Stöckler formula

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: mythology

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:06 am

Jay DeFehr wrote:The idea that 2-bath development is inherently better or worse than single bath development is pure mythology. Either approach is capable of the same results, and each has strenghths and weaknesses. If one doesn't know how to use either approach, results are sure to disappoint.

Jay
As you already know, two-bath developers work by having a low energy fore-bath usually just containing developing agent(s) and preservative. Kodak D-23 or similar is typical with the second bath containing the excellerator like Borax, Metaborate or Carbonate. The good points are ease of use and good keeping properties and they are highly compensating, if the development is increased, you get slightly better shadows with out excessive density in the highlights (film exposure of course is important here) but an inevitable compression in the midtones which can make the prints look very flat.
Two-bath developers have their devotees and if they like the look, then fine, but it`s not to everyones liking and if these developers did everything that the two-bath devotees claim, then the major film manufacturers would have them in their range of processing chemicals too.
The fact that they don`t, says something. This also applies to the many Pyro & Catechol formulations which are being touted as miracle developers by the self styled Guru`s who formulate them.


Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: mythology

Postby Ornello » Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:55 am

Keith Tapscott. wrote:
Jay DeFehr wrote:The idea that 2-bath development is inherently better or worse than single bath development is pure mythology. Either approach is capable of the same results, and each has strenghths and weaknesses. If one doesn't know how to use either approach, results are sure to disappoint.

Jay
As you already know, two-bath developers work by having a low energy fore-bath usually just containing developing agent(s) and preservative. Kodak D-23 or similar is typical with the second bath containing the excellerator like Borax, Metaborate or Carbonate. The good points are ease of use and good keeping properties and they are highly compensating, if the development is increased, you get slightly better shadows with out excessive density in the highlights (film exposure of course is important here) but an inevitable compression in the midtones which can make the prints look very flat.
Two-bath developers have their devotees and if they like the look, then fine, but it`s not to everyones liking and if these developers did everything that the two-bath devotees claim, then the major film manufacturers would have them in their range of processing chemicals too.
The fact that they don`t, says something. This also applies to the many Pyro & Catechol formulations which are being touted as miracle developers by the self styled Guru`s who formulate them.
Exactly. The same applies to stand development and rotary processing.

Although there is room for a few specialist products, the fact remains that single-solution phenidone-hydroquinone or metol-hydroquinone developers (used with intermittent agitation) are generally the easiest to use, most reliable, and provide all the quality that one normally needs. My results with gylcin, in a two-solution set-up, were of insufficient quality for what I needed.

Jay DeFehr
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:40 pm

2-bath

Postby Jay DeFehr » Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:33 pm

Keith,

you're mistaken on several counts. First, not all 2-bath developer work the same way; some allow for contrast conrol, others do not. Second, there is no "inevitable" compression in midtones with all 2-bath developers. Perhaps your experience with 2-bath developers is limited to a few similar ones. Third, which developers are manufactured by the giants has much more to do with profitability than effectiveness. Kodak has migrated from Pyro to hydroquinone, and from hydroquinone to ascorbates. Do you believe that the research engineers at Kodak didn't know about ascorbates until the '80s, when they developed Xtol? In any case, any reasonably astute person can make a side by side comparison of developers and determine for themselves the relative efectiveness of each, and anyone with a working knowledge of sensitometry, and the equipment to do the work can tell you everything you need to know about a film/developer combination. I've done the work and don't have to rely on supposition or inference to support my conclusions.


Mike,

A few failed experiments on the part of a single worker of dubious technical knowledge do not form the basis for a reliable conclusion. I will not argue that MQ or PQ developers used with standard intermittnet agitation can be perfectly adequate for the needs of most users, but I will also not discount the many other formulations and/or techniques that are capable of results not posible with standard MQ/PQ developers and standard agitation. These two facts are not mutually exclusive. If you want to convince me that my results are invalid, you'll have to do a lot better than "I tried it and it didn't work". Your hyperbole is wasted on me, and better directed at those newbies who are still impressed by unfounded confidence, and swayed by ill-informed statements of "fact". Good luck to you.

Jay

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: 2-bath

Postby Ornello » Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:13 pm

Jay DeFehr wrote:Keith,

Mike,

A few failed experiments on the part of a single worker of dubious technical knowledge do not form the basis for a reliable conclusion. I will not argue that MQ or PQ developers used with standard intermittnet agitation can be perfectly adequate for the needs of most users, but I will also not discount the many other formulations and/or techniques that are capable of results not posible with standard MQ/PQ developers and standard agitation. These two facts are not mutually exclusive. If you want to convince me that my results are invalid, you'll have to do a lot better than "I tried it and it didn't work". Your hyperbole is wasted on me, and better directed at those newbies who are still impressed by unfounded confidence, and swayed by ill-informed statements of "fact". Good luck to you.

Jay
Jay, what you wrote is not incompatible with what I wrote. I tried several formulation experiments with glycin and potassium carbonate. I varied the concentrations of glycin and carbonate over a wide range, as well as the development times. No matter what I tried, I got:

1) Poor speed

2) Uneven development

These tests convinced me that two-solution baths using glycin and carbonate were unlikely to be worth pursuing further. The trials also discouraged me from trying metol in a two-bath system, because glycin, according to the literature, is better for this sort of approach. The literature may be wrong, but my trials certainly were extensive enough to give me sufficient data for a conclusion.

There is very little to be gained from developers other than PQ or MQ and intermittent agitatation. That does not mean, howver, that specialist materials have no value at all. But it does mean that chasing after the subtle qualities of pyro are a waste of time for most people.

Jay DeFehr
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:40 pm

testing

Postby Jay DeFehr » Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:33 pm

Mike,

is it possible you're confusing glycin's traditional use in stand development with 2-bath development? I'm not at all surprised that your glycin-carbonate developers were unsatisfactory. Why would you choose that approach instead of using a proven formula, like Stoeckler's? What literature have you read that suggests glycin is better suited to 2-bath development than metol? I've used, and even formulated several 2-bath developers that produce excellent results, but none of them contain glycin.

There is nothing magical about phenidone, metol or hydroquinone in themselves, and nothing that can't be duplicated using other compounds. Pyrogallol, catechol and other staining developers work in a different way from non-staining agents, and if one knows how to exploit their characteristics, much can be gained. If MQ/PQ developers meet your needs, why bother with glycin-carbonate 2-bath experiments?

Jay

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: testing

Postby Ornello » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:34 am

Jay DeFehr wrote:Mike,

is it possible you're confusing glycin's traditional use in stand development with 2-bath development? I'm not at all surprised that your glycin-carbonate developers were unsatisfactory. Why would you choose that approach instead of using a proven formula, like Stoeckler's? What literature have you read that suggests glycin is better suited to 2-bath development than metol? I've used, and even formulated several 2-bath developers that produce excellent results, but none of them contain glycin.

There is nothing magical about phenidone, metol or hydroquinone in themselves, and nothing that can't be duplicated using other compounds. Pyrogallol, catechol and other staining developers work in a different way from non-staining agents, and if one knows how to exploit their characteristics, much can be gained. If MQ/PQ developers meet your needs, why bother with glycin-carbonate 2-bath experiments?

Jay
The literature (Jacobsen) suggested that glycin is better suited for this approach than metol. Glycin is supposed to be better with stand-type processes, and two-bath is essentially a stand-type process. It is supposed to streak less than metol, and be less sensitive to bromide suppression: exactly what you want in a two-bath developer. I may have been mistaken in trying glycin instead of metol, but I doubt that significantly different results would be obtained with metol.

The experiment was my last-ditch effort to get something usable from T-Max 400. I was trying to change the curve shape to resemble that of Tri-X more closely. After this failure, I gave up on TMY for good.

The vast majority of workers have no use for, and absolutely nothing to gain by, pyrogallol, catechol or other staining developers. There could be some problems with toxicity (there are conflicting data), and difficulties with VC papers compared to graded papers. All in all, the use of pyrogallol, catechol, etc., is not recommended for most workers. These are specialist products, to be used only by those who desire some unusual properties and have the time and money to spend on getting them. These days, not many people have an interest in contact-printing 8x10 or 11x14 negatives on Azo. Those who do are certainly well-served by pyro, because of the nature of pyro staining development and blue-sensitive Azo paper. But such users are a tiny minority in today's world, however common this combination may have been in 1925.
Last edited by Ornello on Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: 2-bath

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:50 am

Jay DeFehr wrote:Keith,

you're mistaken on several counts. First, not all 2-bath developer work the same way; some allow for contrast conrol, others do not. Second, there is no "inevitable" compression in midtones with all 2-bath developers. Perhaps your experience with 2-bath developers is limited to a few similar ones.

Jay, my experience with two-bath developer was Stoeklers/Leitz formula which was sold packaged by a company in the UK. I followed the instructions to letter and didn`t like the tonality, I also tried varying the development times and even the contrast grade of the papers I was printing on, but no joy. As you say, there are probably different types of two-baths as there are single solution formulas, I haven`t tried them hence my limited experience as you say.

Third, which developers are manufactured by the giants has much more to do with profitability than effectiveness.

Sorry Jay, but can`t agree. Proprietory two-baths sold commercially like Diafine and Tetenal Emofin are hardly more expensive to buy than regular single solutions, given the weak dilutions that Rodinal is sometimes used, it could hardly have been much profitable to Agfa over the many decades that is was/is available.

Kodak has migrated from Pyro to hydroquinone, and from hydroquinone to ascorbates. Do you believe that the research engineers at Kodak didn't know about ascorbates until the '80s, when they developed Xtol?

Ilford were using ascorbates in developers way long before Xtol was introduced, Ilfosol, Ilfosol 2,Ilfosol S. I suspect Kodak and Agfa were experimenting with ascorbates decades ago too.

In any case, any reasonably astute person can make a side by side comparison of developers and determine for themselves the relative efectiveness of each, and anyone with a working knowledge of sensitometry, and the equipment to do the work can tell you everything you need to know about a film/developer combination.

So I am unreasonable? Not all B&W film and developer combinations give a `look` that suits everyone, what suits one individual may not suit another so personal preferences play a role. What`s the point of using a film & developer combination that yields ultra-fine grain, high resolution and sharpness if you don`t like the tonality? If you like a particular combo, then all well and good, but if not, then switch to something else.

I've done the work and don't have to rely on supposition or inference to support my conclusions.

Fine by me, you know what you like and what works for you.



Mike,

A few failed experiments on the part of a single worker of dubious technical knowledge do not form the basis for a reliable conclusion.

Somewhere between 1997 and 2001, I was learning the zone-system methods from the books of Ansel Adams and took tuition from Barry Thornton and Harry fearn who were well known ZS tutors in the UK, I followed their methods and instructions carefully under their own personal guidance, so if my technical ability is "dubious" as you put it, then so too was the ability of my tutors, please tell me where you think I may have erred.
Barry used the two-bath method regularly with his own films, I wasn`t too impressed with the tonality of the prints he made from the two-bath negatives either, much preferred his Perceptol ones.


I will not argue that MQ or PQ developers used with standard intermittnet agitation can be perfectly adequate for the needs of most users, but I will also not discount the many other formulations and/or techniques that are capable of results not posible with standard MQ/PQ developers and standard agitation. These two facts are not mutually exclusive. If you want to convince me that my results are invalid, you'll have to do a lot better than "I tried it and it didn't work". Your hyperbole is wasted on me, and better directed at those newbies who are still impressed by unfounded confidence, and swayed by ill-informed statements of "fact". Good luck to you.

Jay

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: 2-bath

Postby Ornello » Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:04 am

Keith Tapscott. wrote:
Jay DeFehr wrote:Keith,

you're mistaken on several counts. First, not all 2-bath developer work the same way; some allow for contrast conrol, others do not. Second, there is no "inevitable" compression in midtones with all 2-bath developers. Perhaps your experience with 2-bath developers is limited to a few similar ones.

Jay, my experience with two-bath developer was Stoeklers/Leitz formula which was sold packaged by a company in the UK. I followed the instructions to letter and didn`t like the tonality, I also tried varying the development times and even the contrast grade of the papers I was printing on, but no joy. As you say, there are probably different types of two-baths as there are single solution formulas, I haven`t tried them hence my limited experience as you say.

Third, which developers are manufactured by the giants has much more to do with profitability than effectiveness.

Sorry Jay, but can`t agree. Proprietory two-baths sold commercially like Diafine and Tetenal Emofin are hardly more expensive to buy than regular single solutions, given the weak dilutions that Rodinal is sometimes used, it could hardly have been much profitable to Agfa over the many decades that is was/is available.

Kodak has migrated from Pyro to hydroquinone, and from hydroquinone to ascorbates. Do you believe that the research engineers at Kodak didn't know about ascorbates until the '80s, when they developed Xtol?

Ilford were using ascorbates in developers way long before Xtol was introduced, Ilfosol, Ilfosol 2,Ilfosol S. I suspect Kodak and Agfa were experimenting with ascorbates decades ago too.

In any case, any reasonably astute person can make a side by side comparison of developers and determine for themselves the relative efectiveness of each, and anyone with a working knowledge of sensitometry, and the equipment to do the work can tell you everything you need to know about a film/developer combination.

So I am unreasonable? Not all B&W film and developer combinations give a `look` that suits everyone, what suits one individual may not suit another so personal preferences play a role. What`s the point of using a film & developer combination that yields ultra-fine grain, high resolution and sharpness if you don`t like the tonality? If you like a particular combo, then all well and good, but if not, then switch to something else.

I've done the work and don't have to rely on supposition or inference to support my conclusions.

Fine by me, you know what you like and what works for you.



Mike,

A few failed experiments on the part of a single worker of dubious technical knowledge do not form the basis for a reliable conclusion.

Somewhere between 1997 and 2001, I was learning the zone-system methods from the books of Ansel Adams and took tuition from Barry Thornton and Harry fearn who were well known ZS tutors in the UK, I followed their methods and instructions carefully under their own personal guidance, so if my technical ability is "dubious" as you put it, then so too was the ability of my tutors, please tell me where you think I may have erred.
Barry used the two-bath method regularly with his own films, I wasn`t too impressed with the tonality of the prints he made from the two-bath negatives either, much preferred his Perceptol ones.


I will not argue that MQ or PQ developers used with standard intermittnet agitation can be perfectly adequate for the needs of most users, but I will also not discount the many other formulations and/or techniques that are capable of results not posible with standard MQ/PQ developers and standard agitation. These two facts are not mutually exclusive. If you want to convince me that my results are invalid, you'll have to do a lot better than "I tried it and it didn't work". Your hyperbole is wasted on me, and better directed at those newbies who are still impressed by unfounded confidence, and swayed by ill-informed statements of "fact". Good luck to you.

Jay
I did not write what you attributed to me ("A few failed experiments on the part of a single worker of dubious technical knowledge do not form the basis for a reliable conclusion.") Jay wrote that, I believe, addressed to me. Did you read my last post? We are substantially in agreement.

I wrote:

"The literature (Jacobsen) suggested that glycin is better suited for this approach than metol. Glycin is supposed to be better with stand-type processes, and two-bath is essentially a stand-type process. It is supposed to streak less than metol, and be less sensitive to bromide suppression: exactly what you want in a two-bath developer. I may have been mistaken in trying glycin instead of metol, but I doubt that significantly different results would be obtained with metol.

The experiment was my last-ditch effort to get something usable from T-Max 400. I was trying to change the curve shape to resemble that of Tri-X more closely. After this failure, I gave up on TMY for good.

The vast majority of workers have no use for, and absolutely nothing to gain by, pyrogallol, catechol or other staining developers. There could be some problems with toxicity (there are conflicting data), and difficulties with VC papers compared to graded papers. All in all, the use of pyrogallol, catechol, etc., is not recommended for most workers. These are specialist products, to be used only by those who desire some unusual properties and have the time and money to spend on getting them. These days, not many people have an interest in contact-printing 8x10 or 11x14 negatives on Azo. Those who do are certainly well-served by pyro, because of the nature of pyro staining development and blue-sensitive Azo paper. But such users are a tiny minority in today's world, however common this combination may have been in 1925."



I should add:
For those working with roll film and both VC and graded papers, such developers offer no benefits, and do present rather substantial disadvantages and difficulties. Metol alone, and MQ and PQ combinations can be formulated into products with widely varying properties, of differing appropriateness for roll film users. Neofin Blue uses metol and hydroquinone, but it could hardly be more different from Microdol-X, which uses metol too. Negatives developed in either of these developers will print the same on graded or VC paper. Given the versatility of metol, and metol/phenidone-hydroquinone combinations, used in single solutions with intermittent agitation, it is unnecessary for the roll film user to look elsewhere. Advising people to use some very exotic staining-developer product, or to use some very different agitation pattern, is not something that I can, in good conscience, do.
Last edited by Ornello on Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: 2-bath

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:25 pm

[quote="Ornello"]
It was meant to be addressed to Jay, my apologies.

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: 2-bath

Postby Ornello » Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:38 pm

Keith Tapscott. wrote:
Ornello wrote: It was meant to be addressed to Jay, my apologies.
I was confused by your last posts. Are you writing in bold?

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: testing

Postby Ornello » Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:46 pm

Jay DeFehr wrote:Mike,

There is nothing magical about phenidone, metol or hydroquinone in themselves, and nothing that can't be duplicated using other compounds. Pyrogallol, catechol and other staining developers work in a different way from non-staining agents, and if one knows how to exploit their characteristics, much can be gained. If MQ/PQ developers meet your needs, why bother with glycin-carbonate 2-bath experiments?

Jay
I would say quite the reverse:

There is nothing magical about pyrogallol, catechol and other staining developers. Phenidone, metol or hydroquinone in various combinations and with different alkalies and preservatives and solvents can provide an enormous range of products with widely varying properties, and if one knows how to exploit their characteristics, much can be gained. If MQ/PQ developers meet your needs, why bother with pyrogallol, catechol and other staining developers?
Last edited by Ornello on Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: 2-bath

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:01 pm

Ornello wrote:
I was confused by your last posts. Are you writing in bold?[/quote]
My reply to Jay was in bold, sorry for the confusion.

Jay DeFehr
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:40 pm

example

Postby Jay DeFehr » Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:50 pm

I've never posted an image here, and thought I'd give it a try.

Jay


Image


If it works, it's Foma 200 developed in the MC 2-bath formula posted earlier in this thread.

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: example

Postby Ornello » Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:33 am

Jay DeFehr wrote:I've never posted an image here, and thought I'd give it a try.

Jay


Image


If it works, it's Foma 200 developed in the MC 2-bath formula posted earlier in this thread.
I see nothing.

Digitaltruth
Site Admin
Posts: 264
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:24 pm
Contact:

Postby Digitaltruth » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:29 pm

The original link wouldn't work because it is hosted on a server which cannot be accessed externally, but Jay has sent me a copy which you can see below

Image
--Jon Mided

Digitaltruth Photo
http://www.digitaltruth.com


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests