SURVEY: Edwal 12 Users' Experience

[jim appleyard]

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

OK, here's the homebrew version witht the correct stuff: (ignore last post)

Distilled water @ 125F 665cc
Metol 7g
Sodium sulfite 70 g
PPD 7g
Glycin 7g
Distilled water (cold) to make 1 liter

For more info:http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Harvey/harvey.html

Best of luck to anyone using a PPD dev.

 

[df cardwell]

OK, here's the homebrew version witht the correct stuff...

Jim, if you weigh out BPI 777, and weigh out the the formula you posted, they are VERY different.

If you compare the appearance of the two solutions, they are completely different.

If you compare the results, they are TOTALLY different.

They are totally different developers. And if you read what Harvey wrote about his developer, you'd see how you can't make ANY case for GERMAIN'S developer being 777. Even taking De Van's conversation about 777 vs Edwal 12, the difference in performance was recognized. What wasn't recognized was that Germains WAS Edwal 12.

The proposition that 777 was Germain's was nothing more an an idle, wild *ssed, speculation, unsupportable by performance. Test the two films side by side. Germains is within the performance range that Lowe offered for Edwal 12. It gives full speed. It gives a very contrasty image with PPD activated glycin.

777 has a different pH. As Harvey described it loses a full stop to D76. E-12 does not. It has a gentle curve, although it can give great density. The grain stucture is much different, 777 is like D76. Edwal 12 is like micro Rodinal. They are completely different.

 

[sun of sand]

Tried out the E12 and it looks great -to my eyes
The solution was dark red with some having evaporated out leaving a black, easily wiped, substance on the upper most part of the bottle
figured it would be toast but tried it out

4x5 Tri-X 7 seconds -reciprocity figured in- at F45 An EI of about 300, I guess.
Developed in E12 at about 66 degrees or so for 14 minutes, slight tray agitation
Looked pretty damn good. little dense but not bad at all
Straight contact print on RC for maximum black in dektol
SHARP.
I did a comparison with Xtol and I'm thinking I somehow bumped the camera because the Xtol is nowhere near as sharp as the E12. I have to repeat the Xtol test tonight to be sure.

The look seems different
highlights not blown out but dull, rainy day
SHARP. I don't believe any Xtol or D76 shot I've taken with mint Sironar-N/Grandagons is close to being as sharp
It looks fantastic, to my eyes. I'm actually respecting the lens more!
-a neglected and perfectly mint 210 JML-
It has to be the E12 to some degree

Tonality seems nicer in a way. nice transitions and not "chunky/crunchy" or "muddy" like I see Xtol having in highlights and shadows
Just looks cleaner and more subtle
But I don't have enough experience yet to describe well

I believe I read somewhere that E12 has a look more like a pyro developer
whatever


No stain on the negative but less of the purple base washed off so maybe there is and I didn't see it for what it was

I'm going to try Rodinal one day for sure now and see what it does in terms of sharpness.

"Micro Rodinal" That might be it. Seems Super. Super 12.

 

[sun of sand]

I'm wondering about the red coloring, though. I'm thinking it's due to the PPD
haircolor goes this same sort of red when it sits around unused for a few days and PPD is a main ingredient in it

 

[Paul Howell]

I'm wondering about the red coloring, though. I'm thinking it's due to the PPD
haircolor goes this same sort of red when it sits around unused for a few days and PPD is a main ingredient in it

The color is normal, but E 12 will turn a darker color with age and use. I filter out the sludge that will form. You may need to extend your development time somewhat with seasoning. I kept my last tank going for 2 years and it turned almost black, just keep adding 100cc for each roll of 35mm 36 ex. E 12does produce a dense negative, but it prints well. You may not have joseled your camera, I think E12 is sharper than Xtol.

 

[Larry Bullis]

How could this be going on for so long and I just find it now? Very interesting thread.

For some reason, don't quite know why, I was called to test Eastman XX cine film in Germain. The results are rather shocking. I remember reading Ansel Adams' description of Paul Strand's negatives, how brilliant they looked and how they changed his life. At this point, I sort of doubt that this is going to change my life that much, but it may change my process. The region where I live is famous for not just overcast, but rain. N+1 is pretty normal around here! I went to the beach and photographed some pebbles. Each pebble is neatly outlined with clear shadow, described precisely both in its edges and its internal detail. The shadows joined form a sort of a net holding the stones together. I have never seen negatives quite like this. I don't know whether this is comprehensible to you, but that's how it occurred to me to describe it.

So here's some test data using a wall facing north skylights as a target. Exposing at 200 ISO, it could be that the film could be equal to or even a bit faster than rated. Interesting. I'm not used to that.

