Barry Thornton's two-bath question about time and temperature

[Alex Benjamin]

Thank you..........I've been an Ilford guy for years and probably need to branch out as well on some different papers, but it gets expensive.

Pick shown in #228 is printed on Fomabrom Variant 112 in Ansco 130 (1+1).

It's a beautiful developer. Easy to mix at home from scratch, which is what I do.

Has the added advantage that you can use it in a two-part developing process in combination with the softer Ansco 120 for additional contrast control.

 

[Chuck_P]

It's a beautiful developer. Easy to mix at home from scratch, which is what I do.

Thanks, you know I'm going to have to get the chemicals to mix them. I should've made the move to mixing my own a long time ago.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Thanks, you know I'm going to have to get the chemicals to mix them. I should've made the move to mixing my own a long time ago.

Get a pack directly from Photographers' Formulary. Depending on how much you print, a few 1L packs can last you over a year.

You can also order the chemicals individually, but know that some, like glycin, don't keep very well once opened.

130 Paper Developer

Developer 130 Amidol Paper Developer Photography Chemicals

stores.photoformulary.com

 

[John Wiegerink]

Get a pack directly from Photographers' Formulary. Depending on how much you print, a few 1L packs can last you over a year.

You can also order the chemicals individually, but know that some, like glycin, don't keep very well once opened.

130 Paper Developer

Developer 130 Amidol Paper Developer Photography Chemicals

stores.photoformulary.com

My glycin is pretty old(3+ years), but stored cold. I recently bought some fresh just to be safe, but after testing the old against my new batch I'm happy to report they both are just fine. I think when it's stored in the freezer it will keep for a very long time.

 

[What About Bob]

@Chuck_P: Thanks for giving the 7 grams a go. The results look really good. What agitation routine did you use for bath B? This motivates me more to get out there and seek out some high contrast scenes.

I started mixing my own last year. Dry chemicals go a long way and the price is right. A few of them have a tendency to clump a little. I put the clumps in a ziplock bag and smash them up then put them back in their respective container.

@Alex Benjamin: That is a very good print. Would you know if Fomabrom 112 would be close to what Agfa Portriga Rapid was? That was a favorite of mine back in the mid to late 90s. Someday I would like to get back to using fiber paper.

Where would be a good source for Glycin? Artcraft carries many chemicals but not that one. Searching brings up Proyplene Glycol and Glycerin 99.5%. I found Glycine in another place but it doesn't look to be the same chemical; though Glycin is derived from Glycine but I have no clue as to how it is derived. Maybe the place where I got the formaldehyde might have it.

Update: Nope, the science store where I bought the formaldehyde doesn't have it.

 

[John Wiegerink]

@Chuck_P: Thanks for giving the 7 grams a go. The results look really good. What agitation routine did you use for bath B? This motivates me more to get out there and seek out some high contrast scenes.

I started mixing my own last year. Dry chemicals go a long way and the price is right. A few of them have a tendency to clump a little. I put the clumps in a ziplock bag and smash them up then put them back in their respective container.

@Alex Benjamin: That is a very good print. Would you know if Fomabrom 112 would be close to what Agfa Portriga Rapid was? That was a favorite of mine back in the mid to late 90s. Someday I would like to get back to using fiber paper.

Where would be a good source for Glycin? Artcraft carries many chemicals but not that one. Searching brings up Proyplene Glycol and Glycerin 99.5%. I found Glycine in another place but it doesn't look to be the same chemical; though Glycin is derived from Glycine but I have no clue as to how it is derived. Maybe the place where I got the formaldehyde might have it.

Update: Nope, the science store where I bought the formaldehyde doesn't have it.

I got my last batch from Photographers Formulary. I sure looked nice and fresh with a very light tan color.

 

[Chuck_P]

@Chuck_P: Thanks for giving the 7 grams a go. The results look really good. What agitation routine did you use for bath B? This motivates me more to get out there and seek out some high contrast scenes.

I started mixing my own last year. Dry chemicals go a long way and the price is right. A few of them have a tendency to clump a little. I put the clumps in a ziplock bag and smash them up then put them back in their respective container.

..........and I now have a liter each of 7g, 12g, and 20g of s. metaborate. The agitation was just as mentioned in my curves above that were developed using the 12g bath B: 10 sec initial and 5 sec every 60 sec..........four gentle inversions of my SP445 tank every 60 sec. When I received the metaborate, the chemical was very clumpy and it was suggested earlier somewhere, in this thread I thhink, to use a mortar and pestle to grind the clumps, that works nicely, I'd find one and use that.

The high contrast scenes from my living room test photos in the Gallery both have a subject luminance range of about 512:1, when just considering the 'place' and 'fall' of the EV readings on the zone scale, I'm sure image flare has reduced it some, but I'm very pleased with how BTTB has rendered both the highest and lowest values in those negatives.

 

[What About Bob]

Mine was mildly clumpy. Potassium bromide is another one that clumps up.

 

[Chuck_P]

To those with the BT books, does he give any guide on the capacity of each bath, is there a guide on about how much film that is developed per bath that warrants mixing fresh baths?

 

[Milpool]

To those with the BT books, does he give any guide on the capacity of each bath, is there a guide on about how much film that is developed per bath that warrants mixing fresh baths?

A decent guideline for bath A would be to follow Kodak’s capacity instructions for D-23 in tech pub J-1 (p. 24 of the version I have) and capacity w/o replenishment instructions for Microdol-X on page 27 of the same tech pub. Alternatively see Ilford’s capacity/reuse instructions for Perceptol (which is a very similar metol-sulfite developer).

Since development (albeit somewhat truncated) is taking place in bath A it will be subject to essentially the same changes with re-use as if it were being used normally.

The second bath will have relatively high capacity. With repeated use as small amounts of bath A are carried over it is possible bath B begins to gradually take on some very weak developing properties of its own, however even if these very small amounts of metol actually survive for any appreciable amount of time in the alkaline solution any effects would probably be negligible. While the pH of the metaborate bath could decline a little over time with repeated use, this won’t really matter for a quite a while either as I found a borax bath (at least one pH unit lower than metaborate) gave the same sensitometric result. Monitoring the pH is always helpful if you plan to use bath B a lot, but you don’t need the accuracy of a pH meter in this case. pH strips will be good enough if you decide you want to keep track of bath B.

Disclaimer/safe harbour etc.: None of the above is based on Barry Thornton’s book, which I don’t own.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Chuck,
I have his book and Barry said that the bath A will keep at least one year in a tightly sealed bottle and that 1L of bath A will develop 15 rolls of film and the same goes for bath B. I don't run it that far. I stop at eight to ten, but that's because I use medium format a lot with this and just some 35mm. I just want to be on the safe side with no surprises.

 

[Chuck_P]

A decent guideline for bath A would be to follow Kodak’s capacity instructions for D-23 in tech pub J-1 (p. 24 of the version I have) and capacity w/o replenishment instructions for Microdol-X on page 27 of the same tech pub. Alternatively see Ilford’s capacity/reuse instructions for Perceptol (which is a very similar metol-sulfite developer).

Since development (albeit somewhat truncated) is taking place in bath A it will be subject to essentially the same changes with re-use as if it were being used normally.

The second bath will have relatively high capacity. With repeated use as small amounts of bath A are carried over it is possible bath B begins to gradually take on some very weak developing properties of its own, however even if these very small amounts of metol actually survive for any appreciable amount of time in the alkaline solution any effects would probably be negligible. While the pH of the metaborate bath could decline a little over time with repeated use, this won’t really matter for a quite a while either as I found a borax bath (at least one pH unit lower than metaborate) gave the same sensitometric result. Monitoring the pH is always helpful if you plan to use bath B a lot, but you don’t need the accuracy of a pH meter in this case. pH strips will be good enough if you decide you want to keep track of bath B.

Disclaimer/safe harbour etc.: None of the above is based on Barry Thornton’s book, which I don’t own.

Thank you and thanks @John Wiegerink............I'll have to find the Kodak's J-1 pub for D-23. Using 80 sq. in. of film equivalents for different formats, my bath A is at 13 4x5 sheets 260 sq. in. total. Fifteen 120 rolls of film would be 1200 total sq. in. Assuming my comparison is proper, I would have several more sheets that bath A can develop, but cutting it short for safety sake I guess would not be a bad idea. I will bounce that off of the Tech Pub J-1.

