Development PMK and exotics

Note about using Benxotriazole to get rid of fogging on old paper.

" noWrap width="1%" bgColor=#cc8600>Richard Knoppow
Apr 25, 12:16 am show options
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
From: "Richard Knoppow" - Find messages by this author
Date: 25 Apr 2005 00:16:33 -0700
Local: Mon,Apr 25 2005 12:16 am
Subject: Re: Paper: How old is too old?
Reply Reply to Author Forward Print Individual Message Show original Report Abuse
Some papers age better than others but storage conditions are also important. Heat is the enemy and tends to accelerate fogging. One way to use fogged paper is to add Benzotriazole to the developer. Benzotriazole is available from suppliers of photographic chemicals and is widely ued in Phenidone developers where bromide is not very effective. Bromide will also suppress fog but Benzotriazole is more effective. I don't have my reference available at the moment (I am away from home) but Grant Haist has a chart of amounts of Benzotriazole to use for both paper and film. I will try to find it later. I have recently used some Ilford Multigrade IV Deluxe which is about ten years old. It shows no fog or reduction in contrast. I've found that old Agfa paper generally holds up well. Kodak paper does not seem to do so well. One reason paper ages faster now is that Cadmium compounds can no longer be added due to environmental concerns. Cadmium serves several purposes in emulsions but preserving the emulsion is one of them. Fog in old emulsions is most often due to the continuation of a process known as ripening. Ripening is a normal part of the emulsion making process during which the silver halide grains gain in sensitivity. However, it is supposed to stop once the emulsion is finished. Various substances are added to the emulsion during the finishing step to prevent ripening from continuing after the emulsion is coated. Sometimes it doesn't work. One reason cold storage preserves film and paper is that it very substantially slows down after coating ripening. All variable contrast filters are available in sets of 6x6 inch gelatin or plastic sheets. These are used above the negative. They can be cut down for smaller enlargers. Kodak, Ilford, and Agfa all make filter sets. Each is tailored for the particular paper although any set can be used with any paper with some adjustment in exposure and variation in contrast.
-- Richard Knoppow dickb...@ix.netcom.com

");
//-->
Reply


" noWrap width="1%" bgColor=#802f97>Nicholas O. Lindan
Apr 25, 8:51 am show options
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:51:08 GMT
Local: Mon,Apr 25 2005 8:51 am
Subject: Re: Paper: How old is too old?
Reply Reply to Author Forward Print Individual Message Show original Report Abuse
"Richard Knoppow" wrote
> One way to use fogged paper is to add Benzotriazole I have found the best/cheapest way to handle BT is to buy 100g from B&H or Photographers' Formulary and dump it into 1 pint (~500ml) of 91% [or thereabouts] drugstore isopropyl alcohol. Total cost is $18, including the nifty storage bottle.
This makes a 2% solution. I start at ~1.5ml/liter, but use Richard's numbers or experiment to find what works best for your paper and developer.
Edwal's "Liquid Orthazite" costs about 30 times more than the do-it-yourself solution ($12.95/4oz of 0.2%).
> I've found that old Agfa paper generally holds up well. I will second this. But new Agfa paper doesn't, it is one of the worst, IMNSHO.

// posted by Richard @ 4:19 PM

Developers to try with Forte Pan... Microdol X. Acutol, Ethol UFG, ABC Pyro, Ansco 130 or 136.

Long thread about Forte film.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=2fd2ff8c.0308291645.5a6ddee7%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dforte%2Bgroup:rec.photo.darkroom%2Bgroup:rec.photo.darkroom%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Drec.photo.darkroom%26scoring%3Dd%26selm%3D2fd2ff8c.0308291645.5a6ddee7%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D1

From Darkroom newsgroup...
"Jim MacKenzie"

> > Over the last 35 years, I've tried just about ever B&W film out there,
> > including Adox (KB14 was excellent, KB17 was passable, and KB21 was
> > very grainy), Agfa, Ilford (I used FP3 and HP4, the latter of which
> > despite my best efforts was unable to match Tri-X). I've also tried
> > just about every developer available during that period. My conclusion
> > is that it's damned hard to beat FP4 in Acutol, or Tri-X in D-76 1:1.
> > Both work very well in UFG as well, and can be developed together in
> > that developer, as both take the same developing times (at least they
> > did back in the 70's).

// posted by Richard @ 10:12 AM

From rec.photo.darkroom on 7/28/2003

All messages from thread
Message 1 in thread
From: Jim MacKenzie (jim@dusykbarlow.sk.ca)
Subject: Efke, Foma, Classic Pan & PMK


View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: 2003-07-28 14:17:03 PST


Have any of you tried these films in PMK?

It's fairly easy to find data on Efke 25, but the other films don't seem all
that popular. I got two rolls of each (and six of Efke 25) from J&C Photo
in Missouri to try. I'm particularly interested in the Efke films, but I'm
going to give the others a good test, too.

I don't have enough film to do formal tests (and don't own a densitometer -
besides, PMK requires a colour one) so your advice would make a good
starting point.

I'm also interested in experiences from more common North American
developers like D-76/ID-11 (particularly 1:1), XTOL (particularly 1:1),
Ilfotec DD-X, Diafine, etc. I also have some Ilford Microphen kicking
around, and I'm planning to make my own D-23 in the next few weeks.

Jim
Post a follow-up to this message

Message 2 in thread
From: Andrew Price (ajprice@free.fr)
Subject: Re: Efke, Foma, Classic Pan & PMK


View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: 2003-07-28 17:15:43 PST


On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:16:52 -0600, "Jim MacKenzie"
wrote:

>Have any of you tried these films in PMK?

Not in PMK, but in A-49, D-76, Rodinal and DD-X.

>It's fairly easy to find data on Efke 25, but the other films don't seem all
>that popular. I got two rolls of each (and six of Efke 25) from J&C Photo
>in Missouri to try. I'm particularly interested in the Efke films, but I'm
>going to give the others a good test, too.

Efke produces great images, but is rather fragile, a PITA to thread
into developer spirals without damaging it and/or leaving stress
marks, and (at least in its 120 format) has a rather nasty tendency to
curl after drying.

I seem to recall having seem somewhere recently that Fotokemika, the
manufacturer, has released, or intends releasing the emulsion on a new
base which may resolve that problem.

I've found Fomapan to be a very good natured film, and I've been very
pleased with the results I've obtained, whatever the developer used.

I was somewhat indifferent to Classic-Pan 200 in D-76 and Rodinal, but
very pleased with the results I obtained using Calbe A-49. I suspect
that Perceptol may also work well with this film.
Post a follow-up to this message

Message 3 in thread
From: Brian Weiss (durrago@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Efke, Foma, Classic Pan & PMK


View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: 2003-07-28 18:47:16 PST


"Jim MacKenzie" wrote in message news:<3f259288$1@news3.accesscomm.ca>...
> Have any of you tried these films in PMK?
>
> It's fairly easy to find data on Efke 25, but the other films don't seem all
> that popular. I got two rolls of each (and six of Efke 25) from J&C Photo
> in Missouri to try. I'm particularly interested in the Efke films, but I'm
> going to give the others a good test, too.
>
> I don't have enough film to do formal tests (and don't own a densitometer -
> besides, PMK requires a colour one) so your advice would make a good
> starting point.
>
> I'm also interested in experiences from more common North American
> developers like D-76/ID-11 (particularly 1:1), XTOL (particularly 1:1),
> Ilfotec DD-X, Diafine, etc. I also have some Ilford Microphen kicking
> around, and I'm planning to make my own D-23 in the next few weeks.
>
> Jim

Efke and JC Classic are probably the two best films available when
using Pyro. I use ABC with the sheet films and it's a wonderful
combination. J&C has PMK times posted on their site. I've never used
the Foma in pyro so I can't help you there.
Post a follow-up to this message




©2003 Google

// posted by Richard @ 10:38 AM

Messages 11-15 from thread
Prev 10
Jump to [ Start of thread ]
Message 11 in thread
From: John (john@darkroompro.com)
Subject: Re: PMK developer Tutorial


View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: 2003-05-29 00:57:41 PST


On Wed, 28 May 2003 19:09:07 GMT, The-void@ixtlan.>+< (Cacoethes Scribendi)
wrote:

>Funny; in my correspondance with Steve he has never mention you.

Then perhaps you should ask the guy that wrote the majority of the book.
Bill Troop. Also look at the credits.

Regards

John - Photographer & Webmaster - http://www.darkroompro.com

"Reader, suppose you were an idiot.
And suppose you were a member of Congress.
But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
Post a follow-up to this message

Message 12 in thread
From: Dan Quinn (dan.c.quinn@att.net)
Subject: PMK developer Tutorial


View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: 2003-05-28 15:57:53 PST


RE: John wrote

> > You may wish to use WD2D. It is carbonate based and I've read on
> > this NG that it is easier to work with. Dan
> I would consider replacing the carbonate with metaborate which
> does not cause pinholes in emulsion when a stop bath is used.
> John
It's the ACID stop to which you refer.
Mr. Wimberly considered various alkalies when he compounded WD2D.
He chose carbonate as best. Checking at Unblinking Eye, I see that PMK
is the only pyrogallol based developer using metaborate. Had he wished
to compound PMK he could have. He chose to compound WD2D.
I don't believe I have ever read that an ACID stop is THE stop
to use with the above mentioned developers. In fact I doubt that an
ACID stop is THE recommended stop with ANY staining developer.

Sodium carbonate is the sodium salt of carbonic acid, Na2CO3,
H2CO3. H2CO3 may be considered unstable under ordinary conditions.
It will break down into H2O and CO2. As a group ACID stops are best
kept away from a vast number of carbonate based developers, off
the shelf or homebrew. Dan
Post a follow-up to this message

Message 13 in thread
From: John (john@darkroompro.com)
Subject: Re: PMK developer Tutorial


View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: 2003-05-28 22:56:44 PST


On 28 May 2003 15:57:52 -0700, dan.c.quinn@att.net (Dan Quinn) wrote:

> It's the ACID stop to which you refer.

Firstly, is their another kind ? Second, I referred to the use of
carbonate. An alkali that I proved to myself is not going to give me the image
qualities that I like.

> Mr. Wimberly considered various alkalies when he compounded WD2D.
>He chose carbonate as best. Checking at Unblinking Eye, I see that PMK
>is the only pyrogallol based developer using metaborate.

Listed on that site.

> Had he wished
>to compound PMK he could have. He chose to compound WD2D.

Quite some time before Mr.Hutchings created his PMK formula though
pyrogallol/Metol formulas were very, very common some time ago.

> I don't believe I have ever read that an ACID stop is THE stop
>to use with the above mentioned developers.

And exactly what would one use to stop the development of a
carbonate-based formula ? Don't tell me. Water. Sure. That's really going to
stop a carbonate formula.

> In fact I doubt that an
>ACID stop is THE recommended stop with ANY staining developer.

I'm glad that you doubt it but _I_ personally prefer developers that start
and stop when _I_ want them to and to do so as evenly as possible. Therefore I
use an acidic stop bath 1/2 the strength that Kodak recommends.

> Sodium carbonate is the sodium salt of carbonic acid, Na2CO3,
>H2CO3. H2CO3 may be considered unstable under ordinary conditions.
>It will break down into H2O and CO2. As a group ACID stops are best
>kept away from a vast number of carbonate based developers, off
>the shelf or homebrew. Dan

And the converse is that carbonates are not really good for formulating a
pictorial film developers. If they were then manufacturers would have kept using
them as carbonate is almost as inexpensive as dirt, takes somewhat less to
achieve the same level of activity as metaborate and they already had the
formulas compounded and dialed in. The only reasons they migrated to metaborate
are simple. No CO2 bubbles, lower activity level meaning a finer granularity in
the developed image and less clumping of the grains which further enhances
sharpness. I'm sure there are more reasons but hopefully you get my point.

Regards

John - Photographer & Webmaster - http://www.darkroompro.com

"Reader, suppose you were an idiot.
And suppose you were a member of Congress.
But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
Post a follow-up to this message

Message 14 in thread
From: Dan Quinn (dan.c.quinn@att.net)
Subject: Re: PMK developer Tutorial


View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: 2003-05-29 01:44:13 PST


dan.c.quinn@att.net (Dan Quinn) wrote in message news:...
> RE: John wrote
>
> > > You may wish to use WD2D. It is carbonate based and I've read on
> > > this NG that it is easier to work with. Dan
> > I would consider replacing the carbonate with metaborate which
> > does not cause pinholes in emulsion when a stop bath is used.
> > John
> It's the ACID stop to which you refer.
> Mr. Wimberly considered various alkalies when he compounded WD2D.
> He chose carbonate as best. Checking at Unblinking Eye, I see that PMK
> is the only pyrogallol based developer using metaborate. Had he wished
> to compound PMK he could have. He chose to compound WD2D.
> I don't believe I have ever read that an ACID stop is THE stop
> to use with the above mentioned developers. In fact I doubt that an
> ACID stop is THE recommended stop with ANY staining developer.
>
> Sodium carbonate is the sodium salt of carbonic acid, Na2CO3,
> H2CO3. H2CO3 may be considered unstable under ordinary conditions.
> It will break down into H2O and CO2. As a group ACID stops are best
> kept away from a vast number of carbonate based developers, off
> the shelf or homebrew. Dan

Two errors: Rollo Pyro also is metaborate based and "vast" implies
a greater number than was intended. "... away from the numerous
carbonate based ..." is better.
Beutler's, at least one of Mason's, some of Crawley's, and I'm sure
others from many sources, are carbonate based.
Fear not the Fizz. Rinse well in water before an acid fix or a
short water rinse before a neutral or alkaline fix. Dan
Post a follow-up to this message

Message 15 in thread
From: John Stockdale (jo.sto@bigpond.com)
Subject: PMK developer Tutorial


View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: 2003-05-28 06:56:29 PST


John wrote in message news:...
> On Wed, 28 May 2003 00:05:23 GMT, The-void@ixtlan.>+< (Cacoethes Scribendi)
> wrote:
>
> >> I would consider replacing the carbonate with metaborate which does not
> >> cause pinholes in emulsion when a stop bath is used.
> >
> >Then its? PMK?

I hadn't realised that PMK was so similar to WD2D (except for the
choice of alkali) until recently. Gordon Hutchings has written "The
Book of Pyro" about his PMK, and in it there is a page on WD2D which
preceded PMK by many years. If you have PMK part A you can make WD2D
with a little extra sodium bisulfite and, of course, sodium carbonate
for Part B. For 35mm I would expect the WD2D to be significantly
grainier. Has anyone used it for 35mm who can compare it to PMK?

Rafael, Gordon Hutchings book is worth reading. Failing that, a search
here will get you pretty well informed. Your enlarger is fine. A
search will find comparisons of PMK with VC and graded papers.

I have found PMK to not work well (stain-wise) until Part A has turned
quite bright yellow. This takes a few weeks in a half full bottle. I
use it for nearly everything and I find it nearly as easy to use as
other developers. The small inconvenience of mixing is outweighed, in
my opinion, by the exceptionally long shelf life. I mix up a batch
once every 2 years or so.

The aforementioned problem of pinholes in the stop bath is avoidable
by using water stop bath which is normal with staining developers.
Post a follow-up to this message


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prev 10
Jump to [ Start of thread ]



©2003 Google

// posted by Richard @ 2:20 PM

http://victorian.fortunecity.com/picasso/886/PMK/index.html

Notes on PMK



There is another blog named pmk.blogger.com