Why Troop and Anchell dismiss TEA bases deva?

Rudeofus · May 30, 2022

ruilourosa said:
Can anyone chime in about its solvency characteristics? Maybe comparing with other solvents..

Here is my take on this: it was "common knowledge" for a long time, that TEA has "no solvent properties", while some folks disputed this. In order to settle this for myself, I did an experiment with TEA, Silver Nitrate and alkali halogenides. My TEA batch is from Fototechnik Suvatlar and of 99% purity.

In my experiment, TEA did dissolved Silver Chloride. but not Silver Bromide. I would therefore rank it somewhere with Ammonia, and its solvent property is, of course, dependent on concentration.

HOWEVER: as has been stated here, the solvent property of my batch may or may not be due to the TEA itself. The remaining 1% are, as always, a mystery, and may well comprise DEA or MEA, which were always known as silver solvents.

Therefore: even if TEA is not a silver solvent, your batch of TEA may well be. YMMV dependent on source of TEA and on amount used in your product.

Raghu Kuvempunagar · May 30, 2022

Rudeofus said:
In my experiment, TEA did dissolved Silver Chloride. but not Silver Bromide. I would therefore rank it somewhere with Ammonia, and its solvent property is, of course, dependent on concentration.

Is it as effective as Ammonia in dissolving silver chloride?

Rudeofus · May 31, 2022

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
Is it as effective as Ammonia in dissolving silver chloride?

That was my impression during my test. Please note, that this was just a quick experiment to prove/disprove the old claim "TEA is not a silver solvent". No quantitative data was obtained during this test. Please also note, that different batches of TEA may behave very differently for reasons already mentioned.

The conclusion from my test is: if you want controlled (which includes no) silver solvent action, test your TEA before adding it to your developer.

Raghu Kuvempunagar · May 31, 2022

Rudeofus said:
That was my impression during my test. Please note, that this was just a quick experiment to prove/disprove the old claim "TEA is not a silver solvent". No quantitative data was obtained during this test. Please also note, that different batches of TEA may behave very differently for reasons already mentioned.

If it works as good as 2% ammonia in dissolving silver chloride then it can perhaps replace the former in B&W reversal processing workflow that uses copper sulphate as the bleach. Might not be as cheap as ammonia, but more convenient and less hazardous.

Rudeofus · May 31, 2022

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
If it works as good as 2% ammonia in dissolving silver chloride then it can perhaps replace the former in B&W reversal processing workflow that uses copper sulphate as the bleach. Might not be as cheap as ammonia, but more convenient and less hazardous.

The advantage of Ammonia is, that it will not form a precipitate with copper ions. If you do this with TEA, you'd have to control its pH carefully.

Raghu Kuvempunagar · May 31, 2022

Rudeofus said:
The advantage of Ammonia is, that it will not form a precipitate with copper ions. If you do this with TEA, you'd have to control its pH carefully.

After the copper sulphate bleach step and before the TEA bath, the film is given a through wash which is followed by a clearing bath in 5% sulphite and a water rinse. Will there be any residual copper ions in the film after this?

Rudeofus · Jun 2, 2022

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
After the copper sulphate bleach step and before the TEA bath, the film is given a through wash which is followed by a clearing bath in 5% sulphite and a water rinse. Will there be any residual copper ions in the film after this?

I have no experience or data on this. It may be worth an experiment.

Rudeofus · Jun 2, 2022

ps: it may be possible to add EDTA to your TEA based fixer bath, this would most likely take care of residual copper ions.

ruilourosa · Jun 2, 2022

This took a detour

I was hoping to have some opinions on the solvency of Tea as a developer ingredient... Not as a fixer :-D

bluechromis · Mar 18, 2023

Steve Anchell in his "The Darkroom Cookbook" 3rd. ed. not only lists formulas for 510 Pyro and PC-TEA, but also devotes a feature page to Gainer's discussion of his formulas. He has one of Gainer's photo's in the both. So there is no distain for the organic solvent developers in his book.

PC-TEA has its limitations and there are newer formulations of a similar type that may have advantages. I think PC-TEA is misunderstood. Anchell and Troop, like many authors, categorize developers into two main classes. There are fine-grain/solvent developers like D-76 and high-definition/acutance developer like Beutler, FX 1.2, 37, 38. PC-TEA fits the characteristics they attribute to high acutance developers. It is fairly high pH; it has a fairly small amount of developing agents. It produces acutance enhancing agency effects caused by compensation action. It produces moderate grain. So it would make more sense to compare it with acutance developer than solvent developers. If someone has to have a fine grain/solvent developer they will probably not like PC-TEA and likely will not like some other acutance developers either. So I think saying that it is not as good as Xtol or D-76 misses the point. Rodinal produces courser grain and may lose more speed than PC-TEA, but people don't tend to damn it for not being like D-76.

