My PC-512 Borax Developer

[snusmumriken]

I had taken this as a compliment of my photography and not really a statement about the developer. The developer needs to support whatever artistic expression you are trying to achieve, and to that extent some credit is due, but you could achieve similar results by other means. It's fun with B&W that you have some control over the image produced by messing with chemistry. Finding an expression you like by starting from film and raw materials and getting images out at the end is rewarding, and that is enough for me.

Quite right. The picture is a credit to your metering skills especially. And I completely agree with the rest of what you say here.

Of course, it's very difficult to formulate such a solid all-around developer, and I feel I need to congratulate @relistan on succeeding to do so.

Hear, hear!

 

[relistan]

Of course, it's very difficult to formulate such a solid all-around developer, and I feel I need to congratulate @relistan on succeeding to do so.

Thank you! I really appreciate that!

 

[relistan]

Processed a roll of Fotoimpex CHM 100 (Kentmere 100) at box speed in PC-512 Borax 1+50 for 7 mins @ 20C. This was shot with my 1957 Zorki 4 and Voigtlander Color-Skopar LTM 2.5/35mm lens.

 

[bluechromis]

I am really enjoying this thread, the information, and your photographs. It seems you've created a great developer. I might actually give it a try. I have all the ingredients. Thank you for sharing your knowledge!

Yes, a very good effort.

 

[relistan]

Yes, a very good effort.

Thank you!

 

[skyer]

Relistan, how would you compare your developer to the Barry Thornton's 2-bath developer? I'm also looking for a good tonality of photos, simplicity and shelf life of developers.

 

[relistan]

Relistan, how would you compare your developer to the Barry Thornton's 2-bath developer? I'm also looking for a good tonality of photos, simplicity and shelf life of developers.

Well, I’ll do my best to compare . This developer is a single bath developer for starters. If you are looking for another two bath, take a look at my blog in my signature. My 2B-1 two bath developer is IMO pretty good. It’s an acutance developer.

PC-512 borax has only 4 ingredients so it’s quite easy to make. You will get shelf life well over a year from a batch from my experience. It is likely longer but I used it up before that. The borax part B does not grow anything and lasts a long time too.

100ml of part A concentrate will make about 5L of developer at 1+50. That’s 20 rolls of 35mm film (250ml/roll) for under €2 or so by my reckoning so it’s quite inexpensive. Obviously initial investment will be more because you need to acquire all the chemistry.

IMO the tonality of PC developers like PC-512 Borax is better than metol developers but this is entirely subjective. Others disagree. Grain is similar in size but slightly sharper with PC-512 Borax vs Thornton Two Bath. Take a look at my example shots and you can probably decide for yourself whether or not you like the look. It was created to work with the 100 speed films I usually shoot but works very well with Delta 400 and Kentmere PAN 400 as well. I shoot it at box speed with all films I’ve tried. Thornton’s Two Bath may reach slightly higher speed.

 

[grahamp]

PC-512 Borax and Thornton's Two Bath are rather different developers, though they are both cheap simple mixes.

Thornton's (metol, sodium sulphite, sodium metaborate) is a two bath where some development occurs in bath A, and most of the development/contrast comes from bath B. It is reusable up to about 10 135-36 or equivalent films. It does not really give box speed by Zone System standards - it usually needs down rating by up to a stop. I typically use it with roll and sheet film for Delta 100, Delta 400, and HP5+. I live in N. California (38 deg. N.), and landscape light is typically 5-7 stops SBR.

PC-512 Borax (glycol, phenidone, vitamin C, borax) is a single bath mixed from two stock components just before use as a single shot developer. It does seem to give box speed, though I think down-rating by a third to half a stop may help shadow separation. I have not been using it for a full year yet, so I don't know what it will do with summer light.

I process using a Jobo, so agitation is continuous. This affects my impressions. Cost-wise, I don't think there is a huge difference, though PC-512 Borax will have a better shelf life. Grain and tonal rendering a very much a personal choice. It also depends on how much enlargement you do for a final print.

 

[relistan]

It does not really give box speed by Zone System standards - it usually needs down rating by up to a stop. I typically use it with roll and sheet film for Delta 100, Delta 400, and HP5+. I live in N. California (38 deg. N.), and landscape light is typically 5-7 stops SBR.

This is my experience with Thornton Two Bath, too, but @aparat's testing shows he is able to reach over box speed at least with some films. So YMMV depending on your film choices and technique.

 

[skyer]

PC-512 Borax and Thornton's Two Bath are rather different developers, though they are both cheap simple mixes.

Yes, I do know the basics of both developers. In my amateur opinion I just thought that they are still quite similar.
You may know the modified version of the BT2B developer created by Rüdiger Hartung. In a bath A he also uses vitamin C and phenidone and a bath B consists of a sodium metaborate which is close to using borax. Actually, the original Stoeckler formula consisted of borax as well. So I decided that the PC-512 developer is in some sort a mixed version of the modified BT2B developer.

