Windisch Surface Developer _ what's correct

Ian Grant · Aug 1, 2009

The Fromula for this has been published in many sources including Jacobson, LP Clerc, Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, and Ansel Adam's - The Negative as follows:

Windisch Compensating Developer
SOLUTION A
Sodium sulphite (anhyd) 80 g
Pyrocatechin 12.5 g
Water to make 1 litre

SOLUTION B
Sodium Hydroxide 100 g
Cold water (61°F/16°C) 800 ml
Water to make 1 litre

WORKING SOLUTION
Stock Solution A 25 ml
Stock Solution B 15 ml
Water to make 1 litre

In the Film Developing Cookbook Troop claims this formula is incorrect, and has reversed the weights of Pyrocatechin & Sulphite, Geoffrey Crawley also has the formula this way around in BJP Annuals.
On another website the formula is give as above attributed to William Troop and states " Modified Windisch Film Developer was formulated for use on Technical Pan Film and it may not be satisfactory with other films."
The only problem with that statement is the formula was published long before Technical Pan was introduced and recommended for Dr. C. Schleussner's Adox filmsin the 50's & 60's
It seems extremely unlikely that a developer would contain 80 gms Pyrocatechin and only 12.5gms of Sodium Sulphite, and it's notable that Windisch's other developers contain around 80-90gms/litre Sodium Sulphite, with an appropriately lower level of developing agen(s), as do other contemporary/similar developers (although you have to check working solution proportions as stock concentrations vary wildly).
The formlae above works, but if the sulphite is greatly reduce and the Pyrocatechin increased the developer has a very short life and a very much higher tendency to give a base stain.

So does anyone have anything more definative on Windsisch's forulae ?

Ian

RobertV · Aug 1, 2009

I have from Sammlung Fotografischer Rezepte, Windisch high surface developer:
Solution A:

Water 100ml
Brenzkatechin (=Pyrocatechine) 8,00g
Sodiumsulfite (Sicc.) 1,25g

Solution B:
10% Sodiumhydroxide solution
Solution B in destilled water.

Working solution:
Tap- Water 500ml
Solution A 12ml
Solution B 7ml

This is almost the recepture of Amaloco AM20/AM50 unfortunately now discontinued.

Ole · Aug 1, 2009

I have posted the original formula here before - I believe it's in the "Recipes" section.

It is extremely compensating, and intended to be just that. The claims of holding scenes of extreme contrast are NOT exaggerated in the least, even with modern films you need a very high contrast scene to avoid very flat prints.

I have used it with success to get a little detail in the foreground during a partial solar eclipse - the highest-contrast scene I have ever imagined photographing.

Yes, it has a very short life, and tends to stain a lot. But it is not only base stain, most of the stain is proportional to the exposure even in the darkest parts of the scene.

Ian Grant · Aug 1, 2009

Thanks Robert.

Do you have "Hans Windisch, Die neue Fotoschule, 1941" if so is the formula in that publication ?

Interestingly an earlier 1938 version was published by "Individualpreis (Türkei)"

Ole said:
I have posted the original formula here before - I believe it's in the "Recipes" section.

But where did you take it from, these two versions have been floating about probablt since the 40'sor 50's, the only difference being the weights switched in Part A. Someone published the mistake and both forms seem to claim to be correct

It's one you posted Ole lost in the vortex waiting restoration

Ian

RobertV · Aug 1, 2009

Do you have "Hans Windisch, Die neue Fotoschule, 1941" if so is the formula in that publication ?

Yes I have. On page 82/83: Brenzkatechin-Ausgleichs Entwickler nach Windisch.

The semi compensating effect is shown by the negative of a bulb where you can see the wolfram spirals in the lamp developed of this formula.

Ian Grant · Aug 1, 2009

Is it a good book and worth buying ? I'm amazed at the colour cover, it looks far more like a 60's/70's publication, but then that was an era of Bahaus revival

I've seen that or a very similar image published somewhere I think with the formula.