PC-TEA could also be compared to Caffenol. Before you laugh, there are people doing well regarded work with Caffenol.

In my opinion, PC-TEA produces very nice skin tones and I have not seen a film it didn't work with in terms of tonality.

Compared to developers generally, PC-TEA may not seem to stand out. But when it comes to inexpensive, environmentally-friendly developers that come in a long-lasting, one-part, liquid stock, the list is very short. It depends on what is important to a person. If low toxicity, convenience and cost are seen as important, then PC-TEA looks pretty good. I think one of the biggest drawbacks of PC-TEA is that TEA is not available is all areas.

bluechromis · Mar 18, 2023

Rudeofus said:
My impression is, that Bill still favors Metol very much over Phenidone, this would explain his reluctance to include PC TEA and 510 pyro. One should also consider, that PC TEA is said to lose half or even a whole stop of light, which is not very impressive as far as modern developers are concerned.

Not sure about his stance on TEA.

If Troop has a prejudice against phenidone it is hard to see that as the sole justification for omitting PC-TEA and PC-510. Anchell and Troop still listed many popular phenidone formulas in their book. They said that it is hard to make sharp phenidone developers, but praised FX-37 and Xtol for their sharpness. In its comparison chart, Kodak lists Xtol as its sharpest developer, though not by much. In contrast, Anchell in his book The Darkroom Cookbook states the all-star metol-hydroquinone (MQ) developer, D-76, has tendency to blow out highlights though he blames hydroquinone more than metol. Phenidone is found in a number of speed increasing developers. So the purported advantage of metol over phenidone may not be a black and white thing.

There have been hundreds of MQ formulas made over the years. Although phenidone started to be used in the 1950's there still has not been as much work with it as with metol developers. Large scale RD for photo chemisty by major firms collapsed in the 1990's. There likely is still more to learn about how to use phenidone most effectively. It is worth remembering that prior to the creation of Xtol, it was widely believed it would be impossible to create a low pH PC developer. Not only was it possible, but Xtol turned out to be arguably the worlds greatest general purpose developer. In a simiar way, older books dismissed pyro developers as old fashioned and unnecessary given the availablity of MQ developers. So we have seen examples where the conventional wisdom about the purported limitations of materials can be mistaken.

bluechromis · Mar 18, 2023

pentaxuser said:
So what do you believe causes Troop and Anchell to exclude TEA and Pyro 510?

Thanks

pentaxuser

I don't know why Troop and Anchell excluded PC-TEA and Pyro-510, especially since Anchell included them in his solo book. Some may be skeptical of developers that amateurs formulate. This brings up a bigger issue with current state of analog photography. Early photographers typically made up their own chemistry in a kitchen-sink fashion. Then large manufactures took the lead in photochemistry, although there were ongoing contributions by individuals.

But in the 1990's the large players, like the Wooly Mammoths, departed the scene. Now it is amateurs and small firms that are the innovators. In some ways we have gone full circle back to the ways of early photographers. Amateurs and small firms are at a disadvantage compared to the likes of the former Kodak which invites skepticism about their efforts, which is not entirely unjustified. One response to this situation is to say that nobody will every create anything better than the big boys did so one should will stay with their tried and true products forever.

Another response is to see the progress in chemistry being made, despite the limitations, as a positive thing. The original formula that D-76 was based upon likely had some rough edges and was not as fine grained. But Kodak refined it over a period of years to arrive at D-76. Contrary to what one might think, Kodak probably did not view the standard version of D-76 as something that could not be improved. In a similar way, PC-TEA and Gainer's other ascorbate experiments were a great achievement at the time. But they also have some rough edges. There is a lot of potential for improvement in that style of developer.

The Photo Engineer knew the immense RD capability of Eastman Kodak and how difficult it would be to match that. He had plenty of reason to say there was no point in amateurs trying to create new chemistry. But he encouraged experimentation and there is no point to experimentation if there is no possibly of creating something new and useful. One reason to publish formulas like PC-TEA and 510 Pyro is that it may inspire people to create new and better formulas.

Sirius Glass · Mar 18, 2023

bluechromis said:
I don't know why Troop and Anchell excluded PC-TEA and Pyro-510, especially since Anchell included them in his solo book. Some may be skeptical of developers that amateurs formulate. This brings up a bigger issue with current state of analog photography. Early photographers typically made up their own chemistry in a kitchen-sink fashion. Then large manufactures took the lead in photochemistry, although there were ongoing contributions by individuals.

But in the 1990's the large players, like the Wooly Mammoths, departed the scene. Now it is amateurs and small firms that are the innovators. In some ways we have gone full circle back to the ways of early photographers. Amateurs and small firms are at a disadvantage compared to the likes of the former Kodak which invites skepticism about their efforts, which is not entirely unjustified. One response to this situation is to say that nobody will every create anything better than the big boys did so one should will stay with their tried and true products forever.

