[pure-silver] Re: Old Agfa 120 Brown Black Developer {120 (Potassium Version) print developer}

Lloyd,
The Agfa paper did tone brown, but it was darker than I wanted, but toned much more than I expected for not being a warm tone paper. As far as the Bergger went, the brown was what I expected, but not the whites. I tried to find an example of what is in my head, but to no avail. I imagine I just need some more practice and tweaking my process. My negatives were pretty dense, which may have contributed which may be one of the reasons my whites were not what I expected. 


Tim Eitniear
Chicago, Il



On Jan 30, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Lloyd Erlick wrote:


January 30, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

This is fascinating.
Since the Agfa material is no longer made, I guess it's moot, but did the 
Agfa paper tone to the chocolate brown you wanted?
Also, regarding the Bergger results, were the whites too white for your taste? You say they were not very creamy... (I'm asking because, strangely enough, I like warm-tone blacks and grays, but I like the whites to sparkle whitely. I find Ilford Warmtone FB paper pretty good in this regard; the 
whites are quite white, but less so than the base of their RC glossy
material.)

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@xxxxxxxxxxxx
________________________________
--





At 06:00 AM 1/30/2007 , Tim wrote:

I was able to do some testing over the weekend using the Agfa 110
recipe.  I could not get the potassium sulfite / Carbonate...... that
will be for a future test.  I tried two different papers using a 2x2
neg enlarged to 8x10.

The first paper I used was Agfa MCC-111 glossy.  I exposed the print
for 50.8 sec at f8 and toned for 30 min in Selenium for 30 min and
obtained a Dark brown color shift.

The second paper I used was Bergger Warmtone Paper (cream based).
This was the first time I had ever used this paper and learned
quickly that my safe light was not so safe for this paper.  This
paper is also very slow.  The same neg took 90 seconds exposure at f4
to produce the same results as the Agfa paper.  When toned in
selenium for 30 min, I was able to obtain the chocolate brown I was
after, but the whites were not very creamy. More work to be done there. 

I also noticed that the developer was very temperature sensitive,
which sent me down the wrong path.  I could not understand why the
longer I was exposing the paper, why I was not getting better print.
I measured the developer and the temperature had fallen to ~ 60F.
After warming up the developer, things returned back to normal.

Tim


Tim Eitniear
Chicago, Il



On Jan 26, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Tim Eitniear wrote:


Cor,
    To your point, I did some research on the chemical conversions
I found
the following two posts. In fact Lloyd's name was associated with the 
posts.


I made the remark; it originally came from The Darkroom Cookbook,
concerning
potassium carbonate, and I extended it to sulfite.  The latter is
available
from Photographer's Formulary at $16/lb.  It doesn't specify the
hydration
status; the ratio of K2SO3 to Na2SO3 is 158/126, or about 1.25.  I
believe
that the ratio of the carbonates is one of the hundreds or so
errors still
in the darkroom cookbook (the "corrected" edition); K2CO3/
Na2CO3.H2O  is
138/124, so DIVIDE, not multiply, the amount of sodium carbonate by
0.9 to
substitute the potassium version.
I recently did a series of tests on Agfa MCC using warm and cold
developers,
substituting only the carbonate, not the sulfite; and potassium
makes a
final print that is noticeably warmer, especially after sepia
toning.  I
plan to mix the developer with both potassium salts next time I use
a warm
developer; I guess I or someone ought to compare potassium carbonate
developers with each sulfite salt to see how big the difference is.
Note that with cold papers, the differences resulting from these
kind of
changes is tiny, and often imperceptible.
I don't know how difficult K2SO3 is to keep in dry form; the jar is
still
sitting on my shelf.  I don't see why it would be any harder to
keep than
the sodium version, which is ubiquitous.



You should be able to substitute potassium carbonate for sodium
carbonate
without concern, however, keep it tightly capped and dry, since it



absorbs water from the air.  The molecular weights are:
potassium carbonate               K2CO3           138.2
sodium carbonate                  Na2CO3         106
sodium carbonate monohydrate       Na2CO3*H2O      124
If potassium carbonate is used rather than anhydrous sodium carbonate, 
the factor is 138.2/106 = 1.3X (1.30 g potassium carbonate used for
each
gram of anhydrous sodium carbonate required).
If potassium carbonate is used rather than sodium carbonate
monohydrate,
the factor is 138.2/124 = 1.11X (not 0.9X).
If sodium carbonates are substituted for potassium carbonate, the
factors
are the inverses of those given above (anhydrous, 0.77X; monohydrate, 
0.9X).
Both sodium and potassium carbonates give nearly the same pH, and the 
differences in development should not be evident if the correct
amount is
substituted. Using much less carbonate than specified may warm image 
tone, but generally, developers don't affect tone very much compared
to other factors (paper, toners, etc.).
Benzotriazole might cool the image tone; usually, bromide (or
developer
reuse) lends a warm or greenish cast, but improves high value
separation
due to its restraining action.  Both exposure (more) and developing
time
(longer) should be adjusted if significant amounts of restrainer
are used.
Adding more carbonate to a developer to which bromide has been
added or
has accumulated, will cool the tone and decrease developing times, but 
retain high value separation.  Using the factorial timing approach
described by Adams is convenient to adjust times after additions (10% 
solutions of KBr and Na2CO3 are convenient).

Tim






On 1/25/07 4:06 AM, "C.Breukel@xxxxxxx" <C.Breukel@xxxxxxx> wrote:



}


January 24, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,
regarding Ansco 120 print developer:

Thus: 12 g sodium sulfite anhydrous for one liter of *working*

solution.
The working solution I use contains 13.5 grams of potassium sulfite anhydrous. I've forgotten the arduous calculation that led to this, 
but

the
solution works very nicely indeed. Maybe those more chemically adept 
than

I
am can correct my numbers ...




..ok I take the "challenge"..:-)..

molecular weight sodium sulfite: 126,04
molecular weight potassium sulfite: 158,26

So 12 g sodium sulfite equels  (158,26/126,04)*12 = 1,26 * 12 =
15,12 g
potassium sulfite.
A bit more than you use now, bit it ain't rocket scince, it probably 
won't matter too much..

Best,

Cor
=================================================================== == 
=========
==============================To unsubscribe from this list, go to
www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail
address and
password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
==================================================================== == 
=======================================



To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to
your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when
you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
===================================================================== ====== 
==================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your 
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
====================================================================== ======================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there. 

=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your 
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) 
and unsubscribe from there.

Other related posts: