Thornton two-bath developer

[james_par_]

<p>I have used a number of developers over the years: D-76, FG7, HC-110, Microphen, DD-X, Rodinal, Diafine, and many more. Recently, I decided to give Barry Thornton's two-bath developer (<a href="http://www.barrythornton.com/">http://www.barrythornton.com/</a>) a try with HP5+. I was blown away by the quality of the results: sharp images that exhibit a lovely range of tones. I'm curious to know if others have had a similar experience.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>Welcome to the club!</p>

[john_stockdale2]

<p>I found Barry Thornton's two books, Elements and Edge of Darkness very informative and inspirational. This 2 bath is a happy medium between conventional developers and split developers. As he often said, control of excessive contrast in negatives is probably the one best thing most black and white photographers eventually discover.</p>

[DWScott]

<p>Robert, having used both Diafine and Thornton's two-bath, how would you characterize the difference?</p>

<p>I use and enjoy Diafine. It does seem to produce more grain than the other developers with which I have experience (D76 and Ilfosol 3.) But I like the tones with Diafine, and love the convenience. Thornton's writing about the two-bath mentions Diafine as analogous (though difficult to source in the UK.)</p>

 

[james_par_]

<p>Diafine yields negatives with sharp, well-defined grain, and provides a speed boost. I found it to be particularly interesting with FP4+ at e.i. 250. That said, I prefer Thornton's developer, which I use with HP5+ at box speed. Contrary to Diafine, there is no loss in the highlights with Thornton, even in very contrasty situations, and the grain is as sharp and well-defined. Being able to shoot HP5+ at 400 is a definite plus, as I always use a K2 yellow filter when shooting outdoors.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>What I love about Thornton is the low maintenance use. I stand develop, when I use it. This gives the maximum acutance possible without any problems historically introduced because of long times involved.</p>

<p>For 100 iso I use 3.5/3.5 and 400 iso I use 4.5/4.5 as starting points. If you don't know what ISO you shot (my pile of vacation film from 3 years ago...) 4/4 seems to get it in the ball park.</p>

 

[john_cogburn]

<p>Do you mean you stand develop 3.5 minutes in A and then stand develop 3.5 minutes in B?</p>

<p>I guess I never heard a definitive definition of "stand developing", but I sort of assumed it meant very long times, like a whole hour in diluted developer.</p>

[james_par_1]

<p>I don't think it is advisable to stand develop in Bath A. Insufficient agitation produces bromide streaks on the film -- I know this from experience. My procedure with HP5+ is 3 1/2 minutes in bath A, with continous, gentle agitation for the first minute and two gentle inversions per minute for the rest of the time. Then 3 1/2 minutes in bath B, with two gentle inversions per minute.<br>

HP5+ in Thornton's two-bath developer:<br>

<img src="http://www.flickr.com/photos/borret44/10869159766/" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.flickr.com/photos/borret44/10894671186/" alt="" /></p>

[james_par_1]

<p>The links to my photos don't seem to work. Go directly to my <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/borret44/">Flickr</a> site.</p>

<p> </p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>John, stand just means nor agitation. And yes for both baths.</p>

<p>James, bromide drag can be an issue with some films when standing over 30 mins. With under 5 mins any bromide drag (if any) will wash off. The short bath times here give all the advantages of stand developing with maximum acutance with none of the traditional side effects of much longer soak times. </p>

<p> </p>

[keith_tapscott]

<p>Although I have never been a fan of two-bath developers, his DiLuxol Vitesse two-bath developer looks interesting. I am not sure if all the developers mentioned on his site are still available.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>I remember stumbling across it before. I do remember that I didn't consider it a big deal, as it was something like another developer. I can't find the link now.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p><a href="http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/23902-pyro-glycin-tea.html">http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/23902-pyro-glycin-tea.html</a> look at post #5</p>

[greg_skrocki]

<p>Seeing this thread just inspired me to have some fun with developing again (haven't done it in quite a few years). So I just ordered up some raw materials. Can't believe how cheap they are. Thanks!</p>

<p>Is Metol an acceptable developer for all silver based films? I remember reading somewhere about it being particularly suitable with T-grain films, but is there any reason it won't yield good results with all b+w films?</p>

