Mytol in Propylene Glycol

[dennis_oconnor6]

I am finding that I get better negatives (contrast) with 'Mytol' rather than 'Instant Mytol'. I would like to know is it possible to make a stock solution of 'Mytol' in Propylene Glycol?

[rodeo_joe1]

Hasn't this been discussed here? 

Personally, I think both time and film are too valuable to fritter away trying this, that and the other developer. It's well known that contrast is easily varied in proportion to development time. So isn't it easier to simply adjust the time in a known developer rather than formulate a new one?

[dennis_oconnor6]

Looks like it was. Thanks for the reply. I was tryng to keep to the published dev times/temps. I have no need to investigate further.

[rodeo_joe1]

13 hours ago, dennis_oconnor6 said:

I was tryng to keep to the published dev times/temps.

But if the result isn't to your liking, there's nothing wrong with adjusting dev times up or down. Ansel Adams did it all the time - made a career out of it you might say. 

Besides, Mytol is a home-made concoction, and the 'published times' are just someone else's opinion, based on what worked for them.

Also, the activity of a Phenidone-Ascorbate developer is very sensitive to the amount of Phenidone used. To increase the activity/contrast noticeably an additional 0.1 gm might be all that's needed. 

Edited February 2, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[dennis_oconnor6]

I found out today that visual inspection of negatives can be deceiving. I thought that the 'Mytol' developed ones had more contrast when I viewed them on my light box. However. When I put each of them in my enlarger (both negatives of the indentical scene) and used my analyser pro to sample them - they gave me identical readings. Oh well it was interesting to find out.

[conrad_hoffman]

Wiggling into my flameproof underwear... In one of my big Kodak research summary books they talk about developing agents. They actually admit that images developed to the same CI (contrast index) using different developing agents are pretty much indistinguishable. As somebody that liked to mess with different developer formulas, this is a bit of a letdown, but I have no evidence that would disprove it.

 

[glen_h]

I bought TMax developer, as it is used for the highest EI values for TMax3200.

I sometimes use it for other films, too.

HC-110 is a long favorite for older film.  That is, 10, 20, or 30 years old.

Verichrome Pan works just fine at 50 years. 

(Some old film size is only available in VP.)

 

Otherwise, there is a difference between condenser and diffusion enlargers,

in the contrast as seen by the print.   But with VC paper, you can adjust

however you want.

[ed_farmer]

On 2/2/2023 at 3:53 PM, conrad_hoffman said:

They actually admit that images developed to the same CI (contrast index) using different developing agents are pretty much indistinguishable.

While this CAN be true, it isn't always.  Scientists working in a lab aren't photographers shooting in the wild and printing in their darkrooms.  Things like acuity and "local" contrast differences created by different developer formulations can create many differences even if subtly seen.

14 hours ago, glen_h said:

I bought TMax developer, as it is used for the highest EI values for TMax3200.

I liked TMax Developer for TMX.  I never liked TMY for anything.  But, I did shoot TMZ at EI 25,000 and process in TMax to make some beautiful portraits.