sorry ... but ... Now i'm very confused.What would formula A and B be if I used Ascorbic Acid instead of Sodium Ascorbate?
(12gr. !!! of ascorbic acid in solution B seem excessive to me)
I'm trying to develop a roll of film tomorrow night
Since no one has bothered thus far, in spite of this thread being 4 pages, I think it would be nice if you posted a couple of photos of your developed negatives, if it's not too much trouble.
I decided to recover the two correct components (sodium ascorbate and propylene glycol) of the original formula that I was missing, in order to correctly execute the recipe. I finished everything a few minutes ago running everything correctly.
Only one thing left me in doubt about the John Finch video (4:05 minute).
When I added the third element (sodium sulfite), the water didn't change color (maybe just imperceptibly cloudy). I am obviously certain that I have not inverted the insertion sequence or made the wrong doses; it's all so simple.
The only difference from the video is that I used demineralised water and John probably used tap water.
I hope that everything works the same; I'm trying to develop a roll of film tomorrow night
I had this in my spreadsheet records and didn't record its source. An alternate B solution for FX-55.
Alternate Part B Phenidone g TEA g Ascorbic Acid g Propylene Glycol to ml
Crawley felt that borates induced "sheen" or fog, and needed careful balancing with restrainer. So it is likely he avoided it for that reason. That being said, I personally have not found borates inducing fog with PC developers. My main developer is Phenidone, Ascorbic acid, and borax and produces very low/nearly no fog vs other developers of similar formulation.Adox has recently reformulated Xtol and D-76 sans borates. Anchell and Troop in the FDC 2nd, said "We cannot tell if Crawley was using the highly buffered carbonate [in FX 55] to avoid infringing on the Xtol patent, or if he would have preferred to use the Kodalk-bisulfate buffer. We are inclined to think that in this case, he preferred to avoid borates." Crawley may not have been thinking of environmental concerns, but his approach seems timely.
I thought it was vitamin C, but the “L” prefix had me ponder as to whether there was some dangling molecule making it incompatible with the formula. Not a chemist and there is no harm in asking. Thanks again!
Since the L form is what's called for in the formula for FX-55, common ascorbic acid is indicated because it is the L form even though it's rarely written as L-ascorbic acid.
It was actually Sodium L-ascorbate that was called for in the original formula, though.
It was actually Sodium L-ascorbate that was called for in the original formula, though.
In my country, no dealer sells this chemical.
if I am going to test, it will be with what I have - ascorbic acid
When they are dry I insert the photo of the negative on a light source.
i am very very satisfied.
Yeah, that looks quite good. Was the stonework in direct sunlight?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?