PDA

View Full Version : Help with Windisch Developer



Tim Povlick
18-Jun-2013, 12:36
Greetings to the Group.

I hope someone can shed some insight into this problem. Searching the group didn't turn up anything relevant so new thread time.

I've tried Catechol Film Developer, specifically the Windisch from Formulary after reading about the magic of Catechol and seeing some images posted here. The range in stops is the big draw. A year or so ago I tried it but the negs came out very dense, with edges of film also dense -- base fog? The edges were as as dense as the negative should have been. After some tries I gave up on Cat. I recently tried it again with same results. The stock solution is mixed per the instruction sheet using distilled water. If developed as long as specified (10 minutes) same over dense / fog. If, however one drops development time to 3 minutes - viola the negs are fully developed and the exposure range is amazing (an indoor scene with windows shows good exp for both in/out). It seems after 4 minutes of development the spent developer turns to black ink and then the useless density builds on the negative. Question is why such a huge difference in development time. Film - TMY-II and Delta Pro 100 in 4x5, using mainly a patterson tank in taco method. The agitation doesn't seem to have a huge effect (perhaps oxidizes the developer faster). Temp is 72F. I've tried many developers (Xtol to PMK) without any problems.

Also, has anyone tried the formulas for Catechol (TD-2?) that are in listed in "The Film Developing Cookbook" last page of chapter on Tanning Developers? I've been trying these and the development time is more per the book w/o the high density. Once the Windisch is used I'll go back to the ones in the book. One big reason is no Sodium Hydroxide to handle. What does 'drain cleaner' bring to the party? The formulas in the aforementioned book do not use it. Can anyone kindly comment on the expected difference in these developers?

The intended use is to contact print and / or drum scan. For alternative (Van Dyke) printing the negs are just to flat.

Many Thanks,

Tim

Regular Rod
18-Jun-2013, 13:02
Greetings to the Group.

I hope someone can shed some insight into this problem. Searching the group didn't turn up anything relevant so new thread time.

I've tried Catechol Film Developer, specifically the Windisch from Formulary after reading about the magic of Catechol and seeing some images posted here. The range in stops is the big draw. A year or so ago I tried it but the negs came out very dense, with edges of film also dense -- base fog? The edges were as as dense as the negative should have been. After some tries I gave up on Cat. I recently tried it again with same results. The stock solution is mixed per the instruction sheet using distilled water. If developed as long as specified (10 minutes) same over dense / fog. If, however one drops development time to 3 minutes - viola the negs are fully developed and the exposure range is amazing (an indoor scene with windows shows good exp for both in/out). It seems after 4 minutes of development the spent developer turns to black ink and then the useless density builds on the negative. Question is why such a huge difference in development time. Film - TMY-II and Delta Pro 100 in 4x5, using mainly a patterson tank in taco method. The agitation doesn't seem to have a huge effect (perhaps oxidizes the developer faster). Temp is 72F. I've tried many developers (Xtol to PMK) without any problems.

Also, has anyone tried the formulas for Catechol (TD-2?) that are in listed in "The Film Developing Cookbook" last page of chapter on Tanning Developers? I've been trying these and the development time is more per the book w/o the high density. Once the Windisch is used I'll go back to the ones in the book. One big reason is no Sodium Hydroxide to handle. What does 'drain cleaner' bring to the party? The formulas in the aforementioned book do not use it. Can anyone kindly comment on the expected difference in these developers?

The intended use is to contact print and / or drum scan. For alternative (Van Dyke) printing the negs are just to flat.

Many Thanks,

Tim

The only Catechol developer I have experience with is Jay de Fehr's OBSIDIAN AQUA (http://hypercatacutancedeveloper.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/obsidian-aqua.html). It is used at incredibly low concentrations. HP5 Plus takes me 12 minutes in 1:500 at 20 Celsius using a semi-stand regime. FP4 Plus and ADOX CHS 25 both work for me at 8 - 12 minutes depending on exposure. My pal Steve Barnett has been using OBSIDIAN AQUA with T type films such as Ilford Delta 100 and his results are very good. http://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_barnett/8971880473/in/photostream/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_barnett/8973403322/in/photostream/



RR

Jim Noel
18-Jun-2013, 15:42
If your main goal here is to make negatives for VDB several observations need to be made.
I use the Windisch formula for this occasionally, but not the kit from PF. I also use Pyrocat HD and a home brew catechol based developer. All of these developers works well with conventional films. You definitely have a problem with fog, possibly chemical fog if the films you are currently using do not react well to the developer.
For all negatives to be printed with alternate processes I prefer FP4+ because it gives the added contrast range needed to make these prints sing. TMY and Delta Pro will not do that as they are not designed to expand well and probably do not work well with catechol based developers.

Try FP4+ at an EI of 125 and any of the catechol developers and I think you will be happy. If your shadows are still too dense, you are overexposing.

These ideas have worked for me and hundreds of my students for many years.

Tim Povlick
18-Jun-2013, 19:31
The only Catechol developer I have experience with is Jay de Fehr's OBSIDIAN AQUA (http://hypercatacutancedeveloper.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/obsidian-aqua.html). It is used at incredibly low concentrations. HP5 Plus takes me 12 minutes in 1:500 at 20 Celsius using a semi-stand regime. FP4 Plus and ADOX CHS 25 both work for me at 8 - 12 minutes depending on exposure. My pal Steve Barnett has been using OBSIDIAN AQUA with T type films such as Ilford Delta 100 and his results are very good. http://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_barnett/8971880473/in/photostream/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_barnett/8973403322/in/photostream/



RR

Hi RR,

Wow, some incredible photos, especially the GV ones and similar stream scenes. If I could get those results I'd be very happy.

I had not heard of OA developer but like the mix of chemicals, especially no drain cleaner. I will also try the FP4+

Many Thanks!

Tim

Tim Povlick
18-Jun-2013, 19:36
If your main goal here is to make negatives for VDB several observations need to be made.
I use the Windisch formula for this occasionally, but not the kit from PF. I also use Pyrocat HD and a home brew catechol based developer. All of these developers works well with conventional films. You definitely have a problem with fog, possibly chemical fog if the films you are currently using do not react well to the developer.
For all negatives to be printed with alternate processes I prefer FP4+ because it gives the added contrast range needed to make these prints sing. TMY and Delta Pro will not do that as they are not designed to expand well and probably do not work well with catechol based developers.

Try FP4+ at an EI of 125 and any of the catechol developers and I think you will be happy. If your shadows are still too dense, you are overexposing.

These ideas have worked for me and hundreds of my students for many years.

Hi Jim,

I think I should be one of your students soon. I'll follow you advice and try different films, especially FP4+ as RR as recommended also. I am surprised the Cat can be used to make a VDB neg as I didn't think it would build that much density. I have a partial spool of the Panatomic X-II, in Xtol that will build plenty of density for a VDB neg. Thanks for your explanation of the film expansion, makes a lot of sense (now).

Greatly appreciate your time and expertise!

Best Regards,

Tim