Help with EMOFIN

[JTK]

I've been using it in the US, got it through the now-kaput J&C...

Very thin, low contrast, fine grained negs...good for pushes, doesn't destroy grain.

I'm abandoning it because it's hard to get (impossible now in US?) and, as pointed out, changes a little with each roll processed, and gets dirty with use. The contrast's great for scanning, but the dirt issue's significant for scanning since Ice won't work.

 

[Seele]

Pixtu,

Emofin is a pre-packaged two-bath developers which you do not use as one-shot; you mix up the solutions and keep reusing it until you have reached the full capacity. In theory at least, the first bath never wears out, you just need to replace the second bath periodically.

That is to do with how a two-bath film developer works:

First it is soaked in the first solution which contains only the developing agent; the emulsion soaks up this solution but little, or no development takes place.

Then without rinsing, it is placed in the second solution which is the activator. In the highlight areas, the developing agent gets exhausted very quickly, thus blocked-up highlight is prevented. However, in the shadow areas, the presence of a reserve of developing agent keeps working, so in essense giving extra shadow details. In other words, it is a mechanism of self-regulation of overall contrast and yet increasing local contrast.

Since film speed is measured in terms of shadow detail densities, two-bath development results in a true speed increase.

So, the critical factor is the time it takes in the first solution, which governs how much developing agent is "loaded" into the emulsion layer. In the second solution you want it to develop pretty much to finality anyway so time is less critial.

In that sense Emofin is quite economical, but if you wish you can also mix up its precursor, the two-bath formula devised by Heinrich Stoeckler and adopted by Leica as the preferred way to give best negatives.

There are only two reservations regarding the use of two-bath developers:

First, the thin emulsion films these days might not be able to soak up sufficient developing agent in the first bath; you need to do some tests to see if there is a certain "brick wall" here.

Second, to maintain local level development there should be no agitation in theory, but this ends up as severe bromide streaks. I have discovered that continuous rotary agitation in a Jobo machine works quite well for this purpose.

 

[Bobfrance]

Now we're getting somewhere!

Now we're getting somewhere!

Did a bit of shooting yesterday using Fuji Neopan 400 and rushed home to do some developing.

The results are waaay beter than the first time. Mainly due to to me taking proper care this time and the good advice from the kind folks on this forum.

I went for the contrasty timing and inverted every 3 seconds.

Unfortunately a lot of the shooting I did was in fairly deep shade. Something I feel Emofin doesn't like at all. However the shots that I did get off in direct sunlight look magic. I've not had much chance for scanning yet but I've attached one example below.

Seele - That was a very informative post. I've been wondering how Emofin actually works, and now I know. Many thanks!

Edited to add - My Flickr gallery is HERE with the first four scans from the roll on it.

 

[Seele]

Bob,

If you get adventurous, or wishing to cut down on cost, you can give thhe Leitz-Stoeckler recipe a try:

Solution A:

Metol 5g
Sodium sulphite (anhydrous) 80g
Sodium bisulphite 20g
Water to 1 litre


Solution B:

Borax 10g
Water to 1 litre

For films between 100 and 320 speed, start at 4 mins in A, then 3 mins in B. For faster films, try 6 mins in A then 3 mins in B.

Temperature is not critical but try to aim at 20-degrees celcius.

 

[JTK]

IMO Emofin works fine in deep shade...but I'm a scanner/photoshopper...probably wouldn't like Emofin negs in a darkroom...if I ever find myself in one again...

If somebody in the US wants my remaining unopened Emofin kit (the last from J&C) I'll Priority mail it, hoping you'll send...uh...a couple of rolls of fresh TX 35mm or Ilford Delta-something, returned on receipt, also Priority mail.

 

[JTK]

...also, Emofin doesn't change as significantly with repeated use as do other developers. Not necessary to make any adjustments.

 

[Jonathan R]

Sorry to argue with other folk on this thread, but I hate to see myths building up or perpetuating here.

