Two bath film development queries

[thomsonrc]

Hi

Having read Steve Anchell's book I was all for trying one of the divided D23 type 2 bath developers. They sound great: cheap, lasting, good acutance, fine grain, reduced contrast problems. I have been using Paterson FX39 and Aculux which are good but they go off quickly.

Does anyone have any experience with the various formulae in Anchell & Troop? I have also seen versions by Barry Thornton and J M Kates (who says Anchell & Troop dont understand how these work - which put me off a bit!)


Any advice would be welcome,

Cheers

Ritchie

 

[weasel]

I have been using Thorntans variation, and really like it. With roll film hp5 + and fp4 it works very well, just as described in his book.
I am in the process of tuning it for acros. I have not done full testing yet.......

 

[thomsonrc]

I have been using Thorntans variation, and really like it. With roll film hp5 + and fp4 it works very well, just as described in his book.
I am in the process of tuning it for acros. I have not done full testing yet.......

Hi Weasel and thanks for the reply.

What development times and agitation would you recommend for these two films?

Ritchie

 

[jim appleyard]

IMO, Anchell understands divided devs well, but he doesn't address the problem of using them with todays films; there doesn't seem to be a thick enough emulsion in film today to soak up enough of the A bath to do a good job of developing. Thornton did adrress this and came up with his two bath formula.

I've tried all the DD's in Anchell's book and the only one that worked well for me was D2D, probably due to the HQ and carbonate levels. All other DD's gave me very thin negs.

You can up the level of metol in your homebrew and extend times, that seems to work, but you may go thru several rolls of film to find out what works for you.

Five min in each bath may be a good starting point.

 

[weasel]

I use 4 minutes in each bath, agitate gently for 30 seconds, then one tank inversion every minute. I shot hp5+ at ei 320, fp4 at ei 80. Very easy to print negatives, over a wide range of contrast scenes.
For the acros, I have done a standard film speed test, it seems to be about 50 with my enlarger/paper combo, but I have not nailed down the high values yet. I will adjust the second bath to get the contrast range I want.
It may not work well with acros for the reasons sited by Jim.

 

[Figital Revolution]

I've been doing extensive testing with Diafine Developer and many different films for the purposes of scanning. Diafine is easy to use and works perfect with ...TX, 125PX, Acros, Rollei Pan 25, Efke R 25, Tmax 400, Ilford Fp4, Ilford Pan F Plus just to name a few. It is very simple to use...there are many articles I have published on my web site...www.figitalrevolution.com regarding Diafine for scanning...I will publish an article in the coming days on high res films like Pan F and Rollei Pan 25 and a new way to run these films for the best contrast control and even development. I know Divided D23 also works fine with most of these films but Diafine produces a more linear curve with a lower contrast gradient around .47 / .48 on most films.

Best-
Stephen Schaub

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Divided Developers

Huge topic. Many years have I spent learning, mixing, etc. A few points.

1. There are two divided developers; ones like "divided D-23" or Thornton's (IIRC) that do a partial development in Bath A, then gets topped off in Bath B. The other kind has no development taking place in Bath A to speak of, like Diafine.

2. Agitation in Bath A for the second type of DD can be random and is not real important. The film is only absorbing developer.

3. Bath B, ideally, receives no agitation. Depending on the film, the tank, and the developer, you might get some bromide drag. Still, don't agitate by inversion. Just roll the tank by half, very gently, on the counter surface. Your tank must be full.

4. Modern films do fine with DD's. Granted, more variability as to which ones work the best.

Go to (there was a url link here which no longer exists) About half way down is some commentary by myself with a formula for a DD that works great with modern films.

 

[Murray Kelly]

I made up some of Barry Thornton's 2-bath before buying the Diafine.
Out of curiosity I weighed the contents of the diafine bags before disolving them. They were exactly the same total as the Thornton 2-bath. No proof it's the same stuff, of course but the results look identical, too, to me.
Maybe with more sophisticated test gear than my eye, differences would show so I won't comment about that!

Murray

 

[Murray Kelly]

I will publish an article in the coming days on high res films like Pan F and Rollei Pan 25 and a new way to run these films for the best contrast control and even development. I know Divided D23 also works fine with most of these films but Diafine produces a more linear curve with a lower contrast gradient around .47 / .48 on most films.

Best-
Stephen Schaub

I look forward to that, very much. I am floundering with some of these fine grain films, these days. All I remember is Beutler's and FX-1. Oh - and Rodinal.
Thanks
Murray

 

[Harry Lime]

I'm using Thornton's 2 bath with Tri-X @ 400 and am very happy with it. Tonality is excellent, with lots of detail in the shadows and highlights. Grain is fine with good accutance. It's also dirt cheap and completely idiot proof in use.

