• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

What does glycin add to a developer?

Chuck - Depends on the specific paper and exactly how it has been exposed. Otherwise, I routinely dilute 130 1:3 for the daily session, and use approx standard 68 F temp or slightly higher (up to 72F). A particular exposure might hit DMax within 1 min, but it's far more typically 2 min - after that, for a warm paper like MGWT I might extend it up to 4 to 5 minutes or more to enhance its toning or split toning properties. But 2 - 3 min is most common. Depends on the outcome I'm seeking.

Premium quality papers have long had the characteristic of being able to control contrast a considerable amount through dev time only - up to about a full grade back when that terminology truly applied. The best VC papers are no different in that respect, unless you're trying to dramatically decrease their contrast by development alone, which can be quite disappointing.
 
Last edited:
Milpool said:
I have spent many years printing, and none of this has anything to do with semantics but nice try for the schoolyard win. You might as well have said your father could beat up my father. Incredible.
Click to expand...

As Drew mentioned it's in the look you're after printing....indignant posts such as yours won't make a difference in our choices of developers, papers or anything else. What I have said is your snide insinuations are the stuff of schoolyard bullies.

"More likely it’s unskilled (or skilled) printers regurgitating ancient history from darkroom cookbooks, books of pyro etc."
 
One valid question might be why Chuck needs 1:1 130 to achieve his target, while I get away with more dilute 1:3? Setting aside the esthetic variable, for the moment, there are at least three objective answers. One might be that we develop our respective negatives for a different contrast target or typical gamma. Another is that, apples to apples, bigger film retains more contrast in print fashion than small film due to less magnification, and maybe or maybe not our habits differ in that respect. Then third, there's the possibility of significant differences in enlarging light sources. I happen to be one of the few who uses a substantial narrow-band tungsten halogen RGB additive colorhead, which makes a distinct difference. Even my 12X12 cold light is a high output V54 blue-green unit, ideal in that category for VC papers (though great with the old graded papers too).
 
Well, there was at least one example of that in this very thread. For the last time, I don’t care what developer anyone uses. On that note, you win and I’m going back to the darkroom.
 
Tonight I mixed up some developer using one of the 130 kits minus Glycin. I mixed DuPont Defender 54D formula, and added 5ml of Benzotriazole to make the tone cooler. All I needed extra from the remains of the 130 kit was a bit of metol and sodium carbonate.

The prints look nice, no greenish cast on Ilford Multigrade IV RC like the Multigrade developer can sometimes give. I have not done any comparison to any other developer, but it gives nice clean blacks. It's a good use of the 130 kits where the glycin has gone bad I think.

Here is a quick and dirty flatbed scan of the print. Obviously the tones are much more subtle on the print.
 
Ian Grant said:
Kodak D163, an MQ developer, at that time it was the Kodak Ltd UK & Europe Universal developer, so equivalent of D72
Click to expand...

Not quite the equivalent of D-72 - but a close look at the formula does suggest that Levenson (who really, really knew his stuff about developer formulation) et al had modified an extant formula (that some in this thread are desperately emotionally invested in defending) to replace a component that functionally could be substituted with more Hydroquinone.
 

I chose 1:1 and 3min @ 68F nominal (virtual minutes according my temp-driven timer) as a starting point only because it was something I'd seen recommended online. That particular dilution is PF's recommendation. I am not married to this, hence the question. After 50 years of Dektol, Zone VI paper developer, and a bit of Amidol, it may take me a week or two to work this out

What I really need to do is figure out what 1:1 completion time is by taking a sheet of paper exposed to bright light and developing strips of it to different times.

Oh, and another reason I chose 1:1 is that PF suggests it will keep for months with an ultimate capacity of 100 or so 8x10 equivalents in 2 liter of working solution.

Also, I use a Zone VI VC cold light head which tends towards innately lower contrast.
 
Last edited:
I'll mix up 130 up to a month in advance (but generally less than a week before), and only enough at a time for a single daily session, when I dilute it 1:3, and then discard it at the end of the day. 500 ml or about a pint of undilute 130 turns into a reasonable cost-effective and deep enough volume in a tray large enough for 16X20 paper, or a full liter/quart for 20X24 tray usage.

I don't have much use for amidol anymore, but still keep the powder on hand just in case another Bromide paper miraculously reappears somehow.
 
Lachlan Young said:
to replace a component that functionally could be substituted with more Hydroquinone.
Click to expand...
What did he suggest as an MQ ratio? Many formulas I am seeing are in the 1:4 range. A130 being the exception at 1:5.
 
Craig said:
What did he suggest as an MQ ratio? Many formulas I am seeing are in the 1:4 range. A130 being the exception at 1:5.
Click to expand...

At a pH of 10 or higher, 1:4-1:10.

D-163 uses 2.2g of metol and 17g of HQ. No reason why you couldn't sub in Dimezone S at the right ratio and see what that does.

Levenson's work seems to have underpinned the understanding of the electron pump model (as used intentionally in Liquidol).
 

I doubt you will see any real difference on current Ilford papers. Back when DuPont made papers, I used some amidol. It was the best, but other formulas were basically indistinguishable.

 

That was an interesting comparison and a bit surprising how the preferences of viewers changed with the paper/developer combination. Also useful to know that the Multigrade IV/ PF130 combo was right at the bottom of the rankings, as that is the paper I will be using mostly for the forseeable future.
 
MG IV FB was a favorite with many due to its predictability, but I found it substandard for my own needs. What replaced it - the trio of MG Cooltone, MG Classic, and MGWT - are much better papers. But I used Polygrade III and IV, and Harman Fineprint before those, which were also deservedly classified as premium VC papers (and classic Graded papers even before those). Amidol could work magic with the old Bromide graded papers. Garden-variety MGIV is so inflexible in its tonal response, that just about any MQ cold tone developer works fine, including Dektol. In its case, 130 didn't add anything special for me.
 

Yes, I gave up on MGIV long ago in favor of Bergger VCNB, and when that became unavailable, Fomabrom Variant 111 VCFB.

I never liked the tonal response of MGIV nor how it toned in Selenium.
 
Bergger VCNB seems to be completely unavailable now. Too bad; it was a fine product if and when it could be obtained.
 
DREW WILEY said:
Bergger VCNB seems to be completely unavailable now. Too bad; it was a fine product if and when it could be obtained.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I really loved the stuff. For the first time since the original graded Brilliant disappeared, I found a paper that would sing for me.

Then it disappeared, though B&H continues to show it as "temporarily" out of stock. I believe they have some of the Bergger warm tone available, however.
 
Last time I looked, the Bergger website itself didn't show any NB. It might be out of production quite awhile, or perhaps permanently due to the added cost of it being contracted out to Harman, plus all the other current inflationary factors.
 
You really need to refer that question to the combination of developer plus post-toning effects. But one of the best candidates would be Ilford MGWT.
 
farpointer said:
Are there any papers on the market right now that are highly responsive to different developer impact on tone?
Click to expand...

Yes. Just don't expect claims about many paper developers from the 1930s to have been particularly true then, never mind now.
 
farpointer said:
Are there any papers on the market right now that are highly responsive to different developer impact on tone?
Click to expand...

"Highly" responsive? I've not found that to be the case. "Responsive"? Yes, in subtle and sometimes interesting ways. These days, I mostly use Fomabrom Variant 111 VCNB. I find it has a subtle response to 130 when developed to completion in 1:1 working solution for 3 min.

In truth, while I like the results, to me at least, the bigger benefit is the very long working life and capacity of the working solution. I used to throw out Dektol 1:1 as one shot and I now make 130 last for well over a month or until I hid the capacity of the working solution (I track this, I don't do it by observation so I am always well withing the capacity of the developer). I tried this with Dektol and found that - once mixed to tray strength - it oxidized pretty agressively. It would be come dark brown in only a week or so, even in a glass bottle. So the glycin definitely seems to promote developer longevity.
 
The relevant question is, is Foma 111 VCNB even a current paper anymore?
 
I can't find it anywhere except in a few leftover small random sizes. Last time I looked, it wasn't even on Bergger's own website any longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register