Ryuji
Member
Disinhibition of metol development is one thing. But there are other requirements for practical developers. Preservative is an important component of a practical developer.The small amount of sulfite is that which is only a little more than is sufficient to form a Metol sulfonate from the oxidation product of Metol, according to data from the Theory of the Photographic Process. That same data showed that ascorbate, at pH below the point where ascorbate becomes an active developing agent, is equivalent to sulfite, mole for mole, for the purpose of counteracting the retardation by the oxidation products of Metol, although they work by different mechanisms. I wasn't expecting either it or the sulfite to be a preservative or a grain reducer. I think it's better to think of ways to avoid increasing grain, since the image is made of grains in any caase.
What's teh pH you refer to the point "at which ascorbate is a developing agent" because ascorbate is not a good developing agent by itself at any pH.I think, though I didn't prove it, that the pH was still below that at which ascorbate is a developing agent, though it is an antioxidant. In other words, I don't think the synergism between Metol and ascorbate had much effect.
You don't seem to understand what I am saying. Sulfite can decrease or increase the grain. You tested in conditions that sulfite doesn't have much effect on grain using D-76K. I looked at your original negative and prints. Many of developers you use (such as your classic PC carbonate) are same story. If you repeat the test at the same condition as before I'm sure you get the same results.I have found from previous use that sulfite is not the grain reducer that some say it is. I probably should make it more clear when I am quoting popular belief that is not necessarilly my own. When I do a test of some hypothesis, I am prepared to accept the results whether or not they support the hypothesis, as I am sure you are as well.