jdef said:Peter,
I'm glad that your developer is working for you. I am as amazed as you are at the elegance and simplicity of Pat Gainer's developers, and it is with him that the credit lies. These ascorbate developers, in all of their incarnations, are just the tip of Pat's iceberg of ideas and contributions to photography, and darkroom work. His innovations come at a time in the history of the medium when the major research in the field is drying up, and many photographers have lost confidence in the major manufacturers' willingness to continue production of the chemicals and materials that we depend on. Pat has reinforced my instinct to challenge assumptions, and has taught me more about darkroom work than any other single source. For that, I am eternally grateful.
Jay
peters said:I went to the autoparts store and found Ethylene glycol-can I use this instead of the propyleneglycol?
Regards Peter
Maine-iac said:In PC-TEA, the only difference is the TEA itself as the activator. The amounts of Phenidone and Vitamin C remain the same. I can't tell the difference in my negs at 11 X14 enlargements in terms of grain or tonality. So for me, the teaspoon of Kodalk is quicker and easier than making up the TEA solution.
Larry
pauldc said:1. Since the thread was written how are people getting on with this non-TEA PC developer? I am particularly interested in using it with FP4+ as I have heard that it is the closest thing to my dearly departed Paterson Acutol!
pauldc said:2. I am confused by the seemingly different ratios of Phenidone and Vit C in the non TEA recipe to the original TEA recipe.
srs5694 said:.. I used Dimezone S rather than phenidone in mine, though, and that could improve the longevity of the solution...
srs5694 said:In terms of the ascorbic acid/phenidone ratios, they're similar, but not identical (10:0.25 for PC-Glycol and 9:0.25 for PC-TEA). I've seen the formulas on some Web sites (such as this one) with slightly different numbers. Mine are from the original article (unless I erred in copying them, which is always possible). I believe Pat Gainer has done some tests on the optimum ratio of ascorbic acid to phenidone, but I don't recall the results.
I have training as a professional chemist having a BS Chem and a MS. From a purely chemical viewpoint propylene glycol would seem safer than ethylene glycol since it is not metabolized to oxalic acid in the human body. However, this chemical must be evaluated from a toxicological perspective not merely a chemical one.gainer said:I think that BS about the propylene glycol becoming more poisonous than the ethylene is propaganda. I would like to hear from a professional chemist about the veracity of that statement.
I have always used TEA as the activator. From a purely chemical standpoint, sodium metaborate will produce a pH closer to TEA than sodium carbonate. But this pH will still be higher than that produced by the TEA.sanking said:I have seen various activators suggested for PC-Glycol, including sodium carbonate, sodium metaborate, and a combination of the two. Can someone tell me which of the activators gives results closest to those from PC-TEA in terms of developer energy, i.e. speed of development?
Sandy
gainer said:If you buy it by the gallon, TEA from The Chemistry Store is about $16 per gallon + shipping. It is handy stuff to have around, as is propylene glycol.
Anything can be dangerous. You can drown in a remarkably small amount of water.
sanking said:I have seen various activators suggested for PC-Glycol, including sodium carbonate, sodium metaborate, and a combination of the two. Can someone tell me which of the activators gives results closest to those from PC-TEA in terms of developer energy, i.e. speed of development?
Jordan said:Sandy -- As Gerald mentioned, TEA itself would work just fine. (In practice, that's what I use.) Barring that, of the options you listed, metaborate on its own is closest. A mixture of metaborate and borax could probably be used to bring the pH of the working solution even closer to the PC-TEA working pH but I don't know the exact amounts that would be required.
sanking said:And it still has a B+F of around 0.9, quite remarkable.
Kirk Keyes said:That would be quite remarkable, but looking at your graphs, I bet you really meant "0.09"...
Hi Peter,
Sorry I wasn't online for the past day or so; since I'm a clergyman, Sunday is a heavy workday for me.
Larry
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?