manvg
Hello,
Can anyone help me with the development times for the Efke R 50 (or KB 50) in Moersch MZB?
Best regards,
Manfred
Gast
50 ASA
A 1:45 45 sec tilt B 15 min: tilt twice at 2, 4 and 6 minutes, then hold
32 ASA
A 2:15 60 sec tilt – hold B 9 min: tilt once at 6 minutes, then hold
WolfgangMoersch
50 ASA
A 1:45? 45 sec tilt? B 15 min at 2, 4, 6 min – tilt twice, then hold
32 ASA
A 2:15? 60 sec tilt – hold? B 9 min until the 6th min – tilt once, then hold
Sorry – that was me.
wm
Gast
Hello,
I’d like to jump in with another question straight away:
Both farmers have quite a short processing time, don’t they? How reliable are the results in that regard?
Best regards, CP
WolfgangMoersch
That is precisely why this film is not included in the list. The results are only reproducible if the time spent in the A solution is strictly adhered to.
I personally take a different approach with Efke films, but users tend to view any deviations from the recommended usage (dilution, temperature, agitation) with scepticism.
These ADOX films are different; they always have been. It is not without reason that a special developer was created for these films decades ago, one which is still available today. Neofin Blaue is still good; A49 is perhaps even better – at the very least, it is unbeatable in terms of value for money.
With ADOX/Efke 50, as with any other film/developer combination, I ignore the ISO standard. A density of 0.10 as the ‘speed point’ is too low for me; I want detail in the shadows. With the light meter set to ISO 40/17, I get 0.12–0.13 in Zone I with MZB; Zones II and III don’t build up as much as with ISO 50/18, and so we’re back to the speed of the good old DIN days – after all, the film used to be called KB17.
My recommendation for MZB:
Exposure at 40 ASA
A and B stock solutions (both usable twice) at 20°C
A: agitate for 4 minutes 30 seconds, then 2 times per minute
B: agitate for 4 minutes, then 2 times per minute after adding
Gast
Hello,
First of all, many thanks for the quick reply!
Well, I have to say quite honestly that I wouldn’t have the slightest problem with different dilutions, nor with different temperatures – quite the opposite. I’ve already asked about Tetenal’s Emofin in another thread. I’d like to develop the films locally in Turkey, and given the temperatures there in summer, I’d very quickly end up with such short development times that hoping for properly developed films would feel like playing the lottery.
If the MZB can manage that, I’ll be pleasantly surprised and it could well become my developer of choice. It’s also said that it produces better sharpness than Emofin. So far, I’ve had almost exclusively experience with Rodinal, but I now wanted to try out Tannol or Pyrogallol because of their ability to mask highlights. With Rodinal, I like the sharpness, which could almost be described as technical, and which is particularly advantageous in architectural photography.
At the same time, however, I often have to contend with enormous contrast ranges and only recently ruined a few Pan F films whilst shooting interiors with window areas. I’ve now repeated the shots with an even longer exposure and Rodinal diluted to a very high ratio (1:150). It worked, but it’s also about partial contrasts and not just the overall contrast, so I’ll have to do a lot of dodging and burning in the darkroom again, although nowhere near as extreme as on the first attempt. These images, you see, were very difficult to get onto paper, even with a lot of persuasion.
Regards, CP
WolfgangMoersch
Hi CP
>Well, to be perfectly honest, I wouldn’t have the slightest problem with different dilutions, nor with >different temperatures – quite the opposite. I’ve already asked about Tetenal’s Emofin in another thread. I’d like to develop the films locally in Turkey, and given the temperatures there in summer, I’d very quickly end up with such short development times that it would feel like a lottery to hope for properly developed films.
I’d set the processing temperature for the MZB to 24°C by default, because in summer it’s often a real struggle to cool it down to 20°C. My understanding of this was limited.
>If the MZB can manage that, I’ll be pleasantly surprised and it could become my developer of choice. It’s also said >that it produces better sharpness than Emofin. So far, I’ve had almost exclusively experience with Rodinal, but I now wanted to try out Tannol or >Pyrogallol because of their ability to mask highlights. With Rodinal, I like the sharpness – which could almost be described as technical – that is particularly advantageous in architectural photography.