[james_par_]

<p>Greg, I have used Thornton's metol-based developer with a variety of films without any problems. Check out Thornton's web site: <a href="http://www.barrythornton.com/">http://www.barrythornton.com</a></p>

[jim_appleyard]

<p>Greg, metol works with just about all films. It may not work with document films like Tech Pan (usually they work best with Phenidone, a low contrast developer), but for just about every other film, metol is fine.</p>

<p>There are many different developing agents and developers to fit different tastes and needs. So many devs, so little time...</p>

 

[ron_taylor3]

<p>I have been using divided D-76 (Patrick Dignan version) for over 3 decades with incredible results. I used to enlarge 35mm Plus-X up to 24X with no visible grain when viewed at 24". Has anyone compared divided D-76 to Barry Thornton's two-bath developer?</p>

<p>Ron.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>I would, but hydroquinone is impossible to get here (Canada).</p>

[greg_skrocki]

<p>Ok thanks! I have a stockpile of various of b+w films. I'll give them all a shot! I just mixed up some chems going by Barry Thornton's formula and I'll give it a try tomorrow morning when they cool down to room temp.<br /> Another question for anyone in the know-- what is the shelf life of both solutions by time, and quantity of 35mm rolls it can produce?<br>

Also, should I expect any separation as it cools down or sits for extended periods requiring stirring or shaking or anything? Thanks.</p>

[james_par_1]

<p>Greg -- Barry Thornton claimed his developer was good for 15 rolls of 35 mm. I always stop at ten, just to be sure. As far as I can tell, the developer doesn't settle, so it is not necessary to shake it prior to use. How long will it keep? I can't really say, as I have never kept a batch beyond two months.<br>

If you feel like experimenting, you may want to try one of Patrick Gainer's Vitamin C developers. Here is a simple formula that yields a sharp image with an excellent tonal range:</p>

<ul>

<li>Water at 50 C: 300 mL</li>

<li>Sodium carbonate: 2.5 g</li>

<li>Ascorbic acid: 1 g</li>

<li>Metol: 0.1 g</li>

<li>Cold water to make 500 mL</li>

</ul>

<p>Cool the solution to 20 C, then use immediately, undiluted, as a one-shot developer. Develop Tri-X for 7 min. (Gentle, continuous agitation for the first minute, then three gentle inversions per minute.)</p>

[james_par_1]

<p>Greg -- You probably know this already, but better safe than sorry: as with all formulas, the chemicals must be fully mixed in the order given.</p>

[greg_skrocki]

<p>Well I developed a couple of test rolls and I have to say I'm very pleased. Did a roll of TMAX 400 and Tri-X 400 together, 4.5/4.5 mins @ 70F. Here's one frame: http://www.photo.net/photo/17626597.<br>

Now to develop some rolls I really care about. My only concern is a slight contamination of the second bath. I didn't do a rinse between baths, since I read nowhere that said to do that. But then, inevitably, there will be some residual of the first bath remaining in the tank even though I shook it out as much as possible. So I wonder, does a slight contamination of metol into the second bath (probably like 1% or less) cause any problems when put back into the storage container for re-use? Maybe I'm being too anal, but I don't know.</p>

[james_par_1]

<p>Greg -- You must <strong>not</strong> rinse between Bath A and Bath B; there is no danger of contaminating Bath B. (BTW, love the cat!)</p>

[greg_skrocki]

<p>Ok good. And thanks! Just processed a pair of rolls of Neopan and the first look at the negs seems good. I love this developer!</p>

[keith_tapscott]

<p>@ Ron Taylor, what is the formula of Patrick Dignan's divided D-76?<br>

I have the divided D-76 formula by Robert J Starks which according to what Paul Farber said; <strong>"The maximum emulsion speed afforded by D-76 is retained, along with the high acutance. However, the divided development gives the negatives a beautiful range of tones which straight D-76 cannot seem to do over a large range of contrast situations."</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Excerpt from MODERN PHOTOGRAPHIC PROCESSING by GRANT HAIST (page 429)<br /></strong></p>