That said I would like to give DD76 a try. Apparently is give you about a half stop or stop more speed than Thornton's.

 

[Figital Revolution]

Diafine increases development in the shadow regions and the degree of usable EI increase is different with each film. TX has a usable EI of say 400-1250/1600 where as 320 TXP has a usable EI of 400. Most films can use the "universal" development time and agitation tech I posted on Figital Revolution www.figitalrevolution.com but many slower films need a bit more of a tweak to ensure even development, good contrast contol and NO bromide drag. Under agitation in Part B will produce bromide drag. Films where agitation in both A & B are important (this is gentle agitation with inversions) include: Rollei Pan 25, Ilford Pan F Plus, TMAX 100, FUJI Acros, Efke 25 just to name a few...under agitation in any of there films is a quick path to bromide drag and possibly uneven development. Faster films like TX, 125PX, TMY 400(new), HP5 ect suffer much less from bromide drag and agitation in A and B are not as much of an issue.

As I mentioned above I am putting the finishing touches on an article on high res films in diafine which I will post in the next few days on Figital Revolution with times, agitation tech and films tested.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I made up some of Barry Thornton's 2-bath before buying the Diafine.
Out of curiosity I weighed the contents of the diafine bags before disolving them. They were exactly the same total as the Thornton 2-bath. No proof it's the same stuff, of course but the results look identical, too, to me.
Maybe with more sophisticated test gear than my eye, differences would show so I won't comment about that!

Murray

Diafine and Thornton's DD are very different. Although the exact formula for Diafine has never been released, it's pretty obviously a Phenidone-HQ-sulfite Bath A and a sodium carbonate-sulfite Bath B. That info is from the MSDS's, visible crystal structure, pH of solutions, and behavior. By that, I mean the ability of Phenidone to develop grains with minimal exposure, hence, increased EI.

Thornton's is a D-23 type DD using Metol as the sole agent. The longer tank times for faster films is probably for grain reduction more than anything, more time with the sulfite.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Under agitation in Part B will produce bromide drag. Films where agitation in both A & B are important (this is gentle agitation with inversions) include: Rollei Pan 25, Ilford Pan F Plus, TMAX 100, FUJI Acros, Efke 25 just to name a few...under agitation in any of there films is a quick path to bromide drag and possibly uneven development. Faster films like TX, 125PX, TMY 400(new), HP5 ect suffer much less from bromide drag and agitation in A and B are not as much of an issue.

With all due respect, my experience and plain ole logic indicates the less agitation in Bath B, the better. As you say, some films (and tanks) are more prone to bromide drag than others. But agitation of the classic inversion type also washes Bath A from the emulsion, not good.

I have "developed" two ways of agitation in Bath B as needed. Both require a full tank if plastic. One method is to just very gently turn the tank over (SS tanks will let the reel drop and remain in solution.) The other is to place the tank horizontally and every 30 seconds or so, very gently roll some 120 to 240 degrees. There is enough Bath B in any film portion up in an air bubble as to not matter for that short duration.

I've appreciated your web site and sharing of information very much!

 

[Murray Kelly]

Diafine and Thornton's DD are very different. Although the exact formula for Diafine has never been released, it's pretty obviously a Phenidone-HQ-sulfite Bath A and a sodium carbonate-sulfite Bath B. That info is from the MSDS's, visible crystal structure, pH of solutions, and behavior. By that, I mean the ability of Phenidone to develop grains with minimal exposure, hence, increased EI.

Thornton's is a D-23 type DD using Metol as the sole agent. The longer tank times for faster films is probably for grain reduction more than anything, more time with the sulfite.

I stand corrected. I hadn't thought to check the 'net for the MSDS.
Thanks.

Murray

 

[Figital Revolution]

There is no issue with part A washing away as it is absorbed into the film emulsion and is exhausted though the action of part B (highlights first then shadows). I use SS and have also tested plastic (I prefer SS). Increasing the "stand" time for part A and B can help reduce grain on films like TX (in this I normally do two gentle inversion at start, 1/2 and then dump)...I also experimented with a water bath after part B to see if additional standing time would help sharpness but... no. Higher speed films do benefit from minimal agitation in A and B but Diafine should not be under agitated as most of the new films made today need a bit more agitation and time to work fully. My testing has shown that any increase in grain from more agitation is made up for in no bromide drag and even development... but whatever works for you is best...great conversation!!

Cheers-
Stephen

 

[Philippe Grunchec]

What about Moersch's MZB?

 

[thomsonrc]

Thanks for all the information. I'm getting a bit confused about the agitation though. Anchell & Troop say continuous agitation in A and B for all the two bath formulae in The Film Developing Cookbook. Is this just wrong?

