My PC-512 Borax Developer

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'll get out for a wander with some Ilford films... weather permitting, of course! Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas!

 

[pentaxuser]

A pretty thorough investigation. Andrew and I agreed with your conclusions. By the way have you moved to the Klondike? When you exited your darkroom so strong was the sound of the wind that when you re-entered I expected "Big Jim", crazed with hunger to be behind you with an axe thinking you were a chicken

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

A pretty thorough investigation. Andrew and I agreed with your conclusions. By the way have you moved to the Klondike? When you exited your darkroom so strong was the sound of the wind that when you re-entered I expected "Big Jim", crazed with hunger to be behind you with an axe thinking you were a chicken

pentaxuser

 

[relistan]

I'll get out for a wander with some Ilford films... weather permitting, of course! Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!

 

[relistan]

I did a further experiment today toward a possibility for a single concentrate. The experiment was to replace most of the borax with TEA, with just a small amount of borax. The idea being that a small amount of borax will dissolve in propylene glycol, and TEA already being a solvent, doesn't need to be dissolved in the glycol. It would mean that version of the developer would require 2 solvents, but maybe it's worth it. I am hindered by the fact that my pH meter has apparently died, and I don't think the paper is accurate enough (at least how I know how to use it), to match the pH to the Borax version. However, I took a stab at a working solution with the following formula:

• 300 ml water @ 20C
• 6ml PC-512 glycol concentrate (i.e. 1+50)
• 2.5ml triethanolamine 99%
• 0.3g borax
• All mixed into solution
• pH appears similar-ish using inaccurate paper (target is 8.3)

Developed Ilford Delta 100 for 6m40s. Negatives are thin, leader density about 1.58 vs 2.08 for the Borax version. This could be fully because of a pH mismatch, or it could be something else (e.g. buffer behavior). I will have to get a new meter to carry this further. I will post samples tomorrow.

 

[relistan]

Example shot with the above formulated developer I'll call PC-512 BT v1 just to have something to refer to.

Box speed Ilford Delta 100, Yashica Electro 35 GSN.

Notes:

• No change in b+f density, remains 0.3 (this is good)
• Grain is more noticeable, even on Delta 100
• Negatives are thinner than desired, as mentioned

Grain Comparison:

Both clips are 100%, scanned identically. I realize the scanner resolution isn't good enough for Delta 100, but this is still indicative. I would normally expect slightly thin negatives to have reduced grain profile, but it's slightly higher. Of course this could change at final pH.

Grain for BT v1 (thumbnail):


Grain for PC-512 Borax (thumbnail):


Full Image (1/2 resolution for posting):

 

[relistan]

Developed Kentmere PAN 400 120 shot at box speed in my Bronica S2A with Nikkor 75mm in PC-512 Borax 1+50 for 8m40s. Looks pretty nice IMO.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

They look great, relistan.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Developed Kentmere PAN 400 120 shot at box speed in my Bronica S2A with Nikkor 75mm in PC-512 Borax 1+50 for 8m40s. Looks pretty nice IMO.

Yes, very good images. The last one looks exactly like it was taken where I live. Doom and Gloom! Ain't no sunshine when it rainsssssss...............

 

[relistan]

They look great, relistan.

Thanks, Andy!

Yes, very good images. The last one looks exactly like it was taken where I live. Doom and Gloom! Ain't no sunshine when it rainsssssss...............

Thanks John. Yes, gloomy of late. Today was beautiful sunshine though. Hoping for more of that!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm starting to think that PC-512 is not a good match for CatLABS 80...

 

[relistan]

I'm starting to think that PC-512 is not a good match for CatLABS 80...

It may be the case. I don't have any to test with so I can't confirm if it's something I'm doing differently, or if it's the film.

 

[relistan]

Ok, new/replacement pH meter arrived today. If I'm lucky I can get some time tomorrow to do a little testing of the Borax/TEA version. If I'm not lucky, it will have to wait until the weeked.

 

[Cubao]

new/replacement pH meter arrived today

Which one have you ordered if it’s not top secret?

 

[relistan]

Which one have you ordered if it’s not top secret?

It’s just one of the better pen type from Amazon. You want any of the roundish €25-30 version and not the flattish €12 versions. My last one only lasted two years before it croaked though, annoyingly.

 

[Cubao]

Go

It’s just one of the better pen type from Amazon.

Got it. Could you please post here the exact type after you have some experience with this particular one? It’s always good to know if it can ne recommend or not. Thank you

 

[relistan]

Go


Got it. Could you please post here the exact type after you have some experience with this particular one? It’s always good to know if it can ne recommend or not. Thank you

Yes, will do.

 

[relistan]

Another shot from the roll of Tri-X from Paris. 1970s Rollei 35S with Rollei Sonnar 2.8/35mm on Kodak Tri-X 400 (Arista Premium, exp 2012) at box speed in my PC-512 Borax developer 1+50 for 6.75 mins @ 20C.

I need to do some testing, but I think I'm seeing a speed boost here with this film. I don't expect to have seen as much shadow detail on the dark parts of the lamp posts. The film is so curly the scans are not perfectly focused. That's the scan, not a camera or developer issue.

 

[john_s]

I need to do some testing, but I think I'm seeing a speed boost here with this film. I don't expect to have seen as much shadow detail on the dark parts of the lamp posts.

You seem to have given the film what I would call "correct exposure."

Film speed is one thing. Use of the exposure meter, placement etc is the other.

 

[relistan]

You seem to have given the film what I would call "correct exposure."

Film speed is one thing. Use of the exposure meter, placement etc is the other.

Yes, of course. Hence saying it needs more testing. But, I also have a roll from the same camera, exact same film, changed minutes later, similar subjects, same light, developed in XTOL to compare to (same metering with my Gossen meter). Like I said it needs more testing, but I think I am seeing a little bump. I’m lacking time at the moment and have too many projects to focus on this right now though. I’d rather spend time on the possibility for a single concentrate.

 

[grahamp]

I put a couple of 4x5 HP5+ shots up in the Standard Gallery today. Done using my Will Travel 90mm body with 90mm f8 Super-Angulon. Developed for 9min 15sec at 21C on a Jobo CPE-2Plus.

Mare Island Causeway Trolls

Coastguard jetty, Vallejo

These are totally raw scans - no sharpening or contrast adjustment.

 

[relistan]

I put a couple of 4x5 HP5+ shots up in the Standard Gallery today. Done using my Will Travel 90mm body with 90mm f8 Super-Angulon. Developed for 9min 15sec at 21C on a Jobo CPE-2Plus.

Mare Island Causeway Trolls

Coastguard jetty, Vallejo

These are totally raw scans - no sharpening or contrast adjustment.

These look very good! What are your thoughts?

 

[grahamp]

Well, HP5+ is not my favourite film - but Delta 400 is not an option in sheet sizes, so HP5+ is what I use if I need something faster than Delta 100.

There's a little halation in the highlights under the bridge, and a little detail in the shadows that does not show up on the raw scan. That's a mostly shade view.

There might be some detail in the wet highlights in the jetty picture. It was against the light and I forgot the right lens hood. It will have to wait until I have a chance to wet print the negative to see what the extremes of highlight and shadow are like.

I'm developing with a Jobo at 21C with a 5 minute pre-wash, so my 9m15s (the 15s is drain time/next solution with the Jobo Lift) at EI 400 seems about right for my purposes. I think I am losing about half a zone in the shadows, but I don't have any roll-film HP5+ on hand to run comparative density tests with my Delta 400. If I was looking at a shadow-dominant image I think it would be best to drop to EI 200 and develop accordingly. But then I could also use my Thornton Two-Bath at that speed.

The 9m 15s time might be a touch high, but I tried 8m 15sec (Jobo, pre-wash, 21C, 15 sec drain with Lift) and found it a touch underdeveloped for me.

 

[albada]

I just ran across another developer similar to PC-512 Borax, and added it to the table below. What's interesting is that this formula was published in 1968.

Chemical	PC-512 Borax	PG110B	Dignan Experimental
Borax	108	15	100
Ascorbic acid	12	5	100 (ascorbate)
Phenidone	0.5	0.5	2

.
I converted all quantities to a dilution of 1:50. The new formula by Dignan (rightmost column) has a pH of about 9.0.
This Dignan formula shows us that PC developers were known in the 1960's. I found it in "150 Popular B/W Formulas" from 1977, and it states that Dignan's formula appeared in Paul Farber's column in U.S. Camera in May, 1968.

Edit: The description of the developer in "150 Popular B/W Formulas" has this paragraph:

You may wonder why we have not used Ascorbic Acid instead of Sulfite. The reason is that Ascorbic Acid is easily destroyed by heat. Note the above temperatures [for making a percentage solution of Phenidone]. It is also destroyed by alkali.​

​

Edit 2: I had no problem with dissolving AA in glycol at 85 degrees C, and I've heard no reports of heat-related problems with AA, so I don't think heat is a problem. And we're using our formulas in alkaline solutions, which is not destroying the AA, so it appears that at the pH values we use, alkalinity is not a problem either. But we know to be careful about the Fenton reaction, which folks in 1968 might not have been aware of.

​

​

 

[aparat]

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!