Gainer paper developer?

Pat (or anyone else),

I used one of Pat's recipes in Unblinkingeye to make a phenidone/ascorbic
acid paper developer which i thought worked pretty well if maybe a little
slow. As I recall, it was a double strength version of the film developer.
I intend to try this out again tomorrow using a triple strength version of
the phenidone/ascorbic acid/antifreeze stock and sodium carbonate/borax part
B. i'll let you know how it turns out.

Tell me if you think this is crazy

Gene

Gene Johnson wrote:

Pat (or anyone else),

I used one of Pat's recipes in Unblinkingeye to make a phenidone/ascorbic
acid paper developer which i thought worked pretty well if maybe a little
slow. As I recall, it was a double strength version of the film developer.
I intend to try this out again tomorrow using a triple strength version of
the phenidone/ascorbic acid/antifreeze stock and sodium carbonate/borax part
B. i'll let you know how it turns out.

Tell me if you think this is crazy

Gene
I don't. I use 1/4 tsp metol, 1/2 tbs ascorbic acid, 1tbs pHPlus (sodium
carbonate) to the liter. I sometimes add (Oh heresy!) some hydeoquinone
and a little sulfite. The sulfite is necessary or the hydroquinone won't
do any good. You don't need any more sulfite than the amount of
hydroquinone you add.

I don't think it's crazy either, but you don't need the anti-freeze.

I've been using a formula very similar to Patrick's for years with
excellent results (metol, ascorbic acid, HQ, sulfite) but with one
difference. I always separate the Sodium Carbonate out into a second
bath. Using the two-bath formula does several things that I have come to
appreciate very much: repeatability from print to print (can't
over-develop. You could leave it in bath B for an hour, but it will not
develop beyond exhaustion of the developing agent absorbed in Bath A.); no
temperature controls--any temperature from about 50-120 works just fine;
speed--about 15-20 seconds in Bath A is all that's necessary since the
latent image very quickly reacts to the developing agents (but with no
visible image in Bath A) and then about 35-60 seconds in Bath B, depending
on temperature. It's easy, consistent, and gives me great shadow detail
and highlight detail. It will, however, make you a better printer, since
all image-altering effects (contrast, etc.) must be done under the
enlarger. By using a "softer" formula for Bath A (no HQ), you can also
soften contrast at the development stage. So you could run two Bath A
trays--one a "softer" and one a "harder" formula, and the same Bath B tray
which is just the activator.

Try it; you'll like it.

On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:08:48 -0400, Patrick Gainer
wrote:



Gene Johnson wrote:

Pat (or anyone else),

I used one of Pat's recipes in Unblinkingeye to make a
phenidone/ascorbic
acid paper developer which i thought worked pretty well if maybe a
little
slow. As I recall, it was a double strength version of the film
developer.
I intend to try this out again tomorrow using a triple strength version
of
the phenidone/ascorbic acid/antifreeze stock and sodium carbonate/borax
part
B. i'll let you know how it turns out.

Tell me if you think this is crazy

Gene
I don't. I use 1/4 tsp metol, 1/2 tbs ascorbic acid, 1tbs pHPlus (sodium
carbonate) to the liter. I sometimes add (Oh heresy!) some hydeoquinone
and a little sulfite. The sulfite is necessary or the hydroquinone won't
do any good. You don't need any more sulfite than the amount of
hydroquinone you add.



--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

"L. R. Kalajainen" wrote

I don't think it's crazy either, but you don't need the anti-freeze.

I've been using a formula very similar to Patrick's for years with
excellent results (metol, ascorbic acid, HQ, sulfite) but with one
difference. I always separate the Sodium Carbonate out into a second
bath.

One little difference.

Using the two-bath formula does several things that I have come to
appreciate very much: repeatability from print to print (can't
over-develop. You could leave it in bath B for an hour, but it will not
develop beyond exhaustion of the developing agent absorbed in Bath A.);

Are you saying that one soak in bath A will carry enough developer
for complete development? Have you ever run into a paper, RC or FB, which
does not?


temperature controls--any temperature from about 50-120 works just fine;
speed--about 15-20 seconds in Bath A is all that's necessary since the
latent image very quickly reacts to the developing agents (but with no
visible image in Bath A) and then about 35-60 seconds in Bath B, depending
on temperature. It's easy, consistent, and gives me great shadow detail
and highlight detail. It will, however, make you a better printer, since
all image-altering effects (contrast, etc.) must be done under the
enlarger. By using a "softer" formula for Bath A (no HQ), you can also
soften contrast at the development stage. So you could run two Bath A
trays--one a "softer" and one a "harder" formula, and the same Bath B tray
which is just the activator.

