What does glycin add to a developer?

[Rudeofus]

To be precise—I have to correct myself—, I don't disagree with it. I just can't agree with it without some kind of proof. I've also stated that in a few posts. There's not reason to assume that metol negates glycin's activity.

You will likely agree, that the difference between developers using only HQ and only Ascorbic Acid will be not comparable to the difference between MQ and PQ type developers. The Metol will change the developer entirely, and only little of PC versus PQ can be explained by comparing the Q and the C alone. This is all the proof I need to assert, that whatever properties a Glycin only developer brings to the table will play a minor role in Ansco 130. Please also note, that an MQ developer like D-76 is much closer to a Metol only dev (like Haist's variant) than anything made from HQ alone.

Metol forms a superadditive pair with hydroquinone, why would it kill the effect of glycin? Who knows, may even be the other way around, i.e., that the presence of metol increases the action of glycin.

The more active Metol will be somewhat dominant over the by itself much weaker Glycin. Apart from that I would follow Lachlan, who has decades more experience and light years more depth of insight into photographic industry that I'll ever have. His argument "photographic industry could have easily upscaled Glycin production if it had any benefit" holds a lot of water.

 

[MattKing]

There is a very important difference between optimizing a developer for commercial use and optimizing a developer for use by individual practitioners who mix their own.
Even if something like glycin guaranteed a Pulitzer Prize winning print every time, if it was impractical to include it in a commercial lab's customer printing line, it wouldn't have been included in a bag/can/bottle of Kodak print developer.
And it is important to remember as well that commercial products like Dektol are designed for what are considered to be "average" types of negatives.

 

[Craig]

His argument "photographic industry could have easily upscaled Glycin production if it had any benefit" holds a lot of water.

I'll make an observation that "photographic benefit" is not the same as designing for a commercial product.

I think it's been said that glycin has a room temperature shelf life of about 6 months. A commercial product has to be manufactured, go through the distribution chain to retailers, sit on the retailer's shelf until bought by the final consumer and eventually used by the final consumer. It's a big ask to do all that in 6 months.

Consider that back in the day before digital, film would have a use before date that was 2-3 years from manufacture, and I routinely saw outdated film on sale at camera stores. If film can't be sold within 2 years, there is no way a developer can be sold within 6 months. So while glycin may have a photographic benefit on today's papers ( or not - the jury still seems out on this), it fails the test for a commercially viable product. Kodak or Ilford does not want to sell a product that doesn't do what it should in the hands of the final user.

 

[Rudeofus]

Remember, that Kodak was good at chemistry, but also at coating powders. They were, AFAIK, the only ones making "single packet D-76", another feat considered impossible by everyone else.

If you look at the seemingly endless list of "D-xyz" developers, they could have at least created a specialty product for discerning professionals, maybe also for the movie industry. I guess, that at least the latter would have happily paid for Pulitzer Prize winning chems. AFAIK there is no movie stock developer based on Glycin.

 

[MattKing]

Remember, that Kodak was good at chemistry, but also at coating powders. They were, AFAIK, the only ones making "single packet D-76", another feat considered impossible by everyone else.

Perhaps not "impossible".
Kodak actually had a patent for the encapsulating technology used in D76, and unless the competitors were given the opportunity to pay to license and use that technology, they wouldn't have been able to do so without getting sued!

 

[Craig]

. AFAIK there is no movie stock developer based on Glycin.

There was, D-78. In Kodak speak, glycin was called Athenon.

I should add this is listed in a Kodak formula book dated 1941. I have no idea if D-78 was ever sold as a commercial premixed product.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You can't make a popularized packet version developer with glycin in it because the glycin goes bad in less than a year. And as far as skirting single pack D76 with a 2 pk version instead, that's what Zone VI did (plus a little more hydroquinone in it).

 

[Alan Johnson]

Glycin is said to provide softer tonality as discussed here by John Finch:

Geoffrey Crawley FX-2

Pyro and Pyrocatechin developers description

www.pictorialplanet.com

 

[Alex Benjamin]

There are four possibilities:

a) Glycin in A 130 has absolutely no effect
b) Glycin in A 130 has a small/subtle effect, but barely noticeable
c) Glycin in A 130 has a small/subtle but noticeable effect
d) Glycin in A 130 has a huge effect

I think we can eliminate d) pretty unanimously. My eyes tell me that a) should also be eliminated, as I refuse to admit that I'm the victim of an hallucination (and maybe refusing to admit that is the sign that I am victim of even more hallucinations than this one, but we won't go there).

Things become interesting with b) and c). If hypothesis b) is true, it would mean that, as it has been stated, there would be very little point in opting for A 130 over a "mainstream" developer such as Dektol. If hypothesis c) is true, then a developer such as Ansco 130 can become an important creative choice for the photographer, even if the effect would probably be lost on someone from the general public viewing an Ansco 130 print next to the same print developed in Dektol, both hanging on the same wall.