Both Pyro and Tannol would certainly be a good choice for architecture – provided a loss of sensitivity is tolerable. Both developers are certainly just as sharp as Rodinal.
>At the same time, however, I often have to contend with enormous contrast ranges and only recently ruined a few Pan F films whilst >shooting interiors with window areas. I have now repeated the shots with an even longer exposure and Rodinal diluted to a very high degree (1:150). It worked, but it’s also about partial contrasts and not just the overall contrast, so I’ll have to do a lot of dodging and burning in the darkroom again, though by no means as extreme as on the first attempt. These images, you see, were very difficult to get onto paper, even with a lot of persuasion.
I don’t want to tell you what film to choose, but I would just point out that low-speed films in particular tend to produce ‘steep’ curves. Given the high contrast ranges (which do occur occasionally) in Turkey, a film of medium speed might be the better choice. Pyro and Tanol produce such razor-sharp results that it isn’t strictly necessary to sacrifice speed for the sake of sharpness.
In any case, at 24°C, the MZB times drop from 4 to just under 3 minutes.
In cases of very high contrast, the entire curve can be flattened by shortening the B-time, but this then brings us back to times that become critical.
Tanol or Pyro would be preferable when using a zone-based approach.
Ideally, one would use the SLIMT technique; the advantage would be that all films (regardless of the contrast ratio at which they were taken – after pre-treatment) could be processed together (with a single development time!). Even the very highest contrasts can be managed in this way without the shadows becoming too tight.
That may sound strange, but it works.
Regards
wm
Gast
Hello Mr Moersch,
Thank you once again for your prompt reply.
One more question: - What is meant by the SLIMT technique? I’m hearing the term for the first time.
I actually only work with medium and large formats now, so a tailored development process would be possible. However, I’m a bit wary of experimenting with the zone system. I use a sort of simplified zone system that an experienced older photographer once explained to me. With normal contrast (in the Z-system N), my ISO sensitivity is one stop below the manufacturer’s specification; the higher the contrast becomes, the more I reduce the ISO sensitivity and development time (the opposite applies for low contrast). This usually works so that I can enlarge a gradient close to normal/special. I’ve already described my recent slip-up.
Pan F was definitely not the right choice; I should have had a look at the curve in the datasheet beforehand! I just wanted to try something new; otherwise, I always shoot on APX 100, which, as PF, is now kindly no longer available – except in my fridge! Sooner or later, however, I’ll probably have no choice but to switch to FP4, including in the RF format; I don’t want to work with two different films as standard material, and I never got on with the flat-crystal films, though I must admit I didn’t put much effort into them – I had at most 10 rolls of T-Max 120 and 3 or 4 Deltas.
Now, one more question: - What is meant by SLIMT technology?
Best regards, CP
WolfgangMoersch
Hi CP,
Don’t worry – the film is bleached before development! But only in a veeeery dilute bleach solution.
There’s no need for extensive testing; data is available for FP4 and Tanol, and it should work with APX as well.
Because N-1,2,3 involves pre-wetting, bleaching and rinsing, the N time must of course also be determined with a pre-wet (i.e. slightly longer than the standard time without water before the developer). No further testing is required; the streamlined system can be retained. Instead of shortening the development time for N-(1,2,3), the films are pre-treated in bleach diluted to varying degrees (after a brief pre-rinse so that the bleach can take hold evenly); the solution is then rinsed out (1 minute is sufficient with the weak solution) and the films are temporarily stored in another tank until all films with differing contrast have also been processed. Afterwards, I top up the collection tray with water again (just to be on the safe side) and then all films, whether N, or N-1 to N-4, are developed together using the determined time for N. The N+ films must be developed individually as usual with the appropriate extension of time.
Ideally, all N and N- negatives will then fit on G2 without any upside-down positioning, so there is still room for minor measurement errors. The shadows are cleanly differentiated, and the highlights (silver densities) are reduced without the highlights becoming muddy, as there is still the (proportional secondary density) – the stain.
That may sound risky, but at least up to N-3, nothing has burnt out for me yet. I’ve only tried N-4 once, and it went well.
My experience is limited, however, to FP4, Tri-X and Tmax400 in Tanol.
Regards
wm
Gast
Hello Mr Moersch,
Thank you very much for the information. I must admit that I was a little taken aback at the idea of bleaching undeveloped negatives, but I’ll give it a go:
Which bleaching agent and what concentration are best to use? Would you be so kind as to provide me with the details, including the development times (in this case for the FP4)? Many people balk at the request for development times: wrongly so, in my opinion, as they are a good starting point. Of course, there’s no getting round the need to find your own way.
On the large-format forum (www.grossformatfotografie.de) – should you, contrary to expectations, not yet be familiar with it, do feel free to have a look; it should be of interest to you too – where I usually hang out, I was told that during the enlargement of films developed in pyrogallol and tanol onto variable-contrast paper, the ‘stain’ acts as a partial filter in the highlights. Can you tell me anything else about how this works? The highlights do seem to come out softer.
What, in fact, is the main difference between Tanol and pyrogallol? – In their effect, not in their chemical composition. Pyrogallol is not as toxic as is often claimed, provided, of course, that appropriate precautions are taken. I was told on the GF forum that the main drawback of pyrogallol is that, despite the concentrate having a very long shelf life, during prolonged development in the working dilution, the film is often not yet ‘ready’, whereas the pyrogallol certainly is.
Rodinal is always presented as the longest-serving developer: I don’t think we can leave it at that: Pyrogallol was used even earlier. It is interesting, however, that it harmonises so well with modern contrast-reversal paper. That said, this isn’t actually all that new – as far as I know, the patent was granted as early as the 1930s; I can still remember its market launch quite clearly, though.
Best regards and many thanks again!
CP
CPD
Perhaps I should log in in future after all. I don’t actually know who I’m supposed to be ‘for’!
Best regards, CP
WolfgangMoersch
The Bleach: STAMM Solution!
In 100ml of water: 1g potassium hexacyanoferrate (III) and 0.33g potassium bromide
If you’d rather not go to the trouble, you can buy the bleach from me.
N-1 5ml per 1 litre of water (+1/3 stop)
N-2 8ml per 1 litre of water (+2/3 stop)
N-3 11ml per 1 litre of water (+1 stop)
N-4 14.5ml per 1 litre of water (+1 1/3 stop)
1. Water bath for one minute, agitating continuously
2. Bleach for four minutes, four tilts every 30 seconds
3. Water bath for one minute, agitating continuously
4. Developer for the N time (determined using a water pre-bath of approx. 5 minutes)
The development time for FP4 roll film, with pre-heating at 22°C in Tanol (5+5+500ml), is 16 minutes; at 24°C, just over 13 minutes.
Unfortunately, I can’t provide any data for PMK; since I’ve been using Tanol, I no longer work with Pyro.
OK, so what’s the difference?
Pyrogallol is toxic. If you’re aware of the danger, you can handle it. I have no problem working with Pyro. I would have a problem distributing a Pyro developer to the general public, because in my experience, warning labels on ready-made developers are often ignored.
The stain
is more intense with Pyro negatives than with Tanol negatives. With Pyro, the colour is green to yellowish-green; with Tanol, it is more reddish-brown to greenish-brown.
Although the stain increases in both developers in proportion to the silver density, a colour already forms in the base and fog with Pyro, so the fog density is higher than with Tanol. We expose through the fog, so Pyro has only one disadvantage: under weak enlarger light and at high magnification. The differences in exposure time are only very clear with platinum prints; where Tanol negatives take 10 minutes, Pyro negatives take around 30 minutes.
The shelf life
of the PMK working solution is indeed short. With N+ developments, the (standard) batch is already heavily oxidised halfway through the development time. Particularly with vigorous agitation and little solution in the rotary, the solution goes to waste too quickly. However, Pyro is suitable for rotary processing, whereas Tanol is not (at least not at the same speed). I used to replace the spent solution with fresh solution halfway through the rotation. I believe the mistake lies in the recommendation to add EDTA. This is utter nonsense, as the pH rises and consequently the rate of oxidation increases. The situation is different with Harald Leban’s variant: the addition of ascorbic acid lowers the pH value – the solution remains active for longer.
