Gainers Vitamin C formulas versus Xtol

Gainer's vitamin C formulas in their various permutations are

certainly wonderful developers but, apart from cost and rare Xtol

failures, are they qualitatively better than Xtol in different

dilutions in terms of tonality, grain, and acuity. For argument sake

consider Delta 100. I, myself, have no definite opinion. I am amazed

that such a fine developer ( Gainers )is so easily concocted with so

few ingredients and I have not yet discovered a film that does not

work well them. But the question nags-- are they better than Xtol?

Michael -- I think that everyone has to define "better" according to their own preferences. Xtol and Pat Gainer's recipes are both based on a phenidone-ascorbic acid system, but Xtol contains sodium sulfite while the Gainer soups do not. The presence of sodium sulfite changes the appearance of the film grain in ways some may consider beneficial and others may consider detrimental.

 

I've never tried Xtol but have had a lot of success with Pat Gainer's developers. There is a simplicity in them that makes them appealing from a chemical point of view, and the propylene glycol stock solutions seem to last a long time (mine has been going for almost a year with no signs of degradation). The Gainer developer can be made more Xtol-like through the addition of sodium sulfite to the working solution -- forum contributor Jorge Oliveira does just that. I hope he chimes in with his recipe soon.

 

To answer your question, you may just have to sacrifice several rolls of the same film to a carefully controlled side-by-side test between the Gainer soups and Xtol -- bearing in mind that differences in agitation technique, water quality, exposure metering, etc. between photographers will make a big (maybe bigger) difference in results you see from others.

Sodium Sulfite is a silver halide solvent and can therefore influence sharpness. I have not used either developer myself, but if I were to make a comparison, one of the main things I would look for would be changes in sharpness or acuity.

 

I would also want to check out the curve shape by photographing a neutral scale and plotting the densities onto a graph to determine the suitability of the curve for my purposes.

 

Ron Mowrey

Making direct comparisons between developers is difficult, even without the added threshold of declaration of superiority. The best we can expect from a thread like this one is honest evaluation from users who have used both developers. First, there are many Gainer's vitamin C developers, and each has idiosyncratic qualities, so I'll confine my remarks to the one I use most often; PC-TEA. I prefer PC-TEA to Xtol for many reasons, the most important being the way it renders skin tones, but there are others as well. I like the fact that PC-TEA is a highly concentrated, single solution developer that will last forever on the shelf, which makes mixing a working solution quick, easy and consistent. I like the fact that PC-TEA is simple, containing only a few ingredients, almost completely non-toxic, and extremely economical. If these benefits came at the expense of fine grain, sharpness, or film speed, it would be a much tougher call to make, but they don't. So, for me, PC-TEA is better than Xtol.

I've compared several Gainer variants to Xtol 1+1 on Delta 400, and it's not hard to make a homebrew that wins in terms of grain.

 

Here's a formula with good speed and fine grain:

1l of water, 4 ml solution of phenidone in alcohol, prepared as per Gainer's instruction on unblinkingeye.com, 1/2 tsp ascorbic acid, 2 tbsp sodium sulfite, 1 tsp borax.

 

Of course, Gainer's original formulas don't contain sulfite. In previous threads, I've said I wasn't able get fine grain without sulfite. I now have, by keeping developer pH low (as in PC-TEA, for instance). Problem is that a developer with low pH and no sulfite has low speed. I'm experimenting with increasing the amount of phenidone, which seems to boost speed.

Peter, I've been using a lot of PC-TEA, with several different films, at box speed, with excellent results. I'm not refuting your experience, just sharing mine.

Peter;

 

I'm sorry but I have gone round and round with people on this.

 

The Gainer formula may be the greatest thing on earth for film, baldness, and other unmentionable things that fade with age. Heh.

 

Unfortunately, I would never measure it out volumetrically, as there can be as much as a 20% variation in ingredients which vary in crystal form. I have actually run the experiment and others have agreed with me on this. Just for example, shake a bottle of pebbles of various sizes, or coarse sand. You will gradually see it separate into layers of varying size and density. This variation will lead to measurement of the solid that differs in weight by up to the 20% that I measured. This can upset the predictable behavior of your developer. If you have not had problems, bravo to you, but you might.