 

[Rudeofus]

There are four possibilities:

a) Glycin in A 130 has absolutely no effect
b) Glycin in A 130 has a small/subtle effect, but barely noticeable
c) Glycin in A 130 has a small/subtle but noticeable effect
d) Glycin in A 130 has a huge effect

e) Glycin in A 130 has a small/subtle but noticeable effect, which could also be reached by a slightly reformulated version without Glycin.

It is well established, that the change from (b) to (c/e) is very paper dependent, with newer papers shifting from (c/e) to (b).

We must also not forget, that Glycin not only adds development agent to the mix, it also lowers pH a lot more than HQ would ("love the fizzle sound"). There may be several effects from this Glycin addition, and we likely can't just "leave it out" and expect the exact same results.

 

[Milpool]

Your observation should be taken carefully though. Photographic benefit / quality was big business. A lot of what I see written about compounds like glycin, pyrogallol, amidol and other things makes the assumption Kodak, Ilford etc. were willing to leave quality on the table in the heyday of silver halide photography. It also nearly always leaves emulsion technology out of the discussion.

I'll make an observation that "photographic benefit" is not the same as designing for a commercial product.

I think it's been said that glycin has a room temperature shelf life of about 6 months. A commercial product has to be manufactured, go through the distribution chain to retailers, sit on the retailer's shelf until bought by the final consumer and eventually used by the final consumer. It's a big ask to do all that in 6 months.

Consider that back in the day before digital, film would have a use before date that was 2-3 years from manufacture, and I routinely saw outdated film on sale at camera stores. If film can't be sold within 2 years, there is no way a developer can be sold within 6 months. So while glycin may have a photographic benefit on today's papers ( or not - the jury still seems out on this), it fails the test for a commercially viable product. Kodak or Ilford does not want to sell a product that doesn't do what it should in the hands of the final user.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

e) Glycin in A 130 has a small/subtle but noticeable effect, which could also be reached by a slightly reformulated version without Glycin.

It is well established, that the change from (b) to (c/e) is very paper dependent, with newer papers shifting from (c/e) to (b).

That, ideed, has it covered.

I would just nuance it by saying that the degree to which there may be a shift from (c/e) to (b) is itself paper dependent, so to speak. Ilford MG Classic is one case, but the shift may not be the same whether glossy or matte, and that shift (if shift at all) may not be the same with any of the Foma or Bergger papers.

 

[Milpool]

There is a lot of KBr (relatively speaking) in Ansco 130 too.

I suspect if Ansco 130 gives different results than a standard MQ/PQ on a given paper it would have more to do with colour than shadow or highlight contrast since these would mean Ansco 130 is changing the paper’s curve shape. This could of course be tested. Barring a a proper comparison it’s impossibly to say whether or not the results differ.

e) Glycin in A 130 has a small/subtle but noticeable effect, which could also be reached by a slightly reformulated version without Glycin.

It is well established, that the change from (b) to (c/e) is very paper dependent, with newer papers shifting from (c/e) to (b).

We must also not forget, that Glycin not only adds development agent to the mix, it also lowers pH a lot more than HQ would ("love the fizzle sound"). There may be several effects from this Glycin addition, and we likely can't just "leave it out" and expect the exact same results.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Visual differences are real differences. The most important instrument of all is the human eye. After, we put prints in frames and hang them on walls, not quantified graphs and charts (though those get thumbtacked to darkroom walls where they belong).

 

[Rudeofus]

I would just nuance it by saying that the degree to which there may be a shift from (c/e) to (b) is itself paper dependent, so to speak. Ilford MG Classic is one case, but the shift may not be the same whether glossy or matte, and that shift (if shift at all) may not be the same with any of the Foma or Bergger papers.

There's a good chance, that papers with "classic" in their name are more likely (c/e) than current non-"classic" papers

 

[Rudeofus]

Visual differences are real differences. The most important instrument of all is the human eye. After, we put prints in frames and hang them on walls, not quantified graphs and charts (though those get thumbtacked to darkroom walls where they belong).

There are few things as easy to fool as the human eye+brain combo. If photographic process is accepted as scientific effort, then real measurements are the way to go. One of the worst effects distorting evaluations are personal preferences. The advantage of scientific measurements is, that they likely apply universally. To the average viewer their results will be more applicable than personal preferences.

 

[Rudeofus]

I suspect if Ansco 130 gives different results than a standard MQ/PQ on a given paper it would have more to do with colour than shadow or highlight contrast since these would mean Ansco 130 is changing the paper’s curve shape. This could of course be tested. Barring a a proper comparison it’s impossibly to say whether or not the results differ.

Funny thing is, that I have read here, that Glycin gives better shadow separation, which this discussion about D-78 mentions a book, which claims poor shadows with Glycin. It appears, that older literature is filled with assertions, that Glycin makes a big difference, they just can't seem to agree on in which direction this difference happens.