Another response is to see the progress in chemistry being made, despite the limitations, as a positive thing. The original formula that D-76 was based upon likely had some rough edges and was not as fine grained. But Kodak refined it over a period of years to arrive at D-76. Contrary to what one might think, Kodak probably did not view the standard version of D-76 as something that could not be improved. In a similar way, PC-TEA and Gainer's other ascorbate experiments were a great achievement at the time. But they also have some rough edges. There is a lot of potential for improvement in that style of developer.

The Photo Engineer knew the immense RD capability of Eastman Kodak and how difficult it would be to match that. He had plenty of reason to say there was no point in amateurs trying to create new chemistry. But he encouraged experimentation and there is no point to experimentation if there is no possibly of creating something new and useful. One reason to publish formulas like PC-TEA and 510 Pyro is that it may inspire people to create new and better formulas.

I never knew that Wooly Mammoths developed and printed film. Learn something new every day.

bluechromis · Mar 18, 2023

ruilourosa said:
Can anyone chime in about its solvency characteristics? Maybe comparing with other solvents..

I wouldn't want to argue with Bill Troop, but it is hard for me to understand how the solvency effect of TEA would be enough to put PC-TEA it in the league of high solvent, fine-grain developers. Most developers have at least a minimal solvent effect and both some physical and some chemical development.

Anchell and Troop in the FDC say, "Generally a true non-solvent developer contains less than 30 g L of sulfate and no other agents that the would promote solvency..." "Though 30 g/L of sulfite with still produce some solvency ... it is not until about 50 g/L that the solvent action that which marks the moderate fine grain developer begins to take effect." Although the "other agents that would promote solvency" pertains to TEA, there is no sulfate at all in PC-TEA or 510-Pyro. Can TEA alone really have more solvent effect than 30 g/L of sulfate? FX-37 has 60 g/L of sulfate and is often referred to as a low-solvent/acutance developer.

Is Troop's complaint not about the quantity of solvent effect of TEA, but to character of the effect that is somehow inferior to that of sulfate?

It is ironic that some people complain about PC-TEA not having enough solvent action while others seem to worry that it may have too much.

bluechromis · Mar 18, 2023

Sirius Glass said:
I never knew that Wooly Mammoths developed and printed film. Learn something new every day.

Perhaps Mammoth pea and vitamin C makes a decent developer.

bluechromis · Mar 18, 2023

pentaxuser said:
So it would seem,from what is being said by various posters, that Anchell and Troop have excluded those developers which they regard as inferior or otherwise less reliable? Is that a fair assumption on my part? If it is not a fair assumption then exactly what is it that causes them to exclude TEA and 510 Pyro?

It may be reasonable to state that a drawback of 510 Pyro is that it stains the reels compared to other staining developers but is this really the case?

John Finch of Pictorial Planet fame has done videos on 510 Pyro as have others and while I haven't seen all the 510 videos I have seen a few and nowhere does he even hint at the staining of the reels, nor can I recall others mentioning it. From what I have seen of his many videos he is normally very careful about covering all aspects and I'd have thought that serious staining deserved at least a mention

So is the staining such that the normal washing of the reels after the process is finished is insufficient to remove it?

Thanks

pentaxuser

It would seem odd that Anchell and Troop excluded PC-TEA and 510 purely because they held them in contempt. Anchell, in his Darkroom Cookbook 3rd ed. pp. 29-30, not only includes them, but highlights Gainer's formulas more than many developers.

The intended audience for Anchell's book clearly seems to include do-it-yourselfers that might want to tinker with formulas. He says,'The Darkroom Cookbook is meant to be a point of departure for photographers desiring to take control of their craft. At any time, you should feel empowered to "interpret" any formula, design a new one, or adapt and existing one to a new purpose.' He then goes on with suggestions on how to do that. So the book is not just for people that want to use bulletproof established formulas just as they are. The organic solvent developers like PC-TEA, even if they are not perfectly refined, ought to be listed in such a book because they represent an important innovation in the history of photo chemistry, and may hold lot of potential for improvement. I suspect that is why Anchell gave them prominence in his book.

bluechromis · Mar 18, 2023

bluechromis said:
It would seem odd that Anchell and Troop excluded PC-TEA and 510 purely because they held them in contempt. Anchell, in his Darkroom Cookbook 3rd ed. pp. 29-30, not only includes them, but highlights Gainer's formulas more than many developers.