Ian

billtroop · Aug 1, 2009

Ian, the formula Jack (with my enthusiastic permission) is reprinting there, "Modified Windisch", has been available from Formulary for many years. I am the formulator -- or rather, the namer, or baptiser, of it. If I am not mistaken, it is based on Jacobson's misprint. I used it - - extensively - - and learned to love it. I am the author of the published formula of this name, and Technical Pan had been available for quite some time before I published it. I liked it best for old Agfa 400 - - at least 6x6, though.

More generally: these catechin/caustic formulas are prone to fog, so be warned. However, the ugliest negatives can print beautifully!

No publication of the Windisch formula is complete without the two dilutions.

The definitive (spelt definative by Ian) word on Windisch's pyrocatechin formula is in FDC, page 80, here:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...esult&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I think Maxim Muir's approach gives better results with contemporary films. I have used many similar variants over the years, some of which are published in FDC.

The problem with the pyrocatechin/caustic developers is the tendency to fog. Now, as noted, you can still get beautiful prints. And I mean beautiful - - some of my best. So what's the downside? I put this very question to T.H. James when researching FDC. I may not have put his reply in the book - - I can't remember, but it is so simple and elegant that I'd like to have it on the record. 'The problem with fog is that it is _random_. You never know where it is going to be or what it is going to do. So, as a general matter, yes, fog should be avoided.'

Finally, Ian, let me tell you how FDC came about. I sent Focal Press a copy of Jacobson with about 200 substantial misprints and errors enumerated. They then asked me to write my own book about developing. So I did. May I suggest you do the same?

Ian Grant · Aug 1, 2009

I don't doubt you here Bill.

But two versions have been printed for very many tears, I' just not 100% sure that Jacobson's version is wrong, I think he got it from LP Clerc.

What we just don't know is which publisher got it wrong, I very much doubt if Windisch, Clerc or Jacobson noticed the error in transposing the weights/or order of the formula but I'm sure one isn't a Modified version of the other.

Logic is that perhaps it was an error by the original Publisher, because the Jacobson version works well, and has a much lower fog level, and then many similar late 30's/40's developers used that proportion of sulphite to dev agent, very few are as low as the 80g Pyrocatechin/12.5 Sulphite.

I know from practical experience that a very low or zero sulphite level leads to a usable life span of less than about 10 minutes before staining becomes problematic. So I wonder if Clerc, Jacobson, Ansel Adams etc were using the corrected formula. It's about 31 years since I used this particular Windisch formula with FP4, so I'd have to go back and re-emulate and I don't think either form is really worth it.

Can I see the list of 200 substantial misprints in Jacobson (which edition ?), there's only 300 formulae in my 1973 copy and so that's an alarmingly high error rate.The few errors I've spotted are generally when companies didn't specify the form of Sulpite/Carbonate, and I think you have some like that in the FDC too, that's not you or Jacobson - it's the original publications.

Part of the problem was Focal Press themselves, they took data (formulae) across their publications from the 40's onwards, and their editors (people like LA Manneheim) would change things, I had some contact with Manneheim in the 70's.

What happened to maxim Muir, we were in email contact in the 90's, and he used to send me his little newsletter/publication.

Ian

Photo Engineer · Aug 1, 2009

I might point out, after re-reading A&T that the two Windisch formulas printed here are both in the book with explanatory information regarding both the variants and the contrast differences observed. It is not difficult to see that if you wish a compensating developer, you use lower sulfite and if you wish to mitigate the compensation then use higher sulfite.

I would guess that people fell into the error of mistaking this formula due to the high level of catechol in the original formula and decided it was a misprint, misunderstanding that it was there for a reason. They also probably got high fog. So, they inverted the ratios.

IDK. Just thoughts going through my head. The book (A&T) handles this quite even handedly in several places and I commend you to re-reading (or reading) it in the original which I just did (again).

EDIT COMMENT: One of the formulas appears to be mainly compensating and the other appears to be mainly staining. My remarks above are not clear so I add this for clarification.

