What does glycin add to a developer?

[Lachlan Young]

why the hell is it so popular among so many skilled and experienced printmakers

Because many of them cannot separate between what they think they're seeing, what they want to see and what they're actually seeing, and very often cannot understand that many of their actions that they attribute to non-mainstream developers are in fact because all they have done is widen certain error bars.

D-72's MQ ratio is something like 1:4 and A130's is 1:5, but the effect of the Glycin is essentially like adding a smaller amount more HQ (gramme for gramme) so the real effect would maybe be like an M:Q 1:6 or 1:7 ratio etc. It very quickly gets into sub-gramme precision of HQ in a litre. I'd also point out that there are disclosed Kodak developers (warm tone developers at that) that do have a wider than 1:5 M:Q ratio.

 

[Milpool]

Can you show an example?

And who are these “so many skilled and experienced printmakers” using glycin? I can’t think of any.

More likely it’s unskilled (or skilled) printers regurgitating ancient history from darkroom cookbooks, books of pyro etc.

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Lachlan - I've worked with all kinds of D72-ish tweaks. I played with one of them a few months ago unsuccessfully trying to leverage the image tone of a particular Foma paper. And image tone is a big deal to me. For me, acute color vision in black and white printing is just as important as in color printing. I don't want just any kind of black, or a generic commercial outcome - every respective image deserves its own special attention.

Shifting HQ amt with these kinds of developers DOES NOT equate to the effect of glycin. I've been down that road.

Milpool - Show an example? You mean a print distinction - over the web??(**%(!!!). That would be like trying to listen to a symphony while driving down the freeway during rush hour next to a car boomboxing rap muzik, being chased by a cop siren. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Because many of them cannot separate between what they think they're seeing, what they want to see and what they're actually seeing, and very often cannot understand that many of their actions that they attribute to non-mainstream developers are in fact because all they have done is widen certain error bars.

Well, I, for one, am relieved to know that I see a difference between Dektol and Agfa Ansco 130 only because I live in a fantasy world—thankfully shared by others, hope the beer is good here—and am oblivious to the many errors I make.

This concept of "mainstream" developer is funny, though. Would be interesting to examine why, exactly, is Dektol "mainstream"—hello Kodak marketing and world-wide distribution—and what the heck that has to do with its chemical properties.

 

[Milpool]

That sounds like one of those KTLA live CHP pursuits. I like those.

You mean a print distinction - over the web??(**%(!!!). That would be like trying to listen to a symphony while driving down the freeway during rush hour next to a car boomboxing rap muzik, being chased by a cop siren. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[GregY]

Well, I, for one, am relieved to know that I see a difference between Dektol and Agfa Ansco 130 only because I live in a fantasy world—thankfully shared by others, hope the beer is good here—and am oblivious to the many errors I make.

This concept of "mainstream" developer is funny, though. Would be interesting to examine why, exactly, is Dektol "mainstream"—hello Kodak marketing and world-wide distribution—and what the heck that has to do with its chemical properties.

Hey Alex, I also have Ansco 130 at the top of my print developer list. PF has been my supplier.
Lachlan & Milpool seem to have the brass knuckles on.....if you don't like it, or haven't used it....just denigrate the developer & it's users. That's their fantasy world.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Hey Alex, I also have Ansco 130 at the top of my print developer list. PF has been my supplier.
Lachlan & Milpool seem to have the brass knuckles on.....if you don't like it, or haven't used it....just denigrate the developer & it's users. That's their fantasy world.

I do trust my eyes, but I also trust science. I honestly don't mind my eyes being proven wrong, and I'm too old to hold on to the idea that I absolutely must have the last word. But I do ask to be proven wrong scientifically, not by being told that I'm hallucinating. I don't see the point in that.

OP's question is a really good one, and one that begs for a scientific answer. May actually turn out that glycol has no effect, or less than has been stated for over a century. That's OK. All new knowledge is good knowledge. But you have to show it the right way.

 

[Milpool]

Hey Alex, I also have Ansco 130 at the top of my print developer list. PF has been my supplier.
Lachlan & Milpool seem to have the brass knuckles on.....if you don't like it, or haven't used it....just denigrate the developer & it's users. That's their fantasy world.

Hey, if you like it you like it. No brass knuckles here and I’m not denigrating the developer. I object only to the endlessly repeated ad copy.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I object only to the endlessly repeated ad copy.

I agree. Dektol proselytizing is really getting out of hand.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Someone here many years ago challenged me to try mixing up some Ansco 120, saying if I tried it I'd never go back to Selector Soft. I tried it, he was right, and I never used Selector Soft again.

The only way to know if there's a difference between developers, developer agents, or combinations of developer agents is to mix some up and make the comparisons.

I loved the way Glycin would hissssss when being mixed into solution.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Apparently glycin adds more "je ne sais quoi" to the image.
I don't know what that is, exactly, but glycin definitely adds more.

 

[GregY]

Hey, if you like it you like it. No brass knuckles here and I’m not denigrating the developer. I object only to the endlessly repeated ad copy.

I've used 130 enough to have gotten results i appreciate..... Do you really think everyone with an opinion here has just read ad copy? ......"Give me Dektol or give me death".....

 

[Craig]

I've used 130 enough to have gotten results i appreciate.....

