UFG Developer

[Reinhold]

UFG developer.

Another current thread on replenishment...
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Prompted me to call attention to a developer that deserves more consideration...

Last night, I developed 5 rolls of Acros 100, 2 rolls of Konika 750 Infrared, and 1 roll of Ilford FP4+ in some Ethol UFG that has been in regular (replenished) use since I mixed it back in November of 2001. Every roll has the same brilliance, tonality, and acutance. Comparing negatives done last night with negatives from 8 years ago shows how consistent this developer is when replenished.

UFG has been my absolute favorite film developer over the last 50 years. It works beautifully on every film I've ever run thru it. It's foolproof, consistent, and totally reliable, despite being used and replenished regularly over extended time periods. It's not the only developer I use, but it's the one I come to when I can't afford any mistakes.

I keep it an a 3 liter glass narrow mouth bottle filled absolutely to the cap... zero headspace. Zero oxidation.
UFG has been accused of being a "hot" developer (very short developing times). Instead of mixing it as one gallon, I mix it as 6 liters and extend the developing times to 8 minutes (for Acros & FP4+).

I consider UFG to be one of the most unrecognized gems in B&W photography today.
A data sheet is here: Dead Link Removed

Reinhold

www.classicBWphoto.com

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I am just this year giving UFG the run, and yes, it is wonderful stuff. Mixing it as 6 liters is very interesting, I'll try that. Are you using the remaining 3 liters as the replenisher? Because B&H told me that Ethol has discontinued the 1 quart size of the replenisher and the gallon size might take a while to use up, its strong stuff. Are you shooting at box speed with the slightly weaker UFG or doing the recommended 'bump' to the film EI? Sorry for the questions, I just kinda caught on to this developer and am Very Keen to learn from someone who has extensively used it, much much thanks.

 

[Trask]

I've been experimenting with developer replenishment too, and I'd be interested to read the responses to RidingWaves' questions.

 

[dancqu]

Has Stood the Test of Time

I don't use it now but back in the 50s and
60s I did use it. Glad to see that it is still
on the market. Dan

 

[Reinhold]

To answer a couple of questions on using the UFG 6 liter mix:

I use the film box speed and extend developing time accordingly. I get normal contrast.
I've attached a little chart that I made up a few years ago with time/temperature for N+1 and N–1 contrast times.
The chart is interpolated from other data... use the chart as a starting point... Your Mileage May Vary...

I mix my stock UFG as a concentrate. One gallon powder into 2 quarts (takes a bit longer, but it will dissolve).
Kept in one quart glass bottles filled to the cap, the concentrate will last a couple of weeks short of Forever...
Dilute the concentrate 1+1.585 to the final working strength equivalent to a 6 liter mix.
If you've got it already mixed, just add 1+ 0.585 to bring it to a 6 liter mix.
I've also attached a graphic that helped me to visualize the basic idea...

Regarding replenishment, I'm still working on the last of my bona fide UFG replenisher.
The stuff keeps forever if it's kept it in full glass bottles of ever decreasing size as it's used.
This last batch was mixed in November 2001... Inert gas in the headspace also helps.
A 3rd graphic is on my darkroom wall showing replenishment & dilutions for each 120 roll.

After my actual replenisher is used up, I'll use the developer as replenisher.
I'll need to fine tune the amount to add, just as I needed to do when I used the original replenisher long ago...

Replenished UFG... pretty hard to beat...

Reinhold

www.classicBWphoto.com

 

[George Collier]

Reinhold - how about using it one shot, in view of diminishing replenisher availability, ever done that?
(how's the Dbase coming?)

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

The UFG replenisher is still available, but only in the gallon size. Thanks for the info Reinhold.

 

[Reinhold]

George,

I haven't used UFG as a one-shot diluted developer in a long time (±30 years ago???).
After I settled on the replenished system, I found that it suited my technique very well.
( It's the "comfortable old shoe syndrome")

For one-shot UFG developing, I would definitely work from a concentrated stock solution since it keeps so well.
Mixing one gallon of powder into 2 quarts concentrate is not a problem.
It's kind of like making a watery version of HC-110 stock.

Before reverting to one-shot, I'd verify that using the regular developer as it's own replenisher delivers the same results as I'm used to when using the separate replenisher. Might take a bit of "tweaking", though.

I still have a couple of cans of replenisher powder, so I think I'll be ok for the next couple of years...

(I'm getting used to the Dbase. sorta)...

Reinhold

www.classicBWphoto.com

 

[Klopstock]

What makes this developer special? The only thing I could find out was that it is described as 'soft' and 'very compensating'. As all developers are marketed as 'fine-grain', is this one different? Is it only for large format photographers like you or would a 35mm user be happy with it?

 

[fotch]

UFG
Ultra Fine Grain

 

[Trask]

I've used a home-brew developer the formula for which I found in a book about darkroom practices, and the author suggested that the same formula could make a replenisher IF you left out any bromide, as presumably repeated developing cycles in the main developer would have caused a bromide build up. Replenishing with the straight developer formula would have led to too much bromide.

 

[cmo]

It's not the only developer I use, but it's the one I come to when I can't afford any mistakes.

Reinhold and other UFG users, how does this compare to XTol if we are just talking about image quality, especially for smaller film formats?