8.5 minutes, zone 1=0.09, 2=0.17, 3=0.27, 4=0.44, 5=0.59, 6=0.74, 7=0.95, 8=1.10, 9=1.25, 10=1.42, 11=1.54

10 minutes, I'm getting 0.03 separation from base at zone 0. I have not subtracted this value from the following data: zone 1=0.13, 2=0.26, 3=0.46, 4=0.66, 5=0.88, 6=1.09, 7=1.29, 8=1.56, 9=1.73, 10=1.88, 11=2.00, 12=2.12.

The zone 10 and 11 values could be a bit inaccurate (well the whole thing could; my old Leica could use a visit to Sherry Krauter) due to proximity to reciprocity error at the slow speed end, 1/2 and 1 second. The curves have a very fine shape, just the way I like them.

I like ppd developers. Some of you may have stumbled upon my description of using MCM-100 with kodak's bank robber film, 2475 recording (which I really loved) and its close cousin, the aerial infrared film which I shot in 70mm.

I have a few bottles of gradol that I inherited from Andy (LK) Andrews, who had done a lot of technical work for Minor White's Zone System Manual. When Andy cleaned out his darkroom, I got all of his chemicals. Some of them, I wish I didn't have. Anyone want ten pounds of potassium chrome alum? The gradol is pretty gray; I have no idea if it works. If anyone wants to try to do a quantitative analysis on it, I'd be happy to supply a sample.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a few bottles of gradol If anyone wants to try to do a quantitative analysis on it, I'd be happy to supply a sample.[/QUOTE]

I wish had the ability to do an analysis, I have been trying to figure out how to make E20 for several years.

 

[df cardwell]

Bowz: thanks for publishing the densities of your Germains's ( when things slow down around here, I'll mix up some Straight 12, and some Germain's variation ) and see how much difference there is... as well as the maximum glycin Lowe recommended, as well as the minimum.

Your curve has the familiar look to it. As summer moves along, I'll graph some results and we can publish our results, try to assemble a book for the stuff.

Photography has a number of potential histories. One that interests me is how social context has determined technique. For example, in the years preceding WW2, there was a balance between a 'craft' approach to photography, for instance development by inspection of pyro negatives, and time and temperature development. The first required a skilled and experienced operator and possibly the last name of Weston. The second, an unskilled worker carefully following directions. T&T allowed a study owner to take pictures and talk to clients while the film was souped by an employee, and required a specific protocol while an intuitive approach was well suited to an optimum negative from a particular scene. Both approaches were perfect for the job at hand.

When the war arrived, there was an overnight need for thousands of photographers who shared the same training, followed the same procedure, and whose results were predictable and interchangeable. Recruits with particular characteristics were sent to Photo School, and learned photography By The Book. After the war, more than a few of these army and navy photographers went into various branches of civilian photography, and followed their military training to make pictures. Every one of these guys used time and temperature and Metol - HQ developers. The pre-war balance between Craft and By The Book was changed. As we work in the post-commercial era of film photography, the virtues of Craft photography are being re-learned, and both dependable formulae, and the crackpot concoctions, are being tried again.

When I was a kid, and asked my teacher the difference between Edwal 12 and Harvey's 777, since he was 75 in 1968, and had 55 years of experience, he could show me prints, and open up his notebooks and tell me about them.

But by sharing our current results, we can recreate that notebook and, before we all get much older, accumulate some good data.

d

 

[Larry Bullis]

Don,

That sounds like a LOT of fun! I'm on! I'll be teaching a class this summer that is very low in enrollment, so I think I can justify using the darkroom at school. Somebody has to keep the lab open, so I can be there a lot. Summers are pretty relaxed anyway. Otherwise, doing it in the truck camper might be a bit challenging!

And yes, your historical theory checks out with my experience. Lots of guys coming home from the war used the GI Bill to go to photo school. They were each issued a Graphic View, just like, in the army, they'd got their rifles. At least, that is what my stepfather told me. He didn't do that. He was in the camera club. The fellow who ran it was one of the old school.

It was D76 and Dektol all the way with those guys. He told me that D76 was the standard against which all other developers were measured. He kept his in a wide mouth gallon sized pickle jar with a metal lid, used it replenished. I still prefer it that way when I use it.

L.

 

[Paul Howell]

When I was in high school in the mid 60s I was mentored by a retired Navy Photo Mate who owned a small shop in Long Beach. Two of my aunts gave me a Retina C, as soon as Vern found out that I was shooting with 35mm he insisted that I get a real camera and took me to an auction at the Navy Base and help me get a well used Speed, he must have pulled some strings as I got for a bid of $20.00. Plus X, D76 stock, Kodibromide in Dectol 1:2. It wasnt until I got to college that I learned that Kodak made differnt films and papers.

 

[sun of sand]

I did my little test of Xtol again. correct exposure. snip test of the 4x5 for proper development
first test was Xtol Straight ..this time Xtol 1:3
E12 is, to my eyes, plainly superior.
nicer grain
much better tonality
much sharper
bit more contrast.

