BIG tank, with reduced agitation, allowing the shadows to develop to their fullest while the highlights are held back by bromide released during development.

But that's was in the 1930s.

People remembered the WORD, and associated it with developers like Rodinal, and thought Rodinal = Compensation.

They saw the higher than normal diution recommended for Rodinal as a Compensating developer, and because they didn't KNOW how the film was being agitated, associated the concept of higher dilution = Compensation. It doesn't, of course, and never did.

The reason higher than normal dilutions were often desired for compensation was to increase the agitation cycles, for tighter control. People are usually surprised that 1:100 Rodinal is capable of high densities.

But this is a digression.

Read the Lowe,or earlier posts in the thread. Edwal 12 was designed to give a higher contrast than we consider normal today, and it was designed for low contrast shooting conditions.

If you buy off the shelf E-12, it will be a N+2 developer, NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO ! If you mix it yourself, and use 2 to 2 1/2 grams of glycin, it will be a very fine N+1 developer.

 

[sun of sand]

Thanks, Cardwell. I read the thread and this is what was confusing me.
I'm straightened out a bit now.

I'll check the stuff out sometime soon since it's easy enough to just pour some out.
Useable for sheet films? Seems popular for 35mm

 

[df cardwell]

Buried deep in the dust of my memory was WHY the early electronic flash shooters needed extra contrast, and I couldn't put my finger on the WHY. Simply put, today's strobes use low voltage and high capacitance. THEN, high voltage, low capacitance. A big flash might have had the output of a 283, but had a duration so FAST, the exposure was into the high range of film's reciprocity failure. So, the nature of electronic flash was completely outside our experience,
and a developer which added contrast was a good thing.

Today, it wouldn't be a silly thing to look for a little lower contrast ....

 

[df cardwell]

In his Film Cookbook, Bill Troop talked about the evolution of D-25 to Microdol, to Microdol-X.
As films evolved, the basic developer had to change to deal with dichroic fog.

As I've worked with Edwal -12, I've never had a problem with dichroic fog, until I tried it with my stash of Royal Pan.
( A few years ago I bought a LOT of the stuff ). I haven't had any difficulty with current films ! And Royal Pan ( long out of date ) works fine with HC-110, Polydol, Rodinal, D-76, etc.

It's possible E-12 didn't work well with some '50s films, and was passed by. Today's film, though, it SEEMS dandyfine.

Experience ???

 

[Paul Howell]

It's possible E-12 didn't work well with some '50s films, and was passed by. Today's film, though, it SEEMS dandyfine.

Experience ???[/QUOTE]

My oldest film is Plus X and Pan F from the 70s, the Pan F works well, I have not souped any of the Plus X. My guess is that Ekef use emulsion formulas that date back to the 50s. I have some Ekef 25 in 35mm and I have been thinking about shooting and developing in Edwal 12, but given the high contrast and how easy it is to blow out the hightlights with all of the Ekef films I have some doubts. Some Chinese films are also rumored to be based on technology from the 40 and 50s, I have JC Pro 100 4X5 which was rumored to be Chinese, left but I have not tired it with Edal 12, has a very nice look in DK50.

 

[df cardwell]

DK 50, another great developer, ill-used by recent history

 

[Paul Verizzo]

DK-50

DK 50, another great developer, ill-used by recent history

Now that you mention it, I've been wondering as of late about it and the one or two other equal weight Metol-Hydroquinone developers. D-96 for B&W movie processing is one.

This is way too much Metol for maximum activity, so that's not the gimmick (about 1:4 is.) DK-50R is a more normal ratio. Does that mean the HQ is used up regenerating the Metol more?

DK-50 is still available from Kodak. IIRC, they state that the negatives might have a slightly brown stain. ???

Jus' wunnering....

 

[c6h6o3]

In fact, I had rotten luck with three devs I made with PPD; Edwal 12, one of the Sease formulas and 777.

How did you make 777? The formula is proprietary and the owner refuses to disclose it.

 

[jim appleyard]

How did you make 777? The formula is proprietary and the owner refuses to disclose it.

I'll have to check my notes, but I think it's:
7g of metol
7g of catechol
7g of glycin
H2O to 1 liter

Ladies & gents, please correct me if I'm wrong and you beat me to my notes.

Now, there are lots of rumors about this dev; formula, working properties, etc., but it's generally accepted that this is the formula. The current sllers of the commercial variety may or may not add some things to it.

 

[Paul Howell]

Now that you mention it, I've been wondering as of late about it and the one or two other equal weight Metol-Hydroquinone developers. D-96 for B&W movie processing is one.

This is way too much Metol for maximum activity, so that's not the gimmick (about 1:4 is.) DK-50R is a more normal ratio. Does that mean the HQ is used up regenerating the Metol more?

DK-50 is still available from Kodak. IIRC, they state that the negatives might have a slightly brown stain. ???

Jus' wunnering....

I found that DK 50 to be very clean working, never a stain. I use DK 50 1:1, in tank with film holders or tray, for most of my 4X5, PF4, HP5, and Forma 200, great tones, holds shadow details well, I am able shoot at full film speed with short development times. PF sells a DK 50 in quart sizes, but I still have 5 or 6 gallon size cans and packets.

Paul