My PC-512 Borax Developer

[John Wiegerink]

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.

Karl,
You don't have to go through that trouble for me. All I need to know is if you think this grain in your Tri-X/PC-512 shot looks similar to the grain you would get with Tri-X and say Xtol or D-76. I'll take your word for it either way.
JohnW

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I started playing around with this developer over the weekend. Hope to have a video up in the next couple of weeks.

 

[grahamp]

My initial thoughts for Delta 400 are that base fog is noticeable and Dmax is not as high as I would expect. Around 1.35 with my densitometer for a Zone VII exposure patch whereas I would normally get around 1.60. I'll plot the graphs when I have the full set of developing times (see below).

I am using a Jobo CPE+ with lift, 21C, 5 minute pre-wash, 7 min 45 sec development , water rinse, 6 minute fix in TF-4.

I want to run another test at 8 minutes 15 seconds to see if the Dmax increases without much more base fog.

These times are those from Ilford/Harman for Delta 400 in XTOL stock, which seem to be in the right range for me.

My usual developer is Thornton's Two Bath (metol and sodium sulphite, sodium metaborate), so my baseline may be biased towards a grade 2 printing negative.

 

[relistan]

Karl,
You don't have to go through that trouble for me. All I need to know is if you think this grain in your Tri-X/PC-512 shot looks similar to the grain you would get with Tri-X and say Xtol or D-76. I'll take your word for it either way.
JohnW

Thanks John. I still want to see if I can get something better to post. The grain is definitely more noticeable so than D76 or XTOL. I was just saying it’s not as much more as for example Rodinal.

 

[relistan]

My initial thoughts for Delta 400 are that base fog is noticeable and Dmax is not as high as I would expect. Around 1.35 with my densitometer for a Zone VII exposure patch whereas I would normally get around 1.60. I'll plot the graphs when I have the full set of developing times (see below).

I am using a Jobo CPE+ with lift, 21C, 5 minute pre-wash, 7 min 45 sec development , water rinse, 6 minute fix in TF-4.

I want to run another test at 8 minutes 15 seconds to see if the Dmax increases without much more base fog.

These times are those from Ilford/Harman for Delta 400 in XTOL stock, which seem to be in the right range for me.

My usual developer is Thornton's Two Bath (metol and sodium sulphite, sodium metaborate), so my baseline may be biased towards a grade 2 printing negative.

Interesting, Graham, I haven't had low density issues. Fog is a little higher for me than on XTOL (I posted the base+fog densities on Delta 100 are around 0.3). Here are some shots of Tri-X in XTOL stock vs my recent Arista Premium (Tri-X) test in PC-512 Borax. Densities are pretty similar. The PC-512 scene is a bit flat, highest density at 400 is just visible upper left. Sorry I don't have a better example.

Here's Delta 100 in PC-512 vs XTOL stock. Here you can see a little bit higher fog:

I will definitely be interested in your results from testing Delta 400!

I started playing around with this developer over the weekend. Hope to have a video up in the next couple of weeks.

Awesome, look forward to it!

 

[grahamp]

I was suspicious about my FB+F levels, so I went and got some fresh Delta 400. Much better, the FB+F read 0.219 on my densitometer, which is about what I would expect with Thornton's Two Bath.

This test was done on a Jobo CPE2+ with a 1520 tank, 21C. 5 minute pre-wash, 8 minutes 15 seconds development, 1 minute water rinse, 8 minutes in TF-4 alkaline fix. The target EI was 400. This gave me densities ranging from a Zone II subject at 0.46 to a Zone IX subject at 1.54. Grain seems fine, as would be expected with this film.

At the moment I am leaning towards using Ilford's times for XTOL stock with Delta 400 and an EI of 400.

I will see about some scans of the negatives.

 

[grahamp]

Negative scans for EI400 and EI800 at Technical gallery: https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/pc-512boraxdelta400-8min15s002-jpg.68067/

Raw scan from my Epson 4870. I put it in the gallery because it accepts a larger file.

 

[relistan]

Negative scans for EI400 and EI800 at Technical gallery: https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/pc-512boraxdelta400-8min15s002-jpg.68067/

Raw scan from my Epson 4870. I put it in the gallery because it accepts a larger file.

This looks quite good to me. Thanks for posting. The density numbers you posted are also helpful, thanks! Really appreciate seeing someone else’s results.