 

[GregY]

Visual differences are real differences. The most important instrument of all is the human eye. After, we put prints in frames and hang them on walls, not quantified graphs and charts (though those get thumbtacked to darkroom walls where they belong).

Drew, you read my mind.....

 

[Milpool]

Real differences are real differences, whether seen or measured. The photographic process has all kinds of seeing what one wants to see or expects to see or has been told to see. Visual or not, without a proper comparison you can’t say a whole lot about what one thing does differently than another thing especially if the differences are supposed to be subtle.

Visual differences are real differences. The most important instrument of all is the human eye. After, we put prints in frames and hang them on walls, not quantified graphs and charts (though those get thumbtacked to darkroom walls where they belong).

 

[GregY]

Real differences are real differences, whether seen or measured. The photographic process has all kinds of seeing what one wants to see or expects to see or has been told to see. Visual or not, without a proper comparison you can’t say a whole lot about what one thing does differently than another thing especially if the differences are supposed to be subtle.

I'm sure I've spent much more time making prints than you have arguing about what certain chemicals can or can't do. Thankfully semantics isn't the biggest part of photography for many.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

For those using Glycin...have you tried warming the working solution up to 70F or 72F?

I like a cool working environment so put waterproof seedling mats under the developer tray. This speeds things up, so emergence time development factors or a temperature probe controlled compensating print development timer is needed.

I found warm Glycin to be happy Glycin. No scientifically derived data to prove this, just that to my eye the prints looked yummier. Like if you drew a line between a greasy fast food cheese burger and a high quality gourmet meal, the prints were improved in nuance/richness.

 

[GregY]

For those using Glycin...have you tried warming the working solution up to 70F or 72F?

I like a cool working environment so put waterproof seedling mats under the developer tray. This speeds things up, so emergence time development factors or a temperature probe controlled compensating print developer timer is needed.

I found warm Glycin to be happy Glycin. No scientifically derived data to prove this, just that to my eye the prints looked yummier. Like if you drew a line between a fast food cheese burger and a high quality gourmet meal, the prints were improved in richness.

Murray in my case it depends on the season, because my darkroom is in a slab on grade room and is colder in winter. I often start with my developer at higher than 20°C, (as well as running a small room heater).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Significant temp changes seem to affect hydroquinone most, and hence image color in relation to glycin; but it also depends on the specific paper, and even on the light makeup and proportion of high contrast layer exposure vs low contrast - just too many variables to reasonably QUANTIFY in relation to each other, but rather simple to assess just by looking at the end result.

With 130, there seems to be more change going below standard 68F C temp 5 deg or so, than above it the same amount. Higher temp increases overall activity, of course. I've often experimented with this postulate, mainly with respect to MGWT and MG Cooltone, my go-to papers in recent years. But I rely on my Zome VI compensating development timer to adjust the length of time in relation to the temperature, keeping at least that variable predictable. Beyond that, it's either fun or frustration if you expect identical image tone and contrast shy of tight temp regulation, print to print.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Rudeofus - I trained color matchers. There's as much psychology as physiology to it, because it's all interactive in the brain. Excellent evaluation lighting is important too. But what I can also strongly affirm, is that even if you have a 50K industrial spectrophotometer at your disposal, every critical final evaluation in any color industry is done by a trained eye - a color matching pro - and we get better at it with experience, and learn what to specifically look for, and why.
Even at a color film production line at Kodak, there's someone at the end checking the batch quality control by eye, whose been doing it for a long time.

Yeah, it's easy to fool the eye by certain known color interactions, which artists sometimes deliberately exploit. But it's also easy to fool expensive instruments. I made a game of it, and once submitted various samples to a 75K IBM continuous tone spectrophotometer and drove it wacky. For example, normal human vision can easily see certain fluorescent colors which such machines can't, or which even most color films can't decently reproduce. Of course, I was well known to those folks demonstrating that machine, and we all had a good laugh, and then went out to lunch together. Interpolated multi-reading xenon-flashtube spectrophotometers are even easier to fool if you know what makes them tick.

 

[chuckroast]

Significant temp changes seem to affect hydroquinone most, and hence image color in relation to glycin; but it also depends on the specific paper, and even on the light makeup and proportion of high contrast layer exposure vs low contrast - just too many variables to reasonably QUANTIFY in relation to each other, but rather simple to assess just by looking at the end result.

With 130, there seems to be more change going below standard 68F C temp 5 deg or so, than above it the same amount. Higher temp increases overall activity, of course. I've often experimented with this postulate, mainly with respect to MGWT and MG Cooltone, my go-to papers in recent years. But I rely on my Zome VI compensating development timer to adjust the length of time in relation to the temperature, keeping at least that variable predictable. Beyond that, it's either fun or frustration if you expect identical image tone and contrast shy of tight temp regulation, print to print.

What dilution and time have you been using with 130 to hit full development?

I have been using 1:1 for 3 min with a temp controlled timer of my own making which works more-or-less like the Z VI timer (which I also have).