Xtol 1:3 is sharper than straight but quite a bit grainier
Edges still appear rounded off
E12 is very sharp in comparison.

Some people -somehwere else- say E12 is not an accutance developer and, in fact, causes a loss ..surprising loss
If rodinal is much sharper than E12
wow

Tonality with Xtol is kinda dumpy. All the tones seem to merge and with E12 they're distinct.
E12 makes a more "lifelike" print.



It's just plainly better. With dull, rainy, overcast, soft lighting it is plainly better

Now I have to compare Rodinal one day. ...and do another test of E12 to be sure ..and blow up the photos to really talk about grain differences ...and

 

[Paul Howell]

E12 makes a more "lifelike" print.



It's just plainly better. With dull, rainy, overcast, soft lighting it is plainly better

Now I have to compare Rodinal one day. ...and do another test of E12 to be sure ..and blow up the photos to really talk about grain differences ...and[/QUOTE]

E12 is much better than Rodinal for high speed films such as Trix or HP5, for high contast subjects try 777. I used E 20 in the 60s, you think E 12 is fine grain, if I could out that Gardol is.

 

[patrickjames]

What are you guys using for a replenishment scheme? How much for each roll of film?

Patrick

 

[df cardwell]

Some people -somehwere else- say E12 is not an acceptance developer

PPD has the rap of a non sharp developer. And it is true, when it is the sole developer.

HOWEVER, E-12 does not use PPD as a developer, rather as an 'energizer', allowing glycin to function at a low pH (normally, it needs a carbonate environment). Lowe describes the mechanism in E12 (and other Lowe developers) as primarily a sulfite / metol developer while the glycin dials in a certain amount of contrast.

With both metol and glycin, PPD DOES encourage acutance effects in replenished developers; see the lengthy extract of Crawley's speculation on how this works in Anchell & Troop's Film Cookbook.

 

[sun of sand]

I think it's damn sharp. I like the stuff. I'm buying more. A case. It's capacity probably isn't like new but eh

I really have to get that book.

 

[df cardwell]

Portraiture in a 3 Developer system

My normal film is TMY, and regardless of the scene, I expose it at 400. Makes it easy for my little brain to not be overwhelmed badly in the field when I see a cool picture. I use 3 different developers with TMY, each with a specific agitation pattern, to give me the negative that will express what I want to show about the scene.

In direct sunlight, I usually use XTOL 1+2 and minimal agitation, and the shadows are full, the midtones are right where they want to be and have very strong local contrast. The highlights are harmonious. Obviously, my world is more strings and woodwinds, not brass bands.

Indirect light, or dappled highlights, Rodinal 1+50, with minimal agitation. Rodinal lifts the natural shoulder of TMY a little higher than does the Xtol, and makes -for me- a normal negative.

When the light is indirect, flat, or overcast, Edwal 12 (made with 2.5 g of glycin) lifts the highlights a bit higher than does Rodinal.

My own feeling is that tone control is more important than grain or sharpness; the balance is what I'm looking for. This 'system' is worked out for portraiture, incident reading, and Ilford paper. I need to do very little burning or dodging, and most negatives print without a filter, in a moderate contrast developer like LPD. This approach works well for me, whatever its limitations, because I'm a pretty intuitive photographer and can't begin to keep numbers in my head when it is time to make pictures. This way, I can simply shoot the pictures, knowing there is a way to develop the film, and mark the film bag when I'm done with a + (meaning the light was flat and the film needs Edwal) or o (the light was hot, and gets Xtol. It usually doesn't take long to remember that no marking means Rodinal, and I have a note on the wall of the darkroom to remind me.

I ALWAYS shoot a short, test roll which gets developed first. I'm an airhead, not a fool.

The comparative curves are accurate. I normally see a threshold white with MGFB/MGFBW at a 1.5 density: I print to Zone X, not IX. Obviously I care a great deal about Zone VI, not so much about the deep shadows. It works... FOR ME !

 

[Lee L]

Don,

Very useful post. Thanks!

Lee

 

[Paul Howell]

What are you guys using for a replenishment scheme? How much for each roll of film?

Patrick

For 35mm 50cc for 24 and 100cc for 36 or 120. I just dump and replace after use.

 

[Larry Bullis]

Somehow, I replied to this and it disappeared. Hmm.

It appears that you are getting a bit of speed boost with the xtol. When do we expect density in Zone 0?- by definition, we don't. What would it look like to increase the speed by a stop which would roughly superimpose the toe of the xtol and the E12, then increase the time w/xtol to try to match the slope in the straight line? What would the shoulder look like? Then, of course, we have that variable glycin concentration which could play into it very significantly.