 

I just spent a lot on a vacation and don't want to waste it by using a developer that might fail to give me the precise results I expect. You might face this sometime as well. I hope not.

 

Remember, I'm not claiming it will happen, just that it might. Opinions vary. I suggest that to be on the safe side, you weigh out your chemicals.

 

Ron Mowrey

Books teach to beware of simultaneous claims for fine grain sharpness and film speed. The pH of the working solution of PC-TEA is more or less fixed. I see no reason why it should be optimal for fine grain or for acutance. OTOH, Xtol will have been optimised I would suppose.

Alan,

first of all, all fine grain developers also produce film speed and sharpness, to one degree or another. Film speed is very easy to measure, whereas fine grain and sharpness are more convenient to compare relative to other developers. Most fine grain developers rely heavily on sodium sulfite, both as a preservative, and for its solvent action. PC-TEA contains no sulfite, as it needs no preservative, and the solvent action that can degrade sharpness is avoided as well. The Ph of TEA solutions is affected greatly by dilution, so the Ph of PC-TEA is certainly not "more or less fixed" . There are some obvious holes in your theory that might account for it not matching my experience. I suggest you put your theories to a practical test and see for yourself wether or not a developer can deliver fine grain, sharpness and full emulsion speed. I have.

Alan;

 

It is possible to optimize a developer to get the maximum built-in sharpness, speed, and grain. You can also optimize a developer to refine one or two of these at the expense of another. Usually however, you seriously degrade one or more of these.

 

To your list of characteristics I would add tone scale (indluding contrast, and straight line of the H&D curve), d-min, and d-max.

 

These are also affected by development, and are tested for all films before release against an aim, and all developers produced by major film and chemical companies test films against these characteristics to see that they match given aims.

 

I doubt if hobbyists have the time, patience, and equipment to test as rigorously as they do at EK, Fuji, Ilford, and Agfa to name a few. Therefore, I stick with prepackaged, or known formulas with photograde chemicals weighed out on a high quality balance. That is the only way to insure quality results that match manufacturers intended specs.

 

Ron Mowrey

Jay;

 

I just noticed your post. It went up while I was composing my previous post.

 

You state that silver halide solvents (sodium sulfite in this case) can degrade sharpness. This goes against conventional wisdom in which solvent effects increase sharpness (edge effects) in film developers. That is why it is present in D76.

 

Redeposition of silver, in fact, can increase sharpness (ears) on knife edge exposures while increasing grain somewhat. Microdol is a developer that improves grain and sharpness at the expense of some speed for one example. It does this, in part, via solvent effects.

 

In addition, solvents are used heavily in the E6 process. Reversal films are notorious for being difficult to make sharp (at least among film engineers) and therefore the two developers use silver halide solvents to improve sharpness, and competing couplers to improve grain. This is a singular case where you can do both at the same time as it is related to the unique characteristics of color materials.

 

Ron Mowrey

Rowland, while I respect your experience, most of what you've written runs counter to what I've read by other experts. Sodium sulfite when used at 100g/liter gives a solvent effect, and is used in like proportions in many fine grain developers like microdol-X, but at the expense of sharpness. Most high definition developers use much less sulfite, on the order of 5-50 grams/liter. According to Kodak, Microdol-X is their least sharp developer, as well as their slowest, but is the finest grained, while Xtol is the sharpest, second fastest, and second only to Microdol-X in the fine grain category. Wether or not the omission of sulfite in PC-TEA accounts for its sharpness is beyond my means to prove or disprove, but I won't lose any sleep over that. I understand the security of using only materials manufactured under very tight tolerances, after thorough and exhaustive testing, but you should keep in mind that the great majority of the mediums finest works were not created in that way, and that "hobbyists" account for many of the most important technological advancements in photographic history. I believe that George Eastman invented rollfilm in his kitchen? Many fine photographs have been made with recipe grade chemistry, and even some fine careers. There are many serious, accomplished photographers who have no qualms about using PMK pyro, or Pyrocat HD, regardless of the conditions in which they were developed, or the letters following the names of the men who did the work. As far as Pat Gainer is concerned, I'd place his qualifications a lot closer to George Eastman's than the average camera club member.

