TD-30 B&W "Improved Dektol" paper developer formula

[Alex Benjamin]

Anybody has the formula for this? Anybody knows what chemical ingredient makes it "improved" compared to regular Dektol?

Description from Photographer's Formulary states that :

TD-30 is a neutral-tone print developer similar in properties to Dektol. It produces slightly more brilliant, cleaner prints than Dektol, but the differences are small.

 

[ags2mikon]

Maybe they substituted benzotriazole for the potassium bromide? Dektol / d-72 is a pretty good paper developer as is.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Well, the MSDS is not very informative (which really should NOT be the case!). It lists hydroquinone, sodium sulfite and sodium carbonate plus "chemical 1" (a developing agent presumably) and "chemical 2" (likely the restrainer). From the percentages given, however, I would think that "chemical 1" is probably phenidone or a phenidone-like compound instead of the Metol found in Dektol. "Chemical 2" looks to be pot. bromide from it's percentage.

Maybe a better-informed chemist can comment. Here's the link to the MSDS: https://photoformulary.homestead.com/02-0045_MSDS.pdf

Best,

Doremus

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Well, the MSDS is not very informative (which really should NOT be the case!). It lists hydroquinone, sodium sulfite and sodium carbonate plus "chemical 1" (a developing agent presumably) and "chemical 2" (likely the restrainer). From the percentages given, however, I would think that "chemical 1" is probably phenidone or a phenidone-like compound instead of the Metol found in Dektol. "Chemical 2" looks to be pot. bromide from it's percentage.

Maybe a better-informed chemist can comment. Here's the link to the MSDS: https://photoformulary.homestead.com/02-0045_MSDS.pdf

Best,

Doremus

Thanks for this. Hydroquinone, sodium sulfite and sodium carbonate are indeed already present in D-72, so it makes sense that at least one of the other two chemicals would replace the Metol. There's already 2g per L of potassium bromide in D-72's formula (assuming the same, or close to the same, amoung is found in Dektol), so chemical 2 might be something different, if they feel the need to hide it.

Does someone know who invented this "improved Dektol"?

 

[Milpool]

The T usually means Troop. The second letter usually refers to the chemical category (D for developer, F for fixer…).

The trade secret/unnamed developing agent is unlikely to be in the Phenidone family at that weight range. It’s the right range for metol based on the Dektol/D-72 formula (and others). That doesn’t guarantee it is metol, but the options are few.

Whatever the exact composition, it will almost certainly give the same results as Dektol on contemporary papers. That doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with it, of course. It’s just that the majority of standard print developers produce the same results on current papers unless certain specific compounds are used. MQ vs PQ, benzotriazole vs bromide etc. don’t really matter.

Edit:typos

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The T usually means Troop. The second letter usually refers to the chemical category (D for developer, F for fixer…).

The trade secret/unnamed developing agent is unlikely to be in the Phenidone family at that weight range. It’s the right range for metol based on the Dektol/D-72 formula (and others). That doesn’t guarantee it is metol, but the options are few.

Whatever the exact composition, it will almost certainly give the same results as Dektol on contemporary papers. That doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with it, of course. It’s just that the majority of standard print developers produce the same results on current papers unless certain specific compounds are used. MQ vs PQ, benzotriazole vs bromide etc. don’t really matter.

Edit:typos

Thank you.

Interesting point about contemporary papers. Didn't think about the fact that this developer might have been invented when there were different papers around, with different characteristics than in today's rather limited choice.

I'm still at a loss as to what "cleaner" might mean in the developer's description.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The trade secret/unnamed developing agent is unlikely to be in the Phenidone family at that weight range. It’s the right range for metol based on the Dektol/D-72 formula (and others). That doesn’t guarantee it is metol, but the options are few.

"Chemical 2" looks to be pot. bromide from it's percentage.

So if chemical 1 is metol and chemical 2 potassium bromide, same as in D-72, "improvement" from Dektol would essentially come from difference in amount per litre, if I'm reading this right...

 

[Milpool]

So if chemical 1 is metol and chemical 2 potassium bromide, same as in D-72, "improvement" from Dektol would essentially come from difference in amount per litre, if I'm reading this right...

Well, there’s no sure guarantee the secret ingredients are metol and bromide, but if they are, then yes that would leave only the ratios to tweak. It’s also possible there are additional ingredients present in amounts smaller than would require disclosure. Unlikely in this case, but possible.

Take the Formulary descriptions with a grain of salt.

If this is one of Bill Troop’s formulas, it wouldn’t be old enough to pre-date “modern” papers (the past 40+ years). You can use Dektol, Ilford Multigrade, ID-62 or any number of old/new things and get the same results. It’s unclear whether or not any of the usual tweaks really did anything in the old days either, but that’s irrelevant now.

There isn’t much to lose by trying things though.

 

[BHuij]

I switched from Dektol and Ilford MG developer over to E-72 a couple of years ago. E-72 is... basically XTOL, I think haha. It's a phenidone + ascorbic acid developer with a bit of restrainer and a lot of sulfite.

Never clocked that Dektol was metol-based, making it arguably more different from E-72 than I previously thought.

While I could probably pick out an identical print made in Dektol vs Ilford MG in a side-by-side comparison on a good day (Dektol gave a slight greenish cast that Ilford MG didn't seem to impart), I doubt very much whether I could tell any difference whatsoever between prints made in Dektol vs E-72.

Any time someone tries to differentiate their fancy developer with imprecise marketing terms like "more brilliant" and "cleaner", I tend to stop paying attention.

 

[darkroommike]

Thank you.

Interesting point about contemporary papers. Didn't think about the fact that this developer might have been invented when there were different papers around, with different characteristics than in today's rather limited choice.

I'm still at a loss as to what "cleaner" might mean in the developer's description.

Well since the exact formula for Dektol is proprietary their assertion that TD-30 is an "improved" Dektol is hype (or at least hype adjacent) as is their claim of cleaner brighter prints. Your best bet would be to try a tray of Dektol and a tray of TD-30 in the same session, printing the same negative. The "secret sauce" might just be a bit more restrainer or a contrast booster.

 

[Paul Howell]

When I have bought dry developers both film and paper chemistry from PF in the past it has come as a kit with all ingredients clearly labeled. I tired their improved Dektol and found it be good, but no better than most generic Dektol developers I have used.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

When I have bought dry developers both film and paper chemistry from PF in the past it has come as a kit with all ingredients clearly labeled. I tired their improved Dektol and found it be good, but no better than most generic Dektol developers I have used.

Thanks for this, Paul. I'll probably order a pack one day, just out of curiosity, although from the what I've been reading so far, I won't see much of a difference between it and my home-brewed D-72.

 

[chuckroast]

Thanks for this, Paul. I'll probably order a pack one day, just out of curiosity, although from the what I've been reading so far, I won't see much of a difference between it and my home-brewed D-72.

I have a dozen or so Kodak packaged Dektol and them I am switching to D-72. Even though the stuff is now properly formulated again, the prices for the Kodak product are just nosebleed for what they contain.

So, it will be off to Artcraft for me to make my own D-72. I typically make a couple gallons at a time and store it in a cubitainer with the air pushed out of it.

Does your homegrown D-72 keeps as well as factory Dektol, I wonder?

Also, have you found it to be a "drop in" replacement? That is, does D-72 diluted 1+2, produce the same results at, say, 2 min development, as Dektol 1+2?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Also, have you found it to be a "drop in" replacement? That is, does D-72 diluted 1+2, produce the same results at, say, 2 min development, as Dektol 1+2?

I don't use it that much. I mostly brew it for our community darkroom use, and use it myself mostly for contact sheets.

I prefer Ansco 130 for Fomabrom 112 and ID-78 for Ilford warm tone paper. The Fomabrom is not easy to find (no distributor in Canada), so I'm looking into Ilford's MG classic, but I haven't liked what I got with that paper in Dektol. Hence my wondering about the possibility of an "Improved" version.

 

[Milpool]

I don't use it that much. I mostly brew it for our community darkroom use, and use it myself mostly for contact sheets.

I prefer Ansco 130 for Fomabrom 112 and ID-78 for Ilford warm tone paper. The Fomabrom is not easy to find (no distributor in Canada), so I'm looking into Ilford's MG classic, but I haven't liked what I got with that paper in Dektol. Hence my wondering about the possibility of an "Improved" version.

What is it specifically that you don’t like about what you’re getting from MG Classic / Dektol? That could help point you in a particular direction.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

"Don't like" might be too strong. With the other two combinations I mentioned, I immediately got the "OK, I know where to go with this, how to work with this, which subject(s) is going to go with this." With Fomabrom in Ansco 130, you "get" the blacks and "get" the texture; with Ilford warmtone in ID-78 you "get" the subtle but rich tonal variations. Not so with MG Classic in Dektol. At least for me. Might be the paper, might be the developer, might be the combo, don't know. I got a very good print from it a couple of weeks ago, but it's like I cannot read it's possibilities.

Trying MG Classic in ID-78 tomorrow, so I'll see if the paper is the cause.

Or maybe that combo is still above my pay grade...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pretty much any flavor of Dektol is going to trend annoyingly greenish, whether MGWT, MG Classic, or Foma.
The old Zone VI Studios version of it just doubled the hydroquinone for a little more snap. I tried the PF version once, have made numerous personal tweaks for sake of Polygrade V, which was the very last paper I ever developed in that particular family of MQ paper developers.

 

[MarkS]

I used the Zone VI paper developer while they still made it. Picker's claim was Z-VI had better low-value separation than Dektol. Never bothered to test it, but I got fine results (and it was cheaper than Dektol). My tests in the '90s suggested that with modern cold/neutral tone papers, differences between developers were small. Most of those papers are gone now... and I use Liquidol, and I like what I see.
TD-30 may be "improved" over Dektol, but I can't be bothered to do the sensitometry to really find out. The claims chemical manufacturers make for their products would shame a used-car dealer of the 1950s.

