Why Troop and Anchell dismiss TEA bases deva?

bluechromis said:

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.

Click to expand...

My guess (just a guess) is that they are talking about the effect of one particular developer and this is not really generalizable. I doubt that the effect is different from sulfite in appearance. It is just less than you’d get from a solvent developer.

Greetings, All. As you may have noticed, I rarely appear on forums. I am delighted to see all the back-and-forth activity and the excitement over TEA, solvency, non-solvency, and speculation over why Anchell and Troop include this, that, or the other. Honestly, it is gratifying to see an engaged community of photographers discussing, debating, and speculating.

So, why am I not active on darkroom forums? For the same reason you won’t find me active on Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter. They are time sinks that become addictions. I don’t have enough years left to argue which is better, PC TEA or Rollo Pyro, or if Hilary Clinton was making love to her laptop.

Even though I’m not active on forums, I hear horror stories about people ranting, raving, and calling each other names. For those interested, I have my own forum, darkroomcookbook.com. If anybody slings hash at someone else, they become instant history, no matter how right they may be.

I'll share some secrets if you’re still with me after that glib intro. First, nobody knows everything, and those that think they do are usually mistaken. That said, Bill Troop is one of the most knowledgeable people I know when it comes to photo chemistry – and he’s not always right, which is why he has me edit the FDCB for him – and I'm not always right. He’s also a prima donna and a pain in the butt to work with. But I love the little bastard.

The Darkroom Cookbook is completely mine from cover to cover, even the glaring errors and the choice of contributing photographers, such as John Sexton and Christina Z. Anderson. Bill consulted on it, as did Ian Grant, and the two of them can’t stand each other. In fact, I expect a scathing email from one or both for mentioning them in the same sentence. Bill, at least, will probably never speak to me again if he sees this post.

The Film Developing Cookbook is completely Bill’s. Everything between the covers is his. If PC TEA is left out, ask Bill. You can reach him through my forum, darkroomcookbook.com. Heck, you can reach me there, too. My role in the FDCB is to help Bill identify errors and inconsistencies, something I am particularly adept at.

Bill and I disagree on many things. For example, Bill loves Xtol, I won’t have it in my darkroom. My all-time favorite developer is Edwal FG-7, Bill hates it. If I had the formula, I would publish it in a New York minute.

In 1974, I was given a formula using TEA by Boyd Wedlauffer, the head of photography at Cal Polytechnic in San Luis Obispo, Calif. It became my go-to developer for many years. Somewhere, I have a 3 ¼” x 5” notebook with the formula handwritten and stained. If I ever find it I will share it.

Patrick Gainer was a genius and a man I liked and admired. We were friends. He wasn’t afraid to try something new. Were all his formulas good? Nah. Some of ‘em were dogs. But so what? You mix a batch of this, that, or the other and see how your negatives look. Photography is supposed to be fun, not life and death. It just ain’t rocket science and certainly isn’t worth arguing over.

Patrick’s PC TEA is in the 4th edition of the DCB and will be in the 5th edition I am currently working on.

Someone in this thread asked if Bill or I had vetted all the formulas in our respective books. Hell no. Life is too short. The formulas in DCB are those I’ve collected in more than 53 years in photography. I’ve probably tried a dozen of the film developers. I don’t know if they all work and don’t care. You try ‘em and let me know. If you find one that doesn't work with modern emulsions I'll take it out in the 5th edition.

Bill’s formulas are based on his in-depth knowledge of the photographic process and what a developing agent will do in the presence of x-amount of this, that, or the other. Yeah, he’s wrong sometimes, and people who regularly appear on these forums jump all over him for it, and he gets nasty back. I could care less. Life is too short.

For my own work, I use ABC Pyro, D-76, Rodinal, and Ilford DDX (for pushing to EI 3200). I prefer Ilford HP5+ over the sanitized, homogeneous film made by Eastman. Ain’t got time for anything else. I’m too busy creating new images. Be teaching a Large Format and Enlarged Digital Negative workshop at the Photographers’ Formulary in June. Join me and we can discuss anything you want, including why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings. Heck, I’ll buy you a beer if you mention Phototrio.

Was that last paragraph shameless promotion? You bet your booties, baby. Why do you think I spent over an hour writing this post? Gotta get something in return. Keep a lookout on this forum. I’ll make another appearance in 2024 if Bill or Ian hasn’t shot me dead.

The attached image was made using a Mamiya RB67 on a tripod while my wife was using the bathroom. It was developed in FG7. It’s what’s on the wall that counts, not how it got there.

I don't know Edwal FG7 developer. What do you find special about it Steve?

I also use HP5 most of the time and develop in either ID-11 or D76 which ever is cheaper at the time of purchase.

Many photographers use HC110 or Ilfotec HC which both contain TEA or DEA and get excellent results. Sometimes I think most film developers are more alike than different.