Of course, even if we could match up the curves, we might hate what it looks like. I think some of what I do in practice, as opposed to theory, may sometimes conform sort of to the curve shape that you are showing with the xtol; you know, generous exposure and more conservative development.

Always, we are working with overall contrasts on our graph paper, but the magic happens in the local contrasts, and that can't be shown on a grid very well.

Thanks a lot for showing these curves. I was surprised at the classic shape; I don't use TMY myself (not enough grit). I had seen curves that suggested an increase in slope in the highlights, which is clearly at odds with what we see here.

Larry

 

[Larry Bullis]

For 35mm 50cc for 24 and 100cc for 36 or 120. I just dump and replace after use.

Paul,

Do you use any kind of controls to verify these amounts?

Thanks,

Larry

 

[Paul Howell]

Paul,

Do you use any kind of controls to verify these amounts?

Thanks,

Larry

The data sheet from PF. I dont have a densatormeter (SP?) so I do not have charted curves. My negatives seem to be very consitiant.

 

[Larry Bullis]

So let's see if I understand.

You remove some developer from the jug which you have marked to indicate the full level, you add 100ml of the fresh for each 36 roll developed, then you replace the developer that you removed until the bottle is full up to the level it is supposed to be when full, then you discard any that is left over?

Is this correct?

Thanks,

Larry

 

[Larry Bullis]

Don,

I've been a'pokin' around in the archives and I found this of your from September '05: "I wouldn't suggest messing around with Edwal 20". You just said it in an offhand, if a bit imperious tone of text. No further explanation offered.

Since I happen to have some gradol sitting around and have seen posts elsewhere by folks who have almost suggested that they would KILL for the formula for 20, I'm compelled to ask why you think it's not to be "messed" with.

Here's Gerald Koch's identification of gradol: "the hemisulfate of p-aminophenol C6H7NO.1/2H2SO4 ...molecular weight of 158.14. ... substitute p-aminophenol hydrochloride...use 0.9X of the amount called for. So, apparently, even having real Gradol isn't essential. Has anyone found corroboration of this identification for gradol?

It would be interesting, don't you think, to give it a try, since 12 and 20 have often appeared in the same paragraphs (at least in my recollection)?

and everyone:

Also, having mentioned Gerald Koch's observations and conclusions, I must ask whether anyone has experienced "the intense itching, the blisters the size of peas, the cross sensitization to all the color developing agents" that he encountered from ppd. I presume that if it had occured to anyone posting, we really could expect to have already heard about it.

I haven't had a problem with it, or with metol either. I've virtually bathed in color chemistry, having been employed in custom labs for far, far too many years, both as printer and processor.

If ppd is so incredibly sensitizing, how come they get away with putting it in hair coloring and, I understand, in faux henna skin colorings? I would think we'd see more problems with it.

Having had an assistant once who would be out of commission for a week after metol exposure, I do have to wonder.

Larry

 

[Paul Howell]

So let's see if I understand.

You remove some developer from the jug which you have marked to indicate the full level, you add 100ml of the fresh for each 36 roll developed, then you replace the developer that you removed until the bottle is full up to the level it is supposed to be when full, then you discard any that is left over?

Is this correct?

Thanks,

Larry

Sorry I was not very clear. I return the used E12 to the bottle, I then discard 100cc and add up to 100cc of fresh, if I need only say 90mm then I return the remainder to the replensher bottle. I also top off the working solution when I filter it. I have not thought to keep track of how developer is asbored, with new thin emlusions it should not be much. After 3 months and 12 rolls of 35mm I still have just 1 liter of working solution. I kept my last batch for 2 years and when I finally dumped it, it still had a liter.

 

[df cardwell]

I was much more imperious a few years ago.
For 2008, I'm going with quietly confident; it doesn't seem to matter much.
The birds still poop on me when I stick my head from under the darkcloth.

My reservations about E 20 have more to do with the loss of speed,
and the secret identity of gradol. But have at it !

(I think the comment might have been context related).

E20 has a similar scale to E12, ie. higher than we use typically today,
and E12 is already finer grained than anything still on the market.
Giving up a stop of film speed for finer grain didn't seem to be
a good idea under the circumstances.

As for gradol, I've always assumed it to be para-aminophenol hcl,
but I don't know why one would choose the HCL or the base in a formula.

I'd yield to Koch or Gainer or anybody that was knowledgeable and interested in making it work.

Edwal 20
Gradol ( para-aminophenol * ) 5 grams
Sulfite 90 grams
PPD 10 grams
Glycin 5 grams

As for the awful things PPD is reputed to do,
well, I haven't had trouble with it, but I wear gloves and work carefully.
Same with Metol, and everything else.

While I'm pretty certain cut and paste photo writers have kept PPD's legend alive,
as they have Metol ( even though its impurity issues were settled long, long, ago )
the misery we can have with skin allergies are more than enough reason to be careful.