Why so much Sulfite?

I should also mention that I added the Borax in hopes that it would make both developers solutions have roughly the same pH. What I found was that dev A has a pH of about 8.3 and dev B has a pH of about 7.7 after developing three sheets of 4x5 each. I suppose this explains a lot of why the shadows didn't hold up as well in the reduced sulfite dev.

BradS said:

I should also mention that I added the Borax in hopes
that it would make both developers solutions have roughly
the same pH. What I found was that dev A has a pH of about
8.3 and dev B has a pH of about 7.7 after developing three
sheets of 4x5 each. I suppose this explains a lot of why
the shadows didn't hold up as well in the
reduced sulfite dev.

Click to expand...

First of all borax will lower the ph of any sulfite activated
developer. The less the sulfite the more profound the
lowering. Sulfite alone activated developers have
about as low a ph as any need to go.

Second your method of agitation does not make allowance
for bromide's drag on development or for local depletion.
Metol is sensitive to bromide and your results have me
thinking that it must not be used in just any manor.

For myself I've gotten very good shadow results
and intend to continue with my 8-80 formula at
a 1:7 dilution. At that dilution D-23 is a semi-
compensating developer. Your supply of
sulfite will last and last. Dan

Since the formulas are the same except for sulfite and pH, there are two comments I would have. First, the pH difference has obscured the results and second the question remaining is ''what would happen if the prints were made opitmally for the development of the film?"

Of course, there is also the question of what zero sulfite would have done.

But, basically you see the change. Kodak films are released by testing in D76. (At least they were when I was there.) Changes from this 'center point' of developer formulation will change the results rather strongly. This is true of all B&W and Color films and papers.

PE

Also, I'm sure the results would have been different if the pH's had been made the same to start by increasing the amount of borax in the developer with less sulfite.

...or just bump the speed down to 64.

Or print them to the same density, or scan them and just modify density only.

PE

BradS said:

Dev A is on the left.

Click to expand...

Visa versa on my screen.

Metol is quite acidic. Ten grams of it will affect
the ph in a much reduced sulfite developer. And
once more, borax has a ph more than a little lower
than sulfite's. What is your reason for adding borax?
A lower ph equals longer processing.

I think metol might be better used with intermittent
agitation using a tray or tank. Dan

BradS said:

Dev A is on the left.

Click to expand...

dancqu said:

Visa versa on my screen.

Click to expand...

In both examples the negative that scanned lighter overall was developed in Dev A. The negs done in Dev A (with 100 g sulfite) are noticeably more dense all over. Again, I made no attempt to "fix" these in photo shop or whatever.

dancqu said:

Metol is quite acidic. Ten grams of it will affect
the ph in a much reduced sulfite developer. And
once more, borax has a ph more than a little lower
than sulfite's. What is your reason for adding borax?
A lower ph equals longer processing.

Click to expand...

Well, chemistry has never been my strong point. I think I have learned more chemisty by reading informally these past few years than I ever did in that first year of General Chem I had in college...long ago.

Actually, the 10 grams of Metol was a mistake but, since I had already weighed it out and disolved it, I decided to go forward. I guess I kind forgot the part that Sodium sulfite in solution has a pH of nearly 10 whereas Borax is closer to 9.25...and I didn't even think about the effect the Metol would have on the pH.

dancqu said:

I think metol might be better used with intermittent agitation using a tray or tank. Dan

Click to expand...

Yeah, you mentioned that previously....but, there's no way I'm going back to trays. Inversion processing one-at-a-time in a tank is ok when I have only a few sheets but, it's not very practical when there are more than about four sheets to process. Deep tanks would be great...but, it's the Jobo drum for now.

Photo Engineer said:

Since the formulas are the same except for sulfite and pH, there are two comments I would have. First, the pH difference has obscured the results and second the question remaining is ''what would happen if the prints were made optimally for the development of the film?"

Click to expand...

Yes. Exactly what I was thinking except that from a practical standpoint, the development time or exposure index or both, I suppose, would need to be adjusted for Dev. B as the shadows are completely unacceptable in the contrasty light case.

Photo Engineer said:

But, basically you see the change. Kodak films are released by testing in D76. (At least they were when I was there.) Changes from this 'center point' of developer formulation will change the results rather strongly. This is true of all B&W and Color films and papers.

PE

Click to expand...

Yes, I was surprised to see just how different the results are... and I guess in that sense, the experiment is somewhat successful.

Brad;

This is why there are so many different opinions, and the most prevalent one is that there is a 'magic bullet'. There really is not. Grain is grain, etc and all of these variables can only be manipulated within narrow margins.

PE

If you want to cut down on the cost of sodium sulfite, just make up some PC-TEA. It contains no sodium sulfite at all. The cost per roll is very low, the keeping qualities are excellent and PC-TEA is far less toxic than many of the other film developers mentioned in this forum. If you don't want to bother making up PC-TEA then HC-110 is also very economical.

BradS said:

Dev A is on the left.

Click to expand...

I did make a mistake. On reviewing I can now
see that the two images are positives; white teeth,
black hair. If the A negative is the most dense I'd
not have been confused had it been displayed at
the same density as B. Also B's lose of shadow
density would have been evident.

It might be argued that full strength 100 gram D-23
is D-23. If you are after savings and use developer
one-shot then a metol sulfite developer can be
used at very low concentration. Dan