In Ch 6 of the Film Developing Cookbook is a table classifying high definition developers according to acutance which includes Xtol 1:3 and it would be interesting to hear an opinion of where PC-TEA might be placed ,if only provisional.

Measuring the acutance of a developer is extremely complex, and beyond my facilities. If someone with the facilities and desire would volunteer to make such a test, I would happily supply the developer.

Jay,

Actually, I shouldn't really be talking about the properties of P-C-TEA, since I haven't yet made the real thing. I've been using a solution of alcohol in phenidone, and then adding the TEA. It may be that the phenidone is starting to go bad, which might account for the speed loss. Going to try with the real thing soon.

 

If you do test the speed you're getting in P-C-TEA versus other developers, I'd be interested to hear of it. I generally look at zone I density.

Peter, I'm not a zonie, but I do have a densitometer. I generally judge my exposure by my low print values; if my shadows block up, I figure I need more exposure, and if they're not black enough, less. Crude, but effective. I am going to be plotting some curves soon, and I'll post my findings.

Jay;

 

I did say that sharpness, grain, speed, d-min, d-max and curve shape were in fine balance, didn't I? I agree with what you said, but I believe you misunderstood my comments.

 

I will try to clarify this. Films produced at EK are produced to an aim of all of those elements above. Pre-packaged developers and all EK formulas published use finely tuned ratios of chemistry to maximize either one, two, several or all of those items AS FAR AS POSSIBLE IN ONE SINGLE DEVELOPER and CONSISTANT WITH THE AIM. You can get a 'sweet spot' that includes an optimum of all of these - usually matching the aim, or a 'sweet spot' for one or groups of these. You cannot get the maximum of all of these at the same time, but you should at least, in any given developer, get to the AIM minimum release specification of a film as released by the manufacturer.

 

So, it is useless to claim a speed of 3200 from a 400 film if you need an 8x10 contact print to get good sharpness and grain, and I think you would agree. That process condition rendered one characteristic to its maximum at the expense of most everything else in this hypothetical example. (The real example might approximate this by taking old RXP at 3200 and pushing 2 stops in D76)

 

In the case in point made earlier in this thread, I would be inclined to prefer the example with sulfite just for any potential improvement in grain or sharpness (depending on film) that might be gained over the no-sulfite version.

 

On another related topic, it is possible to gain in sharpness and grain at the same time, depending on where on the curve you are, and on the edge effects introduced by development. This is rather harder to do, but not impossible. At the high end of the curve, grain tends to get lower, and due to edge effects caused by massive amounts of halide released and developer consumed, you can improve both sometimes, thereby gaining detail in highlight areas of your picture. Surely you have heard of this effect before? Right?

 

As far as George Eastman goes, yes he did do R&D at the kitchen sink, but he turned R&D over to a pro as soon as he could afford to hire one. (C. E. K. Mees - the first Director of Research), and from that point on Kodak films began to improve dramatically once the R&D process was put on a scientific footing. Mannes and Godowsky started in their kitchen sink as well, but ended up perfecting Kodachrome at EK in the Research Labs.

 

Trial and error do work, but there is a lot of wasted effort, and just because something looks good does not mean that it is good. Look how long Aristotelian Science lasted just because it seemed to 'look good', but the sun does NOT revolve around the earth no matter what it may seem to do to an unsophisticated observer.

 

So, in the final analysis, the only thing that would 'prove' this case is to actually run the experiments and test the resultant films quantitatively, not qualitatively alone via pictures, so that we can say one is better than the other, for these reasons, and by this exact amount!

 

My gut feeling and educated guess notwithstanding, I may be wrong, but I still would prefer the sulfite containing developer, and measurement by gravimetric means of all solids.

 

If you would care to discuss this further, please either start a new thread, or e-mail me. I'll be happy to give you my educated opinion/guess.

 

As an example of this type of debate and posted data, you may wish to see the thread by James Dainis with part of its title being "armchair photographers". In it, several people posted 'data' about color films. Among them was a test I ran on Portra 160, 400 and 800 exposed from EI 25 - 3200. It gave some interesting results that agree with the latest article / review by Ctein in Photographic Techniques. That is, it showed that these films have amazing latitude in good light, and have a higher EI than expected. You might want to read what we members can come up with when we all concentrate on a given task.

 

Ron Mowrey

Rowland said: "Trial and error do work, but there is a lot of wasted effort, and just because something looks good does not mean that it is good. Look how long Aristotelian Science lasted just because it seemed to 'look good', but the sun does NOT revolve around the earth no matter what it may seem to do to an unsophisticated observer."

 

I'd say the empirical trial and error method most of us are using in trying out new developer formulas is the opposite of Aristotelian science. And in photography, appearance is reality: if the results look good, it IS good.

 

I'd gladly leave photographic research in the hands of professionals, but seeing as there's practically no commercial research any more, B&W research has gone back to the kitchen sink. As you note, determined amateurs linked through the Internet can get an extraordinary amount of stuff done. It would of course help if their efforts were a bit more disciplined.

Peter;

 

I agree and disagree.

 

A single stimulus test may look good, but in a carefully controlled side-by-side comparion you may not get the same answer.

 

That is the main problem with the 'conclusions' often posted here.

 

Someone takes 1 picture, processes it in one developer and comes to a 'scientific' conclusion. In truth it takes more than one exposure, of more than one type, and more than one film, processed in a variety of developers, printed in a variety of ways to come to a valid conclusion.

 

If you dont understand the value of a factorial experiment or even what a factorial experiemt is, then you don't understand my argument. But in photography, this is the only way to arrive at 'truth'.

 

This takes a deep commitment of time and money to carry out. I doubt if anyone is up to it, but I have NEVER seen it done satisfactorily outside of KRL. Sometimes it is closely approached in film comparisons in Popular Photography, but thats about it.

 

Even my exposure experiment is not a full factorial, just a set of exposures, but in any case, it is quite revealing.

 

Ron Mowrey

Rowland, with all due respect, I think you're missing the point. Saying something works in a certain way, and proving why something works in a certain way, are indeed two different things, but neither actually changes the way that thing works. I don't think many would argue that the aboriginal Australians had a thorough understanding of aerodynamics, yet the boomerangs they made relied on very sophisticated physics to work, and many an unsophisticated wallaby has observed their effectiveness. If you read my original response to this post, you'll see that the reasons I gave for PC-TEA being better than Xtol have as much to do with the way I work with the developer as they do for the way the developer works with film. The simplicity of a single solution, the keeping properties and low toxicity do not require extensive R&D facilities to understand. If these benefits came at the expense of increased grain, lower film speed, degraded sharpness, or unfavorable gradation, then I probably wouldn't abandon Xtol, but in my experience, that is not the case. Are you arguing that I should not embrace the important benefits that PC-TEA has to offer over Xtol, and which are irrefutable, because I can't quantitatively, and definitively prove that it's not too grainy, or that it doesn't reduce film speed, or that it isn't as sharp, or that the gradation isn't preferrable? In the world of practical photography, where photographers live, visual evaluation is the highest criteria. If we look at the same question in reverse, and we consider reasons to favor Xtol over PC-TEA, despite PC-TEA's practical advantages, I am still limited to visual evaluation to determine wether Xtol's performance warrants its use despite its inconvenience and increased toxicity. In this light, the argument for Xtol becomes abstract, and academic. In the end, we all make choices based on personal experience, and if your education and experience will not permit you to use untested materials, who am I to argue? Xtol is a fine developer, and if you're comfortable with it, I'm sure it will produce excellent results for you.

Jay;

 

If you look at my original post, I said that I had not tried either developer. I have no authoritative reason to advise you either way about either developer under any circumstances.

 

I think that you have misunderstood my posts following that original one. Basically, without evidence, we have no scientific proof one way or another that one developer is better than another in this case, or if better we have no quantization of how much better and in which way(s).

 

You are your sole audience for your work (and your 'customers' of course), and if you satisfy your audience and the sum total of them are happy, then that is all that can be said. You use what makes you satisfied.

 

OTOH, I was trying to point out that there is a woeful lack of hard data proving these observations. The Gainer formula may be 1000X better than XTOL but we have no quantized data for this. If you are using it for keeping and for convenience, then bravo, but again pointing back to my posts, you have no side by side comparision telling you that you have better final results, just that they satisfy you personally. Again, that is fine. No argument with that. I'm merely pointing out some issues that are often missing in statements here.