PE

billtroop · Aug 1, 2009

The only thing I can add is that the first and only person to name one of the Windisch formulas "Modified" was me. Maybe it was confusing or wrong to call the formula that, but it seemed logical at the time.

Ian is right that we have no guarantee that the Windisch books (from which I got the 'definitive' version of the formula) were free from error, but it seems likely. What is remarkable is that no matter how you mix the formula, you get something usable.

Re the design of developers that are calculated to exhaust (so-called 'extreme compensating' or 'acutance'), there are two ways of doing it: you can either use (very approximately, for illustrative purposes) about 1/4 to 1/2 g developing agent to about 5g sulfite, or you can use about 1-2 g of developing agent and much less than 5g sulfite. Economy dictates the first approach, since sulfite is always going to be cheaper than developing agent, but according to Crawley, it was the second approach that was used in Kodak HDD.

Ian, the edition of 'Developing' I marked up was the last one printed - - I think it was the 18th. I think I have a copy with some but not all of the corrections - - it would be interesting to see it now. I suspect that some of my 'corrections' were actually wrong. The book is in storage in California, and I am living in England. Whenever I can manage to get ahold of the book, you're welcome to it. The only other time I did such a thorough editing job was on Jack Coote's book for Ilford. Bob Schwalberg insisted on having that - - and it seems to have got lost in the kerfuffle around his estate sale. Oh, and I did Inch & Keefe (some of which was incorporated, uncredited, into their second edition), and of course Haist.

One thing I'd like to someday is the most complete formulary possible, with comments. It would be great if Ron and I could ever do it. There is a huge amount of European literature that is hardly ever seen by English-speaking readers, with thousands of unfamiliar formulas. But I'm still hoping we can first do a new FDC, where the goal is to cherry-pick the best info rather than presenting all the information there is.

Just one more thing - - I remember that when I was trying what I call Windisch Dilution B in FDC (the stronger dilution) the results were the most highly stained of all the variants, but also the highest in contrast. FWIW.

Ian Grant · Aug 2, 2009

Thanks Bill. I have the 18th Edition of Jacobson in front of me, and have the 1st edition back in the UK. One thing I am certain of is that if you compared the 18th Edition to many US books, taking their data from the PhotoLab index, you could easily think you'd found 200 errors

Many of the more important European books were published in translated forms, and other more useful German, Belgian & French formulae were included in English books often written by German exiles living in the UK (that includes a lot of Focal Press authors). I do have some back in the UK that I'm sure include Winisch, Stoekler, Beutler etc.

I have quite a big collection of European formulae, with at least another 200-300 to add to my database, and I've just come across many more UK formulae from before WW1 (inc Kodak & Ilford). It's not the main bulk of these formulae that are important, it's the ones that push the boundaries and are different.

What's also becoming apparent is how Kodak's formulae (pre about 1931/2) come from a mixture of other companies or just generic, most of the early research was carried out in Europe, and Kodak bought into that with acquisitions.

Ian

JPD · Aug 2, 2009

From J.M. Eders book "Rezepte Tabellen und Arbeitsvorschriften für Photographie und Reproduktionstechnik" (18-19 Auflage 1942):

A
Water 1000 ml
Catechol 80g
Sodium Sulfite (crystals) 25g

B
10% Sodium Hydroxide solution

For small tanks: 12ml of A plus 7ml of B is mixed in 500 ml water.

...and it's not the only Windisch catechol developer you can find mentioned in older books. Some are for different types of plates, some for trays and some for tanks...

Ian Grant · Aug 2, 2009

I may have a Windisch book on it's way, thanks for that though.

Ian

Ian Grant · Aug 2, 2009

Perutz OP-004

Maybe this was actually a Windisch Formula too, Perutzs manufactured his W665:

Perutz OP-004

Stock Solution 1
Pyrocatechin 200 g
Sodium Sulphite (anhyd) 50 g
Water to make 1 litre

Stock Solution 2
Sodium Carbonate (anhyd) 100 g
Water to make 1 litre

For use mix 12 ml Solution 1 with 240 ml Solution 2 and add water to make 1 litre.

