So is resorcinol a thing you can just add to a developer to prevent stain or is it particular about the conditions? It seems there is one hobby friendly source for resorcinol.
Very interesting about the PEG. So basically PEG slows access of the developer to the emulsion, but by slowing that access can make it so that it all kind of happens in a uniform way, thus acting as either a restrainer or accelerator... I think I'm understanding that. Swell dynamics is definitely something I do not have a full grasp on
It really is rather odd that Ilford RC papers work, but most of the FB papers don't. The big thing I don't understand is how these papers consistently work without fail when bleaching and doing second pass lith. I can't get a handle. I've ever tried bleaching before exposure before and this did not seem to magically make the paper first pass lithable. That was also a few years ago though so I can't remember much of the details.
in a developer+film combination known to cause dichroic fog.
In the context of modern/contemporary emulsions, if it were as simple as adding something such as chlororesorcinol to a developer, presumably someone would have done this with TMax developer to prevent the potential sheet film dichroic fog issues which historically necessitated the use of TMax RS under certain conditions. Probably a moot point now as the latest version of TMax developer apparently works with sheet film.
Can you point me to the source for this?Probably a moot point now as the latest version of TMax developer apparently works with sheet film.
Thanks for that Michael.It's not "official", just prelim test results by John Sexton/Anne Larsen discussed in John's newsletter in which he talked about the discontinuation of TMax RS, the history of the dichroic fog issue with TMax dev/sheet film etc.:
http://www.johnsexton.com/newsletter07-2021.html#anchor05
It's not "official", just prelim test results by John Sexton/Anne Larsen discussed in John's newsletter in which he talked about the discontinuation of TMax RS, the history of the dichroic fog issue with TMax dev/sheet film etc.:
Seems like an odd problem to have had to begin with and a strange explanation for it. If the move to B-38 did actually help in full or in part it would certainly be good news for people who were accustomed to using RS.
I agree that chlororesorcinol is the most likely antistain agent in Microdol-X. More broadly, US3161513 was filed by Henn a few months following that first "nonstaining developer" patent and details the use of 2,4-dihydroxybenzophenone. So, jut between those two patents, we have resorcinol, its chloro- derivative, and the substituted benzophenone. All three are commercially available, though, granted, resorcinol is likely the easiest to obtain by the hobbyist. I'm not sure if either would be suitable as a component in developers for color film, however. It is certainly worth trying. Dichroic fog is a non-issue in most other conditions, as others have noted, due to improved emulsion technology.
In the HC-110 patent, reference is made to an article (PSA Journal, Vol. 14, No. 4 (1948), pages 201-209) discussing dichroic fog and preventive agents. If anyone has PSA membership, that article would be greatly appreciated. I wonder if the mechanism(s) whereby these compounds prevent stain formation is known. If that knowledge is available, we could potentially predict other compounds that would be effective. Additionally, povidone was used in HC-110, according to the patent, because prior known antistain agents failed in developers containing amines. However, nothing suggests that it wouldn't be functional in a sulfite-solvent fine-grain developer of the D-23/25 type or in Ashley's attempted reversal developer for ECP film. Based on the patent, it might be active in fairly low concentrations (250mg/L concentrate equals about 8mg/L of working strength Dilution B). Eyedrops often use PVP as the active lubricant/hydration enhancer. A quick search brings up Bausch+Lomb Soothe, Long Lasting eye drops, containing 2% povidone, and a minimal amount of inactive ingredients (borates, EDTA, antimicrobials). A 15 ml bottle is thus equivalent to the amount of PVP in a liter of HC110. I'd suggest buying a bottle and trialing it in 0.5 mL increments in a developer+film combination known to cause dichroic fog.
Re CQ, superadditivity, low-pH HQ developers, I don't think hydroquinone and chlorohydroquinone would be superadditive, at least not in the traditional concept of the theory. The chlorine substitution shouldn't make the molecule any more strongly adhering to AgX, indeed, the electronegative Cl might increase electrostatic repulsion at the boundary. At the same time, it stabilizes the semiquinone which explains its increased activity compared to HQ (behaving more like pyrogallol but without the increased susceptibility to oxidation). I don't know much about the behavior of HQ at pH lower than 10. Do you use a pH meter (and what kid) or test strips to check the pH? What is the purity of your HQ and can you verify that there isn't something else going on to contribute to the developer's activity at low pH?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?