Could you express it in more or less objective terms?there is a special quality to actual 130 glycin developer
In my experience there is surprisingly little difference between B&W paper developers, assuming they do develop a full image.
I loved the look of Ansco 120 developer, and felt Ansco 130 had too much snap and sizzle for my images, but wanted the depth, richness, and keeping qualities of Glycin...so I came up with what I call 12/15 Developer.
Because I keep 12/15 W.S. (working solution) for up to several months by keeping it in air tight Mylar bags that boxed wine comes in between sessions, and because I want consistent print results over several printing sessions, I use the Emergence Time (E.T.) of the image in the developer, multiplied by a Development Factor (D.F.) to find development times.
This developer has a slow image E.T. so I use the E.T. of the negatives clear edge multiplied by a D.F. of 4.5 for normal development. An E.T. of 40 seconds multiplied by a D.F. of 4.5 equals a developing time of 3 minutes. When the E.T. gets to about 48 seconds I toss it because developing times start getting too long for my tastes.
Applying a larger D.F. doesn't result in an overall darkening of the image, but has proportionally more effect on the darker print values...a quality which I believe is unique to glycin.
This allows one to pick up exactly where one left off with days or even weeks between printing sessions. Also use a metronome compensating enlarging timer for consistent exposures.
This developer, at least with Ilford Multigrade IV FB glossy paper and toned in selenium, gives a beautiful richness of tone and colour.
A word of warning - not much of anything happens in the first minute, a little in the second, but it really picks up speed in the third.
I know; I've done some testing myself. The differences are very subtle though. Yes, I can tell them apart immediately after doing the test and while I know which print is which. If I were to dig them up a year afterwards, I'd be hard pressed to spot the difference, let alone tell which print was made with which developer. I'm quite sure that the majority of darkroom printers is in the same deplorable corner along with me.Koraks - "Neutral" tone papers aren't all the same. But the generic idea, at least, is that they're somewhat in the middle, more or less, and can potentially be leveraged either warmer of cooler, depending on the specific development and post-development toning regimens. Specific developers do make a difference, and it can clearly be seen in prints.
It does, but as I said, it affects the tonal scale. You tend to end up with rather flat prints (no surprise) and dmax isn't reached (again, no surprise and kind of the whole point, too). The former can to an extent be compensated at exposure time. Whether it's ideal...no, I wouldn't say so. I think in that regard we agree.Reduced development doesn't seem to work well with VC papers
Right, I was afraid it would be limited to this. I've read it elsewhere as well, also in the context of glycin film developers. I guess I'll have to live without this ephemeral 'glow' in my life. Fortunately, I've learned to live without many things, so I can probably handle this as well.a bit of highlight "glow"
Provided you purchase it in the US. It's not particularly easy, let alone economically attractive to purchase elsewhere on the planet. And, as you remarked, it's out of stock often even if you limit to US sources.Good glycin is rather easy to get
Glycin essentially delivers nothing that cannot be achieved by a PQ ratio rebalancing (the major manufacturers were and are quite capable of making all sorts of custom chemicals if they actually deliver a meaningful difference). The really clever stuff for warmer tones seems to lie within the field of modified phenidones, but how much of that has been commercialised by Harman etc is an open question. For colder tones, 1-Phenyl-5-mercaptotetrazole is the stuff.
For paper developing, what am I missing by using either a MQ or PQ developer without the glycin? What does adding a third developing agent bring to the table in terms of the final print?
As a developer, glycin has been used since the 1880s. It has very different characteristics than both metol and hydroquinone. Like metol, it is a low-contrast developing agent, whereas Hydroquinone is a high-contrast agent. But since glycin, unlike metol, reacts very strongly to bromide, it is a slow working developer, i.e., whereas metol's action is fast and even throughout the register, glycin starts working on the highlights, makes its way to the mid-tones and end with the shadows.
Ansco 130 and all the other "glycin developers" don't use Glycin as their sole development agent, and as soon as you have Metol and/or a Phenidone derivative in your mix, all these theories about high/low contrast go out the door. This is precisely what Lachlan referred to: Glycin may have all kinds of interesting properties, but as soon as you combine it with other development agents to make it useful, you end up with the same options as with MQ/PQ.
To all these folks preaching Ansco 130 lives forever: yes it does, but so does Dektol stock solution, and the latter does it at the fraction of the cost.
@DREW WILEY Some years ago Michael R. started a discussion here about cold tone developers. I did some experiments of my own, and sure enough I created some Fomaspeed prints, which looked cooler than their Dektol developed counter parts. They did look cooler to my eyes, but they did look exactly the same to my scanner. Sometimes we expect some changes to our prints with some magical ingredients, and then our eyes and brains get carried away, unlike objective measurements. I will not deny, however, that some old Forte stock or whatever paper from ancient times did respond to cold/warm tone developers in some verifiable way. Current paper stock: less so.
Glycin may have all kinds of interesting properties, but as soon as you combine it with other development agents to make it useful, you end up with the same options as with MQ/PQ.
Not according to every single book about photography chemistry written in the last century. These chemists weren't stupid. They wouldn't have added a chemical element knowing its properties would be uneffective.
Incorrect. But it requires separating out those who were rehashing pre-WW2 guesses from those who really knew their stuff (and were not writing for popular audiences) if they weren't having to self-censor to protect then extremely valuable knowledge (you didn't want to tell your competition that they didn't need to waste money on synthesising something pointless and expensive). Patent literature and publications from the likes of the SPSE say far more about the internal thinking of those with the wherewithal to meaningfully analyse the materials both quantitatively and qualitatively. If Glycin really made a difference, large scale synthesis of it would have continued (and been made cheaper). The only thing it might have in its favour is allowing a wider error bar for amounts added, vis-a-vis adjusting quantities of HQ (or for that matter an HQMS salt).
Rudeofus - I've been rather disappointed in current Foma Variant Neutral FB - I never could get the warmishness out of it, and never did get it to cold tone afterwards decently. The best I got was by reverting back to my ole amidol/benz formula, which in former times was excellent for graded Bromide papers.
Lachlan - in the game of printmaking, the most important instrument of all is one's own pair of eyes. Reading every photo chemistry book ever written can't substitute for that. And I could sort out any one of the hundreds of prints I've made over the decades, and by its look alone, tell you not only what paper was involved, but what specific developer, with about 99% odds of being correct. (I rarely made notes). In fact, I rarely made two prints exactly the same, and deliberately reinterpreted each of them a bit.
And if glycin doesn't make any difference, why the hell is it so popular among so many skilled and experienced printmakers? Why can't Formulary keep their stock of it on the shelves for very long? Is this just due to some current fad based on website tales? If so, the web and its rumors have been around a hundred years longer than we thought.
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?