A reason for asking these questions was I looking at how Pyrocat HD works, I think it's a superb developer, I've also looked at numerous other similar developers some once commercially produced, others in patents.

The avenues Sandy King went down have been probed before and either sold as commercial developers or published by film manufacturers. However these are relatively obscur, not on sale in the US/UK or not immediately obvious and so until recently I hadn't realised just how closely related they actually are.

At this point I must say they aren't the same as Pyrocat, and so I'm most certainly not accusing Sandy of being devious or plagiarism What's interesting is they all come from smaller European companies, some may have been in commercial production until quite recently, it's possible Moersch has a very close formula (based on something much older).

I'll be in contact with Sandy outside of APUG, the data I have may well be of use or interesting to him, and while sites like APUG are about sharing information I would prefer to liase with him first.

Ian

ath · Aug 2, 2009

The formula from Windischs "Die neue Foto-Schule" is as Robert stated above. I have the edition from 1938 (41 to 60 thousands) and the edition 15 from 1960 (edited, not only reprint). In the edition from 1960 there is a footnote added that the low sulphite is the key to the specific characteristic of this developer and not an error.

eclarke · Aug 3, 2009

Unrelated, but provoked by this thread. I can't seem to see a mention of a book without wanting it! I have 2 copies of the Windisch (1937 and 1957) on the way and also pulled the trigger on the Haist. Being in the book mood, I also started scanning my 1913 Agfa book which I promised to Ian a fair while back. The book is old and fragile and I was afraid to start. I will make it a .pdf and send it to anybody who would like to have it...Evan Clarke

Ian Grant · Aug 3, 2009

I thought you'd forgotten

I've just PDF'ed the 1939 Agfa Ansco Formulas

Ian

eclarke · Aug 3, 2009

Ian Grant said:
I thought you'd forgotten

I've just PDF'ed the 1939 Agfa Ansco Formulas

Ian

Not forgotten, I had to break the spine a little buy finally got the resolve, I'll send it as soon as it's finished...Evan Clarke

Kirk Keyes · Aug 3, 2009

billtroop said:
The only other time I did such a thorough editing job was on Jack Coote's book for Ilford. Bob Schwalberg insisted on having that - - and it seems to have got lost in the kerfuffle around his estate sale. Oh, and I did Inch & Keefe (some of which was incorporated, uncredited, into their second edition), and of course Haist.

Bill, are you saying you were an editor for Haist?

billtroop · Aug 3, 2009

>Bill, are you saying you were an editor for Haist?

No. The edits I'm speaking of here occurred after the books were published. Haist's view is that he is not responsible for the republication of errors that occurred in the original literature and were never corrected. Ian, this is not the first time you have mentioned errors in PLI. Have you ever thought of publishing your errata? It would be very interesting. I have never used PLI as a source. I had understood, very generally, that it was supposed to be good, but I don't like secondary sources, and everything in PLI is secondary - - except for the fabulous toxicity information written by Haist for one of the last editions - - for which, by the way, he was never paid.

Here's an interesting footnote on BJP formulas for Ian. There are some apparently super-precise renditions of some Kodak formulas such as D-61a that have amounts like 3.1 grams instead of the expected 3.0 grams. I found out that this was because Crawley thought the avoirdupois versions of the formulas were more accurate than the metric ones. However, I discovered from H.D. Russell that all Kodak formulas from his time (late 1920s) forward were formulated in metric, and that it was the avoirdupois conversions that were very slightly off, not the metric versions.

That Perutz OP-004 formula is very nice, though I don't think you would need anything like the amount of carbonate it suggests for modern films. I suspect two or three g/litre of working solution would suffice. What I would like to do in the 'Formulary' book I hope to do with Ron is to give formulas like this, along with suggestions for adapting them to modern films. But just gathering the info alone, and triple checking it for accuracy, would be a very big task! I can't imagine such a book being very popular, or even paying for itself, but it would be lovely to have everything in one place.