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Well, the grain is not as fine, but the resulting shape seems to have more edge and bite to it. Its not on the order of say, Rodinal 1:50 but its say a step between Xtol and Rodinal in terms of the grain 'enhancement'. Tonality is very smooth, on equal to Xtol but add in that more stronger grain edge and its a very compelling look. I've only done Neopan 400, 100 SS (very very nice BTW at 200) Plus-x (large speed increase up to 320 or so!) and HP5 (didn't really like it). I did a quick and dirty speed test with a white fender in the sun, Plus-x and even though I overexposed by at least 8 stop the grain held and the contacts showed that the blasted highlights were still in a printable range. I've only really been doing UFG for pushing Neopan 400 to 1000 for low light, but the slower films had a very defining look to them. Perhaps FP-4 at 250 in 120 size will be next.

 

[Reinhold]

"There is no miracle developer that will do all things for all people. But Ethol UFG comes as close as a developer possibly can." ...From the introduction to UFG on the Ethol data sheet.

Another thing about UFG that pleases me is it's ability to deliver a very long tonal range without dropping details out of the shadows or obliterating them in highlights (as RidingWaves has noted).

I shoot a lot of medium format, and UFG's grain has never been a cause for concern.
For Example, the photo: "Cottonwood Tree, Fruita, Utah seen here:

http://www.classicbwphoto.com/More_Americana.html ...

...was shot on Plus-X at ISO 160. I typically enlarge it to 24x30". It's been a good seller...

The photo: "Cape Arago Lighthouse, Coos Bay Oregon was also shot on Plus-X, but in the haste to get the shot before the sun set, I underexposed it by about 1~2 stops. The negative is pretty thin.
I'm kind of inept at preparing scans for my website, the highlights in the clouds blew out too much to my liking. On a real print, however, those clouds are positively operatic. That negative is regularly enlarged to 20x24".

Bear in mind that all of the negatives on that web page were developed in slightly diluted (6 liter mix) UFG that has been regularly replenished.

After posting my graphic on mixing to 6 liters, a buddy suggested a few revisions to make it easier to understand, so here is a revision...

Reinhold

www.classicBWphoto.com

 

[Larry Metza]

UFG Developer-

Glad to hear that UFG is still around! My regular supplier does not stock it but I find that it continues to be available at a few of the national outlets. Thanks for the reminder. Don’t remember why I strayed but will soon return to the fold. I like your concentration process…….I think! Also, thanks for the charts!

 

[surfotog]

I just got a can, and the powder is brown, it mixes up brown as well. Is this normal? Doesn't brown developer mean it's gone bad?

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

No. Try it first on a test snip/roll. I mixed some up from a long closed store that got the stock in around 1991, it looked brown and mixed up kind of a strong tea color, but works fine. Did you find the can locally?

 

[Reinhold]

In a conversation with the guy who actually blends the UFG chemistry (a private label chemical company somewhere in the middle of the USA), he mentioned that some of the components darken almost before the blend is packaged. Ignore the color unless it looks like coffee grounds...

A snip test is always a good idea with any new developer.

As an aside, he was kind enough to blend a few 1/2 gallon cans of UFG REPLENISHER for me. With the keeping quality of that stuff I can retire in peace, knowing that my supply of UFG will still be with me till the end...

Reinhold

www.classicBWphoto.com

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Wow, 1/2 gallon cans! I suppose the UFG replenisher keeps very well, I can only get it in the gallon size so I will have to split it up into small glass bottles and hope it doesn't go off by the time I use it up. Its been my experience that replenishers seem to have extra long storage life, I have some Microdol-X Replenisher that seems to be just as strong after at least 2 years in bottles.

 

[surfotog]

Thanks for the input, I'll try it on an old roll this afternoon. I'm inclined to use it one-shot with a 1:5 dilution. Do you have any experience using it this way?

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Nope, only as replenished. Don't forget to use Constant Agitation as per the instructions.

 

[Reinhold]

Don't worry about UFG replenisher dying on you...

I'm still working on some UFG replenisher mixed November 2001 !!!
(I always label my developer bottles with the "date mixed").
When I said it was in 1/2 gallon cans, I meant it was packaged to mix 1/2 gallon of replenisher per can.
I didn't mean that I have 1/2 gallon of dry powder (holy kow...)

I keep the mixed replenisher in individual pint glass bottles filled to the cap.
The "working" bottle is always topped off with an inert gas.

Regarding color; some developers are famous for working even if they are the color of Guinness...
Ansco 130 is a classic example...
I just printed a bunch of 11x14's last night in some Guinness.

Reinhold

www.classicBWphoto.com

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Yeah, I kind of thought that's what you meant. Great to hear it can last, a full gallon at 1/2 oz at a time is, uh, a lot of film.

 

[Reinhold]

Split a gallon with your neighbor.

Think: co-op.

It's the neighborly thing to do.

Then you'll both have a lifetime supply.

Reinhold.

 

[dynachrome]

Many years ago I used UFG with replenishment. Over time as it becomes "seasoned" it seems to produce finer grain. Eventually my replenished stock did poop out and I ruined a roll as a result. UFG is a phenidone based developer. When films did not have as fine a grain pattern as they do now, phenidone based developers were not as popular. They give high sharpness but more grain. I preferred UFG to Acufine for pushing Tri-X and had very good luck with it. If you are looking to use a phenidome based developer with similar results then there are many options and some are more economincal. These include X-tol, DD-X, Ilford Microphen, Acufine, Acu-1, Edwal FG-7, NACCO Super 76, Clayton F60, PC-TEA and others. If you can get it (Freestyle in CA), the Clayton F60 is easy to use, works well and is less expensive to use than most of the others.