 

[Chuck_P]

A decent guideline for bath A would be to follow Kodak’s capacity instructions for D-23 in tech pub J-1 (p. 24 of the version I have) and capacity w/o replenishment instructions for Microdol-X on page 27 of the same tech pub. Alternatively see Ilford’s capacity/reuse instructions for Perceptol (which is a very similar metol-sulfite developer).

The Kodak J-1 publication is a great resource, thanks............it looks like both the D-23 and Microdol-X capacity is stated at 4 8x10 sheets per liter or 320 sq. in. of film area. So far I have developed 14 4x5 sheets or 280 sq. in. of film area. By that comparison I have two more sheets I can develop before mixing new. The one question I still have.........does the T-grain film I use (TMX) potentially throw a monkey wrench in that information, idk. I realize the answer probably can't be precisely known so it's probably a good idea to mix a new bath A before developing my next 4 sheets I exposed today. I have not looked at Ilford's Perceptol datasheet yet.

My B bath (12g metaborate) is not at the same count of sheets developed as in the A bath as I have used the 7g for the B bath on several sheets.

 

[What About Bob]

Would bath B accumulate enough carry-over developer to eventually work as its own developer over time?

Never mind. I see @Milpool went over that in post 260. Thanks. Pulling another all-nighter here.

 

[What About Bob]

I am thinking of shooting the next Tri-X assignment either at 800 or 1600. This might be pushing it, no pun intended, but I am feeling both experimental and skeptical about it at the same time.

Something is tugging at me to just mix D-23 straight for this and not use BT2B. I have been reading mixed opinions about D-23 being used as a push developer. I have exposed Kentmere 400 at 800 using undiluted D-23 from last April's assignment "Time". That scene had a wide tone range; highlights did blow out some.

From this: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/msa-o-n-april-2024-time.205906/post-2785191
"Film developed in D23 undiluted for 11 minutes and 15 seconds at 70F/21C"

I started using BT2B a few weeks after that assignment. I bet BT2B would have helped out with the highlights in that scene.

Without any testing and thinking aloud in my head on how to translate that April's assignment data of undiluted D-23 time to BT2B:
Tri-X 400 at 800 - Bath A = (5 * 1.4) = 7m
Tri-X 400 at 1600 - Bath A - (5 * 1.4 * 1.4) = 9.8 rounded to 10m

Using (5 * 2.8) gives 14m which would be too long. Depending on how hot the highlights are; if any bright lights inside of a building or windows showing, it may be a good idea to either slightly lessen development in bath A or use the calculated development time I had just made and then use a lesser amount of metaborate in bath B, something like 7 grams per liter. Just enough to build up the shadows a bit more and not touch the highlights. Because of a loss of speed the shadows could end up being vacant from such underexposure and over development.

I do see a possible issue with increased grain using BT2B for pushing. Undiluted D-23 would be softer working and may be the better option. Kentmere does have more of a grain structure than Tri-X so my guess is that Tri-X should be all right with a slight nudge to 800 without a hitch. The developing time would be slightly different due to the 1 gram extra of Metol and 20 grams of extra sulfite. If Kentmere was 11:15, from that past assignment, then Tri-X might be somewhat close.

I just went to the MDC site and the chart shows "11 minutes" for Tri-X at 800 for D-23 undiluted, 20 minutes at 1600 for D-23 1:1. All at 68F/20C. I used 70F/21C. Seeing this I probably could have backed off a little bit on the development for that past assignment. 10:00 might had been better instead of 11:15.

In the past I used D-76, T-Max and HC-110 for pushing films. I could make D-76 but I currently do not have any borax and boric acid on hand to complete the mix. These chemicals would take a little while to get. I looked around to see if I could use a lesser amount of metaborate, mixed with something else, instead of the borax but came to the idea that it may not be worth while doing that.

 

[retina_restoration]

I am thinking of shooting the next Tri-X assignment either at 800 or 1600. This might be pushing it, no pun intended, but I am feeling both experimental and skeptical about it at the same time.

Something is tugging at me to just mix D-23 straight for this and not use BT2B. I have been reading mixed opinions about D-23 being used as a push developer. I have exposed Kentmere 400 at 800 using undiluted D-23 from last April's assignment "Time". That scene had a wide tone range; highlights did blow out some.

From this: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/msa-o-n-april-2024-time.205906/post-2785191
"Film developed in D23 undiluted for 11 minutes and 15 seconds at 70F/21C"

I started using BT2B a few weeks after that assignment. I bet BT2B would have helped out with the highlights in that scene.