Kirk Keyes · Aug 3, 2009

billtroop said:
>Bill, are you saying you were an editor for Haist?

No. The edits I'm speaking of here occurred after the books were published.

"edits" - I guess I've confused by the word "edits".

So you mean that you wrote notes to yourself in the margin of your copy of said books?

Ian Grant · Aug 3, 2009

billtroop said:
Here's an interesting footnote on BJP formulas for Ian. There are some apparently super-precise renditions of some Kodak formulas such as D-61a that have amounts like 3.1 grams instead of the expected 3.0 grams. I found out that this was because Crawley thought the avoirdupois versions of the formulas were more accurate than the metric ones. However, I discovered from H.D. Russell that all Kodak formulas from his time (late 1920s) forward were formulated in metric, and that it was the avoirdupois conversions that were very slightly off, not the metric versions.

Bill, your very wrong and making false suppositions, you should get the facts right. Those formulae in the BJP are correct as published by Kodak themselves.

Kodak published many of the formulae the weights rounded off in some amateur publications.

There's a Kodak Research (Harrow) publication 1944 with them in, these would be the commercial formulae as made by Kodak.

Also they are in the 1949 Kodak - Chemicals and Formulae publication, I have both open right now. D72 is another thats been simplified since.

If you can't get Kodak formulae right then there's no hope

Ian

Ian Grant · Aug 3, 2009

Oh and Bill the primary weights given by Kodak are ALL metric, so Crawley didn't convert them from the Avoirdupois.

So making a comment like this "I found out that this was because Crawley thought the avoirdupois versions of the formulas were more accurate than the metric ones. However, I discovered from H.D. Russell that all Kodak formulas from his time (late 1920s) forward were formulated in metric, and that it was the avoirdupois conversions that were very slightly off, not the metric versions." is just pure Bull Shit.

See the attached images from the two Kodak Publications mentioned previously.

Ian

Photo Engineer · Aug 3, 2009

Bill "edits" Haist by making notes in the margin, on the cover and in a seaparate notebook. Haist has done the same thing to Haist. I have seen Gran'ts and Bill's notebooks of errata and corrections.

Ian, I don't get anything from Bill's comments that Crawley did conversions. Maybe he did mean it, but the text does not read that way to me. It merely indicates what Crawley thought was the most accurate, not what he used or how he did it. It is interesting to note that Kodak Research used metric for as far back as I saw in records, but then I only went back to the 40s in internal repors, so I can believe what Bill said. Agfa used metric of course back then as well.

In my 1941, 1955, and 1965 formularies from 3 different companies (one Kodak), the D61a has the same value for Avoirdupois weight, but different values for Metric. I cannot explain that, but could have made the same assumption that Crawley is cited as having done above. So, I think we have to wait and see if Bill can clarify this.

All 3 of my publications are technical publications of their respective times. Maybe none of them are reliable.

PE

Kirk Keyes · Aug 3, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Bill "edits" Haist by making notes in the margin, on the cover and in a seaparate notebook. Haist has done the same thing to Haist. I have seen Gran'ts and Bill's notebooks of errata and corrections.

That's funny, I've edited Anchell and Troop then myself.

I've yet to write in my copies of Haist. As Haist himself wrote in my copy, I just seems wrong for me to write in it...

Windisch Surface Developer _ what's correct

Ian Grant

RobertV

Ole

Moderator

Ian Grant

RobertV

Ian Grant

billtroop

Ian Grant

Photo Engineer

billtroop

Ian Grant

JPD

Ian Grant

Ian Grant

ath

eclarke

Ian Grant

eclarke

Kirk Keyes

billtroop

Kirk Keyes

Ian Grant

Ian Grant

Attachments

Photo Engineer

Kirk Keyes

Windisch Surface Developer _ what's correct

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency