Developing Ektagraphic HC film...

Developing Ektagraphic HC Slide 135-36 film (For Black & White Titles).

I shot the one & only roll I had of the eclipse with this film rated at ASA 6.

 

The Data Sheet among other developers, calls for Kodak D-11.

I obviously don't have this special D-11. Without going to Ebay and buying a 'classic' makes 1 Gal bag of D-11 for over $15 (I just want to develop ONE roll), is there a lower contrast substitute developer?

 

It would be great if I could use one of the two that I already have: Rodinal and Tmax developers.

Thank you in advance for any help or suggestions...

The old Kodak B&W Darkroom dataguide says Kodalith will also work. The even older Master Darkroom Dataguide only has Tri x Ortho, which can apparently be developed in nearly any of the standard Kodak Developers. I have the formulas for all the old developers in Processing Chemicals and Formulas for B&W Photography. You certainly don't want to get into making a batch for a single roll, but you might be able to compare and come up with something close that you can use. I can scan and send a PDF if you like.

Yes Sandy, thank you for spending the time to look all that up !

The PDF might shed some light on a substitute developer. Please do pass that on.

'Google' either my name or TLC Camera Repair for an email address - Thanks again !

As far as I know, the usual developers for high contrast films are those that give high contrast.

 

(Except for Technidol, specifically to give low contrast with TP.)

 

If you don't need especially high contrast, then any ordinary black and white developer should be fine.

The problem left is finding a time.

 

The two developers that I have and use are Diafine and HC-110. Both are worth having,

and both should be able to develop your film.

The recommended replacement for Ektagraphic HC is TP in Dektol.

 

It seems to me that you could also put HC in Dektol, which you might already have for printing.

 

Or at least if you buy some, you would have another use for it, and it is easy to find.

t seems to me that you could also put HC in Dektol, which you might already have for printing.

You guys are obviously more current than I in darkroom, but I used to use Dektol on Tri X for maximum grain and contrast. Have no personal experience with the film in question. Lower contrast being called out, I wonder.

Gus -- had some things distract, will get the scanning done and the PDF off in the morning.

Gus -- had some things distract, will get the scanning done and the PDF off in the morning.

 

In the meantime, I'll try pecking it out on my phone - 1946 Kodak Reference Handbook:

 

Kodak Developer D-11, for high contrast on films and plates

 

Water, about 125 deg F . . . . . .500 cc.

Elon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 gram

Kodak Sodium Sulfite, dessicated . . . . 75.0 grams

Kodak Hydroquinone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 grams

Kodak Sodium Carbonate, dessicated . 25.0 grams

Kodak Potassium Bromide . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 grams

Cold water to make . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 liter

 

For process photography use without dilution. For development of continuous-tone subjects, dilute with an equal volume of water.

 

Fwiw, with a brief search, I don't see anything really like it. If you were to double the carbonate and cut the bromide in half, you might be getting very roughly into the realm of D-72. Personally, I think I'd be inclined to experiment with the developers you have, hoping to reduce contrast, provided that you can afford to throw away some of the film on clip tests. Otherwise, I dunno... Best of luck.

I find another reference in a 1958 Kodak Data Book - Kodak Films...

 

For Kodak Fine Grain Positive Film, used for copying - for continuous tone originals they suggest D-76 (3 min, 68°F with continuous agitation). But for line originals they say D-11 (7 minutes, same conditions). So anyway, this gives a link of sorts between D-76 and D-11; perhaps you can carry this farther to one of your developers? Hope it works out somewhat decently.

Yep, that D-11 is a high contrast developer - not quite Lith, which would be a hydroquinone-caustic formulation.

 

That's a lot of pot. bromide. You're not going to get much deep shadow detail with that!

 

Are you sure that's the result you're after Gus?

 

My method of getting a ballpark time with a new or unknown film/developer combo is to develop a small cutting of the film in room lighting and time how long it takes to reach a density of around 2.5 to 3.0. Comparison with the fogged and developed leader of a 35 film is useful. Of course this tells you nothing about the contrast of the combo, but it gets you a time that guarantees an image.

 

This is a B&W reversal film though, right?

In which case the D-11 would be the 2nd developer, and should effectively be a print developer to give sufficient density and contrast for projection.

Edited August 30, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

Google' either my name or TLC Camera Repair for an email address - Thanks again !

On the way!

develop a small cutting of the film in room lighting and time how long" Rodeo Joe

Thank you for this fine effort gentleman !

After deciding which developer to sub, I'll use this very helpful technique.

 

Some of the images of the recent total Solar Eclipse did have in&out clouds come into the frame. To me more interesting than the simple Sun-Moon images. But maybe this Ultra high contrast film will blow them out, who knows. With altering the developer to a lower contrast 'soup', maybe I can retain some of the cloud content. Hopefully I can extract something usable that I can post here in the thread.

 

Finally, I could have used anyone of several digital cameras and avoided all this labor & uncertainty.

But having one roll of refrigerated ultra fine grain 6 ASA film that I thought had no possible use, when the Uber Bright Light subject matter arose,

I could think of no other method and as a result, seemed to experience 'clouded' judgment...

Cheers Gus. I hope it works out, but I fear that most of those old copy films had no anti-halation backing.

 

Grainless they might have been, but not really designed for general use. So I hope you get something useable.