Try it; you'll like it.

I process paper one-shot and it has crossed my mind to do it two-bath.
I'd think the results are perhaps just the opposite of water-bath. Dan

Dan Quinn wrote:

"L. R. Kalajainen" wrote

I don't think it's crazy either, but you don't need the anti-freeze.

I've been using a formula very similar to Patrick's for years with
excellent results (metol, ascorbic acid, HQ, sulfite) but with one
difference. I always separate the Sodium Carbonate out into a second
bath.

One little difference.

Using the two-bath formula does several things that I have come to
appreciate very much: repeatability from print to print (can't
over-develop. You could leave it in bath B for an hour, but it will not
develop beyond exhaustion of the developing agent absorbed in Bath A.);

Are you saying that one soak in bath A will carry enough developer
for complete development? Have you ever run into a paper, RC or FB, which
does not?


temperature controls--any temperature from about 50-120 works just fine;
speed--about 15-20 seconds in Bath A is all that's necessary since the
latent image very quickly reacts to the developing agents (but with no
visible image in Bath A) and then about 35-60 seconds in Bath B, depending
on temperature. It's easy, consistent, and gives me great shadow detail
and highlight detail. It will, however, make you a better printer, since
all image-altering effects (contrast, etc.) must be done under the
enlarger. By using a "softer" formula for Bath A (no HQ), you can also
soften contrast at the development stage. So you could run two Bath A
trays--one a "softer" and one a "harder" formula, and the same Bath B tray
which is just the activator.

Try it; you'll like it.

I process paper one-shot and it has crossed my mind to do it two-bath.
I'd think the results are perhaps just the opposite of water-bath. Dan
Have you been using it on FB? All the RC papers I have tested have
developer incorporated in the emulsion, which allows one to use a strong
alkali alone for development, but may be misleading about what is really
going on. FB, OTH, can soak up more developer. I haven't tried it
myself, but probably will soon.

!!! This is the first I've heard of this. Doesn't it mean that, if I process
RC in a normal developer, the developer will become stronger as my darkroom
session progresses?
-Lew
"Patrick Gainer" wrote in message
...
Have you been using it on FB? All the RC papers I have tested have
developer incorporated in the emulsion, which allows one to use a strong
alkali alone for development, but may be misleading about what is really
going on. FB, OTH, can soak up more developer. I haven't tried it
myself, but probably will soon.

Lew wrote:

!!! This is the first I've heard of this. Doesn't it mean that, if I process
RC in a normal developer, the developer will become stronger as my darkroom
session progresses?
-Lew
"Patrick Gainer" wrote in message
...
Have you been using it on FB? All the RC papers I have tested have
developer incorporated in the emulsion, which allows one to use a strong
alkali alone for development, but may be misleading about what is really
going on. FB, OTH, can soak up more developer. I haven't tried it
myself, but probably will soon.

Not necessarily. You still have bromide build up and aerial oxidation to
contend with.

"Lew" wrote

!!! This is the first I've heard of this. Doesn't it mean that, if I
process RC in a normal developer, the developer will become stronger
as my darkroom session progresses? -Lew

Is it the first time you've heard of developer incorporated emulsions?

"Patrick Gainer" wrote
Have you been using it on FB? All the RC papers I have tested have
developer incorporated in the emulsion, which allows one to use a
strong alkali alone for development, but may be misleading about
what is really going on. FB, OTH, can soak up more developer. I
haven't tried it myself, but probably will soon.

I'd think stock strength might be necessary.
The Arista RC GRADED paper has no developer incorporated. I've their
word that NONE of the GRADED papers they carry have any DI emulsions. I
did test the paper. After flashing a sheet I placed it in a carbonate
solution. I did fix the perfectly white sheet which resulted. I use
only graded paper.
Your information may be a little dated. Some concerns over emulsion
stability developed. DI emulsion production has been suspended.
IIRC, that information is from Mr. Nishimura, director of the IPI.
Dan

It's the first time I've heard an almost blanket statement for all rc
papers.
-Lew

"Dan Quinn" wrote in message
om...
Is it the first time you've heard of developer incorporated emulsions?

