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