The intended audience for Anchell's book clearly seems to include do-it-yourselfers that might want to tinker with formulas. He says,'The Darkroom Cookbook is meant to be a point of departure for photographers desiring to take control of their craft. At any time, you should feel empowered to "interpret" any formula, design a new one, or adapt and existing one to a new purpose.' He then goes on with suggestions on how to do that. So the book is not just for people that want to use bulletproof established formulas just as they are. The organic solvent developers like PC-TEA, even if they are not perfectly refined, ought to be listed in such a book because they represent an important innovation in the history of photo chemistry, and may hold lot of potential for improvement. I suspect that is why Anchell gave them prominence in his book. I am looking forward to trying Relistan's new PC-510 because it may be an example of an improved organic solvent developer.

albada · Mar 18, 2023

bluechromis said:
FX-37 has 60 g/L of sulfate and is often referred to as a low-solvent/acutance developer.

Page 81 of the FDC2 says, "Dilute 1:3." Thus, FX-37 is regarded as a non-solvent developer because it is expected to be diluted 1+3, yielding 15 g/L of sulfite.

Mark

bluechromis · Mar 18, 2023

albada said:
Page 81 of the FDC2 says, "Dilute 1:3." Thus, FX-37 is regarded as a non-solvent developer because it is expected to be diluted 1+3, yielding 15 g/L of sulfite.

Mark

Thanks. A & T say even classical solvent developers like D-76 can act like non-solvent when diluted enough.

bluechromis · Mar 18, 2023

Rudeofus said:
Here is my take on this: it was "common knowledge" for a long time, that TEA has "no solvent properties", while some folks disputed this. In order to settle this for myself, I did an experiment with TEA, Silver Nitrate and alkali halogenides. My TEA batch is from Fototechnik Suvatlar and of 99% purity.

In my experiment, TEA did dissolved Silver Chloride. but not Silver Bromide. I would therefore rank it somewhere with Ammonia, and its solvent property is, of course, dependent on concentration.

HOWEVER: as has been stated here, the solvent property of my batch may or may not be due to the TEA itself. The remaining 1% are, as always, a mystery, and may well comprise DEA or MEA, which were always known as silver solvents.

Therefore: even if TEA is not a silver solvent, your batch of TEA may well be. YMMV dependent on source of TEA and on amount used in your product.

Thanks for sharing this. As a result of your test, how would you compare the TEA (in your batch) as a silver solvent to sodium sulfite?

bluechromis · Mar 19, 2023

Before Gainer created PC-TEA, he devised a variety of ascorbate developers mixed in water. Others have also created ones like these. There is also PC-Glycol. If TEA is to be blamed for PC-TEA's loss of film speed, does that mean that the other sulfite-free ascorbate developers that do not use TEA feature higher film speeds?

If PC-TEA suffers from an excessive solvent effect due to TEA, does that mean a variant of PC-Glycol with a similar alkali would have noticeable less solvent effect?

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/VitC/vitc.html

relistan · Mar 19, 2023

bluechromis said:
Before Gainer created PC-TEA, he devised a variety of ascorbate developers mixed in water. Others have also created ones like these. There is also PC-Glycol. If TEA is to be blamed for PC-TEA's loss of film speed, does that mean that the other sulfite-free ascorbate developers that do not use TEA feature higher film speeds?

If PC-TEA suffers from an excessive solvent effect due to TEA, does that mean a variant of PC-Glycol with a similar alkali would have noticeable less solvent effect?

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/VitC/vitc.html

Neither PC-TEA nor PC-Glycol (which I used a lot) reach box speed. This was one of the reasons that I worked on PC-512 Borax. It is not very solvent, at least with bromo-iodide emulsions it seems. And the pH drift may be the other part of the reason.

I don’t think you’ll see much evidence of solvency in PC-TEA.

bluechromis · Mar 28, 2023

relistan said:
Neither PC-TEA nor PC-Glycol (which I used a lot) reach box speed. This was one of the reasons that I worked on PC-512 Borax. It is not very solvent, at least with bromo-iodide emulsions it seems. And the pH drift may be the other part of the reason.

I don’t think you’ll see much evidence of solvency in PC-TEA.

Thanks. That is what I would have thought, that PC-TEA and PC-Glycol are similar in film speed, so a speed loss cannot be attributed much to a solvent effect of TEA. I have since purchased the FDC 2nd Ed. where A & T make the comments about the solvency of TEA. Unfortunately, their comments are vague, saying they don't like the effect but don't really explain what they mean. It seems to me that they are saying that TEA gives a different kind of solvent effect than sulfate and the effect is undesirable. It might be if the solvent worked exactly like sulfate they would be fine with it. So it may be as much about the character of the solvency as it is the magnitude of the solvent effect. They said the old HC-110, which was also mixed in an organic solvent, had a solvent-inhibiting agent.

ruilourosa · Mar 29, 2023

Dtpa?

ruilourosa · Mar 29, 2023

Xtol also has it to avoid the sudden death thing...

Why Troop and Anchell dismiss TEA bases deva?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency