Don,
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?
I mixed a batch with p-aminophenol hydrochloride, did not seem to work, both grain and tones were off, and much softer than E12 which is not how my negatives from the 60s look.
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.
Aside from staining my counter-sink, I use an old double vanity with a extra strip glued to the front to keep stuff from spilling onto the foor, no reactions. I wear gloves and saftey glasses when mixing chem. From I gather no more toxic than Pryo.
"I would love to hear opinions from others"
Lowe formulated Edwal 20 to pH 7.56.
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.
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.
Bluegrass states most emphatically that this is not the formula.
Has anyone tried, or does anyone have thoughts about the possibility of substitution of phenidone for the metol at the usual ratio of 1:10 in E12?
Does anyone know if PF is reselling the Bluegrass kit or their own?
For Replenishment, here is Ed. Lowe's instruction. He was willing to use higher energy replenishers for other developers, and seemed content with this method for E-12
(Modern Developing Methods, Edwal Labs, Chicago, Ill. 1944)
I wasnt able to open the attachement.
At Photostock 2008, I made some pictures that confirmed that E-12 (with only 2.5 grams of glycin) can make a Normal negative on TMY.
Zones VIII and IX printed at the high end of their placement,
and gave me a choice between prints made at 8 seconds exposure with 1.5 minutes development, and 6.7 seconds and 2 minutes development (Ilford WT in LPD 1+2).
The grain is virtually non-existent. The JPG doesn't do the print justice.
Poor Eva & Jeff never thought they were going to become part of a science experiment.
It is an experiment with excellent results, very nice print, the tones are remarklable. I am going to try your reduced glycin formula for normal and contast SBR.
I tested the Germain on a hot city street with a textured white wall in bright sunlight a couple of weeks ago. It's gorgeous. I'll try to get a scan of it up today. Patch tests at the same times (same run, actually) indicated that the development used was an approximate -1.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?