A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Fomadon-P = D-76d.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 29th 09, 03:49 PM
Keith Tapscott. Keith Tapscott. is offline
Senior Member
 
First recorded activity by PhotoBanter: Feb 2005
Posts: 112
Default Fomadon-P = D-76d.

Has anyone tried this developer?

http://www.fomafoto.com/components/c...6589ca6af8.jpg
  #2  
Old July 29th 09, 09:12 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Andrew Price
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 118
Default Fomadon-P = D-76d.

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:49:54 +0100, Keith Tapscott.
wrote:

Has anyone tried this developer?

http://tinyurl.com/kqegre


I haven't tried their developer, but I shot a lot of Foma B&W film in
the past, and the quality was quite acceptable, so I would expect the
same from their other products.
  #3  
Old July 30th 09, 12:32 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 751
Default Fomadon-P = D-76d.


"Keith Tapscott."
wrote in message
...

Has anyone tried this developer?

http://tinyurl.com/kqegre




--
Keith Tapscott.


I have not tried it.
I did a little searching around. The box suggests its
D-76d, which is the buffered form of D-76. Kodak's packaged
D-76 is of this type. The buffered formula was devised in
1929, a couple of years after the release of the original
D-76 formula, because it was found that the original slowly
increased in activity causing a significant increase in the
contrast obtained after a given developing time. Kodak labs
found that the pH of the solution increased slowly with time
and that using a borax-boric acid buffer system would
control it. There is an MSDS for the Foma product at the
Freestyle site but its wrong listing sodium thiosulfate
(hypo) as one of the ingredients. Of course, they mean
sodium sulfite. The only other ingredients listed are metol
and hydroquinone so its incomplete in any case.
Assuming they followed the published formula for D-76d
it should be about equivalent. However, Kodak includes other
stuff in their packaged chemistry. For instance, D-76 comes
in a single bag where the Foma product comes in two parts.
This is because the metol normally must be dissolved before
the sulfite or it becomes very difficult to get into
solution. However, Kodak does something or includes
something so that everything can be mixed at once. Also,
Kodak packaged developers generally contain a sequestering
agent for magnesium and calcium salts in the water. Of
course, there is a big difference in price between the two
and the Foma developer is probably quite satisfactory.
For those who are interested here are the formulas for
the two variations of D-76. Note that virtually every
manufacturer of film or photo chemicals had some variation.

Kodak D-76 (original 1927 formula)
Water (at about 125F or 52C) 750.0 ml
Metol 2.0 grams
Sodium Sulfite, desiccated 100.0 grams
Hydroquinone 5.0 grams
Borax, granular 2.0 grams
Water to make 1.0 liter

Dissolve chemicals in order given.

Kodak D-76d (1929 buffered formula)
Water (at about 125F or 52C) 750.0 ml
Metol 2.0 grams
Sodium Sulfite, desiccated 100.0 grams
Hydroquinone 5.0 grams
Borax, granular 8.0 grams
Boric acid, crystalline 8.0 grams
Water to make 1.0 liter

Do not use powdered Boric acid, it dissolves only with
difficulty.
Mix chemicals in order given.

The two formulas have about the same activity when
freshly mixed but the buffered version is stable where the
original is not.



--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA



  #4  
Old July 30th 09, 08:46 AM
Keith Tapscott. Keith Tapscott. is offline
Senior Member
 
First recorded activity by PhotoBanter: Feb 2005
Posts: 112
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Knoppow View Post
"Keith Tapscott."
wrote in message
...

Has anyone tried this developer?

http://tinyurl.com/kqegre




--
Keith Tapscott.


I have not tried it.
I did a little searching around. The box suggests its
D-76d, which is the buffered form of D-76. Kodak's packaged
D-76 is of this type. The buffered formula was devised in
1929, a couple of years after the release of the original
D-76 formula, because it was found that the original slowly
increased in activity causing a significant increase in the
contrast obtained after a given developing time. Kodak labs
found that the pH of the solution increased slowly with time
and that using a borax-boric acid buffer system would
control it. There is an MSDS for the Foma product at the
Freestyle site but its wrong listing sodium thiosulfate
(hypo) as one of the ingredients. Of course, they mean
sodium sulfite. The only other ingredients listed are metol
and hydroquinone so its incomplete in any case.


