A question for the Chemists about Adox Silvermax Developer

[Anon Ymous]

IIRC it was @stefan4u.

 

[Rudeofus]

User Nikola Dulgiarov did some serious experimentation with the HQ ---> HQMS conversion. He brought up lots of old articles and patents, did careful research and had a well equipped chem lab at his disposal. He did succeed AFAIK, but he was less enthusiastic about the results, i.e. the purification steps were tedious. I recommend you try to contact him before you invest lots of money and effort to replicate his work.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Yeah, it's not trivial at all. It's probably easier to react hydroquinone with sulfuric acid to get hydroquinone monosulfonic acid, but purification is still a bit complicated AFAIK.

It's reasonably priced at Suvatlar, so I lost the incentive to try harder.

 

[Pixophrenic]

Yeah, it's not trivial at all. It's probably easier to react hydroquinone with sulfuric acid to get hydroquinone monosulfonic acid, but purification is still a bit complicated AFAIK.

It's reasonably priced at Suvatlar, so I lost the incentive to try harder.

Thanks for the pointers, I am trying to persuade my local supplier to get pure HQMS from available sources (including Suvatlar and Moersch), but in the meantime I actually got interested in pursuing the "impure" route, as long as it proves simple and reproducible. There is a lot of (controversial) literature on oxidation of hydroquinone, especially as it is considered toxic, but one should not forget that any common developer containing HQ accumulates HQMS as it is being "seasoned", so a mixture of hydroquinone with unspecified oxidation products along with HQMS may be a thing that may "work" in a low contrast developer. So, as heretic as it may sound, purification may not be necessary.

 

[Pixophrenic]

User Nikola Dulgiarov did some serious experimentation with the HQ ---> HQMS conversion. He brought up lots of old articles and patents, did careful research and had a well equipped chem lab at his disposal. He did succeed AFAIK, but he was less enthusiastic about the results, i.e. the purification steps were tedious. I recommend you try to contact him before you invest lots of money and effort to replicate his work.

Thank you, it is good point. This person quite possibly went the same route that I am pursuing, starting with glycin as a replacement for HQMS.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

the same route that I am pursuing, starting with glycin as a replacement for HQMS.

Very interesting! Not to misinterpret what you said, let me ask you a clarification. Are you saying that glycin can be used as replacement for HQMS in general or specifically in your low contrast developer?

 

[runswithsizzers]

When I started this thread, I was guessing that most commercially available developers could be grouped into several categories based on their similarities - and that Silvermax would probably fit into one such group. Apparently, that was a naive assumption, and Silvermax developer is not really similar to any other commercial developer, right?

Per <Adox literature>, "...SILVERMAX developer yields in combination with SILVERMAX film a total of up to 14 zones in the negative." - and - "Note: Other manufacturers films will not reproduce 14 zones like SILVERMAX."

So while Silvermax can be used as a general purpose developer, am I right to assume there may not be any advantage to it's unique chemistry with any film other than Silvermax? Yes? No?

My motivation for these questions is: I am in the process of trying to find one or two 35mm b&w negative films to be processed in only one or two developers. My goal is to gain deeper experience from more limited materials. For the past two years, I have been trying out various combinations of films and developers more-or-less at random, hoping to find some combination that I like, and that excites me enough to want to explore it more thoroughly.

At present, I would like to consider only commercially available developers, and films which will (hopefully) remain available for purchase from common sources in the US. I do not have a darkroom, so I will be using that other workflow which must not be mentioned. So far, I have processed only one roll of Silvermax film in Silvermax developer, and I like that combination a lot. <results here> But is this the combination I have been looking for? (not a real question for anyone but me)

Also, at some point in the future, I plan to try d.i.y. reversal processing, so the Silvermax film would be a good fit for that. But I am more concerned about adopting the Silvermax developer as my only general purpose developer. If, for example, I wanted to shoot a second, faster film in combination with Silvermax 100 - something like T-Max 400 or Delta 400 - then maybe something like XTOL or D-76 would be a better choice? (I just mixed up a batch of XTOL and I plan to process a roll of T-Max 400 in that today.)

 

[Pixophrenic]

Very interesting! Not to misinterpret what you said, let me ask you a clarification. Are you saying that glycin can be used as replacement for HQMS in general or specifically in your low contrast developer?

Certainly not in general, but there was an Axford-Kendall phenidone-glycin developer, which is, from experience, indeed rather soft (US patent 2753265 of 1956).

 

[Pixophrenic]

When I started this thread, I was guessing that most commercially available developers could be grouped into several categories based on their similarities - and that Silvermax would probably fit into one such group. Apparently, that was a naive assumption, and Silvermax developer is not really similar to any other commercial developer, right?

<snip>

Also, at some point in the future, I plan to try d.i.y. reversal processing, so the Silvermax film would be a good fit for that. But I am more concerned about adopting the Silvermax developer as my only general purpose developer. If, for example, I wanted to shoot a second, faster film in combination with Silvermax 100 - something like T-Max 400 or Delta 400 - then maybe something like XTOL or D-76 would be a better choice? (I just mixed up a batch of XTOL and I plan to process a roll of T-Max 400 in that today.)

IMO, you should look into ORWO UN 54. Like SIlvermax, it develops well as negative and as reversal positive, and all chemistry is published on ORWO North America web site.

 

[runswithsizzers]

IMO, you should look into ORWO UN 54. Like SIlvermax, it develops well as negative and as reversal positive, and all chemistry is published on ORWO North America web site.

Thank you. I'll put ORWO UN 54 on my list of films to try.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Certainly not in general, but there was an Axford-Kendall phenidone-glycin developer, which is, from experience, indeed rather soft (US patent 2753265 of 1956).