 

For example, if you said "I like Gainer's formula because it is convenient and keeps well, while giving me one stop in speed and better grain with the same sharpness - here are comparison prints for you ..." Then you are filling in the gaps in the issues that disturb me about all selections of developers and conditions. This is not limited to XTOL and Gainer's formulas.

 

I am concerned with the qualitative statements made here, and the lack of quantitative proofs to back them up. And, I'm not targeting you or Gainer in this. It was just an opportunity to point out that we have no proofs that would support things one way or another as to the quality of results from these two choices in developer. All we have is personal opinion.

 

And, along the way, I added my educated opinion that sulfite containing developers generally have slightly better grain and/or sharpness than non-sulfite developers depending on film and level of sulfite. That again is not an endorsement of one developer over another as I have no evidence in this case either way.

 

I pose this to you though. Just suppose that you are getting a 10% difference in grain or sharpness when you use one of these developers. If you could compare them side by side, would you notice it? Would you be happy continuing with the better developer? Could you even test for this? Would you even want to or care to make the comparison in the first place?

 

Just some happy little thoughts for you to consider.

 

Ron Mowrey

I worked with Xtol in light microscopy for 25 years now (also Microdol and Technidol as well) and I can say: it does the trick good. Actually, the order I placed the trade names tells their work quality (in my experience, from normal to crap, because I think Technidol is just another of the EK many scams. Ron, as you retired from EK, I hope you don't take it personally). Do I like it? This is science, result has to be accurate, not beautiful.

 

For beauty I go home. And did I take any Xtol home and tried it out? Of course, but I keep working with Crawley's, Pyros, sometimes Dektol and the D series for film. I also tried Gainer's in different forms and I liked it very much. The developers I like indeed the most are minute variations of "classical" formulae, and they are not published anywhere. I belive the developer choice is a matter of personal visual preference depending on subject, season, mood and of personal will of expression. No prepacked kit will give you that.

 

I totally agree with you Jay. In 2000, the classical photographic giants definitely lost their business because they created a consumer dependency market, inherently based on strict technical measurements of quality. Social trend became quantitative, and when digital could quantify faster, every consumer turned their backs and bought the playable toys.

 

What the big photographic (turned electronic) companies can not influence is the artistic taste. They fooled us around with a miriad of standardized tools and adjacent kits they tried to sell, and they succedeed in a good measure for a good period of time.

 

Nevertheless, a poor genuine artistic character will feel the need of an 8x10 and will do the darkroom alone, even 50 years from now. But this is not a comsumer, this is a talented individual, who cannot put in words to a Megapixel or ASA machine what he felt and wants you to feel when you contemplate his (her) work. Oh, yes the artist can learn how to operate the tools, but normally they stick to simplicity purely because they have other priorities. They give up, or they pay somebody else to do the jobs. And this is how work doesn't come up right... And this is when the charlatans come about, but I better stop here...

 

 

<< Just suppose that you are getting a 10% difference in grain or sharpness when you use one of these developers. If you could compare them side by side, would you notice it? Would you be happy continuing with the better developer? Could you even test for this? Would you even want to or care to make the comparison in the first place? >>

 

Ron, by now you probably know what follows: BY ALL MEANS YES! Even if I don't get a difference at all, the fact that a developer is friendlier, cheaper and easy to prepare, simply makes it a serious competitor for any other developer (just take a look at my later threads about RA4 homebrew and you'll see my anti-canonic attitude)

 

And why not indeed? Nothing artistic in this example, but if you can hold a wrench in your hands and you can read an instruction book, why are you still paying at PepBoys for your brakes? Oh, I see, the bolts are tightened at a standard of 183,56 lb/sq in...

 

the rookie

We all have different priorities. Some don't like to mix powders. Some don't use enough developer to warrant buying 5L packages of Xtol (me). Some don't like to mail order and have a limited selection locally. Some prefer less toxic developers. Those are all extremely important factors in what to use, and have little to do with technical matters. When it comes to the action of the developer on film, IMO only a true side-by-side comparison, combined with sensitometric testing, has any validity. Even then, you can only apply the results to similar subjects. It's too easy to be misled by the results of a single shot or roll, and visual memory is the same as audio memory- totally unreliable. When I do a proper side-by-side test, I have reasonable confidence in the result as it applies to me. I agree with the points Ron makes, OTOH I also think a lot of the differences one worries about in the R&D lab are extremely minor or invisible to the average user. What I'd really like to know is whether the R&D lab has any serious photographers, people who are sensitive to tonal values and the pictorial effect of various film curves. I continue to believe (with no scientific proof whatsoever) that the trend towards straight line film curves, requiring that most compression of values take place on the paper curve, is not the way to go. The most accurate tonal reproduction is not always the best tonal reproduction in a pictorial non-scientific application.