Have you ever tried a back to back comparison from the same negative? One print developed in 130 and one in something else, be it Dektol or Multigrade, and all the other variables held the same? Ideally developed to the same density and contrast too.

I'm curious how much of a role the paper developer plays in the results you appreciate. My gut says that paper developer should play a fairly small role, but I have not much to base that on.

 

[GregY]

Have you ever tried a back to back comparison from the same negative? One print developed in 130 and one in something else, be it Dektol or Multigrade, and all the other variables held the same? Ideally developed to the same density and contrast too.

I'm curious how much of a role the paper developer plays in the results you appreciate. My gut says that paper developer should pay a fairly small role, but I have not much to base that on.

Yes of course. Up until recently i always had Ethol LPD (another favourite), Ilford Multigrade and PF130 in my darkroom. My opinion is that paper developer plays as much in the equation for example as film developer does in processing film.
My preference for exhibition or sale prints is PF130 or LPD.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Have you ever tried a back to back comparison from the same negative? One print developed in 130 and one in something else

I have. 130 and D-72. Side by side, same printing session, both developers at the same temperature. As I mentioned, I noticed a difference in speed between 1/3 and 2/3 stops. Overall contrast slightly higher with D-72, better seperation mid-tones and shadows with developer 130. These differences were subtile, but nevertheless noticeable with Ilford Multigrade Classic (glossy). More pronounced with Foma Fomabrom Variant 112.

Haven't done the same exercise with warm-tone papers.

I noticed there's also a difference in results between developer 130 and D-72 when selenium toned. Again, very subtle — especially since the Ilford MG Classic paper doesn't change colour that much at 1+20. Still have more testing to do on that front.

 

[Milpool]

Not everyone, of course, but I suspect most. Ansco 130 is one example but there are many others. A lot of conditioning goes into our choices and how we judge our results. It’s just the way it is.

To be clear, Ansco 130 might give slightly different results than Dektol, although this will depend on the paper used. Any differences may or may not have to do with the presence of glycin. Maybe it’s the high level of bromide.

I’m not trying to promote Dektol either. I don’t particularly care what developer anyone uses. However when it comes to say Dektol or Ilford Multigrade you don’t see anywhere near the kinds of claims (often hyperbolic) you see when people talk of bygone developing agents or other ingredients etc. Funny how that works.

I've used 130 enough to have gotten results i appreciate..... Do you really think everyone with an opinion here has just read ad copy? ......"Give me Dektol or give me death".....

 

[Alex Benjamin]

A lot of conditioning goes into our choices and how we judge our results.

I don't understand what you mean by that. If I see more contrast, it has nothing to do with conditioning, but with the fact that there is more contrast. Same if there's more separation in the shadows or in the highlights, etc.

Choices come later: Do I like what I see? Do I prefer this paper or this paper? Do I prefer this paper in this developer or in that one? There, yes, conditioning may play a part.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, one of the things that I've seen fairly frequently in these sort of discussions is uncertainty about causation.
For example, is it the inclusion of glycin that brings rise to a change in, as an example, contrast behavior, or is the difference in behavior due to one or more other factors/components, which themselves may or may not be present due to the presence of glycin.
Glycin may be the sole causative factor, it might be there only by chance, or it may be a catalyst that changes the behavior of other components.
And when I refer to components, that includes what is in the paper.

 

[Milpool]

We’ll have to disagree regarding how people generally go about this. In order to truly say one paper developer gives different shadow or highlight contrast (ie a different curve shape) than another developer, with a particular paper or in general, some careful, tedious comparative work needs to be done. How many people really do that?

If you’ve done the comparisons, set aside any biases, influences, preconceptions etc., and prefer the results you get with Ansco 130 I have no argument.

I don't understand what you mean by that. If I see more contrast, it has nothing to do with conditioning, but with the fact that there is more contrast. Same if there's more separation in the shadows or in the highlights, etc.

Choices come later: Do I like what I see? Do I prefer this paper or this paper? Do I prefer this paper in this developer or in that one? There, yes, conditioning may play a part.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

I 2nd going the D72 route.

 

[GregY]

Not everyone, of course, but I suspect most. Ansco 130 is one example but there are many others. A lot of conditioning goes into our choices and how we judge our results. It’s just the way it is.

To be clear, Ansco 130 might give slightly different results than Dektol, although this will depend on the paper used. Any differences may or may not have to do with the presence of glycin. Maybe it’s the high level of bromide.

I’m not trying to promote Dektol either. I don’t particularly care what developer anyone uses. However when it comes to say Dektol or Ilford Multigrade you don’t see anywhere near the kinds of claims (often hyperbolic) you see when people talk of bygone developing agents or other ingredients etc. Funny how that works.

Nobody is making outlandish claims...... if you take the time to go back, the OP asked a reasonable question.
Nothing deserving of the attitude and assumptions you and Lachlan have come back with, given we're in a public forum that in theory at least promotes civil discussion.

 

[Craig]

My opinion is that paper developer plays as much in the equation for example as film developer does in processing film.
My preference for exhibition or sale prints is PF130 or LPD.

Interesting, I have used 130 very little and never LPD. My mainstay has always been Multigrade, but I never seem to use up a 1L bottle of concentrate before it goes off.

In the photographic chain, I would have thought that paper developer would have been quite a ways down the list of things that create a significant influence on the final print. Mind you, I've also done few exhibition type prints too. Usually no more than one a year.