My PC-512 Borax Developer

covered bridge VDB.jpg

A
covered bridge VDB.jpg

  • 2
  • 0
  • 68
Alayna-2

A
Alayna-2

  • 0
  • 2
  • 135
Blackpool Pier

A
Blackpool Pier

  • 5
  • 1
  • 174
Linda

A
Linda

  • 1
  • 1
  • 126
I want to join the Circus

A
I want to join the Circus

  • 4
  • 1
  • 166

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
180,684
Messages
2,494,407
Members
95,132
Latest member
Palacerest
Recent bookmarks
0
OP
OP
relistan

relistan

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
826
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Shooter
Multi Format
I like the looks tone wise. Looks like pretty harsh noonday sun. Shadows are good and highlights are not blown. Nice, nice, nice!

Thank you, John! I appreciate the encouragment. It was mid-day in late April. The tone is what had originally sold me on this ratio of developing agents in testing. And yeah, I've found this developer handles the kind of hard light I like to shoot in very well.
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
2,161
Location
Lake Station, MI
Shooter
Multi Format
Thank you, John! I appreciate the encouragment. It was mid-day in late April. The tone is what had originally sold me on this ratio of developing agents in testing. And yeah, I've found this developer handles the kind of hard light I like to shoot in very well.

It wasn't an encouragement, it was a compliment. It's as close to being perfect without being too perfect. If you know what I mean.
Thank you, John! I appreciate the encouragment. It was mid-day in late April. The tone is what had originally sold me on this ratio of developing agents in testing. And yeah, I've found this developer handles the kind of hard light I like to shoot in very well.

Karl,
My comment wasn't about encouragement, but was meant as a compliment. I don't think you need any encouragement, since it seems you have everything pretty much figured out. I can't wait to get back to where my chemicals are to try this formula out with the Kodalk(sodium metaborate) version. The films I use mainly are HP5+, Delta 100, Delta 400, Foma 100 and Foma 400 in that order. I do have some Fuji Acros II also and that film seems to work really well in almost anything. Those are in 120 and 4X5. Foma 100, Foma 200 and Delta 100 in 35mm, but I like those in Xtol-R or Pyrocat-HDC. Of course, I see what they look like in PC512K also. JohnW
 

Trask

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
1,819
Location
Virginia (northern)
Shooter
35mm RF
I hope folks who give PC-512 a try will post some photos here on the Photo -- I for one would be interested to see what gives.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
10,116
Location
North Carolina
Shooter
Multi Format
Something else that occurred to me relative to PC-512 -- I suspect it could be used as a paper developer by substituting a sodium carbonate solution for the borax Part B. Don't know what the tray life would be, but there's at least one PC based paper developer on the commercial market...
 
OP
OP
relistan

relistan

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
826
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Shooter
Multi Format
My comment wasn't about encouragement, but was meant as a compliment. I don't think you need any encouragement, since it seems you have everything pretty much figured out. I can't wait to get back to where my chemicals are to try this formula out with the Kodalk(sodium metaborate) version. The films I use mainly are HP5+, Delta 100, Delta 400, Foma 100 and Foma 400 in that order. I do have some Fuji Acros II also and that film seems to work really well in almost anything. Those are in 120 and 4X5. Foma 100, Foma 200 and Delta 100 in 35mm, but I like those in Xtol-R or Pyrocat-HDC. Of course, I see what they look like in PC512K also. JohnW
Look forward to seeing some of that!

Did I get you right Xtol (1+1, stock?) times minus 15% as general starting point?

Yes, so far for the films I have tried, that is about right. Of course it will depend on a lot of factors, but that should get you in the ball park.

I hope folks who give PC-512 a try will post some photos here on the Photo -- I for one would be interested to see what gives.

I would love to see some others try it out. You can see some examples on the blog post I linked at the top or on my Flickr stream in my signature on this post.

Something else that occurred to me relative to PC-512 -- I suspect it could be used as a paper developer by substituting a sodium carbonate solution for the borax Part B. Don't know what the tray life would be, but there's at least one PC based paper developer on the commercial market...

Yes I think that's probably correct. Gainer used PC-Glycol/Carbonate as a paper developer with some success.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
10,116
Location
North Carolina
Shooter
Multi Format
Yes, so far for the films I have tried, that is about right. Of course it will depend on a lot of factors, but that should get you in the ball park.

I think the main question was whether it's Xtol stock minus 15%, or Xtol 1+1 minus 15%.

Gainer used PC-Glycol/Carbonate as a paper developer with some success.