However, the most important thing is the final look. Somehow the images that were shown by Relistan reminded me some images from the use of the BT2B developer. Especially, how the highlights came out (not blown out). But I can be wrong that's why I asked my question.

As for the box speed, Rüdiger Hartung says that it becomes even higher with his formula. As for the shelf life of the original BT2B formula (I haven't tried the RH's one yet), it also keeps more than a year without a problem.

 

[relistan]

Yes, I do know the basics of both developers. In my amateur opinion I just thought that they are still quite similar

No worries on my part. Appreciate you asking. It's reasonable to think that, but one of the more surprising outcomes of developer formulation is that the same few ingredients can be mixed and remixed in many different ways that give either drastically or subtly different results. You should definitely try a few and see what you like.

However, the most important thing is the final look. Somehow the images that were shown by Relistan reminded me some images from the use of the BT2B developer. Especially, how the highlights came out (not blown out). But I can be wrong that's why I asked my question.

If you are comparing to Ruediger Hartung's developer, then I agree it can look similar, because ascorbic acid has a noticeable impact on the look IMO. I would caution that his version of the two bath has almost no bearing on the original, though. I follow him on Flickr and his work is great and I think it's probably a very good developer.

 

[relistan]

I developed a roll of Fomapan 200 shot in my Kiev 4a at box speed with Helios-103 in PC-512 Borax 1+50 for 5.5 mins @ 20C. I need to cut the time, this is over developed. However, it still looks pretty nice, so in the interest of showing how different film stocks look, I'm posting it here.

 

[skyer]

... ascorbic acid has a noticeable impact on the look IMO...

Thank you for your reply! How would you describe this impact?

 

[relistan]

Thank you for your reply! How would you describe this impact?

It's a totally subjective thing, people feel strongly about these things in various opposing directions. But I would describe it as a sort of mild "glow". YMMV

 

[skyer]

It's a totally subjective thing, people feel strongly about these things in various opposing directions. But I would describe it as a sort of mild "glow". YMMV

It's interesting. Thank you, Relistan!

 

[Kino]

I developed a roll of Fomapan 200 shot in my Kiev 4a at box speed with Helios-103 in PC-512 Borax 1+50 for 5.5 mins @ 20C. I need to cut the time, this is over developed. However, it still looks pretty nice, so in the interest of showing how different film stocks look, I'm posting it here.

You say it's overdeveloped, but to me it looks great.

Of course, it's all personal preference, but to me it has the contrast and range of a well exposed cinema B&W negative for making projection prints.

( at least the scan represents this; the actual densities, may be a bit much!)

Very nice!

 

[tahomaphoto]

Hey everyone, I went mostly silent here for a year... life caught up. But early last year while working on two bath developers I ended up with a formula that I liked a lot for a single bath developer. It's not revolutionary at all, but I have been using it a lot and really like the results. You might, too, so I wrote up a post about it on my blog:

A Simple Phenidone/Vitamin C Concentrate Developer: PC-512 Borax

What follows is how I formulated a very nice developer that I have now used pretty much exclusively for the last year and a half. As it says in the title, I have called it “PC-512 Borax”. Creative name? No. But it is indicative of the formula. This nice developer is a secondary result of some...

imager.ie

It's a developer in the family of PC-Glycol. I have used that developer a lot and this one gives me substantially better results. It also has a much better Dmin than PC-Glycol, about 0.3 for Delta 100.

Here are some photos I developed with it (Delta 100)


View attachment 321968View attachment 321967

Very cool! Looks like its something I could give a try to if I get a more accurate scale for 0.5 grams.

What are you using for a stop bath and fixer?

Thanks,

Erik

 

[svetoklik]

This is from the roll I just developed, showing some different lighting conditions than the others I posted.

Leica M2 with Summarit-M 2.5/35mm on Ilford Delta 100 at box speed. PC-512 Borax 1+50 for 6.75 mins at 20C.
View attachment 322102

Dmin on this roll was 0.38 and Dmax was 2.26

Are for others members missing dark to black too?

 

[relistan]

You say it's overdeveloped, but to me it looks great.

Of course, it's all personal preference, but to me it has the contrast and range of a well exposed cinema B&W negative for making projection prints.

( at least the scan represents this; the actual densities, may be a bit much!)

Very nice!

Thank you! I really appreciate that. Yeah, I say it's over developed because it's definitely too dense for the exposure, but it doesn't seem to have hurt the output, which is interesting. I do not know what speed I should be shooting it at yet in this developer, it's the first set of photos for this film, but seems to be box speed-ish.

