Hi, The following formula was posted here a month or two ago.

"Part A: 8g ascorbic acid + 0.8g metol / 500ml distilled water Part B: 6.8g sodium hydroxide + 24.4g borax / 500ml distilled water" Among other films, Delta 400, which I've never used, was suggested for this developer.

I'm wondering if you could share the experiences you all have with this developer and Delta 400, FP4, TX400 etc.

I currently use TX400 with Xtol or with HC-110 dil. "B".

I'd appreciate some input as to what the Vit. C developer does that is different.

Thanks! Howard

-- Howard Posner (hposner1@swarthmore.edu), March 21, 2002

Answers

In addition to the developer you're referring to, which was created by Pat Gainer, I've been experimenting with vit-c in other developers. One interesting observation I've made is images developed with vit-c developers seem to have a brightness about them that I find very appealing. And this occurs without harshness. I've never measured it, but it looks like the H&D curve rises slightly in the zone VI to zone VIII region. Another thing I really like is the images are very sharp, but the grain is smooth and not at all prominent.

I can't tell you how it might compare to XTOL or HC-110, since I have not used either of those developers for some time. Nor can I say how it would work with FP4+ or TMY. I can certainly recommend it for TMX, Acros and Delta 400 (new). I've used it with tanks and tray and find it very clean working, even developing and consistent. Also, mixed as I originally recommened--divided A & B--it lasts quite a long time. I've seen no deterioration in my stock solution's performance over a 6 month period. It's also very simple and cheap to make.

Gainer's formula is one of the best developers available and I highly recommend it.

-- Ted Kaufman (writercrmp@aol.com), March 22, 2002.

Thanks for the information and taking the time to reply, Ted. I guess I'm being a bit lazy. I was asking about Xtol and how it compared since Xtol, too, has a LOT of Vit. C in it and has the characterisitcs that you mentioned. I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who has actually compared this formula to Xtol. Best Regards, Howard

-- Howard Posner (hposner1@swarthmore.edu), March 22, 2002.

Has anyone compared the formula to Ilfosol S?

-- Ed Hurst (BullMoo@hotmail.com), March 22, 2002.

...in terms of results, rather than in terms of formula!

-- Ed Hurst (BullMoo@hotmail.com), March 22, 2002.

I did one direct comparison with Ilfosol-S and I decidedly preferred Gainer's formula. It was sharper, resolved finer detail and had an overall crisper look. Moreover, the grain was not courser--the usual trade-off for actutance--and it showed a sharper, tighter pattern.

-- Ted Kaufman (writercrmp@aol.com), March 22, 2002.

The way HC-110 behaves strongly depends on film. With most films like HP5+ and Plus-X, it's big grain, normal sharpness, nothing special except brighter midtones all compared to D-76 1+1.

But HC-110 can produce really fine grained image with TMX, and it's so fine grained that the TMX gives you its typical metallic or plastic-like look. Unless that's what you are looking for, you don't want that combination.

TX and HC-110 in 35mm and medium format are not a good combination unless you want to enhance grainy appearance. Gainer formula is probaly a bit finer grained.

I have vitamin-C version of D-76 as I posted here before, and available on film-developer combinations and other parts of my home page. I highly recommend D-76Ad 1+1 for conventional films like HP5+, Tri-X and Plus-X. Accutance version of my vitamin C formula is tweaked for tabular grained films and very slow films. All my formulae on that page are metol-ascorbate based.

I can't comment direct comparison of Gainer's formula and Ilfosol-S, but Gainer's formula is particularly good for TMX in small tanks. For conventional films in 35mm and 6x6cm, I think D-76Ad is better suited. Comparing D-76H and D-76Ad, I see a large difference in terms of grain appearance, and I definitely prefer ascorbate version.

-- Ryuji Suzuki (rsuzuki@rs.cncdsl.com), March 25, 2002.

Dear Ryuji, Thanks for the detailed reply. I am surprised at your comments regarding TX and HC-110. Using "B" dilution and Picker's (Zone VI) method for determining film speed/developing time, I get incredibly fine grain. ( My ASA is around 250 and developing time a tad under 5 minutes.) I originally tried that combo ages ago based on a talk Ansel Adams gave during which he touted that combination highly for 35 mm. (I'm using it in medium format, mostly.) Thanks again for all the information! Howard

-- Howard Posner (hposner1@swarthmore.edu), March 25, 2002.