Keith Tapscott. said:

I don't know Edwal FG7 developer. What do you find special about it Steve?

I also use HP5 most of the time and develop in either ID-11 or D76 which ever is cheaper at the time of purchase.

Click to expand...

Fair question, Keith. I will preface this to say that to my knowledge there has never been a developing formula that is perfect. Even the best formulas have their strengths and weaknesses. Which brings us to understanding that one person's favorite developer may not be liked by someone else.

Edwal FG-7 is a proprietary formula. I like it because its long tonal scale and smooth midtones, fine grain, and acutance suit my taste. I have found that it is a good match for the type of work I do, the photo I shared being an example. Someone else might not care for it, certainly Bill doesn't.

I suggest you not put too much stock in what I like. Freestyle Photo still lists it on their site, but I'm not certain it is available. If it is, order a bottle and let me know what you think.

Ansel was a big booster for Kodak HC-110 when it was first introduced. Due primarily to his praise, HC-110 became popular among many Zone System photographers. And then he fell silent about it. Not a word. I asked him why he no longer used HC-110. He said that when it first came out he was excited about it, but after about 3 years he decided he didn't like it as much as he originally thought. He had nothing bad to say about it, and a lot of his students were using it to create good work, so he decided not to say anything.

HC-110 is a perfectly good developer. Many great photographers use it to this day. Ralph Gibson, Brett Weston, and Henry Gilpin preferred Rodinal. I like FG-7.

I also mentioned I like ABC Pyro. Personally, I don't think ABC is the best formula to use with modern emulsions. I use it because it connects me to the past and I am a nostalgic sentimentalist, probably why I still work with film. So, don't switch to ABC because I like it.

What do you like, KT?

Steve Anchell said:

Fair question, Keith. I will preface this to say that to my knowledge there has never been a developing formula that is perfect. Even the best formulas have their strengths and weaknesses. Which brings us to understanding that one person's favorite developer may not be liked by someone else.

Edwal FG-7 is a proprietary formula. I like it because its long tonal scale and smooth midtones, fine grain, and acutance suit my taste. I have found that it is a good match for the type of work I do, the photo I shared being an example. Someone else might not care for it, certainly Bill doesn't.

I suggest you not put too much stock in what I like. Freestyle Photo still lists it on their site, but I'm not certain it is available. If it is, order a bottle and let me know what you think.

Ansel was a big booster for Kodak HC-110 when it was first introduced. Due primarily to his praise, HC-110 became popular among many Zone System photographers. And then he fell silent about it. Not a word. I asked him why he no longer used HC-110. He said that when it first came out he was excited about it, but after about 3 years he decided he didn't like it as much as he originally thought. He had nothing bad to say about it, and a lot of his students were using it to create good work, so he decided not to say anything.

HC-110 is a perfectly good developer. Many great photographers use it to this day. Ralph Gibson, Brett Weston, and Henry Gilpin preferred Rodinal. I like FG-7.

I also mentioned I like ABC Pyro. Personally, I don't think ABC is the best formula to use with modern emulsions. I use it because it connects me to the past and I am a nostalgic sentimentalist, probably why I still work with film. So, don't switch to ABC because I like it.

What do you like, KT?

Click to expand...

I tend to stick with standard brews to be honest Steve although I have tried different developers from time to time.

I live in the south west of England not far from Dartmoor national park.
A photographer who lives there who's work I admire is local photographer Chris Chapman.

He started photographing Dartmoor life back in the 1970s up to fairly recently using 35mm cameras, HP5 and it's successor HP5 Plus. Films were developed in Paterson Aculux and printed on Ilford Galerie paper. Some of his prints are permanently displayed at the Two Bridges Hotel which overlooks the west Dart river.

Not sure if Aculux contained TEA or DEA, but as the prints are quite large with crisp definition and tight grain, it must have been a good product.
The tonality of the prints are beautiful.
There is also a short film on YouTube of his collaboration with fellow photographer James Ravillious.

Aculux is a developer I wish I had tried.

Google Chris Chapman photography UK should bring up his website and the YouTube link.

Keith Tapscott. said:

Aculux is a developer I wish I had tried.

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing the information about Chris Chapman. He is a prolific photographer who has spent much of his career documenting Devon's land and people. I send out a monthly newsletter that includes videos about photographers, information on competitions, techniques, and more. I am always searching for new photographers to introduce my readers too. I will try to give mention to Chapman in this issue or the next. You can subscribe to the newsletter on my site, steveanchell.com.

Aculux was the trade name for FX 24 formulated by BJP editor Geoffrey Crawley. You can find a brief discussion of Aculux and one of the formula variations on page 60 of The Film Developing Cookbook, 2nd edition.

Now I must return to my newsletter as I leave in two days to lead a workshop in Cuba.