Phenidone-hydroquinone film developers a la Jessops Econodev

[itf]

In England last year I got used to using Jessops Econodev Universal Developer with Jessops 400SX (Agfa APX). As the name suggests, it is intended for film as well as prints, though it seems phenidone-hydroquinone developers like this are usually used only for paper.

With some experience I really like the devoloper, and at half the price of rodinal it was a bonus in that respect too. It was grainy but I quite liked that even. It seemed a good push developer too, keeping fog low and not being prone to rapid exhaustion (or so it seemed). As I understand it, the combination of phenidone and hydroquinone is self replenishing to a degree.

Anyway, now back in Australia, I don't have access to this cheap developer I got quite used to and liked. So I'm wondering if anyone else knows of a phenidone-hydroquinone developer like this I might be able to get a hold of, maybe a print developer which behaves in a similar way. Any experience?

It seems I might be alone in my appreciation of this as a film developer.

Cheers,
rich

 

[kully]

Ugh... I hate Econodev2. It was the first developer I used (I went into Jessops and asked for everything I need to dev my own film) and also with Jessops 400SX.

Ugly grain, muddiness and pushing to 800 was terrible too.

It put me off APX400 until I tried it in D-76 - whole world of a difference.

If you want cheap, get Diafine - you can use it again and again until it runs out and (personal opinion) works better with APX400 than Econodev.

But I am intrigued, how were you developing with the Jessops dev and what were you doing with the negs (scan or enlarge)?

 

[itf]

Ugh... I hate Econodev2. It was the first developer I used (I went into Jessops and asked for everything I need to dev my own film) and also with Jessops 400SX.

Ugly grain, muddiness and pushing to 800 was terrible too.

It put me off APX400 until I tried it in D-76 - whole world of a difference.

If you want cheap, get Diafine - you can use it again and again until it runs out and (personal opinion) works better with APX400 than Econodev.

But I am intrigued, how were you developing with the Jessops dev and what were you doing with the negs (scan or enlarge)?

Ahahaha, I thought someone might say something along those lines. I was usually scanning, but made some prints also. At 1600 shadows would disappear but that's normal unless you're using something like diafine. I based everything off the stronger dilution for film listed on the bottle.

Can only remember the time for 3200 which was 20c, 25 minutes, 10 seconds agitation per minute. Kept evrything pretty basic. I think the times I had worked out were slightly more than the 1.5 times the time for the last stop rule. The main thing was that I got it consistent and straightforward.

It was grainy, but I thought it was pretty crisp, whereas I think apx in d76 gives mushy looking grain. Negs always seemed nice and contrasty, but still seemed to scan (too contrasty would be a problem for this). And, as I said, from memory fog levels seemed pretty low when pushing.

I'll get around to those negs again soon, I'm scanning a lot of stuff again now so maybe my mind will be changed. Scanning with a film scanner rather than a flatbed might show me the full reality too. I may be eating my words soon!

 

[kaiyen]

You know, I just checked in the Film Dev. Cookbook, because I thought that most phenidone-based developers, for film, are in fact PQ developers. And...indeed they are. The benefit and problem is that phenidone and hydroquinone lead to superactivity. The developer is really, really active. For the most part, DDX, Microphen and other phenidone-based developers keep this well controlled and you get the speed increase of the phenidone with the economy of chemicals (which is a benefit to the manufacturer, not us) from superactivity.

It sounds like the issue is that the universal dev has too much of either or both in there, so that the superactivity is out of control, leading to grain. DDX and Microphen, by comparison, are relatively low grain.

To get the grain and sharpness and speed increase of a PQ developer...my guess would be to try FX-2.

Most PQ developer try to keep the superactivity down, so it's hard to really recommend one. But a high-definition developer with good activity that increases speed - FX-2 comes to mind. Beutler maybe? Running out of time with the FDC before running to work.

 

[itf]

kaiyen, so a phenidone-hydroquinone developer is also known as PQ. I hadn't realised Microphen and DDX were also phenidone-hydroquinone. I've read that one chemical replenishes the other, and so keeps the developer active for longer.

The grain doesn't bother me, it seems similar to rodinal (though I haven't compared side by side) except the rodinal doesn't work so well for a push. Rodinal isn't so good for you or the environment either, while I've heard PQ is a bit more friendly.

XTOL is finer grain but still doesn't push as well, costs more, isn't singe shot, needs pure water, fogs more, I can't get my results as consistent, and it seems to exhaust and give low density on harder pushes. In short: I don't think its worth any of it.

It's a pity the Ilford devs are so expensive; just can't do it. I'll see if I can find FX-2. Thanks! I might try out some print developers too.