Despite a significantly higher pH value, Tanol remains active for up to an hour; however, the lower susceptibility to oxidation also means that the stain is less pronounced, but it does sit where we need it.
Neither form of stain can be measured with a black-and-white densitometer; therefore, when measuring the upper zones, one must take into account that the stain adds effective density on top!
With ‘blue-sensitive’ fixed gradations, G2 is therefore the correct choice, even if the contrast range (of the silver densities) would suggest G3. With multigrade papers, the effect of the stain depends on the film used. With Kodak films, the (Tanol) colour tends slightly towards reddish; with Ilford, more towards greenish-brown. Green and yellow are the filter colours for softness; the stain does not lead to a greying of the highlights; if necessary, a slightly harder filter can be used. The advantage with high densities lies, on the one hand, in the reduction of grain due to fewer large grain clusters and the masking of the spaces between them by the secondary density of the stain, with Tanol as with Pyro.
When processing conventionally developed negatives, problems occasionally arise when re-exposing the highlight areas; if the (silver) density is high, it is a real struggle to bring out the detail.
With both Pyro and Tanol negatives, partial adjustments can be made with less effort, yet with the same (or better) results. If, for example, large areas of homogeneous density (sky) are to be darkened, this is best done with white light; if structures (still discernible in the negative) are to be brought out in bright areas, re-exposure with magenta is required (this is also the correct method for colourless negatives).
Provided the calibration is reasonably accurate, stain negatives can usually be printed without any fuss.
Regards, wm
Gast
Hello Mr Moersch,
Thank you very much for the information you’ve provided so far.
I’ll have a go at it soon, but work is keeping me rather busy at the moment.
Best regards, CP
manvg
Hello Mr Moersch,
Thank you very much for providing the development data for the combination of efke R 50 in MZB.
I now have the first developed films and, unsurprisingly, the results are once again excellent!
In particular, the version with short development in A and long development in B with plenty of dwell time seems to improve the efke’s already excellent grey scale gradation
even further.
You simply can’t achieve that with anything other than MZB!
Best regards from the Rhineland
Manfred Vogel
manvg
Hello,
First of all, thank you very much for the quick reply!
Well, I have to say quite honestly that I wouldn’t have the slightest problem with different dilutions, nor with different temperatures – quite the opposite. I’ve already asked about Tetenal’s Emofin in another thread. I’d like to develop the films locally in Turkey, and given the temperatures there in summer, I’d very quickly end up with such short development times that hoping for properly developed films would feel like playing the lottery.
If the MZB can manage that, I’d be pleasantly surprised and it could well become my developer of choice. It’s also said that it produces better sharpness than Emofin. So far, I’ve had almost exclusively experience with Rodinal, but I now wanted to try out Tannol or Pyrogallol because of their ability to mask highlights. With Rodinal, I like the sharpness, which could almost be described as technical, and which is particularly advantageous in architectural photography.
At the same time, however, I often have to contend with enormous contrast ranges and only recently ruined a few Pan F films whilst shooting interiors with window areas. I’ve now repeated the shots with an even longer exposure and Rodinal diluted to a very high ratio (1:150). It worked, but it’s also about partial contrasts and not just the overall contrast, so I’ll have to do a lot of dodging and burning in the darkroom again, though nowhere near as extreme as on the first attempt. These images, in fact, were very difficult to get onto paper, even with a lot of persuasion.
Regards, CP
Hello CP,
I’ve been following the discussion with Mr Moersch closely, particularly regarding the issues with high contrast. You really ought to give MZB a try; you won’t want to use anything else!
MZB smooths out even the harshest lighting conditions in southern countries, WITHOUT any loss of sharpness.
My dream combination: Fuji Acros 100 in MZB (developed according to the instructions)
Regards, M.V.
Gast
Hello M. V.,
Thanks for the tip! I was planning to test the MZB anyway. However, I don’t want to get bogged down and try out too many things – I’m also interested in tanol and pyrogallol: hence my next question to Mr Moersch.
Regards, CP
Gast
Hello Mr Moersch,
Would it be possible to create a two-bath developer using tanol or pyrogallol, or indeed any ‘staining’ developer?
I’m really fascinated by the staining effect in the highlights, so this would kill two birds with one stone.