Kodak D-76 (original 1927 formula)
Water (at about 125F or 52C) 750.0 ml
Metol 2.0 grams
Sodium Sulfite, desiccated 100.0 grams
Hydroquinone 5.0 grams
Borax, granular 2.0 grams
Water to make 1.0 liter

Dissolve chemicals in order given.

Kodak D-76d (1929 buffered formula)
Water (at about 125F or 52C) 750.0 ml
Metol 2.0 grams
Sodium Sulfite, desiccated 100.0 grams
Hydroquinone 5.0 grams
Borax, granular 8.0 grams
Boric acid, crystalline 8.0 grams
Water to make 1.0 liter

Do not use powdered Boric acid, it dissolves only with
difficulty.
Mix chemicals in order given.

The two formulas have about the same activity when
freshly mixed but the buffered version is stable where the
original is not.



--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Richard, you say that: "The two formulas have about the same activity when freshly mixed but the buffered version is stable where the
original is not."

I have been researching D-76 (ID-11) and it`s derivatives for quite a few years now, including mixing some of the formulas from scratch. I have to say that I disagree that D-76 and D-76d have the same activity and that the buffered-borax version needs significantly longer development times to match the film contrast of those films which were developed in the commercial formula.
I also found that the standard formula seems to match the commercial D-76 developer for developing times, unlike D-76d.
Ryuji Suzuki provided some useful data about D-76 and it`s variants on his website. The MSDS for D-76 list diboron trioxide/B2O3 (boric anhydride), but from correspondence with a former employee at Kodak, is that D-76 commercial is identical to the published product, although there is a special method for encapsulating the developing agents, so they are protected against the other constituents in the single-powder. There are patents for packaging single-powder developers which you may be of interest to you.
It wasn`t until recently that I noticed the Foma Fomadon-P packaging that gave me a clue as to why the development times are radically different.
Take a look at the MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT CHART on the Digital Truth website for Fomadon-P.
  #5  
Old July 31st 09, 12:30 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 751
Default Fomadon-P = D-76d.


"Keith Tapscott."
wrote in message
...

Richard Knoppow;822714 Wrote:
"Keith Tapscott."
wrote in message
...-

Has anyone tried this developer?

http://tinyurl.com/kqegre




--
Keith Tapscott.-

I have not tried it.
I did a little searching around. The box suggests its
D-76d, which is the buffered form of D-76. Kodak's
packaged
D-76 is of this type. The buffered formula was devised in
1929, a couple of years after the release of the original
D-76 formula, because it was found that the original
slowly
increased in activity causing a significant increase in
the
contrast obtained after a given developing time. Kodak
labs
found that the pH of the solution increased slowly with
time
and that using a borax-boric acid buffer system would
control it. There is an MSDS for the Foma product at the
Freestyle site but its wrong listing sodium thiosulfate
(hypo) as one of the ingredients. Of course, they mean
sodium sulfite. The only other ingredients listed are
metol
and hydroquinone so its incomplete in any case.


Kodak D-76 (original 1927 formula)
Water (at about 125F or 52C) 750.0 ml
Metol 2.0 grams
Sodium Sulfite, desiccated 100.0 grams
Hydroquinone 5.0 grams
Borax, granular 2.0 grams
Water to make 1.0 liter

Dissolve chemicals in order given.

Kodak D-76d (1929 buffered formula)
Water (at about 125F or 52C) 750.0 ml
Metol 2.0 grams
Sodium Sulfite, desiccated 100.0 grams
Hydroquinone 5.0 grams
Borax, granular 8.0 grams
Boric acid, crystalline 8.0 grams
Water to make 1.0 liter

Do not use powdered Boric acid, it dissolves only with
difficulty.
Mix chemicals in order given.

The two formulas have about the same activity when
freshly mixed but the buffered version is stable where
the
original is not.



--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA


Richard, you say that: "The two formulas have about the
same activity
when freshly mixed but the buffered version is stable
where the
original is not."