I first encountered the divided developer concept in the old Dignan
Photographic newsletter decades ago. I've been using it ever since. I
forgot to mention the differences between RC and FB paper.

Here's what I've discovered, among other things:

It doesn't work with all RC papers, but does work with all FB papers (with
one exception--Polymax--which makes me suspect Kodak is using some plastic
in their FB paper)

With RC papers, it works with pearl surface but not well with glossy
surfaces.

With RC, in large areas of black, it tendsnot to do very well--you get
muddy swirls of gray instead, (e.g. the parts of the paper on a contact
sheet where no image is, or large expanses of very dark shadow areas)

But with all FB papers I've tried, and I've tried most of them, it's my
preferred way of printing; I now almost exclusively use Variable contrast
papers, mostly Agfa, Ilford, and Forte. I particularly like the way the
formula below slightly cools the Ilford warmtone.

I suspect that the emulsion is so thin in RC papers that it simply can't
absorb the developing agents either in sufficient quantity or that
something in the plastic makes them not soak up uniformly. I've never had
any problems with FB paper.

The formula I use most (normal contrast) is similar to the old Ansco 125.
You can also use a Phenidone/Vit. C formula just as well.

BATH A

Metol--2 tsp.
Sulfite--3 Tbs.
Hydroquinone--2 tsp. OR Vit. C crystals-- 1/2 tsp.
Benzotriazole (Liquid Orthazite)--10ml.
Water 2 liters

BATH B
Water 2 liters
Carbonate--2/3 cup

A softer formula may be had by simply omitting the HQ.

After exposing the image, I put it in Bath A for approx. 20 seconds, then
straight to Bath B with no rinse in between.

Allow image to develop fully (it will not overdevelop). The only time
concern is that if your solution is cold (around 55-60 degrees) it will
take a longer time to fully develop or if your temp is around 75-80
degrees, it will take a somewhat shorter time. With an ambient darkroom
temp around 70, it takes about 45 seconds. Then on to the stop and fix as
usual.


The repeatability, lack of concern for the time/temp relationship, and the
utter convenience has kept me loyal to divided development for many years
now.
Divided development used to work very well with Ciba/Ilfochrome for me
also. I used a Phenidone/Vit C formula without the HQ, and developed as
above, either in a drum or in trays. It gave great contrast control with
the older Ilfochrome pearl surface RC paper. However, after about a 5
year layoff from printing Ilfachromes, the last time I tried it, I wasn't
getting good results--- somewhat muddy colors and muted highlights. I
suspect Ilford has changed their emulsions, though I haven't experimented
much to find out the real story.

Larry K.




On Fri, 14 May 2004 01:54:54 -0400, Patrick Gainer
wrote:



Dan Quinn wrote:

"L. R. Kalajainen" wrote

I don't think it's crazy either, but you don't need the anti-freeze.

I've been using a formula very similar to Patrick's for years with
excellent results (metol, ascorbic acid, HQ, sulfite) but with one
difference. I always separate the Sodium Carbonate out into a second
bath.

One little difference.

Using the two-bath formula does several things that I have come to
appreciate very much: repeatability from print to print (can't
over-develop. You could leave it in bath B for an hour, but it will
not
develop beyond exhaustion of the developing agent absorbed in Bath
A.);

Are you saying that one soak in bath A will carry enough developer
for complete development? Have you ever run into a paper, RC or FB,
which
does not?


temperature controls--any temperature from about 50-120 works just
fine;
speed--about 15-20 seconds in Bath A is all that's necessary since the
latent image very quickly reacts to the developing agents (but with no
visible image in Bath A) and then about 35-60 seconds in Bath B,
depending
on temperature. It's easy, consistent, and gives me great shadow
detail
and highlight detail. It will, however, make you a better printer,
since
all image-altering effects (contrast, etc.) must be done under the
enlarger. By using a "softer" formula for Bath A (no HQ), you can
also
soften contrast at the development stage. So you could run two Bath A
trays--one a "softer" and one a "harder" formula, and the same Bath B
tray
which is just the activator.

Try it; you'll like it.

I process paper one-shot and it has crossed my mind to do it two-bath.
I'd think the results are perhaps just the opposite of water-bath. Dan
Have you been using it on FB? All the RC papers I have tested have
developer incorporated in the emulsion, which allows one to use a strong
alkali alone for development, but may be misleading about what is really
going on. FB, OTH, can soak up more developer. I haven't tried it
myself, but probably will soon.



--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/