Mixing Paper dev help needed

[crypt]

Yeah, that's very odd. I've never seen metol in solution go that color. It goes a pale straw yellow with time in a neutral to slightly acid solution, or brown in an alkaline solution.
Your potassium bromide looks weird too; mine also has some discolorations, but that's because of minor contamination with developer compounds which oxidize and give a brown coloration to it. The potassium bromide itself should not change color. Hence, I suspect yours is quite severely contaminated with something that oxidizes.

I don't know what's going on there, to be honest. If you mix a small amount of developer this way (accepting that it turns weird colors), does it actually develop paper at all?

When I use darkened solution it works somehow (dark brown tones, lith-like look mostly), but since there are several active developers I'm not sure which works. I believe I have to get as much information as I can before posting here. And make some photographs for you to see.

The test I've made so far:
* Tried Glycin only formula. (Substituted Potassium Carbonate with Sodium Carbonate) Glycin only mix. SS: 50g, SC: 48g, G: 8g. - Dilution clean, but doesn't work, paper doesn't darken.
* When some HQ solution added to the above the solution becomes colored at once so as the paper. Presumably HQ works as super-additive, but for some reason changes it's color. The color is dark-purple.
* HQ only solution first has light-yellow color but to the next day becomes bright-red.

I will repeat test with metol only solution and make a photo.

As for the potassium bromide the seller made an excuse like it usually becomes darker when present on the light. Though I've kept it in the dark mostly. I'll use your suggestion to place it another bag. Anyway, PB is cheap, but metol is the most important component.

[Bernard_L]

You state in your OP that cost matters. Yet you chose a glycin formula. Gycin is expensive. And has a limited shelf lifetime in powder form.

Internet is full of claims about this or that "wonderful" developer; you will also find professionals with lots of experience who rely on an "ordinary" developer, e.g. Dektol. Why don't you start with D-72, similar to Dektol, or ID-62, an Ilford formula PQ formula similar to Bromophen? These formulas were finalized by teams of professional chemists at Kodak or Ilford, not by an enthusiast trying to do "something different".

and now i start to run before the Gycin and Amidol crowds catch me

[Pere Casals]

lots of experience who rely on an "ordinary" developer

I agree, beyond colder-warmer tone... I see a very limited impact of the paper developer choice in the image control, as we usually develop to completion. Many other factor have a deep impact in the image, but what was not done with those factors it would be very difficult to control with paper developer choice.


IMO, since Variable Contrast paper popularization (many decades ago) there is less a need to go beyond "ordinary" developers.


Personally, I consider two factors in a paper developer:

> Tone modification, depending on developing agents we get a warmer or colder tone... > but anyway it is the paper type what rules... and if we later use a toner then the toner is the key, in fact. Also the kind or restrainer has an effect (Benzo vs Br)

> Amount of restrainer, using more or less restrainer it modifies the paper toe that's responsible for the highlights, but again the natural paper curve is very important.


IMHO it's not necessary to go much beyond ordinary developers to have all that control, by selecting an ordinary warm/cold tone soup, and adding some benzotriazole/bromide if wanting to cut toe for an effect in the highlights.

At least, IMO, no paper developer is a magic bullet, what counts is knowing what we want in an image and mastering the tools we have at hand. So, personally, I prefer a ECO one.

[crypt]

You state in your OP that cost matters. Yet you chose a glycin formula. Gycin is expensive. And has a limited shelf lifetime in powder form.

Internet is full of claims about this or that "wonderful" developer; you will also find professionals with lots of experience who rely on an "ordinary" developer, e.g. Dektol. Why don't you start with D-72, similar to Dektol, or ID-62, an Ilford formula PQ formula similar to Bromophen? These formulas were finalized by teams of professional chemists at Kodak or Ilford, not by an enthusiast trying to do "something different".

and now i start to run before the Gycin and Amidol crowds catch me

As I've written above, I have some weird problem with metol. It doesn't behave like it should. And it needs about 3 weeks to get any new chemicals here. Also the virus situations adds more time. That's why I tried something different with what I have. As for the price in my case, Glycin costs 5 time less then Metol and only 2 times more then PB. So actually it's not _that_ expensive here. And it would be great if I found a recipe that works without metol and phenidone. But it doesn't work. May be because I've tried to substitute PC with SC. As for ID-62, Phenidone is what's really expensive. And it's hard to get cause it doesn't used in other industries and hence seems to be not produced widely anymore.

[Bernard_L]

But it doesn't work. May be because I've tried to substitute PC with SC.

No way. Should be equivalent, provided you substitute mole for mole; and even if you just take the same mass, you should have a working developer

As I've written above, I have some weird problem with metol. It doesn't behave like it should.

As for the price in my case, Glycin costs 5 time less then Mitol and only 2 times more then PB.

Are you sure you are being sold good quality chemicals? Or outdated, oxidized chemicals? Or "technical" grade chemicals with impurities that are fatal for your intended photographic use?
Why not start with a clean slate, a different supplier of chemicals. You do not state where you reside; I had a look on fotoimpex (probably the best-stocked photo store in Europe) and they have shipping restrictions to many countries for "dangerous" chemicals like Dektol in powder form(???). But here are two possible sources for raw chemicals; I have reasons to believe that either of them might be less fussy about shipping regulations than regular photo stores.

https://www.moersch-photochemie.de/content/rohchemie
(this does not appear in the English language version)
http://moersch-photochemie.de/moersc..._2018final.pdf
E-Mail: fotosuvatlar@live.de ask them if they will ship to your country.
They even have ingredients for making your own color developers.

Also:
https://keten.com.pl/
They used to have all the usual developing agents, now only hydroquinone, but they state:
If you do not see something, please visit the old page HERE or CONTACT US. The list is updated on a regular basis.
The old page is a broken link, the contact is: office@keten.com.pl

And it needs about 3 weeks to get any new chemicals here. Also the virus situations adds more time.

That is a fact you cannot change. Your time (experiments with doubtful chemicals) also is valuable, I guess.

[crypt]

No way. Should be equivalent, provided you substitute mole for mole; and even if you just take the same mass, you should have a working developer

Thanks, I've checked everything again. It's not Glycin that I've used, it's glycinE.

Are you sure you are being sold good quality chemicals? Or outdated, oxidized chemicals? Or "technical" grade chemicals with impurities that are fatal for your intended photographic use?

Well... There are some figures about purity on cans (you can on the photo above), but seller is untrusted.

With help of this thread (https://www.photrio.com/forum/thread...-2#post-775919) I did 3 cases:

a) SS + HQ + M - This should prevent Metol from oxidizing and also restores it. The solution darkens, maybe because HQ restores M but oxidizes itself.

b) SS + M - This shouldn't restore Metol, but should prevent from oxidizing. It does not. The solution darkens. Bad 99% SS?

c) M + citric stop bath - the most stable solution, doesn't become dark. Metol is not active this way, but addition of PB disables acid. So it's only to keep it in two solutions and for development of film. After mixing the solutions becomes dark. Nothing like D76 from store.

Why not start with a clean slate, a different supplier of chemicals.

Not happy to spend more money for testing honestly. But have a little choice. Anyway the store I was going to use doesn't work because of moratorium till 3d of April. So I have time to think and thanks for the links. Soon ordering from EU willn't be an options because of the taxes, but for now it's fine. Taxes changes gradually.

[Bernard_L]

a) SS + HQ + M - This should prevent Metol from oxidizing and also restores it. The solution darkens, maybe because HQ restores M but oxidizes itself.

Still something abnormal. Not buying your explanation. The first stages of preparation of D-76 are:
- pinch of sulfite
- Metol (2g)
-all the sulfite (100g)
- Hydroquinone (5g)
Note that you are not supposed to dissolve the main part of the sulfite first.
I've mixed D-76 numerous times, last time 2 days ago, and the liquid remains clear. Water at 50°C. Stir and dissolve completely each chemical before adding the next. Do not shake, and if using an electric stirrer make sure you do not create a vortex; reason: to avoid oxidizing prematurely your developer. Advice already given by other posters earlier in this thread.

The solution darkens. Bad 99% SS?

I would more readily suspect the Metol than the Sodium sulfite. From US patent 2,686,718:
Various suggestions have been made to in prove dry packages of developers. The developing substance such as hydroquinone, pyrogallol, monomethyl paraminophenol (metol) and other organic developing agents are easily oxidized in storage, particularly in the presence of humidity, the slightest degree of oxidation showing up as discoloration.
My own metol powder tends to darken, but still works, and dissolves into a clear solution. On the other hand, sulfite in storage remains a pure white powder. Of course, there might also be an impurity "X" in the sulfite.

If you replace suspect chemicals one at a time, you will spend substantial time. And extra money, because of shipping costs. This is why I suggest to take a clean start.

Good luck.