 

[relistan]

I got the enlarger set up and got two shots of grain through the grain focuser (this is hard!) with my iPhone. Here's grain shots of PC-512 Borax on the left and XTOL Stock on the right. Kodak Tri-X 400 @ 400 in both shots. The enlarger was not adjusted between the shots. The focus here is not perfect, this is super hard with a phone shooting through the grain focuser. I think it does give a pretty good sense of the grain in comparison. The XTOL scene is a bit darker than the fairly flat scene in the PC-512 Borax shot.

CC @albada and @John Wiegerink who were interested

 

[pentaxuser]

To my completely untrained eye the PC-512 grain looks finer but even if my judgement is correct I have no idea how this translates into grain as it appears in a print

pentaxuser

 

[albada]

To my completely untrained eye the PC-512 grain looks finer but even if my judgement is correct I have no idea how this translates into grain as it appears in a print

pentaxuser

To me, it appears that the XTOL shot was of a textured surface whereas the PC-512 shot was of a smooth surface. Texture makes grain difficult for me to assess, but on examining small smooth areas of the XTOL neg, it appears that grain is about the same. If so, that's an exceptional accomplishment.

 

[albada]

Here's a developer created by Patrick Gainer in 2009 using the same ingredients. His posting is here.

Water	800 ml
Borax	19 g
Ascorbic acid	6 g
Phenidone	0.15 g
Water to	1 L

Times are the same as D-76. This formula is for the working solution; it is not a concentrate. But one could store the Phenidone and AA in a glycol concentrate as @relistan has done.

Mark

 

[relistan]

To me, it appears that the XTOL shot was of a textured surface whereas the PC-512 shot was of a smooth surface. Texture makes grain difficult for me to assess, but on examining small smooth areas of the XTOL neg, it appears that grain is about the same. If so, that's an exceptional accomplishment.

I think the grain is about the same size but the edges on the grain in PC-512 Borax are harder/sharper and I expect that this is the reason that I perceive the graininess to be somewhat higher, though not massively so.

Here's a developer created by Patrick Gainer in 2009 using the same ingredients. His posting is here.
...

Mark

Thanks Mark I have not seen this thread, and will link it from my blog. Like Jay's PG-110B, that is definitely pretty similar—as usual I guess we're walking the paths others have walked. It's Patrick's PC-Glycol that I used a bunch that started me with ascorbic acid developers. Interesting that he was working in this thread with it as a stock-type developer rather than a concentrate like PC-Glycol. In any case I offered up my work for anyone to use if they like it, so perhaps if nothing else it draws more attention to these kinds of home made developers. My motivation was that I found something that works really well for me and maybe it would be good for other people.

As with the many Metol/Sulfite/Hydroquinone/borax formulas, I think some differences in concentrations can make a noticeable difference (e.g. D-76, ADOX MQ Borax, and the many paper developers, etc).

Looking at Patrick's formula, I observe a few of things:

• He's using the same 40:1 developing agent ratio as PC-Glycol because he found it to be the best combination of economical and photographically active. In my testing of two baths, I preferred the look of 24:1. Jay DeFehr was using 10:1. MyTol is 87:1.
• There are even more developing agents here than in PC-512 Borax (30g ascorbic acid, 0.75g phenidone per 5L)
• Despite more ascorbic acid and less Borax, he reports a pH higher (8.5 vs 8.3) than I measured in PC-512 Borax with my equipment.
  • @Murray Kelly observed in that thread that glycol affects the buffering capability of borax, which may be pertinent. Presumably through complexing some of the borax.
• I expect somewhat higher contrast from Patrick's formula because of the higher ratio of ascorbic acid to phenidone. Someone would need to test it to know. My experience is that results are not the same with different amounts—as with MQ formulas
• Lower in the thread Patrick experimented with Glycerol and was able to dissolve quite a lot of borax. There may be a path there to a nice concentrate

There are probably an infinite number of other things we could try. If you are happy with something known to work in a concentrate with a Borax part B, PC-512 Borax is, I think, pretty good.

 

[relistan]

In the meantime, here's another photo with my Leica M2, Summarit-M 2.5/35mm on Ilford Delta 100 in PC-512 Borax 1+50:

 

[Alan Johnson]

Ascorbate developers

Ryuji has some favorable comments on ascorbate developers including better tonality and sharpness than HQ and tolerance of variation in composition. Probably maintained with PC-512 Borax rather than the compositions he used.

 

[relistan]

Ascorbate developers

Ryuji has some favorable comments on ascorbate developers including better tonality and sharpness than HQ and tolerance of variation in composition. Probably maintained with PC-512 Borax rather than the compositions he used.

Thanks the link Alan, that’s an interesting page. Among other details of interest, it’s a very good point he makes about the development products and their alkalinity vs acidity.

