SURVEY: Edwal 12 Users' Experience

[patrickjames]

As an answer to the above- I didn't have the formula for E 20 when I mixed this developer (which is why I stated it was an E 20 type developer) so I just did it with half ass guesstimates. The Boric Acid/Borax I thought would perhaps buffer the developer so I added it. The goal was to make it replenishable ad infinitum. Adding the hydroxide wasn't such a great idea with what I know now but it was a spur of the moment thing. Live and learn!

The reason I why I posted the results from this developer is because I thought someone might find it interesting. The grain is beautiful in its own way, but the appearance of it in the image I posted is minimized since I resized it. There is actually far more grain.

I just went to mix up E 12 but found I didn't have enough chemistry, so I said what the hell and just mixed up a two part version. I will share the results if it works out. The first roll I put through it shows some promise, although it was underdeveloped.

 

[removedacct3]

Not sure if reviving a 15 year old thread has any merits. By change I stumbled upon this interesting read.

Replenishable, well suited for portraits (up swept curve), long living, fine grain and great tonality. What is there not to like?

Looks like a fun project to mix Edwal 12 and see with my own eyes what it has to offer.

Is anybody out there still using Edwal 12? And if so, any tips or advice to contribute?

 

[juan]

Don Cardwell is one of the folks I miss on this forum. I think he eventually settled on FX-2 as his developer of choice. I’ve never used Edwal-12.

 

[Paul Howell]

I did mix a batch using Gerald Koch version, I found it a bit too soft for my liking, prefer MCM 100. .

 

[removedacct3]

A question about replenishment rate.

In 'Modern Developing Techniques' third edition (1947) Edmund Lowe states that one should use 3 oz (~ 90ml) of fresh developer for 60 square inches. 60 square inches is more or less the same as one 35mm 36 frames roll or one single 120 roll.

At the moment I am using 50ml per roll and I noticed that developer activity is dropping. Not spectacularly, but dropping nevertheless. Perhaps my working solution has not reached an equilibrium yet, or perhaps the amount of 50ml per roll is just too little. Time will tell. While considering my options to counter this drop in activity, a question popped up: (in general) what is the effect of modern films on replenishment rates when compared to older (1940's like) film?

I am using Fomapan 400. Perhaps (read: certainly) not the most advanced film of today, but I presume it is still modern compared to 1940's like film. Thinner layers of emulsion, less silver and thus less fresh developer is needed. Or is it the other way around? More dyes, more iodides and thus more fresh developer is needed.

Is there any general statement to make about thick emulsion versus thin emulsion layers, silver content and replenishment rates?

 

[Anon Ymous]

Edmund Lowe states that one should use 3 oz (~ 90ml) of fresh developer for 60 square inches. 60 square inches is more or less the same as one 35mm 36 frames roll or one single 120 roll.

You're off by 33%. A 135-36 film (or a 120) is 80 square inches. So, you need 4 fl oz of developer, 120 ml. Your 50ml is likely too little.

 

[removedacct3]

You're off by 33%.

You're correct. I've copied these numbers from the first Internet source I could find and did not bother to check. Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Don Cardwell is one of the folks I miss on this forum.

Me too

 

[mshchem]

I have my father's copy of the Modern Developing Methods book my Mom bought it for him, 2nd wedding anniversary, January of 46. 3rd printing April of 45

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Me too

What happened to Don?

 

[removedacct3]

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?

It's been a long time since this question was asked. Larry, or someone else, have you ever gotten an answer yet?

 

[juan]

I've wondered about him, too.