First, in my experience Emofin works considerably more than fine in deep shade! You'll get more detail at nominal film speed than with almost any other developer I know except a pure metol one. I rate Tri-X at 800 ISO, and Delta 100 at 200 ISO, and shadow details are still excellent. [Bob, that shot certainly looks much better than your first attempt! But seriously, if you think there's an issue with shadow detail, I suspect it may have more to do with Neopan or the dynamic range of your scanner than with Emofin.] I don't believe there is a real increase in film speed, however. I think the developer simply makes the most of the film's real foot speed without letting the highlights become unprintable and without fogging up the whole effort.

Second, negs done in Emofin scan fine, but printing is a joy if the subject had very bright highlights (e.g. interior with windows, sunlit clouds). If the subject was flat, it will certainly be more challenging to get life into a print.

Third, time in bath A is WAY longer than the time needed to saturate the film with developer. So why is it so long? Well, significant development does actually take place in Bath A of a classic 2-bath developer like the Stoeckler. Beware however, there are two styles of 2-bath developer. Anything with lots (100g/l) of sulphite in bath A will be alkali enough to allow development unless steps are taken to prevent it (acids, retardants). I believe Emofin falls into the alkali bath A style, in which case there is scope for tweaking the time in bath A to determine highlight density, as suggested by the instructions.

Fifth, all the thin emulsion films I've tried (Delta 100, 400, T-Max 100, 400) have developed fine in Emofin. Takes a bit of trial and error to get the times right, that's all.

I hope this helps encourage a few people to give the stuff a fair trial.

 

[Seele]

Jonathan,

I sure am not trying to turn the post into the definitive treatise on two-bath development; an empirical appreciation of its concept might be enough as a starter anyway.

For the first bath, some do use D23, the higher pH would indeed get development started. But the major fact is that we are cutting off the continuous supply of developing agent to the emulsion and using extra alkalinity to accelerate the process. This prevents blocking up of the highlight areas and allow the shadows to fully develop.

In the case where the shadows appear weak, I presume it was the exposure level being too low so as not to have enough density to be developed out. The old adage "expose for shadows, develop for highlights" is still valid but many camera's exposure meters do tend not to care much about shadows anyway.

 

[Bobfrance]

Another question for you guys.

I have learnt on a thread I posted about Rodinal that the more agitation you give it, the more grainy the image will appear.

Is the same true of Emofin?

I currently invert every three seconds when developing Emofin. Would I get less grain if I increased the developing time and agitated less?

 

[Bobfrance]

Bumped in case there are any Emofin gurus out there. 🙂

 

[irivlin]

Emofin and Delta 400

Emofin and Delta 400

For what it's worth, 5 minutes (part 1) + 5 minutes (part 2) using continuous agitation at 21 degrees C was too much. There was a lot of base fog, suggesting it was over development, rather than overexposure.

The film was rated at 400asa, BTW.

Next time, I'm going to use 3 + 3 minutes, continuous agitation at the same temp. Although I can't speak with conviction or authority about this being the right amount of time, my past experiences suggest that will be "just right".

I pre soaked in cold water with a couple of drops of Photo Flo, before development. After the pre soak, I rinsed all traces of the Photo Flo out of the tank.

Not using a pre soak usually causes uneven development, due to the anti halation dyes appearing to form an interface between the film and developer.

 

[Jonathan R]

I pre soaked in cold water with a couple of drops of Photo Flo, before development. ...
Not using a pre soak usually causes uneven development, due to the anti halation dyes appearing to form an interface between the film and developer.

Have you experienced this as a problem, or are you following theoretical advice from others? I have never encountered any uneven development issues with Emofin (or any other developer). So I don't believe pre-soaking is necessary (neither do the manufacturers, it would seem). As the intention is to get Bath A (the developing agent) to soak into (saturate) the emulsion, I would think pre-soaking is more likely to interfere with the process and make it difficult to balance times in Bath A and Bath B.

The amount of developer absorbed by the (dry) emulsion is significant: I haven't measured it, but after a dozen films or so Bath A will be roughly 75% the volume of Bath B!