Why not 2 baths developer only?

Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,784
Location
India
Format
Multi Format

Interestingly, two-bath developers were found to have certain advantages over conventional developers when it is necessary to get "a more uniform degree of development throughout the life of a developer" as would be the case in motion film processing.

 
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,784
Location
India
Format
Multi Format
I believe Photo Engineer disclosed here the secret ingredient X in Microdot-X shortly before he passed and went to the big yellow R&D lab in the sky.

And nobody seems to have followed up the idea subsequently in contrast to the copious interest the subject generated prior to the disclosure.
 

snusmumriken

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
2,533
Location
Salisbury, UK
Format
35mm
What is the preferred method for changing from bath A to B?
  • Pour A out, then B in.
  • Or: lift spiral from tank (lights out, obviously) and lower into second tank with B solution
For me, the first of these. The second is way too complicated. I use Paterson tanks, in which filling/emptying is very fast. But the main thing is that you always do the same, and tweak your timing if you don’t get the results you want.
This doesn’t make sense. Increased exposures (first sentence) means decreasing EI, not increasing EI (second sentence).
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,273
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

I could certainly see how two bath developer modifications could be applied for motion picture film development - those long reels of film run in high volumes through the machines.
But commercial labs that develop many short rolls of film - that would be more of a challenge.
Unless the labs were able to approach them the same way as Kodachrome - many customer rolls, all spliced together into a long single roll, run through the machines, and then separated at the end back into single rolls.
 

Milpool

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
775
Location
n/a
Format
4x5 Format
Salt is in there but the secret ingredient in Microdol-X was Chlororesorcinol according to Ron Mowrey (from a conversation with Richard Henn). Henn had worked on this at Kodak in the 50s/early 60s in an effort to find additives to extra fine grain developers that would prevent problems like dichroic fog on emulsions in those days. The two Henn/Kodak patents are online.
 

bernard_L

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
2,059
Format
Multi Format
For me, the first of these. The second is way too complicated. I use Paterson tanks, in which filling/emptying is very fast. But the main thing is that you always do the same, and tweak your timing if you don’t get the results you want.
Thank you @snusmumriken. I also use Paterson tanks, so...
In the meantime, I found this post from 2013 by @David Allen
that is very clear. Strangely it came out of a google search, but is not found by photrio's advanced search, despite giving all the relevant keywords.

Now to develop my first roll of Aviphot200...
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,100
Format
8x10 Format
I did side by side testing with Ilford packaged Perceptol and my home brew - precisely the same results. There's nothing particularly secret about it. There might be some kind of added preservative or something like that in the factory packs, but it's otherwise a basic simple MQ sodium sulfite developer plus the "secret ingredient" of sodium chloride, which they openly list ... not typical table salt, which has added things like iodine and titanium dioxide.

I can't contribute anything to the Microdol debate; but I know there are others on this forum who have home-brewed their own of that in the past; and if they choose to chime in, that's up to them.
 

ntenny

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
2,487
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Format
Multi Format
[Diafine instructions]
This doesn’t make sense. Increased exposures (first sentence) means decreasing EI, not increasing EI (second sentence).

I agree it doesn’t read well, but I think they’re trying to say two separate things: It extends the shoulder by compressing the highlights (first sentence, but not very clear), and it gives an “acceptable” quality increase in EI (second sentence). Both seem kind of plausible to me, though I’m pretty sure the instructions overstate the speed gains, and it doesn’t magically produce shadow detail where none was captured.

I guess Diafine may be where the impression that two-bath developers gain speed comes from. It used to be pretty popular, didn’t it?

-NT
 

snusmumriken

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
2,533
Location
Salisbury, UK
Format
35mm

I’ve never used Diafine. The only developer that I have used that genuinely seemed to increase speed (about half to one stop with Tri-X) was Emofin. I loved using it at the time (it’s now discontinued), but grain was coarser than with Thornton’s.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,752
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
"I guess Diafine may be where the impression that two-bath developers gain speed comes from. It used to be pretty popular, didn’t it?"

In the 60s and 70s Diafine was pretty popular. The Sacramento Union a paper I freelanced in the 70s for always had a quart kit on hand for pushing. At the time Trix was rated at 2400 in Diafine. I recall posts here where folks clamming to push Trix to 3200 by running the film though for a cycle, then a long wash, and back though again. I have not tried the the tech. Most shops carried it along with it's stable mate Acufine. UPI kept in stock as well, but the printers disliked printing as the negatives were soft and hand be printed at a higher grade. Up until the 90s prints for the wire or half tone had to be somewhat higher contrast. I normally print at grade 2 or 3 depending on the paper used, with Diafine I print grade 3 or 4. I have a 5 or 6 rolls shot in the last 8 months that were developed in Diafine, I think I will try to split grade print.
 
OP
OP

Sidd

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 18, 2023
Messages
106
Location
Kolkata
Format
35mm

Would you please share your home brewed Perceptol receipe?
 

ntenny

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
2,487
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Format
Multi Format
I used to get pretty good mileage out of Diafine with Efke IR film. It didn’t seem to change the effective speed, but the highlight restraint kind of reined in the Wood effect, resulting in images that were a little less aggressively “Look at me! I’m infrared!” I imagine the same thing would happen to some extent with current IR films.

-NT
 

halfaman

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
1,412
Location
Bilbao
Format
Multi Format

D-76H is Haist effort to probe that only one developing agent is needed to formulate a developer, an idea he was an advocate of according to PE. It is at best nor better neither worse than Kodak official D-76, besides a probable shorter shelf life.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,100
Format
8x10 Format
Sidd - I'm not trying to take business away from Ilford. But there can be times packaged Perceptol isn't available; and its formula has been posted before (though sometimes with typos).

Per liter of stock solution :

metol 5 g
sodium sulfite anhydrous 100g
sodium chloride 30g

Optional if you get streaking issues due to water quality (I've never needed it) :
3.5 g sodium tripolyphosphate water softener
or else 0.2g EDTA

As usual, start with about 350ml of hot water, and dissolve just a pinch of sodium sulfite to it before mixing in the metol, then afterwards the balance of sodium sulfite as well as sodium chloride. Finally, top off with water to 1 L.

I suspect the unlisted trace ingredient is simply a sequestering agent in the two pack kit to facilitate mixing, and completely unnecessary if the sequence I noted above is followed.
 

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,958
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format
and most importantly they disregard the evolution of emulsion technology

I think the thing that really comprehensively knocked two-bath development on the head was the discovery of development inhibition effects in their various forms. At a stroke it enabled better highlight control, and a much better speed/ grain/ sharpness relationship in a manner that allowed consistency at scale, rather than the sensitometrically vague guesstimates of various developer influencers in the popular press of the day. The thing that never ceases to amuse me is people who simultaneously spend their time muttering about why they don't like XP2 Super (at least when developed properly in C-41), yet spend dozens of pages declaiming about how their concoctions dredged and regurgitated from popular magazines of the mid-20th century produce compensating effects, without realising that unless the characteristic curve of their efforts matches XP2's, it ain't a compensating developer...
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…