My PC-512 Borax Developer

[John Wiegerink]

Can I ask: At what size of print might the less grain of PC-512 be evident in say a 35mm neg and then a 645 neg? To my eyes( possibly less discerning?) the FX1 full size scan looks better in the sense of having more detail than the PC-512 one

Thanks

pentaxuser

I don't know if I see more detail in the FX1 print, but I do seem to see more shadow detail and the slightly lighter sky. I certainly like the sky rendering with PC-512. I shoot nearly 100% medium format so grain from either one is fine with me.

 

[pentaxuser]

I don't know if I see more detail in the FX1 print, but I do seem to see more shadow detail and the slightly lighter sky. I certainly like the sky rendering with PC-512. I shoot nearly 100% medium format so grain from either one is fine with me.

Thanks, yes that's what I see as well so for me it's a question of what size of print in 35mm does the lesser graín of PC-512 become an advantage as I do shoot as much 35mm as 120

pentaxuser

 

[relistan]

Can I ask: At what size of print might the less grain of PC-512 be evident in say a 35mm neg and then a 645 neg? To my eyes( possibly less discerning?) the FX1 full size scan looks better in the sense of having more detail than the PC-512 one

Thanks

pentaxuser

In 35mm that level of grain different will be apparent at 5x7 I think, but certainly by 8x10

 

[pentaxuser]

In 35mm that level of grain different will be apparent at 5x7 I think, but certainly by 8x10

Thanks for what is a straight and unequivocal answer.

pentaxuser

 

[NedL]

There is no such thing as pure ethanol, either....

Thanks!

 

[Alan Johnson]

I have not run a side by side test but still think this developer compares favourably with proprietary developers in most respects.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have, and it does compare favourably.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have not run a side by side test but still think this developer compares favourably with proprietary developers in most respects.

I think it's as good or even better than some "off the shelf" developers. Certainly no complaints from me. Plus, it has the benefit of having a really great shelf life. I actually think Gadget Gainer would highly approve of Karl's PC-512.

 

[chuckroast]

I have not run a side by side test but still think this developer compares favourably with proprietary developers in most respects.

Those are terrific!

A couple questions if I may. What film/format were these shot on? How much post-processing sharpening and curve adjustment did you do?

 

[John Wiegerink]

Those are terrific!

A couple questions if I may. What film/format were these shot on? How much post-processing sharpening and curve adjustment did you do?

You can click on the image and it will bring up the Flickr image. Shows it's 35mm P&S Ricoh cameras. Not bad!

 

[chuckroast]

You can click on the image and it will bring up the Flickr image. Shows it's 35mm P&S Ricoh cameras. Not bad!

Ah! Thanks. And, yeah, that's pretty impressive.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Ive shot a few rolls in my Canon sure shot; still working out the details but it's always nice to have alternatives

 

[relistan]

I have not run a side by side test but still think this developer compares favourably with proprietary developers in most respects.

Thanks! And that looks great.

I have, and it does compare favourably.

I appreciate the testing that both and you have done on this! I still owe everyone an updated blog post. I resolve to use part of the time I have off next week to make it happen!

 

[JanT]

How do you perceive sharpness (acutance) and compensating effect compared to Xtol? I’m quite new to DIY developers, still learning.

 

[John Wiegerink]

How do you perceive sharpness (acutance) and compensating effect compared to Xtol? I’m quite new to DIY developers, still learning.

Very close to Xtol results and you can't go wrong with either. PC-512 has better shelf life and the fact you can make it yourself is a real plus. PC-512 might show slightly more well defined grain, but that really isn't a problem. Not to me anyway!

 

[Vetus]

What is the pH of the borax solution B please. I'm getting a pH of 9 that is with a litmus paper .
What is the pH of the stock developer?

 

[lamerko]

The pH value of Part B is approximately what you measured. The working solution has a pH of around 8.5. The amount of ascorbic acid is not sufficient to lower the pH very much.

 

[Vetus]

The pH value of Part B is approximately what you measured. The working solution has a pH of around 8.5. The amount of ascorbic acid is not sufficient to lower the pH very much.

Thank you Lamerko

 

[koraks]

What is the pH of the borax solution B please.

The pH of a borax solution is quite stable. This means that pH doesn't tell you much about concentration and hence whether you mixed it right. It'll virtually always be around 9. That's also why borax is used in some developers; it's an effective buffer.

 

[Vetus]

The pH of a borax solution is quite stable. This means that pH doesn't tell you much about concentration and hence whether you mixed it right. It'll virtually always be around 9. That's also why borax is used in some developers; it's an effective buffer.

The amount of borax in solution B is 21.7 g is there any tolerance +or - 1/2 a gram

 

[koraks]

Yes, plenty. It's just not very critical.

 

[bernard_L]

The amount of borax in solution B is 21.7 g is there any tolerance +or - 1/2 a gram

And a question to @relistan that I've been itching to ask : why 21.7 and not, e.g., 22g, or 20g. Disclosure: I've been mixing 22g and it works well ! at least to my unsophisticated eyes.

 

[chuckroast]

And a question to @relistan that I've been itching to ask : why 21.7 and not, e.g., 22g, or 20g. Disclosure: I've been mixing 22g and it works well ! at least to my unsophisticated eyes.

It is possible the original formula was achieved by actually measuring pH and that's how the weight was defined.

It is also possible someone did a calculation of the chemistry (e.g., molar weights) to arrive at this figure.

The difference between 21.7 and 22 is 1.38%. It it highly doubtful, almost certain, this makes very little or no difference. HOWEVER, whatever you do, do it consistently. Monochrome photography does not require laboratory accuracy or 6 digits of precision. But it benefits a lot from consistency.

 

[lamerko]

Either way, the purity and water content from different suppliers will vary enough that it won't really matter. The weight should be treated more as a starting point, and then adjusted according to the pH and possibly the specific gravity of the working solution.

 

[john_s]

Either way, the purity and water content from different suppliers will vary enough that it won't really matter. The weight should be treated more as a starting point, and then adjusted according to the pH and possibly the specific gravity of the working solution.

I use the specific gravity of my stock potassium carbonate solution for that reason.