I don't know all Gainer's stuff, didn't even know about PC-Glycol until this thread. I was aware of PC-TEA, but TEA is less available than glycol (possibly not true before vaping became big business) and it has to be even hotter to get stuff dissolved, so I haven't had an interest in trying it.
 
OP
OP
relistan

relistan

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
826
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Shooter
Multi Format
I think the main question was whether it's Xtol stock minus 15%, or Xtol 1+1 minus 15%.
Oh you are right, thanks! I misread that. XTOL stock is what I meant.

I don't know all Gainer's stuff, didn't even know about PC-Glycol until this thread. I was aware of PC-TEA, but TEA is less available than glycol (possibly not true before vaping became big business) and it has to be even hotter to get stuff dissolved, so I haven't had an interest in trying it.

Yeah, no worries, I was working on ascorbic acid developers so I read everything I could find. He experimented with both (and water-based as well). He eventually settled on TEA because it was convenient not to need any other alkali. But TEA is rather nasty and harder to get and so I, like you, also never wanted to mess with it. Glycol is nice because it's pretty inert and odorless, is easy to get (now), and works great to preserve stuff, and his discovery: particularly ascorbic acid.
 

Peter Schrager

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
3,780
Location
fairfield co
Shooter
Large Format
I've done 2 cycles of the 512 on foma 120/100 speed film...as per your recommendation the first roll is overdeveloped...about 6:45@ 68 degrees
The second roll I did a prewash for 1 minute and developed for 6:15@68 it came out looking thin. I see potential as a homebrew but I make my own pyrocat Mc and it does make lovely negatives with foma 100 ..
Appreciate your work effort
 

Peter Schrager

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
3,780
Location
fairfield co
Shooter
Large Format
Does prewash have such a huge impact?
I'm not interested in starting a long thread about the benefits or cons of using a prewash. It's just something I usually do. when you use staining developers like pyrocat it is highly recommended that you do do a prewash for up to 3 minutes. It's just a question of adjusting your developing time to do so.
happy thanksgiving everyone!!
Peter
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,485
Location
India
Shooter
Multi Format
I'm not interested in starting a long thread about the benefits or cons of using a prewash.

Neither am I interested. Your own report says that you got overdeveloped negatives with 6:45 minutes and underdeveloped negatives at with 6:15 minutes. Thirty seconds difference in development time can't be the reason for such a wild swing in the results. :smile:
 
OP
OP
relistan

relistan

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
826
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Shooter
Multi Format
I've done 2 cycles of the 512 on foma 120/100 speed film...as per your recommendation the first roll is overdeveloped...about 6:45@ 68 degrees
The second roll I did a prewash for 1 minute and developed for 6:15@68 it came out looking thin. I see potential as a homebrew but I make my own pyrocat Mc and it does make lovely negatives with foma 100 ..
Appreciate your work effort

Hi Peter, thanks for trying it out. I'm surprised as Raghu was also, that you would get such a huge difference in such a short time difference. You would normally see a bit of density difference but not an extreme amount. As I mentioned I have only tested extensively with the films I posted (Ilford Delta 100, Fotoimpex CHM) and I was suggesting that additional testing was needed with other films.

The suggestion about starting point times was just a starting point. When doing testing for a new film I usually shoot the same frame at 5 different exposures (-2, -1, 0, +1, +2), cut the film from the camera (35mm obviously), develop it, and then repeat, until I'm happy with where I am. Doing that is hard with my M2, so I use my Yashica Electro 35 GSN because the whole back opens. I'm sorry you didn't get results you liked. If you'd like to continue experimenting, I'd be happy to help with suggestions. I also like Fomapan 100. Do you have the ability to measure density? If so (no worries if not), I would be interested in your expectations for correct development density and what you ended up with.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
relistan

relistan

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
826
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Shooter
Multi Format
@Peter Schrager thinking more about this, where did you get the 6min + development time? When I look at the times for XTOL stock in 120 for Fomapan 100, it says 5-6 minutes in the data sheet. Massive Dev Chart says the same. I usually would have done 6 mins, which brings you to just over 5 mins (6 mins * 85% = 5.1 mins) with PC-512 Borax. That you ended up with too thin negatives at 6 mins seems a little strange to me, given that. Did you use the same pre-mixed batch of Borax solution for both rolls? Were the developing agents fully dissolved in the Glycol?
 

Peter Schrager

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
3,780
Location
fairfield co
Shooter
Large Format
@Peter Schrager thinking more about this, where did you get the 6min + development time? When I look at the times for XTOL stock in 120 for Fomapan 100, it says 5-6 minutes in the data sheet. Massive Dev Chart says the same. I usually would have done 6 mins, which brings you to just over 5 mins (6 mins * 85% = 5.1 mins) with PC-512 Borax. That you ended up with too thin negatives at 6 mins seems a little strange to me, given that. Did you use the same pre-mixed batch of Borax solution for both rolls? Were the developing agents fully dissolved in the Glycol?

All films developed in 512 from same batch.
Agents fully dissolved in glycol...if you have hot plate stirrer it goes really fast.
I should have added 1 minute for the prewash...
As per my first batch it seems like a very aggressive developer; then the prewash..
Fooled me and it came out soft .I'm certain around 7:15 is going to be fine
 
OP
OP
relistan

relistan

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
826
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Shooter
Multi Format
All films developed in 512 from same batch.
Agents fully dissolved in glycol...if you have hot plate stirrer it goes really fast.
I should have added 1 minute for the prewash...
As per my first batch it seems like a very aggressive developer; then the prewash..
Fooled me and it came out soft .I'm certain around 7:15 is going to be fine

Ah, I see, you are including the pre-wash time in the development time. Still seems long, but will look forward to your results if you get another chance.
 
OP
OP
relistan

relistan

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
826
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Shooter
Multi Format
I had an hour today so I tested a clip of expired Tri-X that has been in the freezer (Arista Premium 400). Looks like time is going to be about the same as XTOL stock, actually, but will wait until it's dry and I can check density and also scan it to post. I tested on film leader first, to get a sense of Dmax and adjusted upward to the full 7 mins before developing.
 
Last edited:

albada

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
1,657
Location
Escondido, C
Shooter
35mm RF
@relistan, I tried your idea of dissolving the developers in PG. But I did this with the ID-62 paper developer. Here's my posting, which includes a picture of the poor man's hot plate that I used, which you might like.
Success! The developer works well, and the PG solution shows no sign of precipitate after two hours in the refrigerator.
 
OP
OP
relistan

relistan

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
826
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Shooter
Multi Format
@relistan, I tried your idea of dissolving the developers in PG. But I did this with the ID-62 paper developer. Here's my posting, which includes a picture of the poor man's hot plate that I used, which you might like.
Success! The developer works well, and the PG solution shows no sign of precipitate after two hours in the refrigerator.

Thanks Mark, I replied over there!
 
OP
OP
relistan

relistan

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
826
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Shooter
Multi Format
Tri-X 400 @ 400 — PC-512 Borax 1+50 7 mins

Here's the box speed frame from the test roll of Tri-X I developed last week for 7 mins. This is the full frame, and then a zoom in on the center to better show the grain (click the thumbnail). I think it may be slightly over-developed at this time, will back off to 6.5 next time.

It's a somewhat flat scene, but given the weather at the moment, this is about as good a job as I can do on an example shot.

As it's a not a solvent developer the grain is sharper, but I would not say it's hugely more pronounced that with D-76.

PC512Tri-X-sm.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2022-12-03 at 5.20.15 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2022-12-03 at 5.20.15 PM.png
    925.2 KB · Views: 46

albada

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
1,657
Location
Escondido, C
Shooter
35mm RF
It looks very grainy, like Tri-X from decades ago, but that could be due to sharpening in the scanning software. How was the negative scanned?
To gauge grain, it would be best to take a photo of either of a microscope's image of the negative, or a print from an enlarger with a 50mm lens and its head at max height.
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
2,161
Location
Lake Station, MI
Shooter
Multi Format
It looks very grainy, like Tri-X from decades ago, but that could be due to sharpening in the scanning software. How was the negative scanned?
To gauge grain, it would be best to take a photo of either of a microscope's image of the negative, or a print from an enlarger with a 50mm lens and its head at max height.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. The grain seems to be kind of an odd shape. It almost looks like scanning artifacts instead of grain.
 
OP
OP
relistan

relistan

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
826
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Shooter
Multi Format
It looks very grainy, like Tri-X from decades ago, but that could be due to sharpening in the scanning software. How was the negative scanned?
To gauge grain, it would be best to take a photo of either of a microscope's image of the negative, or a print from an enlarger with a 50mm lens and its head at max height.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. The grain seems to be kind of an odd shape. It almost looks like scanning artifacts instead of grain.

When I get some more time I will try to get a better view. I am used to looking at grain like this so it made sense to me. I won't be printing for awhile, but I will see if I can get a shot through the grain focuser on the enlarger.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab
Top Bottom