Thanks for the clarification. The reason I asked whether glycin can be an effective substitute for HQMS in general is this: one of the more recent advances in reversal first developer for B&W film, a Agfa-Gaevart patent, uses HQMS and dimezone. I guess the difference in super-additivity makes substitution of HQMS with glycin more challenging in this specific case.

 

[Rudeofus]

Both HQMS and Glycin are very mild development agents. However, HQMS has the advantage, that its oxidation products are ineffective as developers. This is said to be the reason, why HQMS offers exceptional sharpness, which was very important for Kodak.

 

[Team ADOX]

Funny that you mention Bob Schwalberg. On the same page in the FDCB which discusses HQMS, Schwalberg is quoted as saying,
"One developing agent is best, two is okay, three is very suspect, and four the guy is definitely a jerk."

With all respect, but such a general statement is simply wrong. That only one developing agent generally "is best" is completely wrong. Developers with only one developing agent are the exception on the market, and there is a reason for it. If that would generally be the best solution, then most chemistry manufacturers would go that route, because it would simplify the whole production process. But they don't.
There are lots of reasons to use more than one or two developing agents, for example:
- improved picture quality with certain parameters
- improved shelf life
- achieving highest quality at lower costs.
Photo chemistry is not as simple as some people may think.......

In <this technical bulletin> ADOX do say "SILVERMAX developer has ben especially formulated for the SILVERMAX film." But also, "SILVERMAX can be used as a very good equalizing developer for any other film as well. In order to tweak it for other manufacturer ́s films you need to adjust the dilution as given on the table on the next page." (They go on to warn the user not to expect the same "14-zone" range they promise for Silvermax film if developing other films.)
The table shows times, temps, and dilutions for a dozen other films from five other companies. As for dilutions, ADOX gives specific dilutions for each of the dozen films which range from a low of 1+17 for Ilford Delta 400 to a high of 1+30 for Ilford Dellta 100 and Fuji Acros 100.

Exactly. Originally our Silvermax developer was designed to achieve perfect results with our unique ADOX Silvermax film, to "exploit its full potential". But it also works very well with lots of other films, and a significant number of our Silvermax developer customers are meanwhile using it for other films, too.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

 

[runswithsizzers]

With all respect, but such a general statement is simply wrong. That only one developing agent generally "is best" is completely wrong. Developers with only one developing agent are the exception on the market, and there is a reason for it. If that would generally be the best solution, then most chemistry manufacturers would go that route, because it would simplify the whole production process. But they don't.
There are lots of reasons to use more than one or two developing agents, for example:
- improved picture quality with certain parameters
- improved shelf life
- achieving highest quality at lower costs.
Photo chemistry is not as simple as some people may think.......


Exactly. Originally our Silvermax developer was designed to achieve perfect results with our unique ADOX Silvermax film, to "exploit its full potential". But it also works very well with lots of other films, and a significant number of our Silvermax developer customers are meanwhile using it for other films, too.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

Thanks for your reply. To be clear, I was not endorsing Bob Schwalberg's viewpoint, because at my novice level of knowledge, I am hardly qualified to have an opinion of my own.

So far, I have used the Silvermax developer with only 2 films: Adox Silvermax 100 and Ferrania P30. I liked the results from those, just fine. But I think both of those films are a little bit unusual, so it's hard for me to predict how the Silvermax developer might compare to more mainstream developers when used with films like Kodak T-Max 100 & 400, Ilford Delta 400, FP4+, etc.

At present, I have XTOL and Silvermax developers on hand. And the next two films I will be processing are Fuji Acros II and Ilford FP4+ (35mm). Would you care to speculate how these two developers might compare, based on:
1. the finest grain
2. maintaining the films rated speed
3. sharpness
... assuming I am metering at box ISO speed and following the manufacturer's recommended dilutions, processing times, temps, and agitation in a small tank?

 

[Team ADOX]

Thanks for your reply. To be clear, I was not endorsing Bob Schwalberg's viewpoint, because at my novice level of knowledge, I am hardly qualified to have an opinion of my own.

So far, I have used the Silvermax developer with only 2 films: Adox Silvermax 100 and Ferrania P30. I liked the results from those, just fine. But I think both of those films are a little bit unusual, so it's hard for me to predict how the Silvermax developer might compare to more mainstream developers when used with films like Kodak T-Max 100 & 400, Ilford Delta 400, FP4+, etc.

At present, I have XTOL and Silvermax developers on hand. And the next two films I will be processing are Fuji Acros II and Ilford FP4+ (35mm). Would you care to speculate how these two developers might compare, based on:
1. the finest grain
2. maintaining the films rated speed
3. sharpness
... assuming I am metering at box ISO speed and following the manufacturer's recommended dilutions, processing times, temps, and agitation in a small tank?

You will get a bit finer grain and a bit more sharpness with the Silvermax developer, and a little bit less speed with these two films.
Concerning box speed with these two films one general comment, independent from the developer you are using: FP4+ is generally closer to box speed than Acros I / II. So it makes sense to give Acros more exposure to get very good shadow detail. Acros on the other hand delivers much finer grain, much higher resolution and better sharpness compared to FP4+. And has the advantage of the outstanding reciprocity characteristics (therefore very easys to use for long exposures).
Horses for courses .

If you are looking for the most similar film to ADOX Silvermax film, please have also a look at ADOX CHS 100 II: It has about the same spectral sensitivity, sharpness and resolution. Only the grain is a bit more accentuated and visible with CHS 100 II.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.