Excellent point of view, Conrad!

 

I remember several occasions in my life when we were supposed to work together, in multiprofessional teams. For this situations, Americans have a saying, and I always recall Robbie Robertson, from The Band, explaining it at the Fillmore East establishment "... there were two guys there... and the fight started..."

 

Around 1980, I worked in R&D for auxiliary products for leather industry and they paired us up with the "creation" department in order for us, the chemical makers, to get the concrete feel for leather, and for them, the artists, to see how hard it is to say: "this finish is crap, make me a softer one, but still blue".

 

Well, besides the fact that we talked, behaved and we were dressed totally differently, we eventually got drunk without gaps, but at different times of the day. Only sterile dialogs came out of our collaboration, mainly because none of us was capable to share the others' vocabulary or to comprehend different than own life priorities. The main goal is extremely hard not to forget, when it comes to simple life daily details, it is (human) nature.

 

Of course, one may pretend and overlook the differences, but nothing genuine comes as a positive result, just confrontational situations, and sooner than later, one of the parties (or both) gives up. Rational beings, yeah, yeah, I've been there. A photographer in the r&d lab, when life is so beautiful outside... A surgeon in the biomaterials r&d lab, when there is so much to do in the ER... a cat and a dog in the same cage... and I can go on and on. Yes, we can pretend, and we do for most of the situations, it is fantasticly nice, but it is utopic.

 

Sadly enough, as a pure scientist, I came to the realization that organized life is NOT a part of the human nature at all, but it can be imposed... with extremely poor results.

 

Who thinks differently, and can live with it naturally, is the winner!

 

(no, I'm not at all depressed)

 

the rookie

To all;

 

Most all of the product development engineers at KRL are / were excellent photographers with published works of photography in their credits. We worked closely with our special 'expert' photographers in the photo studio and relied on them for our high quality test negatives and transparencies.

 

We spoke often, and in many cases still maintain those frienships in retirement. Some are now in business for themselves either locally or wherever they decided to retire. Some are included in what we could call the 'photographers hall of fame' and some of you including Ganiner, and Anchell and Troop quote them here on PN and in the latter's books you find reference to some of them.

 

If you wish a list of names and books, I'll be glad to post them here.

 

I agree with many of your comments. I'm not trying to sell XTOL or anything else. How can I? I have not used it! If I want conveninece, I'll use HC110 syrup and a syringe. It is just as good to me as most anything else. Some of the greatest pros in the business, making a living from photography tell me to use D76 and Dektol and stick with it. Or, use HC110B dilution. Laugh if you want, but these guys sell books at $400 / copy, and prints for up to $100,000 each. They don't 'experiment' as their work is too important for experimentation.

 

There are some powerful points that you all made in your posts above that I cannot disagree with, but then again you should not be able to disagree with some of mine.

 

Here is my point in a nutshell. Someone says that developer A is better than developer B. They say it gives them better skin tones and highlight detail as an example. Ok, I assume that they tested it. But... Here comes the point >> I want to see side by side comparison prints along with their reasoned description of the choice, otherwise it is only an opinion with no substance to back it and help me to understand their preference. With that picture comparison, I have something to help me then to understand their reasoning, otherwise I would have to run the test myself.

 

It isn't that I distrust the individual either. I want to see for myself what they judge to be a beneficial change so that I may learn from them. A picture is worth 1000 words. You cannot describe your percieved improvement, you can only show it to me. (notice, I did not say "you can only prove it to me" as I accept your premise that it is an improvement, and all I want is to see and learn from your judgment).

 

I have clearly stated here that I have not run a comparison of these two developers and that my feelings about sulfite in a developer are based on previous experiences, but in this case remain just an educated gueess/opinion.

 

Is that fair enough? Or not?

 

Ron Mowrey