Cheers

Ritchie

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Think it out....

Thanks for all the information. I'm getting a bit confused about the agitation though. Anchell & Troop say continuous agitation in A and B for all the two bath formulae in The Film Developing Cookbook. Is this just wrong?

Cheers

Ritchie

OK, let's presume that we are talking a Diafine type developer, i.e., intended to NOT develop in Bath A, all development in Bath B.

I wrote a "white paper" on DD's, unpublished. Let me quote:

"Bath A agitation: In a properly formulated Bath A, you can agitate as little or as much as you want. Remember, all we are doing in Bath A is getting the film to absorb developer.

Bath B agitation: In a properly formulated Bath B, you do not agitate at all. Rap the tank on the counter twice to eliminate air bubbles on the film after you pour in Bath B. Then, no matter how great the temptation, leave it alone. Remember, all we are doing in Bath B is letting development take place without interference."

Film absorbs developer like a sponge. Other than a bit of "why not?" agitation, or our photographer's compulsion to do so, you need little. Do it, have fun, no time or technique. We are only wetting the film.

Bath B permeates the emulsion, probably a lot by swelling it some more due to its alkalinity. Once into Bath B, anything that moves Bath A developer out of the emulsion is self-defeating. That's why we agitate, right? To move old molecules out of the emulsion and new ones into it. We don't want to do that with a true DD! Those "old molecules" help give DD it's unique contrast control. Leave them in peace.

The only downside to not agitating at all in Bath B (after a few sharp raps of the tank) is the occasional, inconsistent in reason, bromide drag. So, just as a CYA, "agitate" in one of the manners I described above.

 

[weasel]

A follow up; I am of the mind that Thorntons version of divided d23 may not be the best choice for Acros.
Even at ei 50 I find the shadows blocked up, (underexposed), and to get enough contrast to print on a #2 paper, I had to add metaborate to the second bath. The result looks to me like underexposed, overdeveloped, low quality negatives. The stuff is very sharp however.
I my try Diafine as I have some on hand..........

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I'm not surprised...

A follow up; I am of the mind that Thorntons version of divided d23 may not be the best choice for Acros.
Even at ei 50 I find the shadows blocked up, (underexposed), and to get enough contrast to print on a #2 paper, I had to add metaborate to the second bath. The result looks to me like underexposed, overdeveloped, low quality negatives. The stuff is very sharp however.
I my try Diafine as I have some on hand..........

I've never tried Thornton's DD, but the fact that he uses mild sodium metaborate instead of the DD typical carbonate always made me wonder.

You could try the A bath with a carbonate B bath. One teaspoon of the latter in a liter of water will give a pH of about 10.5. Or use two, what the heck.

Or try the Otha Spencer two bath, link above.

 

[Figital Revolution]

Diafine and Acros are a very nice match...I'd use an EI of 125/160 in Diafine using this method.....

http://figitalrevolution.com/2008/06/09/new-testing-results-for-inkaid-and-film-processing/

I also agree that in an ideal world no agitation is required with DD but when does that happen? Diafine on most new emulsion films I have tested needs some agitation to prevent Bromide drag...TX may be the only exception I've found and even with it I'd rather be safe than risk having a neg wrecked by Bromide Drag or uneven development.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I recon there is exactly the same amount of bromide liberated whether a two bath or single bath developer is used so I agitate Thorntons 10s/min in both baths, agitation as for a single bath developer,to avoid streaks.
I find Thorntons gives a speed loss of about 1/3 stop compared to D-76,Barry Thornton mentioned the Stoeckler loses speed in his book 'Edge of Darkness'.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I also agree that in an ideal world no agitation is required with DD but when does that happen? Diafine on most new emulsion films I have tested needs some agitation to prevent Bromide drag...TX may be the only exception I've found and even with it I'd rather be safe than risk having a neg wrecked by Bromide Drag or uneven development.

Sounds to me like we are in agreement! No agitation is ideal, but sometimes doesn't work due to drag.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I recon there is exactly the same amount of bromide liberated whether a two bath or single bath developer is used so I agitate Thorntons 10s/min in both baths, agitation as for a single bath developer,to avoid streaks.
I find Thorntons gives a speed loss of about 1/3 stop compared to D-76,Barry Thornton mentioned the Stoeckler loses speed in his book 'Edge of Darkness'.

Alan, any agitation in the normal sense of the word is counterproductive, undoing some of the DD advantages. Try it without, or minimal, as I describe above. Either method cures any bromide drag ills and doesn't displace the Bath A from the emulsion.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Flickr Diafine Group

http://www.flickr.com/groups/diafine/

Some nice stuff from mostly very amateur enthusiasts.