[pure-silver] Re: Old Agfa 120 Brown Black Developer {120 (Potassium Version) print developer}
- From: Lloyd Erlick <lloyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:49:01 -0500
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.
Other related posts:
