Topic: just another two bath developer

[imagesfrugales]

Thanks to the inspiration of Jack I did what I have in mind since some time: creating a Diafine clone from raw chemicals. Jack had a question on the Lomad developer from the ascorbate-developers-blog and I read the blog entry and wasn't convinced 100 %. See here: http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=6495.0

Small sample images with almost low validity and one obscure ingredient. If you do a google search you almost find nothing, except some great cars. The idea of replacing hydroquinone (HQ) with ascorbate is not far to seek, but I prefer the much more common Vitamin-C. Long ago Steve Anchell published in his darkroom cookbook a "real" Diafine clone with HQ. HQ is almost impossible to get here and now. So I took this recipe as a base and substituted the HQ with Vitamin-C and washing soda. Also the Borax I replaced with washing soda. So here's V1.0  of the developer. Working title: Phenidone-Vitamin-C-2-Bath-developer, PC2B-V1.0

Part A

vitamin-C 15 g/l
washing soda waterfree 7,5 g/l
sodium sulfite 35 g/l
potassium metabisulfite 6 g/l
phenidon 0.3 g/l

pH: 6.8


Part B

washing soda waterfree 20 g/l
sodium sulfite 65 g/l

pH: about 11

Use destilled water, add in given order, let stand over night before using. Develop 3+3 to 4+4 minutes as a starting point. Very gentle agitation only 2 times in each bath.

Other than often claimed there is already development in the first bath, and it can't be the Vit-C because it needs a much higher pH to be activated. There is some base fog and the development is very low in contrast. Also some uneven development can be seen sometimes. So we need an anti-fogging agent/restrainer. I have pot. bromide and benzotriazole and will probably start with bromide KBr like the Lomad developer.

There's a lot to improve. Shadow detail is great, even for EI 1200, but the density (above base fog) curve is too flat. Base fog is not shown here but too much, about D=0.5.  More Phenidone and a restrainer may be the cure. So let's see what happens......

The blue curve is only for reference, the green and the red one are the right ones from 2 different measurings at EI 640. The real picture is taken at EI 800. Quite strong backlight with no exposure compensation, 1/1000 and f/16, so I rate the exposure at EI 1200. Grain vs film speed is very good. Scanning the neg whitewashes the weak points, the neg is rather flat for wet prints.

Best - Reinhold

bigger size:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagesfrugales/9655752209/#sizes/o/in/photostream/

[imagesfrugales]

For me the price for 1 liter is about Eur 2,50, destilled water included. Lets assume we can develop 25 films at least, we have 10 Cent/ development.

[jojonas~]

good write up, Reinhold! I've only read a little bit about two bath developers, what would you say is the pros and cons? one guy, I don't remember whom, swore on it for getting decently exposed negs at different iso on the same roll. but he used it mostly just for scanning, if I remember correctly.

[imagesfrugales]

Hi Jonas, there are several reasons for a 2-bath developer. First and for me most important is conveniance. Most films will give decent results, independant to some extend of time and temperature or film brand. You don't have to make a working solution, simply pour in the developer, set the timer and that's it. 2-bath devlopers are very compensating, too much here imho, see chart. You can develop different films in one tank at the same time.

Of course this kind of developer has also drawbacks. Perfect for extreme high contrast shots, see picture above, but probably not the best for low contrast sceneries. You almost can not push or pull or work on the contrast. Every film has a new optimal speed, Diafine f.e. gives about one stop better speed with most but not all films.

Cheers - Reinhold

[imagesfrugales]

V1.1 is done. Added 0,1 g/l phenidone and 0,2 g/l pot. bromide to bath A, added 1 g/l pot. bromide to bath B. We are on a good way, EI 1000 with TMax400. Shadow detail of this developer is very good although we get enhanced film speed! I guess more agitation is needed for denser lights. Some of the "rules" for Diafine are obsolete. And now we finally see the flattening curve in the highlights that is specific for most 2-bath developers. Not the best for scanning in every case but prevents the lights from burning with wet prints. Gives good contrast control.

I didn't consider that the RPX400 needs a very strong development for good results. This film needs to be kicked in the a.. to awake 

[imagesfrugales]

Update: new result with RR400s, and IR720 filter. This film has a real speed af about ISO 100 on most developers. In PC2B I would rate it at ISO 200 so far. 6 + 6 minutes, still not dense enough and some uneven development. I guess we will end with 8 - 10 minutes for most films and we will need more bromide in Part A. The RR400s is a rather contrasty working film. Here we additionally have very strong backlight. Scanned with Vuescan and all controls in the middle. Camera held down for metering to adjust for the backlight.

[imagesfrugales]

Recipe updated, more bromide added,  longer development:

Part A

vitamin-C 15 g/l
washing soda waterfree 7,5 g/l
sodium sulfite 35 g/l
potassium metabisulfite 6 g/l
pot. bromide 0,5 g/l
phenidon 0.3 g/l

pH: 6.8


Part B

washing soda waterfree 20 g/l
sodium sulfite 65 g/l
pot bromide 1.0 g/l

pH: about 11

8 + 6 minutes, agitation 30 sec initially, 3x regular inversions every full minute for part A, 3 gentle inversions in part B initially, 1 inv. every minute. Rollei Retro 400s looks fine, even developed.

Olympus XA, camera and IR filter handheld, exposure f/4 and 1/30

[imagesfrugales]

Next update. A friend tried the developer with Ilford Delta 3200 @ about EI 1000 with nice results:
http://www.ipernity.com/doc/chrono/album/510329

I guess the film can be used also with much higher speed. Looks like there's a lot of "headroom".

[Francois]

From the start, Delta 3200 (which is not a real 3200 ISO film) was designed to be pushed quite a bit. I read that you can push it into the 5 digit EI's without much problems. Granted shadow detail will be gone, but you can still get something out of it.

[imagesfrugales]

After my modest experiance you can rate the Delta 3200 at 3200 without any problem, using the right developer. But expect some serious grain. Here the grain is really very tame. So far I would say the developer gives good results with fast films and high contrast scenes and is a real fine grain developer.

Apart from that I don't believe in the "no-pushing" dogma. With TMax400 I get at least real ISO 1000 with full shadow detail, if not more. It depends on many factors.

Thanks a lot for your interest, cheers - Reinhold

[Ezzie]

Thanks Reinhold

I rarely shoot anything above ISO 400, I'm not a fan of fat grain to put it mildly. This however looks promising.

Pity some of the chemicals are not that easy to come by over here. I know my fellow countryman Trond Solem gets hold of all sorts, but am unsure how and where from. I have friends who have been arrested on their doorstep when taking delivery of powders and fluids from Silverprint and Moersch, under suspicion of trying to import narcotics. Even when clearly marked as photo-chemicals, and from a reputable source.

[imagesfrugales]

The world is a madhouse. Here everybody can own a gun if he's a member of a shooting "sport" club and shoot people on the street, you had your own tragic desaster recently in Norway, and you are arrested for having Vitamin-C powder or syringes for insulin.

Eirik, I understand that you don't need this kind of developer, especially not for LF. I'm about to try an Xtol clone called instant mytol. Dirt cheap if you can get raw chemicals at a reasonable price. I luckily coud get 1.4 kg sodium sulfite for 14 Eur, sold as "bubble ex" for water beds and Vit-C here is 2,00 for 100 g. 10 g Phenidone for 7.90 almost lasts for ever.

[Jack Johnson]

Olympus XA, camera and IR filter handheld, exposure f/4 and 1/30

Fantastic, Reinhold. I really like the tonal range on this one: the stonework, the buildings, the foliage in the shadows on the left, the chimneys on the left . . . very nice.

I live in Alaska and run into similar challenges trying to get chemicals. Anything remotely hazardous ends up being cost-prohibitive due to the additional shipping charges, if I can even get it shipped -- including commercial developers. Which is just one more reason to love your Caffenol-C-M recipe. But hoping to branch out.

(for the good of the order: http://caffenol.blogspot.com/2010/03/caffenol-c-m-recipe.html )