Today found an interesting discovery. Something I’ve dubbed “lithalike”. It’s definitely isn’t the same as standard lith printing. Thus far the big differences between lithalike and standard lith printing:
Probably impossible to get split toning (warm highlights, cold blacks) without of course toning afterwards (my gut says this process may actually tone in a similar way to lith prints)
Highlights will not have a “cast” like a lith print.. ie, where “whites” in the actual print area are peachy or lilac. Whites in lithalike are just boring white
Limited control of contrast through development/exposure techniques. I ended up using standard Ilford contrast filters to get the contrast where I wanted. Agitation can be used to control contrast to an extent without risk of an unevenly developed look. However, contrast can really only be altered with this by 1-2 grades.
Probably not as useful for expired paper. You only over expose by 1/2 stop at most with lithalike
Lithalike will probably work with pretty much any paper. It doesn’t rely on the delicate nature of infectious development too much, meaning unlithable papers can be used in this
And of course for the big similarities:
You will get ample paper grain. The exact appearance and prominence of grain depends on paper choice and can be altered somewhat with developer formulation and agitation technique. (note the examples here are 8x10 and printed from an FP4+ 6x4.5 negative. There is no visible grain in normal printing)
Plenty of color, even on typically very difficult papers like cold tone ones. With tests so far color trends toward green. Can probably be altered some with restrainer choice and paper choice etc.
The developer once mixed will expire quickly. 4-5 prints is the maximum, with some color and activity changes etc after each print
This process goes much closer to completion than standard lith printing, but it gives results I like better just before completion and compensate for this by adding 1/2 stop to exposure.
The big thing I like out of lith printing is the unique look of paper grain and how it’s significantly more prominent in shadows than highlights. For this purpose, it is definitely a developer I’ll use for actual prints at some point, once I’ve tweaked it to get rid of the green coloration. I’m hoping by changing the restrainer mixture a bit I can alter the color significantly.
Ilford MGV RC (glossy) printed at grade 3.5 and developed in “lithalike” (“soft” agitation scheme every 2 minutes)
Finally, here is the formula. I mixed it twice, so I know it works, but I do consider it a “prototype” and intend to tweak it significantly for my own purposes.
Lithalike Prototype Formula:
2L of water (warm, about 90F)
20ml HQ-TEA 5% (5g hydroquinone in 100ml of triethanolamine — not the same strength of HQ-TEA used in previous posts)
6ml sodium sulfite 10%
1ml potassium bromide 10%
7ml benzotriazole 1%
1ml potassium iodide 10%
60ml sodium hydroxide 3%
Note it is easiest to measure the HQ-TEA in a small graduate and then “rinse” the graduate several times into a larger graduate to measure out 2L of water. The solution can be mixed probably 1 hour before you need to actually print, but the sodium hydroxide should be added just before you start printing. Once it is added the developer will not last longer than 45 minutes at the very most.
Ingredient considerations:
HQ-TEA — I reduced the HQ-TEA concentration as I realized I was using 2g/L of hydroquinone in lith development which is extremely unusual. Typically the amount of HQ varies from 0.2-1g/L for lith printing. This extreme excess of HQ may be the mechanism that made the early Magic Lith results possible though. With significantly reduced HQ, I could not get infectious development to happen to any significantly visible extent like in previous runs. In the future I will probably stock both 5% and 20% solutions of HQ-TEA for experiments as large amounts of TEA can cause restrainers to stain prints
Sulfite — Very little sulfite should be used. Surprisingly despite using a large amount of alkaline and this small amount of sulfite, the developer lasted long enough to run multiple prints. Additional sulfite will reduce color and grain of lithalike
Bromide — Like previous magic lith experiments, this continues to be extremely sensitive to bromide additions, but a small amount seems to help reduce tendency for fogging and to slow down development so that it doesn’t develop unevenly
Benzotriazole — This developer has some fogging problems (yellow borders). The benzotriazole reduces this significantly without seeming to skew developer activity too much. With some papers more benzotriazole is required
Potassium Iodide — I’m not even sure this is necessary but my gut tells me it helps to ensure development is even
Hydroxide — The pH of this developer should be kept considerably higher than most lith printing developer formulas. More hydroxide has a tendency to increase potential fogging problems, but less will give worse blacks and contrast.
Agitation can be used quite extremely without getting uneven development. Less agitation in some ways will produce less contrast and in others more. Extremely soft agitation will produce an increase in grain. This doesn’t quite work as flexibly as real lith printing, but blacks will develop faster than highlights with no agitation, whereas with constant agitation the behavior is more linear. I experimented with agitation as little as every 3 minutes and got decent results, though blacks did suffer some as at that point blacks will exhaust. There is definitely a sweet spot to be found. For the most part agitation constantly and agitating once per 30s produce identical results but with less agitation the developer will probably exhaust a bit slower.
Overall this is far more “boring” compared to real lith printing, but it’s also a lot more reliable while still keeping some of the interesting aspects of lith printing.