Regards, CP
CPD
Hello Mr Moersch,
I’d like to ask one more question; I really hope I’m not getting on your nerves too much with all this “nonsense”!
There are very contradictory views on two-bath developers, and not just on the internet: some say that two-bath developers only work with very old films with a thick emulsion, and even then only with ‘near-still-water development’ in the second bath, whereas with modern films, which have a very thin emulsion layer, they cannot work as claimed.
Others, on the other hand, report great success, particularly in terms of contrast.
I find it hard to understand why there are so many contradictory statements in the field of photography.
Of course, everyone has their own experiences; some prefer a distinctly fine grain, others value high sharpness and choose their developer accordingly, whilst others are so familiar with their equipment that they always achieve excellent results – yet I sometimes get the impression that much of this is simply parroted without any personal experience (A prime example from another area of photography is the supposed calibration of light meters to a grey with 18% reflectance, which can be read in almost every photography book – in reality, light meters usually operate around 12–13%; this topic was a major talking point on photo.net for a while).
I’d like to try the MZB, as well as the Tanol, soon, though without getting too bogged down in the details. However, the longer I delve into the theory behind these things, the more new questions arise.
Can I perform further dilution of the MZB to achieve longer development times? You did mention something along those lines.
Regards, CP
WolfgangMoersch
Tanol was originally planned as a two-bath process. After two years of testing, I have (with a heavy heart) abandoned this method because it is not economical. In a two-bath process, the developer bath would need to be much richer, at least if no ‘activator’ is added to the first bath.
Solution A is strongly acidified to make it stable (for long-term storage); without alkali, no development would take place in the first bath. Consequently, the only developer available for the alkali bath would be the amount that the film can absorb. For most (relatively thin) roll films, this is insufficient; with sheet films, the situation is different, but how am I supposed to explain that? If things get too complicated, users will understandably steer clear of it.
The two-bath process is certainly interesting; compared to the single-bath method (Pyro and Tanol), I’ve observed a gain in sensitivity of at least half a stop. I actually attribute this gain to Zone I and the rise at the base of the curve; the highlight zones remain where they should be. This works well with sheet films in a tray. A problem arises in the canister, in principle with (almost) all two-bath developers, but particularly with the ‘staining’ ones. To make this clear, I’m afraid I need to go into a bit more detail: how does a stain form? A stain is an oxidation product – it could not form if there were a significant sulphite content in the developer. With high agitation, the oxidation of developer substances causes no harm (e.g. PMK). If agitation must be kept to a minimum to prevent the curve from rising, the drama of streaking begins. With low agitation (1 tip-over per minute), we have a dream curve AND the pronounced stain – everything is fine. But woe betide us if we have homogeneous areas, such as a cloudless sky. In the negative, clouds appear where there were none! Burying one’s head in the sand won’t solve the problem; the user looks for the fault in themselves and not in the developer or the technique. If the (stain) developer has a high reducing potential, it must not be agitated too vigorously, otherwise the highlights will blow out; if it is agitated too little, the developer sloshes about in homogeneous areas. Take, for example, the Xactol developed by our much-esteemed (and all too soon departed) colleague Barry Thornton. At just one tilt per minute, the curve is perfect – wonderfully balanced negatives – yet where structures are lacking, streaks form. It’s no different with PMK and Tanol! If the agitation is too low to prevent (at high sensitivity!) disproportionate development of the highlights, these problems can arise. The only remedy is to reduce the speed and increase the agitation. When performing the formulation of Tanol, I tried to strike a balance as elegantly as possible. Yet even here, the critical limit is one shake per minute; two shakes are safer.
With two-bath development, the problem naturally becomes more acute, particularly in the tank with the drainage phenomena. The small amount of developer oxidises devilishly quickly in the presence of a large amount of alkali. Well, in the highlights the developer is used up quickly (when stationary), whilst in the shadows it continues to work merrily on – that is how it should be. However, without a minimum of agitation, the oxidation products cause damage in areas of high density.
With pyrogallol, you can safely forget the idea of two-bath development because it oxidises too quickly; formulations based on pyrocatechol have advantages here (Tanol, Xactol, PyrocatHD).