Very cool! Looks like its something I could give a try to if I get a more accurate scale for 0.5 grams.

What are you using for a stop bath and fixer?

Thanks! If you have a scale that is pretty accurate at 1 gram, you can visually divide the pile of phenidone in half and get pretty darn close. Close enough that, when the difference is spread over 20 rolls, you won't notice.

I have, for years and years, used a water stop. I use either Ilford Rapid Fixer or @Rudeofus's neutral fixer from the resources section. Please nobody debate about stop baths on this thread.

Are for others members missing dark to black too?

If you aren't seeing dark black that's just your monitor adjustment.

 

[svetoklik]

If you aren't seeing dark black that's just your monitor adjustment.

I have checked your Flickr album. Other photos are nice composed and well balanced. I have also seen some landscape example without shades exposed in the bright sun, so there was no enough dark and black tonality to capture.
Have you set exposure over 500?

 

[relistan]

I have checked your Flickr album. Other photos are nice composed and well balanced. I have also seen some landscape example without shades exposed in the bright sun, so there was no enough dark and black tonality to capture.
Have you set exposure over 500?

Thanks for the kind words. Regarding the rest, I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you trying to analyze a scan of a particular photo or understand how the developer works? You can see from the test that @aparat posted above that with Delta 100 it delivers box speed and is capable of correct contrast. This is also true in my experience of the other films I have tested. If you see a particular photo you don't like the look of, I suggest to just ignore that since your taste in contrast may differ from mine and scanning of negatives is applying subjective values to the output just like when printing.

There is no reason on any particular scene to not show some full black. All of my scans are adjusted (as you would with prints) to have some full black in the photo. This is validated by showing that there is at least a small amount of clipping. The darkest patch may be small in certain bright photos with not much shadow area, but it is there. But I'm not sure how this is related to the developer.

 

[svetoklik]

The darkest patch may be small in certain bright photos with not much shadow area, but it is there

I mean exactly that and asked for the value of exposure if you remember settings. Some emulsions combined with specific developer may need longer exposure to capture darkest tonality. But our compositions need to have inherent light balance as a first step in order to have it on the negatives and prints that are properly exposed and processed.

 

[tahomaphoto]

Thank you! I really appreciate that. Yeah, I say it's over developed because it's definitely too dense for the exposure, but it doesn't seem to have hurt the output, which is interesting. I do not know what speed I should be shooting it at yet in this developer, it's the first set of photos for this film, but seems to be box speed-ish.


Thanks! If you have a scale that is pretty accurate at 1 gram, you can visually divide the pile of phenidone in half and get pretty darn close. Close enough that, when the difference is spread over 20 rolls, you won't notice.

I have, for years and years, used a water stop. I use either Ilford Rapid Fixer or @Rudeofus's neutral fixer from the resources section. Please nobody debate about stop baths on this thread.



If you aren't seeing dark black that's just your monitor adjustment.

Thank you! I really appreciate that. Yeah, I say it's over developed because it's definitely too dense for the exposure, but it doesn't seem to have hurt the output, which is interesting. I do not know what speed I should be shooting it at yet in this developer, it's the first set of photos for this film, but seems to be box speed-ish.


Thanks! If you have a scale that is pretty accurate at 1 gram, you can visually divide the pile of phenidone in half and get pretty darn close. Close enough that, when the difference is spread over 20 rolls, you won't notice.

I have, for years and years, used a water stop. I use either Ilford Rapid Fixer or @Rudeofus's neutral fixer from the resources section. Please nobody debate about stop baths on this thread.



If you aren't seeing dark black that's just your monitor adjustment.

Thank you, especially for the DIY fixer link!

Regards,

Erik

 

[relistan]

I mean exactly that and asked for the value of exposure if you remember settings. Some emulsions combined with specific developer may need longer exposure to capture darkest tonality. But our compositions need to have inherent light balance as a first step in order to have it on the negatives and prints that are properly exposed and processed.

I’m sure it was not set to 500, it’s super rare that I would ever use that shutter speed. But that’s not how it works. A negative with correct contrast can print or scan the full scale from white to black. There is no magic to shutter speed until you reach long enough times for reciprocity failure. Otherwise it’s just total amount of light that reaches the film, and that is set with either shutter speed or aperture. Anyway it’s rather irrelevant to the thread. If you don’t like that photo or how I scanned it, that’s fine.

Thank you, especially for the DIY fixer link!

Regards,

Erik

Hey, no problem! Glad to help

 

[aparat]

Evaluating the performance of a film and developer pairing is tricky, especially given the various types of workflow people use these days. It's great that @relistan has chosen a very measured approach, combining quantitative and qualitative descriptions, responding to comments with substantive arguments, and keeping an open mind. His photographs ain't too shabby, either