Was wondering if anyone has used the Photographers' Formulary's TD-30 which they claim is improved Dektol, or their BW-65, which I believe is basically the same but in liquid form? They also have a TF-4 archival rapid fixer. Anyone familiar with that? thanks

carik

-- carol maurin (cbmaurin@earthlink.net), June 08, 2000

Answers

I've used BW-65 and it behaves like Dektol. It gives a cool black tone to Ilford MGiv. It's supposed to keep well in the stock solution form so it is convenient for the on-again-off-again darkroomer like me. Nothing worse than pouring out a deep, deep brown puddle of oxidized Dektol into the beaker. I didn't compare it to Dektol in terms of price per use.

I use TF4 fixer for film (following PMK developer and a stop bath of water) and it works. Because it has a base pH and is non-hardening it is supposed to be rapidly removed by washing, more rapidly than film or prints fixed in a hardening fixer. I haven't tested this by seeing how little washing I can get away with. I rather not find out that I've washed the stuff too little. I haven't used it for paper, yet, though I plan to when I run out of my supply of Kodak hardening fixer. I bought about a year's supply of the Kodak powder and then decided to change fixer the next month. That was about nine months ago. I can see the bottom of the pile of yellow envelopes now, at least.

-- Don Karon (dkaron@socal.rr.com), June 08, 2000.

I've used BW-65 and its powdery counterpart, whose name I can't remember. The difference between them and Dektol are miniscule. In an extremely bright light you can begin to see a slightly different tone, if you work at it. Overall, I'm probably not going to bother wiht them again.

-- Bryant Urstadt (bryantu@mindspring.com), June 12, 2000.

I use BW-65 and find it to provide more shadow detail than Dektol. It fully develops FB prints in 1/2 the time of Dektol (depending on dilution). It is my paper developer of preference.

I also use TF-4. It works great with film and papers. Very little odor and is purpoted to be much easier to wash out of the paper. In addition, being non-acidic I have not has a single stained print when using selenium tone since switching to TF-4. TF-4 is the only fixer I use.

-- mike Kravit (mkravit@mindspring.com), June 17, 2000.

Mike,

Do use a water stop, or no stop, or an acid stop?

Thanks.

-- Terry Carraway (TCarraway@compuserve.com), June 18, 2000.

Compared BW-65 with Dektol on Ilford MGIV paper. Could detect no discernable difference. Cost of Dektol is less per print. Am going to try a test with Seagull VCFB, will advise.

Steve

-- Steve Agnew (sagnew@attglobalnet.com), June 19, 2000.

Steve, how did the Seagull VCFB + BW-65 test turn out? Also, has anyone used BW-65 with Azo and, if so, what print color resulted? Thanks in advance.

-- Sal Santamaura (bc_hill@qwestinternet.net), November 29, 2000.

Actually looking into it more, BW-65 is not similar in chemistry to Dektol, it is more like a liquid version of Ansco 130.

-- Terry Carraway (TCarraway@compuserve.com), November 30, 2000.

I believe its a phenidone version of Ansco 130. Or at least I've seen speculation to that effect. One of these days I'll mix up some phenidone A130 and find out.

-- Wayne (wsteffen@skypoint.com), May 01, 2001.