Without any testing and thinking aloud in my head on how to translate that April's assignment data of undiluted D-23 time to BT2B:
Tri-X 400 at 800 - Bath A = (5 * 1.4) = 7m
Tri-X 400 at 1600 - Bath A - (5 * 1.4 * 1.4) = 9.8 rounded to 10m

Using (5 * 2.8) gives 14m which would be too long. Depending on how hot the highlights are; if any bright lights inside of a building or windows showing, it may be a good idea to either slightly lessen development in bath A or use the calculated development time I had just made and then use a lesser amount of metaborate in bath B, something like 7 grams per liter. Just enough to build up the shadows a bit more and not touch the highlights. Because of a loss of speed the shadows could end up being vacant from such underexposure and over development.

I do see a possible issue with increased grain using BT2B for pushing. Undiluted D-23 would be softer working and may be the better option. Kentmere does have more of a grain structure than Tri-X so my guess is that Tri-X should be all right with a slight nudge to 800 without a hitch. The developing time would be slightly different due to the 1 gram extra of Metol and 20 grams of extra sulfite. If Kentmere was 11:15, from that past assignment, then Tri-X might be somewhat close.

I just went to the MDC site and the chart shows "11 minutes" for Tri-X at 800 for D-23 undiluted, 20 minutes at 1600 for D-23 1:1. All at 68F/20C. I used 70F/21C. Seeing this I probably could have backed off a little bit on the development for that past assignment. 10:00 might had been better instead of 11:15.

In the past I used D-76, T-Max and HC-110 for pushing films. I could make D-76 but I currently do not have any borax and boric acid on hand to complete the mix. These chemicals would take a little while to get. I looked around to see if I could use a lesser amount of metaborate, mixed with something else, instead of the borax but came to the idea that it may not be worth while doing that.

In my experience, D-23 diluted 1:3 becomes a very respectable acutance developer and gives a bit off a speed boost as well. Developing times will be considerably longer (about 20 minutes) , but I think using it in high dilution might serve you well for your needs. Do tests, of course.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I'm a little curious about trying to push film in a 2-bath developer like 2-bath D-23 or even BTTB. I just don't think those developers would lend themselves to do a good healthy push on Tri-X or HP5+. If you extend your times in bath A it's more like using just a normal developer. A more potent bath B would help the push some, but would it really be enough? Of course, I'm referring to 2-bath developers that really aren't true 2-bath developers. I'd go with just a developer that is normally used for pushing, which most single bath developers will do. Oh, and I'm not curious enough to experiment with a 2-bath developer for pushing myself and will leave that to other folks here.

 

[Milpool]

The most effective way to push (ie get maximum emulsion speed without runaway contrast) with this type of process is to shorten the time in bath A and repeat the cycle. Make sure to do a thorough rinse between cycles so that no metaborate remains in the emulsion when you reintroduce bath A.

 

[Chuck_P]

The most effective way to push (ie get maximum emulsion speed without runaway contrast) with this type of process is to shorten the time in bath A and repeat the cycle. Make sure to do a thorough rinse between cycles so that no metaborate remains in the emulsion when you reintroduce bath A.

That reminded me of what I read in 'The Negative' where, AA mentions "variations" on the two solution process to obtain some additional compensating effect. He suggested to "emerse the film in D-23 for 30 sec to 1 minute, followed by 1 to 3 minutes in the alkali solution. The film is then rinsed thoroughly in a weak acid stop bath solution followed by a thorough rinse in water.................with relatively short times in the developer the process might continue three to five cycles as needed." So the thorough rinse in water is needed to totally remove any of the bath B alkali from the film before returning to the developer for additional cycles as you alluded to above.

However, he doesn't mention any agitation scheme on this variation of two bath development. I take it that it does not change from his earlier mention to use constant agitation in the first solution and no agitation in the alkalie solution. Now that I am getting more familiar with this two bath method I'm going to have to give that a pictorial test first chance I get.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Now I understand the method involved for pushing with a 2-bath. Just seems like more work than I want to go through when I can just use a conventional developer, which is a much faster process. If pushing with a 2-bath yields a much better end result it might just be worth it, but I haven't seen any comparison that shows that. Yet, anyway!

 

[snusmumriken]

Now I understand the method involved for pushing with a 2-bath. Just seems like more work than I want to go through when I can just use a conventional developer, which is a much faster process. If pushing with a 2-bath yields a much better end result it might just be worth it, but I haven't seen any comparison that shows that. Yet, anyway!

Tetenal’s Emofin was a 2-bath that did give a speed boost (or at least fully exploited intrinsic emulsion speed), but that’s gone now, and you might not have liked the grain. As far as I can see, all other 2-bath formulae prioritise restrained highlights with fine grain and convenient reusability (?spelling?).

 

[What About Bob]

@Milpool, @Chuck_P: I used to have that book, back in the 90s. No idea what happened to it.

Did Ansel use daylight tanks for this process or dip and dunk in the dark for 120 film? For his large format photography did he use a tank with film hangers or trays for that type of process?

Ansel's way sounds like a fine-tuned version of BT2B. Once the times and amount of cycles are nailed down then it should be smooth sailing. This method would be ideal with ortho film where inspection by safelight becomes a great helper. With Tri-X and other panchro films you are left in the dark, no pun intended.

I defintiely feel like playing around with this. I have a few 16oz stainless steel tanks that could be used; one for bath A and the other for bath B, or could just use graduates instead of the tanks, as long as the reel fits in. All that would be needed is something like a T-Rod hanger for lowering and raising the reel. I don't mind at all working in complete darkness. This way would be a little more work but yet would be easier than having to fill and empty a single tank and development would be consistent, less delays with getting chemicals in and out.

I would need a radio in the bathroom to break the silence and also to drown out the drawn out howling from the upstairs neighbor's little wiener dog.

I just placed another order for Tri-X.

 

[Chuck_P]

@Milpool, @Chuck_P: I used to have that book, back in the 90s. No idea what happened to it.

Did Ansel use daylight tanks for this process or dip and dunk in the dark for 120 film? For his large format photography did he use a tank with film hangers or trays for that type of process?

Ansel's way sounds like a fine-tuned version of BT2B. Once the times and amount of cycles are nailed down then it should be smooth sailing. This method would be ideal with ortho film where inspection by safelight becomes a great helper. With Tri-X and other panchro films you are left in the dark, no pun intended.

I defintiely feel like playing around with this. I have a few 16oz stainless steel tanks that could be used; one for bath A and the other for bath B, or could just use graduates instead of the tanks, as long as the reel fits in. All that would be needed is something like a T-Rod hanger for lowering and raising the reel. I don't mind at all working in complete darkness. This way would be a little more work but yet would be easier than having to fill and empty a single tank and development would be consistent, less delays with getting chemicals in and out.

I would need a radio in the bathroom to break the silence and also to drown out the drawn out howling from the upstairs neighbor's little wiener dog.

I just placed another order for Tri-X.

I would think that for AA's roll film he used a SS daylight tank, no doubt trays for 8x10, no clue if he used trays or film hangers for smaller sheets. I have the SP445 daylight tank for my sheets, so I'll have to make do with that. I've never tried tray development and don't think I ever will.

 

[Milpool]

For plates and sheet film he used various processes/methods over his career, mostly trays/shuffling or hangers/open tanks. For “two-solution” development it was typically manual dip/dunk with hangers in open tanks, and in the earlier days when he would occasionally use the technique the second bath was water. Sometimes it would consist of multiple cycles - developer, then water bath, repeat. Two-solution was an exception rather than a rule, as a way to maximize emulsion speed if there was uncertainty about whether sufficient exposure was given.

Generally, shuffling sheets in trays gives better uniformity than other methods including most manual daylight contraptions for sheet film which are poorly designed.

Adams used reels/daylight tanks for roll film.

 

[Chuck_P]

Using the water bath as the second solution apparently worked well with the thicker older emulsions but not the thinner newer emulsions, according to him. He indicated with two-solution development to agitate continuously in the D-23 (2-3 min using Tri-X) and no agitation for at least 3 min in the alkali bath. It seems fitting that if doing constant agitation in the first solution then the development time would necessarily need to be kept on the short side as in 2-3 minutes. I said I would not try tray development, but I might just recant and try it with just one sheet, and developing as indicated. I've heard not good things when developing multiple sheets in a tray......gouges, scratches, and frustration. I don't need that.