Ektaflo type 2 with Forte polywarmtone and its almost twin, Bergger VCCB. the Ektaflo is liquid concentrate and cheap. Good for cold tone papers, too. Opens up shadows just a little. I was introduced to it by George Tice in a printing workshop; I believe he has used it for many years.
I have been using the Ansco 135 formula as my normal developer for the last 10-15 years. It has worked well with every paper I've tried it with. Favorite paper presently is Forte Fortezo.
Dektol (or D-72) is a standard more-or-less neutral tone developer that can be warmed or cooled slightly depending on dilution and whether or not you substitute benzotriazole for the bromide as the restrainer.
I like a variant of D-72 (Chris Patton's E-72--formula available on web) that uses Phenidone and Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C) instead of the Metol/Hydroquinone combo in D-72. Phenidone/Ascorbic acid are environmentally more friendly. I make up my E-72 in a concentrated form by tripling all the ingredients, and leaving out the sodium carbonate (the alkaline activator). This concentrate has a pH of around 5 and so keeps very well. Phenidone dissolves easier in alcohol than in water, so I usually dissolve that first in about 100ml of 90% alcohol and then add the other ingredients.
When I'm ready to develop, I just use 100 ml of the concentrate to a liter of water, and then throw 2 Tablespoons of carbonate directly into the tray, where it dissolves in a minute or so, and raise the pH to 10-11 which is where it needs to be for an energetic developer. (Plain old Arm & Hammer Washing Soda from the grocery store is the carbonate.) This liter of working developer will easily develop 30 8X10's without flagging. 1 1/2 minutes at 70 degrees. Excellent rich blacks and good tonal scale. If I want it a little warmer, I use bromide instead of benzotriazole.
Larry
I am surprised that no one has spoken up for LPD. I've had great success with it. It gets warmer as it is diluted. I develop Agfa MC 111 in a 1:3 LPD solution and really like the result -- good inky blacks, but nice subtle warmtones in the midgreys. I don't know if this is what Ronald was referring to as a "warm black" but to my eye it is a happy middle ground between a neutral paper and a warmtoned one.
Is no one else in this thread using LPD? What are your thoughts about it? If anyone has used both, how does it compare with Ansco 130? Or with Neutol, for that matter?
Sanders McNew (www.mcnew.net)
I have only used Dektol with Ilford Multigrade IV and Multigrade Warm papers and never used Ansco 130. Judging from the comments already posted, it appears that Ansco 130 can give greater contrast in in the shadows. Here is my question: Is there a significant difference between prints made with Dektol vs. Ansco 130 when exposure and contrast filters are carefully selected to result in the same densities at the very highest and lowest values of the print? In other words, does Ansco 130 have benefits that can not be achieved with Dektol combined with very judicious exposure and contrast filter? Are there other benefits (eg. tone) to switching to Ansco 130? Thanks for helping me decide if there is a good reason to go to the effort and expense of switching developers.
...does Ansco 130 have benefits that can not be achieved with Dektol combined with very judicious exposure and contrast filter? Are there other benefits (eg. tone) to switching to Ansco 130?
I made a test last week and my conclusion was Yes. It also inspired me to purchase a copy of the Anchell book "The Darkroom Cookbook", to gain a better understanding of the various formulas.
I also tried the Kodak formula Selectol Soft. It makes an enormous difference in the final print. I have been stunned to see how much impact developer formulations have on the tonality of the image.
You may find it comforting to know that densitometric tests have shown (I have seen some anyhow) that Ansco 130 comes closest to Amidol, in producing a long straight curve - so close, in fact that I found it hard to tell the difference. Amidol (I have read) is a more demanding ingredient to deal with, whereas the 130 formula is popular because it is gives (I have read) almost identical results, with none of the problems.
Purchase a small 130 kit and try for yourself. Only you can be the judge.
I found the article to which I referred. Written by Dhananjay Nayakanakuppam, it is here on Unblinking Eye, and shows the effects of different developers on Azo paper.
Azo is different from most papers, so perhaps I have drawn an erroneous conclusion about Ansco 130.
However, the kit I purchased from Photographer's Formulary says the following:
"FORMULARY 130 PAPER DEVELOPER is a superb paper developer that produces a full scale of rich blacks. The developer has an excellent shelf life, high capacity and is very suitable for batch processing. The prints obtained with F130 are surpassed only by the Amidol developers, however F130 is much more pleasant to work with. We feel F130 is one of the best developers ever formulated. "
"You may find it comforting to know that densitometric tests have shown (I have seen some anyhow) that Ansco 130 comes closest to Amidol, in producing a long straight curve - so close, in fact that I found it hard to tell the difference. Amidol (I have read) is a more demanding ingredient to deal with, whereas the 130 formula is popular because it is gives (I have read) almost identical results, with none of the problems."
this echoes my experience exactly. there's no contest for me between 130 and developers like dektol ... but again, this is with papers that respond significantly to development changes. a lot of emulsions don't. i'm not sure i could tell the difference on something like multigrade.
i gave up on using amidol. i had one or two very old negatives that seemed to warrant it ... they were thin and had precious little contrast in the shadows. in these cases i could see a slight increase in shadow contrast from the amidol, but it was never dramatic enough to let me get a good print from these lousy negs.
amidol is much more difficult to work with. it oxidizes rapidly in solution, so you have to mix it right before use. it stains your fingernails black (although you shouldn't have your hands in the developer anyhow). it's very expensive. i forget if there are unusual toxicity issues with it, so i'd suggest finding out before playing with it.
one nice thing about 130 is the excellent shelf life of the working solution. glycin (one of the developing agents) has a short shelf life as a powder, but it's unusual in that has a long shelf life in solution.
also, don't forget ansco 120 ... it's a more conventional formula, but it's beautiful for a soft acting developer and works great as as part of a 2 bath pair with the 130. it's not the same as selectol soft (i don't if anything is very close) but it can be used the same way.
I mix my own Ansco 130, and vary it depanding on what kind of contrast I want. It works well with everything. I like the midranges it produces better than with the Dextol. Another developer I like is Clayton CP. You can find it at www.digitaltruth.com. It's a bit more environmentally-friendly than the Ansco stuff. I like that. Lastly, Amdol print developer from Photographers Formulary. I like what it does with bromide papers.
--Gary
"Try Forte with the old Ansco 130 (available from Photographer's Formulary), or better still, Fine Art Versaprint. Both use glycin. 130 is really warm, Versaprint and Forte is gorgeous." - Bruce
"Another vote for 130. I think Forte is similar to if not the same as Bergger. Bergger is wonderful in 130" - Henry
As Bruce and others have pointed out in earlier postings, Fine Art and others sometimes offer re-branded products. Is Versaprint available in another brand ? Is Forte the same as Bergger ? What are the differences ?
While we're on the subject, has anyone tried the Defender HQ formula ? Is it related to a liquid form of Ansco 130, offered by Photographer's Formulary as BW-65 ?
Many thanks !
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks