Is my Microphen formula correct?

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

Ornello
Posts: 863
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Is my Microphen formula correct?

Post by Ornello » Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:37 pm

ID-68 is the one to use.

http://www.digitaltruth.com/data/ilford_id68.php

http://www.lostlabours.co.uk/photograph ... evID68.htm

This stuff is all over the internet. Nothing new here.


Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: Is my Microphen formula correct?

Post by Keith Tapscott. » Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:17 am

The formula for Microphen has never been in the public domain and neither has it's replenisher. Glycin is not mentioned in the MSDS.

Ilfotec DDX and the dip & dunk developer Ilfotec DD take Microphen, Autophen and the published ID-68 relative to it's next logical stage as liquid concentrates. Microphen will most likely remain a trade secret.

As Ornello mentioned, try ID-68.

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: Is my Microphen formula correct?

Post by Keith Tapscott. » Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:28 am

By the way, Phenidone is used in Micro-PHEN (hence it's name )and requires hydroquinone as a super-additive agent. Phenidone on it's own has poor keeping and produces very low contrast without it.

Ornello
Posts: 863
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Is my Microphen formula correct?

Post by Ornello » Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:15 am

Microphen is most likely a refined version of ID-68, perhaps with additives for buffering and a slightly different proportion of phenidone and hydroquinone.

KennyE
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:49 am
Location: Waterford, Michigan USA

Re: Is my Microphen formula correct?

Post by KennyE » Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:50 pm

Two of my earlier post were deleted due to error. But I ask the question, "Is my Microphen Formula is correct. And the answer is no it was not.

Photographic Possibilities: The Expressive Use of Ideas, Materials and Processes: By Robert Hirsch, John Valentino, list on page 75 the Microphen formula. That same formula is also listed in "The Amateur Photographer's Handbook" 8th edition on page 375, by Aaron Sussman.

Water 750ml
Sodium Sulfite 100 grams
Hydroquinone 5 gram
Borax 3 gram
Boric Acid 3.5 gram
Phenidone 0.3 gram
Potassium Bromide 1 gram
Water to make 1 Liter

Thank You

KennyE

IanG
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:56 am

Autophen

Post by IanG » Mon Aug 05, 2013 7:19 am

The Formula for Autophen an Ilford photo-finishing developer itself a variant of ID-11 is:

Sodium Sulphite 100 g
Hydroquinone 5 g
Borax 3 g
Boric Acid 3.5 g
Phenidone 0.2 g
Potassium Bromide 1 g
Water to 1 litre

This has been mistakenly listed as Microphen in many US publications.

Ian

KennyE
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:49 am
Location: Waterford, Michigan USA

Re: Is my Microphen formula correct?

Post by KennyE » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:56 am

Hello Ian, how are you today?

A few years back, Keith made the post sited below, on another thread dealing with this same subject. Do you happen to know what the formula listed below is? It is not like any Microphen formula that I have seen. It got my interest because Edward Lowe like to include T.S.P., in many of his formulas, like those in his famous 1939 book. Could this be one of his unknown formulas?

Hydroquinone with Metol and Phenidone.
Keith Tapscott. » Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:23 am
I saw this formula on a web site which is claimed to behave identically to Ilford Microphen, although I can not verify that. I did not see a formula for a replenisher though.
Pentax-Pete who post here sometimes might know.

Sodium Tripolyphosphate 3.4 gms
Sodium Sulphite anhyd 100.0gms
Sodium Metabisulphite 0.65 gm
Hydroquinone 5.0 gms
Phenidone 0.2 gm
Boric Acid 2.7 gms
Borax 6.8 gms
Potassium Bromide 1.0 gm
Water to make 1 Litre

Thank You

KennyE

IanG
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:56 am

Re: Is my Microphen formula correct?

Post by IanG » Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:00 am

It's just one of Ilford's PQ variants of ID-11. It may well have been the formula for a powdered version of Autophen. It was quite common to use Metabisulphite as a preservative to prevent oxidisation of the developing agents (usually Part A) in the packaging, both Ilford & Kodak have done this with various powder developers.

Ian

KennyE
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:49 am
Location: Waterford, Michigan USA

Re: Is my Microphen formula correct?

Post by KennyE » Thu Aug 08, 2013 5:05 pm

Thank You Ian, I will make a note of that information it in my research.

Thank You

KennyE

KennyE
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:49 am
Location: Waterford, Michigan USA

Re: Is my Microphen formula correct?

Post by KennyE » Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:22 pm

I swear..., I will never give up on anyone or anything.

Through my research looking for information dealing with other subjects. I came across information on Ilford's "Microphen" formula. At first, I did not paid much attention to it, until Ilford's name came across it. Then Kendall, Axford, and others were mention in the text.

I sat the text aside, got a tall glass of ice apple juice and sat again and started reading the article again.

The article was a United States Air Force article on using and developing film for use at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Which we all know was the first Area 51.

It was talking about the use of Kodak Royal X Pan sheet film and its development and the best use of a good developer. They mention that they once used Panthermic 777 developer. But that the company had closed and its owner (Harold L. Harvey) had past away earlier that year (January 1971).

By the way, the article was dated October 14, 1971. But posted December 11, 1973

Later in the article they starting talking about the Filmline S90 Spray processor and the developers used.

The article states that the USAF obtained the Ilford Microphen formula for their use for tank and spray processor use.

Here is the formula:

Phenidone 2.0 garms
Sodium Sulfite 40 grams
Glycin 10 grams
Sodium Bisulfite 25 grams
Sodium Metaborate 25 grams
Water to make 1 liter

So Keith, you stated earlier that there was no Glycin mention in the papers you reviewed, well it shows that there may be some after all.

The article list Great Britain Patent #761,301, I can not get that patent, my membership has expired. But maybe you can.

The article was written by Simeon Braunstein USAF Research Admin.

If you get the time, can you assist me with the GBP, so I can see if this article is correct in any form.

And yes it list a replenisher as well. It is the same as the formula, but the sodium metaborate is 50 grams, everything else is the same.
Tank development @ 12min 68F., processor @ 2min 85F.

Thank you

KennyE

KennyE
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:49 am
Location: Waterford, Michigan USA

Re: Is my Microphen formula correct?

Post by KennyE » Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:00 am

I am updating my last post.

After a mad dash of research, I was told by my source that I could not post the NATO defense article, because it has not been cleared for release. Or permission for its public release has not been cleared yet. It must be cleared through channels.

But I continued my research, and I feel that I will soon have all the information on many of the items that I seek. Yet in the mean time this is what I have. Because all items imported to the USA must be cataloged at the USA FDA office listing it contents and MDS sheets filed. The EPA office also will have a copy. So I am on it

The article speaks of the USAF, using Microphen for their recon missions. They are using two black and white cameras, two heat sensing cameras, color cameras, and their new high freq. sonar camera using their radar antennas for sound transponder functions at the time. Why high freq.? The Baltic is not that deep, when compared to other water areas on Earth.

Anyway, the article gets deep into national defense.

But, the article speaks of the use of Microphen, giving the Ilford's formula, then the mod. formula done by the USAF for use in developing 2314 feet rolls of and stills of 35MM film, black and white.

Listed in my first post was the USAF mod. formula of Microphen. Using the sodium metaborate, which allowed them to stay true to the Microphen formula, yet adding hydrates to speed up development.

Ilfords's formula is define as being from GB761301 (which I now have a copy). This is approved true by USP #3778267, #2753265, and other sources.

Here is the defined Ilford formula for Microphen, base on the research so far.

Phenidone 0.2-4 grams
Sodium Sulfite 90 grams
Glycin 5 grams
Sodium Carbonate 2.0 grams
Borax 2.0 grams
Water to make 1 liter

I feel two to three week is needed to go through the files at the FDA and EPA, to confirm and lock down the items that I seek. Now that I discovered that the FDA and EPA requires that information on all imported chemicals, new foods/food types not imported before be cataloged. I can check there. I will check the FDA offices first, they are the older agency.

Thank You

KennyE






Ornello
Posts: 863
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Is my Microphen formula correct?

Post by Ornello » Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:38 pm

KennyE wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:00 am
I am updating my last post.



Here is the defined Ilford formula for Microphen, base on the research so far.

Phenidone 0.2-4 grams
Sodium Sulfite 90 grams
Glycin 5 grams
Sodium Carbonate 2.0 grams
Borax 2.0 grams
Water to make 1 liter

I feel two to three week is needed to go through the files at the FDA and EPA, to confirm and lock down the items that I seek. Now that I discovered that the FDA and EPA requires that information on all imported chemicals, new foods/food types not imported before be cataloged. I can check there. I will check the FDA offices first, they are the older agency.

Thank You

KennyE

Seems like a variation on D-76 with Phenidone instead of Metol, and Glycin instead of Hydroquinone.

KennyE
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:49 am
Location: Waterford, Michigan USA

Re: Is my Microphen formula correct?

Post by KennyE » Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:01 pm

I got a copy of the SDS sheet from Digitaltruth. It states that Hydroquinone and Boric Aid are chemicals of the developer Microphen.

This is very strange to me, because the US Military would not use Microphen if its make up was similar to, or close to D-76 as well as D-76d. Because they have tons of D-76, known as Developer D, DK50 known as Developer C, and D-19 known as Developer B.

They wanted something better, permitting greater detail and sharpness, so they chose Microphen, as stated in the article.

If they are using Hydroquinone as well..., in place of Gylcin, in their Microphen formula, it must be formulated for the same or similar results as stated in the information that I have. But remember that Hydroquinone dies off more quickly in solutions than Metol, Phenidone, or Gylcin; in most solutions

So I have another link to follow. I love a mystery.


Thank You

KennyE
Last edited by KennyE on Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ornello
Posts: 863
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Is my Microphen formula correct?

Post by Ornello » Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:43 pm

KennyE wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:01 pm
I got a copy of the SDS sheet from Digitaltruth. It states that Hydroquinone and Boric Aid are chemicals of the developer of Microphen.

This is very strange to me,because the US Military would not use Microphen if its make up was that similar or close to D-76 or D-76d. Because they have tons of D-76, known as Developer D, DK50 known as Developer C, and D-19 known as Developer B.

They wanted something better, permitting greater detail and sharpness, so they chose Microphen, as stated in the article.

If they are using Hydroquinone as welln in place of Gylcin, in their Microphen, it must formulated for the same or similar results as stated in the information that I have. But remember that Hydroquinone dies off more quickly that Metol, Phenidone, or Gylcin; in most solutions

So I have another link to follow. I love a mystery.


Thank You

KennyE
The formulas can be close but still have significantly different properties. Phenidone offers speed advantages over Metol, and formulas using Phenidone instead of Metol in otherwise similar formulas are common.

KennyE
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:49 am
Location: Waterford, Michigan USA

Re: Is my Microphen formula correct?

Post by KennyE » Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:19 pm

I got into the FDA data base and went through their data sheets and information on imported products from Ilford and Afga going back to 1959 for Ilford and 1962 for AFGA/Ansco. I will be going through all of the data that I have. To see what is public and what is not.

Looking at the chemical percentage range rates, I formulated this formula for Microphen.

Microphen Fine Grain Developer

Metric
Water (160 deg. F) 500 ml
Phenidone 0.3 gm.
Sodium Sulfite, anhydrous 90.0 gm.
Hydroquinone 2.5 gm.
Glycin 5.0 gm.
Borax 2.5 gm.
Boric Acid 1.5 gm.
Cold water to make 1000 ml.

I do not feel that Microphen, is any better than what I use 60% of the time. I was hoping for something new, something different..., that would blow my socks off.

I use Ansco 130 mod., by replacing the sodium carbonate with 15 grams of sodium metaborate. And diluting it 1:8 for 120/sheet film, and 1:10 for 35mm. I use the original formula for paper prints.

I used Phenidone in my 130..., when I ran out of Metol, and results were not so good at first, but when I got the right level of Phenidone in the formula, about 500 mg everything was find.

It is good to have the information.

Thank You

KennyE

Post Reply