Selenium toner Kodak vs. Ilford

[Roger Cole]

Thanks Roger. My local store has Ilford and I thought if it was similar to Kodak I would give it a try.

Worth a shot. If I could get Ilford locally I'd try it. I'll be curious what folks tell you.

Actually I shouldn't be so quick to dismiss buying locally. I think there is at least one supplier of traditional materials inside Atlanta proper. I'm a born in country, dragged into becoming a suburbanite now though, that won't venture into the city proper without dire provocation (which usually comes from my fiance who thinks I'm silly and lived in Brooklyn, but then I insist she drive...)

[Doremus Scudder]

To possibly answer the original question:

Harmon (Ilford) Selenium Toner
from the MSDS

Ammonium Thiosulfate 10-30% by weight
Sodium Selenite 1-5% by weight
Water 50-70%

Not very precise in my estimation.

Kodak Selenium Toner
From the MSDS

Ammonium Thiosulfate 27% by weight
Sodium Sulfite 10-15%
Sodium Selenite 2% by weight
Water 55-60%

More precise. It is possible that the Ilford product has similar proportions and they just want to leave some wiggle room in the MSDS. I'm not sure what the addition of sodium sulfite does for the Kodak product, but I don't think much. I keep and replenish my KRST, and I'm fairly sure the sulfite has long been oxidized in my working solution. It works just fine.

I should add that the above figures are for the concentrate, not the working solution.

I've never done a side-by-side comparison of the two.

Hope this helps

Doremus

www.DoremusScudder.com

[Michael Graves]

I have been stocking the Legacy Pro selenium toner since it came out. The first time I saw it listed, I bought a bottle of it while I still had ample Kodak Stock. Just for schlitz and gins, I mixed up a tray of each after a printing session one day. I made two of each of three different negatives. One was a richer, more deeply shaded image of an old building against a treeline. One was a church with very white sides against a dark sky and some tombstones in the foreground and the third was a photograph of Dogs Head Falls on the Lamoille River. I toned one of each print in both solutions. There was absolutely zero difference as far as I could see with these feeble old eyes.

[Roger Cole]

But the price difference is only a tiny bit. I use the Legacy Pro brown toner because it comes in 8 oz bottles where Kodak only sells it in absurd gallon sizes now. If I were placing an order for other stuff and they were out of Kodak I'd get the LP without hesitation but with both available... shrug, I get the Kodak.

[bill2424]

Thanks everyone for the help. I'll try the Ilford it sounds like the results should be the same as Kodak.

[baxjj]

Greeting folks!

Noon here with a question. I have been reading and viewing stuff about using selenium to tone B&W negatives. Could the Milford/Harmon selenium toner be used for this purpose?

Your thoughts?

Thanks,

John

[baxjj]

Er, Noon here...

[Larry Gebhardt]

Greeting folks!

Noon here with a question. I have been reading and viewing stuff about using selenium to tone B&W negatives. Could the Milford/Harmon selenium toner be used for this purpose?

Your thoughts?

Thanks,

John

Haven't tried it, but I see no reason it wouldn't work. It may not work exactly the same as Kodak's, but for negative intensification I'm sure you won't care. Ideally I test a less important negative before I do the one I really want. I'll frequently have at least two shots the were underdeveloped if I mess up the times.

[baxjj]

Thanks kindly for the advice. I hope to give to it a try soon. I will report my findings after having done so.

Cheers, John.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I use both and see no difference. Have not tried the Legacy Pro version yet but will shortly, I would guess it will be the same as well.