My experience, unsurprisingly, is greater with Tanol than with other developers. A ‘true’ two-bath development is possible, but expensive. Otto Beyer has discovered a method for two-bath development based on the standard dilution of 1+1+100. Halfway through the development time, the developer is subjected to 1+1 dilution and the remaining development time is extended by a factor of 1.5 (Otto, please correct me if I’m talking nonsense here).
Be that as it may, there are no limits to one’s experimental spirit. I may also introduce a two-bath variant (FETT A), but the user base is likely too small to justify the effort.
WolfgangMoersch
Hello Mr Moersch,
I’d like to ask one more question; I really hope I’m not getting on your nerves too much with all this ‘nonsense’!
There are very contradictory views on two-bath developers, and not just on the internet: some say that two-bath developers only work with very old films with a thick emulsion, and even then only with ‘near-still development’ in the second bath, whereas with modern films, which have a very thin emulsion layer, they cannot work as claimed.
Others, on the other hand, report great success, particularly in terms of contrast.
I find it hard to understand why there are so many contradictory statements in the field of photography.
Of course, everyone has their own experiences; some prefer a distinctly fine grain, others value high sharpness and choose their developer accordingly, whilst others are so familiar with their equipment that they always achieve excellent results – yet I sometimes get the impression that much of this is simply parroted without any personal experience (A prime example from another area of photography is the supposed calibration of light meters to a grey with 18% reflectance, which you can read about in almost every photography book – in reality, light meters usually operate around 12–13%; this was a major topic of discussion on photo.net for a while).
I’d like to try the MZB, as well as the Tanol, soon enough, though without wanting to get too bogged down in the details. However, the longer I delve into the theory behind these things, the more new questions arise.
Can I perform further dilution of the MZB to achieve longer development times? You did mention something along those lines.
Regards, CP
Temptations are never a bad thing if they force an answer.
>There are very contradictory views on two-bath developers, not just on the internet: some say that two-bath developers only work with ancient films with thick emulsion, and even then only with ‘near-stagnant development’ in the second bath, whereas with modern films, which have very thin layers, they cannot work as claimed.
I see it no differently. Unfortunately, the reality is that Hinz and Kunz simply copy each other, and neither Hinz nor Kunz actually tests what is still feasible with today’s emulsions.
‘Near-still’ development only works flawlessly in a tray anyway. However, reducing agitation after half the development time already brings a significant improvement in sensitivity utilisation (more at the bottom, less at the top) even with some single-bath developers (e.g. Rodinal)!
>Others, on the other hand, report great success, particularly in terms of contrast evaluation.
That’s hardly surprising, as it can’t be objectively verified. The experienced user measures the contrast range, or assesses it correctly, perhaps adding a DIN or two ‘based on experience’ and developing accordingly. The beginner relies on the development data from the old hands and is surprised by flat shadows – or perhaps not, because they’re satisfied with the sub-optimal negative?
Who knows? It’s a tricky business! Let’s consider the sane, die-hard two-stop pusher. Either Zone IV comes out with a slight definition, or he complains about blown-out highlights on that awful xy paper, or he wants it that way, or he measures the shadows during his pushing and is somehow convinced he’s got the pushing down pat.
>I find it hard to understand why there are so many contradictory statements in the field of photography.
It’s hard to understand if you only have the statements, don’t know the working method, and don’t see the negative.
>the supposed calibration of light meters to an 18% grey
Yes, there has to be a standard. In practice, I’ve come across deviations of more than two stops, and not just with ‘cheap’ equipment. That’s why it’s often a waste of time to adopt development data without checking it. We trust the standardisation and usually, mistakenly, look for the fault in ourselves.
>I’d like to try the MZB, just like the Tanol, soon enough, though without getting too bogged down in the details.
Getting bogged down is no good! Any combination you’ve got the hang of is usually superior to a new one.
>But the longer I delve into the theory of these things, the more new questions keep popping up.
I know the feeling. It never stops, and that’s a good thing.
>Can I perform further dilution of the MZB to achieve longer development times? You did mention something like that.
Yes, the A solution. BUT, for longer development times in a thinner solution, the agitation must be reduced by (at least) half.