I compared Ted Kaufman's chemical quanties and dilutions with Pat Gainer's original article (1+3) and found that Ted's (1A + 1B + 14H20) are twice as dilute. The film I developed with Ted's recommended dilution was a bit underdeveloped, even at 12 minutes @ 70F. I adjusted Ted's two part stock concentrate dilution to distilled water ratio for the working solution to 1A+1B+6H2O and got great results using a Jobo processor at 8-1/2 minutes @ 70F for Delta 400. I like this developer!

Ted mentioned that he recently had a conversation with Pat Gainer, the inventor of this developer, and that Pat said he now replaces the Borax and Sodium Hydroxide (Ted's stock solution B) with Sodium Metaborate (marketed by Kodak as Kodalk). I never did like working with Red Devil lye, so this new twist interests me.

A little Google sniffing and I ran across Chris Patton's web page on modifying Pat's formula to use Sodium Metaborate:

(http://www.stanford.edu/~cpatton/yingui/pg.htm).

I haven't tried this yet, but here is my paraphrase of Chris' recipe using Ted's Stock A and Stock B solution approach with my own 1:1:6 dilution adjustment:

Vitamin C + Metol + Sodium Metaborate Developer:

Stock A: 1L distilled water 500ml distilled water 16g ascorbic acid 8g ascorbic acid 2.1g metol 1.0g metol

Stock B: 1L distilled water 500ml distilled water 64g sodium metaborate 32g sodium metaborate

To make working solution, mix 1A + 1B + 6H2O (distilled) Use D76 times and temps.

-- Steve Wahl (stevenbwahl@earthlink.net), March 26, 2002.

Shoot, my columns were not preserved in my previous posting. Again, here is my paraphrase of Chris Patton's sodium metaborate enhancement to Pat Gainer's formula using Ted Kaufman's Stock A and Stock B solution approach with my own 1:1:6 dilution adjustment contribution (whew! credit where it is due):

Vitamin C + Metol + Sodium Metaborate Developer

For 1 liter Stock A and Stock B solutions:

Stock A: 1L distilled water + 16g ascorbic acid + 2.1g metol

Stock B: 1L distilled water + 64g sodium metaborate

For 500ml Stock A and Stock B solutions:

Stock A: 500ml distilled water + 8g ascorbic acid + 1g metol Stock B: 500ml distilled water + 32g sodium metaborate

To make working solution, 1A + 1B + 6H20 (distilled)

Use D76 times and temperatures.

-- Steve Wahl (stevenbwahl@earthlink.net), March 26, 2002.

Based on my experiments, vitamin C developers are very good in two rather extreme conditions. (1) high concentration of reductants, low pH, moderate sulfites. This condition is in agreement with what's described in XTOL patent. (2) low concentration, low sulfites, high pH. This is more like Ilfosol-S and original Gainer formula. However, I don't understand the benefit of compromising in the middle by switching to hydroxide + borax or metaborate solution. If smoother midtone gradation and finer grain without losing sharpness is the purpose, I see D-76Ad (1+1 or more dilute) type formula is better suited (With films like HP5+ and TX, it's hard to lose sharpness. The appearance of each visible grain is also still crisp.). Gainer states in his article that one of his aim was to reduce the sulfite use in the formula. If that's the purpose, I think the resulting formula is reasonable, though I prefer some 30g/L left at the working strength (100g/L is too much and unnecessary).

Also, I see ascorbic acid and metol getting oxidised together even in acidic solutions of high sulfite/bisulfite concentrations. Even if you prepare split solution, I recommend to keep them in gas-tight containers and spend them rather quickly, especially because Gainer-type formula omits a preservative. (One might argue food products employ vitamin C as a preservative, but those products have relatively short shelf life once the container is opened - maybe 1 to 2 weeks at most.)

Just my random observation.

-- Ryuji Suzuki (rsuzuki@rs.cncdsl.com), March 27, 2002.

Sorry, I forgot to respond to Howard's comment. My red blood cells are attacked by my red wine.

I can't say much because when you say "incredibly" fine grained, I don't know how fine you mean. I once exposed HP5+ at EI 100 and processed in HC-110 1+11 but the resulting image was still as grainy as in ID-11 1+1, and much more grainy as in D-76Ad 1+1. People seem to agree that EKC silently changed their formula for HC-110 at least once, some even proceed to say a few times, in the past. HC-110 could be finer grain developer before, but because I started photography about the time Panatomic-X discontinued, I don't have a real feeling for the older HC-110.

It has been my experience that with HC-110 lower concentration than dilution B is favorable in terms of apparent grain, highlight retention and tonality with all of a few films I tried. However, HC-110 is an incredibly low concentration formula, and HP5+ is a very chemically greedy film, so I gave up on this combination a while ago. With films like TMX and APX25, HC-110 at half concentration of dil B works pretty well, though with TMX you get metallic look.

If you look at my home page, my chicken soup for HP5+ is D-76 like ascorbic acid formula at 1+1, and my gumbo soup for TMX is something like Ilfosol-S but without hydroquinone but with some more buffering effect. Going back to your original question, I think vitamin C formulae can strike a better balance between various qualities compared to MQ, and in particular I think there is no penalty (only some benefit) to move from D-76 1+1 to its ascorbic acid counterpart except it costs a nickel more and you can't buy it from your local stores... If you live near Boston, you can buy from me, of course, but it would be a lot cheaper to mix yourself :-)

-- Ryuji Suzuki (rsuzuki@rs.cncdsl.com), March 27, 2002.

Hi, Thanks for all the useful replies. Steve, are you suggesting that we use the dilution you posted? Are you certain that the Gainer formula is 1:6 not 1:14? Just checking. Ryuji, thanks for all the information. I cannot address the issue of HC110 formula possibly being 'modified' by Kodak throughout the years. I've not seen any difference in my negs and Kodak denied to me by phone that there had been any changes....but who knows for sure? (The one emulsion I KNOW for sure they have changed is Kodachrome 25. I cannot even begin to approach the quality of slides today, that I got in the '60s! That film gave absolutely perfect color rendition in the 60s! When I say 'perfect', I mean the colors were 'as is', not jazzed up the way some slide films do today do. Kinda like listening to a high-end stereo and them turning the BASS and or TREBLE way, way up. In the 60's, 'what you see is what you got' on slide. I can easily make 13X19 prints today from 35mm slides developed in the 60s.) And, Kodachrome 25 slides from the 60s are still perfect in their color rendition. They show no signs of degradation at all. Kodak told me, at the time, they would last for at least 50 years.That figure has to be WAY conservative since they are now 40 years old.) Using dil. B and Tri-X, the grain is so fine as to not be visible in any reasonable enlargement from 6X7s. That is what I meant by 'incredibly fine grain'. I guess that term, in truth, should be reserved for a film such as Panatomic X, which I used for many years with great pleasure. Thanks! Howard

-- Howard Posner (hposner1@swarthmore.edu), March 27, 2002.

Howard, the dilution I gave was 1:1:6, or add one part stock A to one part stock B and then add 6 parts water. Or if you like, simply add 1/2 of a part of A and B together, and of this total amount, add 3 equal parts distilled water. Pat Gainer's original recipe specifies a 1+3 dilution for film. My 1:1:6 is faithful to that when using Ted's stock A and stock B solution approach. I chatted with Ted about this last evening and he graciously conceded that his 1:1:14 dilution was in error, but regardless of that error, seems to work well using hand tanks and low agitation.

As for the shelf-life longevity or the wisdom of the chemistry in this developer recipe, I'll leave that to smarter people than myself. All I can say is that I agree with Ted's superlatives when describing the results of this developer recipe.

-- Steve Wahl (stevenbwahl@earthlink.net), March 27, 2002.

Hi, I did some testing yesterday and came up with film speeds about 1/2 stop slower than I am used to for Tri-X and for FP-4. For those of you who have tried this formula, is this your experience, too? It made me wonder if my Spotmeter is off. Howard

-- Howard Posner (hposner1@swarthmore.edu), March 30, 2002.

Call me stupid , but... I thought the 1:1:14 dilution was because the stock solution is diluted at 1+3 which makes the equivilent of D76. Then if you wanted D76 @ 1:1 you dilute the solution again i.e. twice as much water. Becuse the solution is made up of two parts then you halve the amount of developer solution again. Ta da - 1:1:14. The problem here is that I too have been getting thin negatives with this developer and blamed it on my old-ish Metol. So I dunno.

-- Ruby Trubin (poozled@yahoo.co.nz), April 09, 2002.