 

[relistan]

Lower in the thread Patrick experimented with Glycerol and was able to dissolve quite a lot of borax. There may be a path there to a nice concentrate

Replying to my earlier comment with further info. Gainer was barking up the wrong tree there, mixing borax and glycerol/glycerin forms a reasonable amount of boric acid. The resulting pH would about 6 in the needed quantities. This is the opposite of what you want. I think this is what Kirk was saying in the thread linked above in #87. Also glycerin is too thick to work well in my opinion.

Propylene glycol does not have enough borax solubility to make dissolving the borax reasonable. It’s only 215g/l for the pentahydrate at 24C. You’d need enough glycol to make it more expensive than necessary and less convenient to measure out. And in any case you’d be adding a fair bit of water to the mix via the borax. And probably some iron impurities. Both of which are not really desirable in solution with the developing agents. Metaborate might still work if it requires enough less. It has the same downsides though.

Takeaway: Having spent some more time on this, I think the separate borax solution I used for PC-512 Borax is the easiest/best way to do this for this formula. Your can mix up 5L of the borax solution to start with if that makes it easier. It doesn’t seem to need any further preservatives to keep it clean, even with tap water.

 

[relistan]

Here's a shot of the Louvre in Paris. Rollei 35S, Rollei Sonnar 2.8/40mm on Kodak Tri-X at box speed in PC-512 Borax 1+50 for 6.75 mins @ 20C.


You can see that the grain is not huge.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Looking at the sky section, you can see it, but at least it's what I would call "well defined" and sharp. Better than "mushy" type grain anytime, at least I think so anyway. Plus, it doesn't jump right out at you. When grain becomes a problem for me is when I look at a print and can only seem to see or focus on the grain. That's just me and what I perceive to be acceptable grain. Other folks love huge, in-your-face grain. I'm somewhere in between.

 

[relistan]

Looking at the sky section, you can see it, but at least it's what I would call "well defined" and sharp. Better than "mushy" type grain anytime, at least I think so anyway. Plus, it doesn't jump right out at you. When grain becomes a problem for me is when I look at a print and can only seem to see or focus on the grain. That's just me and what I perceive to be acceptable grain. Other folks love huge, in-your-face grain. I'm somewhere in between.

Thanks John. I agree, I don’t mind seeing grain if it’s not overrunning the photo. I usually shoot 100 speed films but occasionally reach for Tri-X or HP5. I think this developer does fine here. Well enough that I’ll use it again with faster traditional films.

 

[pentaxuser]

relistan, the sky in the country road with trees and drystone wall looks pretty grain free to me. Was this a 35mm or 120 negative and is there any way to relate the example to what size of a print this represents?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[relistan]

relistan, the sky in the country road with trees and drystone wall looks pretty grain free to me. Was this a 35mm or 120 negative and is there any way to relate the example to what size of a print this represents?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Yeah with Ilford Delta 100 it is very tiny and smooth grain. That’s 35mm film. That was the film I originally tuned the developer around. I imagine you can take that well past 11x14 though I can’t print bigger than 8x10 right now due to space.

The Fotoimpex CHM100 (Kentmere 100) I shot also looks really good IMO.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Karl, I hope you don't mind me sticking my video here! I played around with your developer, comparing it to Xtol.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Karl, I hope you don't mind me sticking my video here! I played around with your developer, comparing it to Xtol.

Well done Andy! Pretty hard to beat Xtol. PC512 could probably be fine-tuned a little more and make a fine all-around film developer. I always prefer a developer with a looooong shelf life, which PC512 should have.

 

[relistan]

Karl, I hope you don't mind me sticking my video here! I played around with your developer, comparing it to Xtol.

No, thanks for sharing! Good you posted it here. Regarding some of your findings, since it’s a non-solvent developer, I would guess (have not tested dilutions extensively) that shorter times at lower dilution will provide better results with respect to grain and fog.

I also just developed some HP5+ in 120 which looks a good bit better than Tri-X. I wonder if there is something about the chemistry of the Ilford films that this developer works better with.

Well done Andy! Pretty hard to beat Xtol. PC512 could probably be fine-tuned a little more and make a fine all-around film developer. I always prefer a developer with a looooong shelf life, which PC512 should have.

Given that it’s meant to be simple and it’s a non-solvent developer I think it’s pretty good for what it is. I defend my claim about tonality being smooth, but Andy got some interesting grain results that I did not expect. It does appear to like the Ilford films I’ve tested better than others. Understanding why that is would be an interesting avenue for investigation.

I also appreciate Andy’s contribution on stand development and experimenting with benzotriazole to control fog on longer development at higher dilution. Good also to just have someone repeat my results.