 

[ags2mikon]

"The claims chemical manufacturers make for their products would shame a used-car dealer of the 1950s." Best statement of the whole thread. Well said @MarkS

 

[Ian Grant]

Well, the MSDS is not very informative (which really should NOT be the case!). It lists hydroquinone, sodium sulfite and sodium carbonate plus "chemical 1" (a developing agent presumably) and "chemical 2" (likely the restrainer). From the percentages given, however, I would think that "chemical 1" is probably phenidone or a phenidone-like compound instead of the Metol found in Dektol. "Chemical 2" looks to be pot. bromide from it's percentage.

Maybe a better-informed chemist can comment. Here's the link to the MSDS: https://photoformulary.homestead.com/02-0045_MSDS.pdf

Best,

Doremus

When Ilford introduced Phenidone commercially in 1953 they reformulated their MQ Universal Developer ID-20 (Dektol/D72 equivalent) this was sold as a 2 part powder developer ID-20P, using 0.5g Phenidone instead of 3g Metoll (per litre). However, there were complaints about colour shifts and increased warmth, as throughput increased and Bromide built up.

They re-formulated ID-20P as ID-62, cutting the Bromide in half and adding Benzotriazole. With the tiny amount of Benzotriazole per litre it wasn't sold as a powder developer, the very small amount of Benzotriazole is best added as a solution. Instead Ilford substituted the Sodium Carbonate with Potassium Carbonate and a small amount of Sodium Hydroxide to achieve the same pH, this allows a higher 2.5x more concentrated Liquid developer, sold as PQ Universal.

Ian

 

[darkroommike]

Pretty much any flavor of Dektol is going to trend annoyingly greenish, whether MGWT, MG Classic, or Foma.
The old Zone VI Studios version of it just doubled the hydroquinone for a little more snap. I tried the PF version once, have made numerous personal tweaks for sake of Polygrade V, which was the very last paper I ever developed in that particular family of MQ paper developers.

I only saw that with warm tone papers like Ektalure and Portriga Rapid. Haven't tried the Foma, which one are you using?

 

[darkroommike]

I used the Zone VI paper developer while they still made it. Picker's claim was Z-VI had better low-value separation than Dektol. Never bothered to test it, but I got fine results (and it was cheaper than Dektol). My tests in the '90s suggested that with modern cold/neutral tone papers, differences between developers were small. Most of those papers are gone now... and I use Liquidol, and I like what I see.
TD-30 may be "improved" over Dektol, but I can't be bothered to do the sensitometry to really find out. The claims chemical manufacturers make for their products would shame a used-car dealer of the 1950s.

Rumor has it the original Zone VI paper developer was straight up D-72, can't speak to the ingredients of the later stuff. But I wouldn't buy a used car from Picker.

 

[MarkS]

"Rumor has it" is the bane of the Internet forum. That's a most unconstructive comment. Did you have a bad experience with Mr. Picker or any of his products, or are you just feeling nasty today?
I have been using a Z-VI 4x5 camera with great success for over thirty years, and several other pieces of gear they made for as long. It's true he was a controversial character, and made a few truly fatuous statements about photographic practice.
I'm not a follower or defender of his- but there's no need to troll his memory or that of his company. It serves no purpose and doesn't help answer the OP's question.

 

[chuckroast]

Rumor has it the original Zone VI paper developer was straight up D-72, can't speak to the ingredients of the later stuff. But I wouldn't buy a used car from Picker.

A bit unfair. I bought quite a bit of his stuff and pretty much always thought I got my money's worth.

The original graded Brilliant papers was hands down the best paper surface I ever printed and that covers everything from original Kodak Velox, to Ektalure, Polycontrast, Kodabomide, Agfa's many papers, Oriental Seagull, etc.

His "Zone VI Workshop" and Newsletters were full of useful and interesting information. Yeah, he was opinionated, but heaven forbid anyone on, say, Photrio would ever EVER exhibit strong views And he was salesman and marketer. So what? He was running a business.

He was also a very nice guy, at least on the phone. I spoke with him after he retired and he was full of curiosity about what kinds of papers, films, and developers I was using. He was cordial and pleasant and I recall that conversation most fondly.

Oh, and I couldn't live without my ZVI VC cold light head or my temperature compensating development time ... well I couldn't until I implemented my own such timer using more modern digital and software techniques...

 

[DREW WILEY]

There was nothing special about Picker's developer. However, there was something very special about his Brilliant Bromide graded paper. But if it were still available, I sure wouldn't use his developer. I don't know if it's the same as D72 or not; but it does have a similar effect. The Z VI store was a mixed bag. Some great darkroom gadgets I'm still using; but his tripods were a disappointment. I never met Picker; but yes, he was a friendly and helpful person over the phone.