Had a spare hour, so made a couple prints with my freshly mixed 130. I've never used anything but Dektol and maybe Ilford. The paper was Oriental Seagull VC RP-F. By comparison to Dektol, the 130 (1:1) barely starts to do anything for the first minute. At two minutes, the image is solid, but it takes three minutes to get anything close to an acceptable black. The highlight contrast is much greater than Dektol, giving really snappy brilliant prints. A bit hard to deal with if the negs have been overdeveloped! Midtone separation is the same or a bit better. That increased contrast has to come from somewhere, and thats the shadows. They're a bit soft and the maximum black, though adequate, isn't really black. The tone is a bit warmish brown- quite pleasing. Obviously I need to work with this to get the best results, but is this anywhere close to others first time results? I ran some curves if anyone's interested.

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), November 16, 2001

Answers

Wonderful stuff, ain't it? Photo Formulary recommends 45-60 second developing time with 1+1 dilutions, so it sounds like you're underexposing the print. Personally, I like it better with a longer time. Everything you report sound about right except the lack of maximum black. Could it be that you're seeing more shadow detail than you're used to in the Dektol?

-- wilhelm (bmitch@home.com), November 17, 2001.

Conrad, I've been using A130 for almost a year now. I love the stuff - it gives me a wonderful long tonal scale with rich blacks. There always seems to be something lurking in the shadows in my prints these days...

What you are describing - waiting almost a minute for an image to appear - is normal at least as far as what I've seen. I normally dilute 1:2 so I give my FB prints three minutes at least.

You might also want to try Ansco 120 - a much softer developer. If you buy your chemicals in bulk you already have the ingrediants.

-- David Parmet (david@parmet.net), November 17, 2001.

Undiluted Ansco 130 gives deeper blacks, but then you may want to print on a softer paper. You can experiment with adding a little 10% hydroquinone solution to the 1:1 developer. More Potassium bromide will give warmer prints, but too much will give the paper a little greenish tone. Experimenting is fun! :-)

-- Patric (jenspatric@mail.bip.net), November 17, 2001.

From the description you made, it is clear to me that for some reason, your developer is not powerful enougth. It is one of the caracteristic of the MGQ developer that I like: when you overexpose and underdevelop the print, it gives you brillant highligths with acceptable black-brown so you can have a little more control over your contrast curve. I would say that maybe one of the ingredients is oxidized or you didn't put enougth or your dilution is too great. Anyway, the image sould start to come in less than 15-20 seconds when fresh, I believe Maybe you should try to use it undiluted to see if it helps. (Also, from memories, when I use it with Forte papers, I use it at 1:3 dilutions and 2 minutes developments gives me good blacks, so, as I said, something seems wrong in the power of your mixture).

-- Marc-Antoine Dufour (marcantoinedufour@yahoo.com), November 19, 2001.

Thanks for all the replies. I know my mixing and measuring is good, and the glycin was fresh. It is possible my Metol is bad. Anybody know how long the stuff lasts, or what it's supposed to look like? Mine resembles beach sand more than anything.

Also, now I'm interested in a glycin film developer to use too. Can anybody tell me about FX-2 or other favorites?

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), November 19, 2001.

I love Agfa 8, an old film developer containing glycin. Very sharp negs with outstanding mid-tones. It's easier to mix than FX-2. Do you have the recipe or should I post it?

-- Patric (jenspatric@mail.bip.net), November 22, 2001.

Hi Patric. I have a formula that might be it, but it isn't labeled by origin (in Focal Enc.). If you could post it, that would be great. BTW, I notice that some film developers seem to use a lot of glycin, but print developers use maybe a third for the same volume. Any logic in that?

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), November 23, 2001.