I have been researching D-76 (ID-11) and it`s derivatives
for quite a
few years now, including mixing some of the formulas from
scratch. I
have to say that I disagree that D-76 and D-76d have the
same activity
and that the buffered-borax version needs significantly
longer
development times to match the film contrast of those
films which were
developed in the commercial formula.
I also found that the standard formula seems to match the
commercial
D-76 developer for developing times, unlike D-76d.
Ryuji Suzuki provided some useful data about D-76 and it`s
variants on
his website. The MSDS for D-76 list diboron trioxide/B2O3
(boric
anhydride), but from correspondence with a former employee
at Kodak, is
that D-76 commercial is identical to the published
product, although
there is a special method for encapsulating the
developing agents, so
they are protected against the other constituents in the
single-powder.
There are patents for packaging single-powder developers
which you may
be of interest to you.
It wasn`t until recently that I noticed the Foma Fomadon-P
packaging
that gave me a clue as to why the development times are
radically
different.
Take a look at the MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT CHART on the
Digital Truth
website for Fomadon-P.




--
Keith Tapscott.


Kodak published a long technical paper in 1929 (I'll
get the citation if you want) detailing the research on
D-76. D-76 was originally published in a brochure describing
a new fine-grain film for duplicating motion picture
negatives, I have never been able to obtain a copy. It was
rapidly adopted as the standard motion picture negative
developer for the industry. It was originally used in
rack-and-tank developing machines.
It was discovered that there were problems with
obtaining consistent development time. This was eventually
traced to a slow rise in pH. Kodak cured this by using the
buffer but the real cause was not discovered for a couple of
decades. It turns out that a slow reaction between the
hydroquinone and the sulfite generates a small amount of
sodium hydroxide, enough so that after a month of storage
the developer will produce the same gamma as fresh developer
in slightly more than half the time. With the buffer the
development time remains constant. The paper shows that the
activity of the two formulae is very similar when fresh.
Note that the activity of the buffered solution can be
varied over a quite wide range by adjustment of the buffer.
The paper includes a chart showing the variation with the
ratio of the two components. This was an advantage where it
was difficult to adjust processing speed, hense time, in
automatic or semi-automatic machines.
There are alternate names for a lot of common chemicals
plus they can become different when in solution than when
dry. Its possible that the current packaged version of D-76
is not exactly identical with the published D-76d but it is
the same stuff. I can't account for large variations in
activity other than the effects of poor control in the
experiments. BTW, if you read Ryuji's stuff you know that
measuring pH of photographic solutions, particularly
developers, is not trivial. I think Kodak's old research is
still valid.
I am aware of Ryuji's work on developers. He found, for
instance, that the optimum amount of sulfite for a D-76 type
developer is around 80 grams/liter. The difference between
that and the 100 grams/liter in D-76 is not large but is
measurable. Agfa, in their Agfa 17, uses 80 grams/liter plus
a slightly different ratio of hydroquinone to metol. They
also add 0.5 gram/liter of potassium bromide. Kodak found
that a small amount of bromide added to the unused developer
would actually increase effective film speed slightly by
suppressing a small amount of fog characteristic of D-76. If
the developer is re-used the bromide leached out of the
emulsion has the same effect. In replenished systems adding
some bromide at the start is similar to the "ripening" or
starting solutions used in color developing machines.
Kodak also found that the presense of hydroquinone had
very little effect on development. The pH of D-76 is too low
to activate hydroquinone so it acts as a regenerator for the
metol extending the capacity of the developer. In fact, D-76
without the hydroquinone is an effective developer and its
life can be extended by using more Metol, perhaps 5
grams/liter as in D-23.
Before D-76 was devised the motion picture industry used
a variety of developers including Pyro with development by
inspection. One reason for the supplanting of this by a
different developer was that with the coming of sound
pictures the film used for picture negative changed from
orthochromatic to panchromatic eliminating development by
inspection plus, at least for sound on film, a much tighter
control of gamma was necessary. This required controlled
automatic machines for release printing which, in turn,
required much tighter control of the negatives since the
prints could not be individually taylored to the negatives
without changing the sound characteristics.




--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL



  #6  
Old August 1st 09, 07:35 PM
Keith Tapscott. Keith Tapscott. is offline
Senior Member
 
First recorded activity by PhotoBanter: Feb 2005
Posts: 112
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Knoppow View Post
"Keith Tapscott."
wrote in message
...[color=blue][i]

Richard Knoppow;822714 Wrote:
"Keith Tapscott."
wrote in message
...-

Has anyone tried this developer?

http://tinyurl.com/kqegre
--
Keith Tapscott.


Kodak published a long technical paper in 1929 (I'll
get the citation if you want) detailing the research on
D-76.

There are alternate names for a lot of common chemicals
plus they can become different when in solution than when
dry.

Its possible that the current packaged version of D-76
is not exactly identical with the published D-76d but it is
the same stuff.


--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
The 1929 publication mentioned has often been cited in topics concerning D-76/ID-11.
The increase in the activity of M.Q. developers is well known.
As the hydroquinone oxidises, it actually converts in solution to produce hydroquinone monosulfonate (HQMS) which is a much weaker, slower acting and more stable constituent than hydroquinone (HQ). HQMS is used in colour developers and is very expensive to buy and it requires a lot more HQMS in the formula to equal HQ. I have seen 5 parts HQMS to 1 part HQ cited as a very rough guide for making developers.
The downside is complexes formed with the sulphite which produces hydroxide and increases the activity of the developer. Thus the pH of an M.Q. developer can cycle down, then up and be variable making a difference of around +/- 10% difference in development time compared to fresh. This difference is usually with unused undiluted developer in partly fillled bottles. The common practise these days, is to dilute stock developers with water and use them as a one-shot solution where these variations often goes unnoticed.
What I can say having mixed D-76 and D-76d from scratch is that the standard D-76 formula seems to kinetically match Kodak`s commercial developer where as the D-76d buffered-borax version does not.
I have seen mentioned some Ilford patents where a developer which resembles D-76/ID-11 but has increased borax in the formula of either 3 or 4 grams per litre of stock which also provides greater buffering capacity.

I am not entirely convinced of Kodak`s MSDS either due to complexes formed when borax goes into solution which can form a whole myriad of boron ions in the developer.
As some of the photo-chemist have mentioned to me, MSDS`s are a good way of disguising what goes into solution for those with little experience in chemistry.

KODAK D-76 MSDS.

Weight % - Component - ( CAS Registry Number).
Concentrate:
85-90 Sodium Sulphite (007757-83-7)
1-5 Hydroquinone (000123-31-9)
1-5 Sodium Tetraborate (001330-43-4)
1-5 Bis (4-hydroxy-N-methylanilinium) sulphate (000055-55-0)
1 Boric Anhydride (001303-86-2)
1 Pentasodium (carboxylatomethyl) iminobis (ethylenenitrilo) tetraacetate
(000140-01-2)

Weight of concentrate = approximately 110 grams/litre. (This it self rules out D-76d formula which is 123 grams per litre of stock, not to mention sequestering agents etc).

From the book "Modern Photographic Processing" by Grant Haist, Volume 1:

Borate Alkali's: "Borax,Na2B4O7.10H2O, is the common name for sodium tetraborate, an alkaline compound used in the preparation of low-contrast, fine-grain developers. Borax may be written (NaBO2)2.B2O3, which shows the boric anhydride that limits the alkalinity possible from borax.
Borax acts as a buffer; that is, it maintains a reservoir of alkali but delivers only small quantities of hydroxyl ions at any one time. The alkalinity is maintained relatively unchanged until all of the borax has been neutralised."

As I don`t process as much B&W films these days, I no longer buy D-76 in the U.S gallon size packages and the 1 litre sizes are not as good value for money. I now make my own to the standard formula as and when required and I have found it to be very reliable despite what the 1929 publication says.
In fact, I actually prefer the scratch-mixed developer which I use diluted 1+1. Try it and you may be pleasantly surprised with the results. :-)

Last edited by Keith Tapscott. : August 1st 09 at 07:40 PM.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.