What does glycin add to a developer?

[Craig]

I have a couple of the Formulary 130 kits that I picked up from others, and predictably, the glycin has gone bad. So I started looking at what I could do with the remaining chemicals in the kit and it looks like I can make up either D72 or ID62 fairly easily. At the moment the Formulary is out of stock of glycin, and importing from the US is a pain and expensive anyway; so mixing it up as 130 isn't an option.

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? I'll mostly be using Ilford Multigrade paper.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are all kinds of MQ and PQ developers which can be brewed up without glycin. But there is a special quality to actual 130 glycin developer which many of us like. The glycin powder has to be reasonably fresh (not dark brown). So when Formulary creates a fresh batch of it, get an extra bottle and to store it unopened in the freezer to prevent it from degrading.

Ilford has a number of multigrade papers, so your choice of developer should ideally be matched to that, whether warmtone, cooltone, so-called neutral tone, etc. 130 itself works well with all of them, depending on how you post-tone your paper. Dektol-like relatively cold tone developers might not give quite as pleasing results with warmtone papers.

 

[Craig]

I don't particularly like warmtone, so I'm generally looking for a neutral to cool developer. The MG paper I have is regular IV and Cooltone.

The glycin in the kits I got looks like cocoa powder, so I won't be using it.

 

[Rudeofus]

In my experience there is surprisingly little difference between B&W paper developers, assuming they do develop a full image. This used to be different several decades ago, but with modern papers you will see little to no change.

I'd recommend you take the Dektol route, it's a proven developer which, if you leave it at full stock concentration, will likely last you through many dark room sessions.

 

[koraks]

there is a special quality to actual 130 glycin developer

Could you express it in more or less objective terms?

In my experience there is surprisingly little difference between B&W paper developers, assuming they do develop a full image.

Indeed. It's easy to get a warmer tone from a paper by cutting back development; this will evidently affect contrast as well. But if you develop a neutral tone paper to completion, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference which developer is used. Even warmtone developers like ID78 will yield a rather neutral result on a neutral tone paper.

To avoid going into warmtone territory, use metol instead of phenidone and benzotriazole instead of potassium bromide. And develop to completion.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

When I was doing sharp and unsharp pin registered masking techniques while enlarging 4x5 negatives, it usually took several printing sessions spread over several weeks to wrangle a print and multiple masks into balance. This meant being able to pick up *exactly* from where I left off in the last session despite starting again with old or fresh developer and temperature differences.

I believe Glycin was a huge benefit in being able to do this, and it also gave an extra level of control by being able to increase a development factor which didn't result in an overall density increase but proportionally worked harder on darker areas.

Here's the formula I was using: https://www.photrio.com/forum/resources/12-15-developer.123/

Here's the short write up from the link:

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

As far as the subtle influence of glycin itself goes, it is indeed subtle; but all those little things can cumulatively add up into something more. I don't know how to quantify it. But visual results do ascribe to it a bit of highlight "glow", depending on the age of the glycin and the exact paper itself. And that itself can be modified a little by the aging the glycin, much like aging a fine wine (but go too far, and it's counterproductive).

Reduced development doesn't seem to work well with VC papers, or current papers in general. But a slight amount,
say, a minute and a half versus 2 minutes, can be employed for fine-tuning an image a little bit warmer. Likewise, somewhat longer, say 3 or 4 minutes, can create colder dark tones. But some of this is counterintuitive, once something like a gold cold toner is employed. So the entire workflow has to be taken into account. A paper like MGWT is capable of deep cold lower values, at the same time as warm glowing highlights, not to mention split-toned effects when those are desired.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Craig - the best consistent cold tones I'm getting from MG Cooltone have been from 130 brought to full development (typically 2-3 min in 1:3 dilution at 20C), followed by anywhere from 1-3 min of my own tweak of GP-1 gold toner after the end of the general session. But you need to start with relatively fresh glycin powder (off-white or tan, not dark).

What I found was that by going straight to a cold tone MQ developer instead, with benzotriazole, didn't actually produce as clean a black, but in fact, a disappointing slightly warmish-green image much like Dektol delivers, drifting even further warm upon selenium toning, although that might tame some of the green inflection.

I should add that MG Cooltone is much more cooperative than old MGIV in several respects - a real improvement.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

 

[koraks]

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.

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.

Mind you, I'm referring to tests where development is taken to completion (which I consider the stable plateau during which not much happens anymore after an initially active phase of development). Partial/incomplete/suppressed development can produce more dramatic differences.

One area where I do notice distinct differences is if the print is toned afterwards; in this case there can be distinct differences in the toning behavior, with the warmtone-developed prints much more readily toning.

Reduced development doesn't seem to work well with VC papers

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.
Keep in mind that lith and 'polychrome' development are instances of severely reduced development (at least in parts of the tonal scale) and sure enough, this 'works' at least on some VC papers (notably Fomatone MG, but I've had interesting and worthwhile results on Adox MCC110 as well).

a bit of highlight "glow"

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Lachlan - My own eyes tell me something different. Papers aren't all the same. And nuanced visual print controls are my world. And link us to anyone who even still sells PMCPT or however that is abbreviated, let alone affordably. Good glycin is rather easy to get, although there are sometimes brief interruptions in supply.

 

[koraks]

Good glycin is rather easy to get

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Back to Koraks - Yes, MGWT is one of those papers which is particularly amenable to multiple toners, and has its own warmish base, and does exhibit quite well more subtle variations of the effect of glycin in the highlights in particular.
And with a premium paper like this, "full development" can become enriched in depth, and cooler in the shadows, with even fuller development. The point is to find the sweet spot for any given image, and not get enslaved to any standardized development time.

But 130 is also prized in the manner in which even shadow separation occurs nicely in many cases.

The last MG paper I ever used which was capable of a true bluish cold tone using MG/benz developers was Forte Polygrade IV. All the current ones don't respond the same way in that respect. 130 has proved more amenable to either clean cool effects with certain papers like MG Cooltone, or more warmish effects with most other VC papers. I did get a good cold tone reminiscent of old Seagull G graded using Neutral Tone Berrger Prestige VC in 130 plus gold toning; but it's a scarce paper.

So some of this is just logistically practical regardless of the "highlight glow" effect. 130 is highly versatile; and for some reason, fooling with it by removing the glycin or replacing the KBr with benz, or increasing the Hydroquinone, turns it back into something Dektol-esque. Believe me, I've tried a lot of tweaks, and like having them available in my tool kit; but the classic version itself is my routine "go-to" formula.

Glycin availability - just like film, store some extra in your freezer to tide you over in times of short supply. In terms of the EU, isn't there some Spectrum Chemical source? I once bought European mfg Spectrum glycin as well as amidol through a pharmaceutical supply dealer here; but that was a long time ago.

 

[koraks]

I've so far not used a current-production paper that exhibits truly cool tone with just development; it takes gold toning to get there. I did get quite cool tones with (if memory serves) a Muir cool-tone developer on Adox MCP310 RC paper. @Ian Grant gives the formula here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/formulating-cold-tone-paper-developers.47580/post-691872

 

[Milpool]

Correctamundo.

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.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Another benefit beyond being able to reuse the same working solution over multiple printing sessions, and the stock solution easily lasting a year (see post #6) I also used 12/15 to develop 4x5 HP5 with results very close to HC110.

My darkroom morphed into a dimroom (UV exposed hand coated alt contact prints from digitally enlarged negatives) so have been out of the store bought film/paper game for well over a decade (eeegad!)

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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 developing agent, 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.

Because it's slow working, you have to make sure Agfa Ansco 130 developer paper is developed to completion. Developed to completion, glycin-based developers therefore have slightly more detail definition than metol/hydroquinone based developers such as Dektol.

Agfa Ansco 130 has between 1/3 to 2/3 stops difference with Dektol. When compared side by side, you clearly see that the Dektol-developed paper has a bit more overall contrast but that the Agfa Ansco developer paper has a bit more separation in the whole tonal range. People who say there's no difference either didn't develop the paper long enough, or just aren't looking.

 

[Rudeofus]

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.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

Try it with Fomabrom Variant 111 VCFB

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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).

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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).

Well, there are those who believe that pre-WW2 photo chemists were scientific neanderthals—and apparently motivated by greed rather than science—and those who don't.

Until I see scientific proof to the contrary, I will maintain that Rudeofus's statement about the properties of glycin being "cancelled" by those of metol and hydroquinone is absurd and unscientific. I'll happily change my mind when I'll see the tests showing this.

 

[MarkS]

Hmm. I ordered some 130 from PF last week; they told me that they couldn't ship until this week because an ingredient was out of stock.
They shipped this week; package arrived yesterday. So that's taken care of; now if they could only source the ingredient they need to make Liquidol.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

+1

The first time I saw an Ansco 130 print of mine developed to completion, I saw shadow subtlety that I never saw using Dektol in 50+ years with a very wide variety of silver papers.

It's might be possible to achieve similar results without glycin, but I have neither the time or the inclination to try to reinvent the wheel at this point in my life.

Instead, I learned how to add the right components in proper proportions to Dekol to turn it into 130. This allows me to make good use of my existing Dektol reserves at a substantially lower pace.


In a world where everything is scanned and digitally fiddled , I still find great joy in producing silver prints with subtlety that does not come across on a screen.