My PC-512 Borax Developer

[Alan Johnson]

This is the formula using dimezone-s and 18g metaborate:

DCM18 one shot concentrate:

Propylene Glycol...........................80ml
Sodium metaborate.....................18g
Ascorbic acid...................................12g
Dimezone-S.....................................0.7g
Propylene Glycol to.....................100ml

It can be made in a container partially immersed in hot water. The
ingredients dissolve with stirring at 60C ,with some effervescence around 50C.

For use dilute 1+49 with tapwater.

Provisionally, only tested for Delta 100, develop for the time given in the massive development chart for HC-110 or Ilfotec-HC, either diluted 1+47.

Results for a trip on a sunny day are shown, a wide range of subject brightness is captured. I don't have a densitometer.





The gold standard for this type of proprietary glycol based developer concentrate, the only one left, is Ilfotec-HC.
DCM18 may not have such a long shelf life as it contains some water of crystallization from the metaborate.

 

[bluechromis]

I tried test 1 formula above with 20g/100ml as suggested by @relistan. Call it PCM20.

PCM20 one shot concentrate:

Propylene glycol ..............80ml
Sodium metaborate.........20g
Ascorbic Acid......................12g
Phenidone ...........................0.5g
Propylene glycol to....... 100 ml

It can be made in a container partly immersed in very hot water. The ingredients dissolve with stirring at 60C , with some effervescence around 50C.

For use dilute 1:50 with tapwater.

The viscosity is low and it is easy to syringe and mix.

Results of developing Fomapan 100 @ EI=100 for 4m, 6m and 12m 20C are attached.
Here is a test shot developed for 6m 20C:



I believe @albada found 15g/100ml metaborate in glycol was stable after 4 years [did not crystallise], here using 20g/100ml.
I did try the formula with only 12g/100ml metaborate but at 1:50 the negatives were extremely thin after 12 min development.

It seems that 20g/100ml is a good compromise.

Photoformulary and Fototechnik Suvatlar list sodium metaborate.

Great work on this Alan, sounds promising.

Just to avoid possible confusion, there was another developer with the PCM name where the M referred to Metol. But it didn't have the 20. It was obscure enough that it probably won't matter but if someone did search for PCM it might come up. https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/effects-of-sodium-metabisulfite.18755/

 

[Alan Johnson]

I remember Larry and his PCM formula but it was Phenidone Ascorbate Metaborate and pretty concentrated , not metol.

Developer and method most suited to Ilford Delta 400 please

Dear All, I have recently moved on to black and white film, and like as I was advised, I have chosen a single make of film to stick with. I have chosen Ilford 400 Delta Professional, and will be scanning the negatives to be developed at www.arrowfile.co.uk (apparently an award winning...

www.photrio.com

It was Dr Cyril Blood who had a metol ascorbate metaborate developer but it was not called PCM.

 

[john_s]

This looks like a very handy developer, a very elegant formula. I wondered about the effervescence: do you have any idea what that is about? And if one tried to dissolve the ingredients without so much heating, which might take a while, if the effervescence did not take place would it be different? I assume that effervescence is visible evidence of a reaction.

You might not have to worry too much about the water of crystallization if you look at reports of Pyrocat-HD (Original formula with metabisulphite and bromide) being made in propylene glycol with a bit of water used to dissolve those two ingredients. People seemed to get the advantage of very long life with it. Also Pyrocat_MC which also used a tiny bit of water to get metol to dissolve.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I remember Larry and his PCM formula but it was Phenidone Ascorbate Metaborate and pretty concentrated , not metol.

Developer and method most suited to Ilford Delta 400 please

Dear All, I have recently moved on to black and white film, and like as I was advised, I have chosen a single make of film to stick with. I have chosen Ilford 400 Delta Professional, and will be scanning the negatives to be developed at www.arrowfile.co.uk (apparently an award winning...

www.photrio.com

It was Dr Cyril Blood who had a metol ascorbate metaborate developer but it was not called PCM.

Alan,
I had read about Dr. Blood's acorbic acid developer before, but if I remember right its developing agent was Penidone and not Metol. Did he have a Metol-Ascorbic-Metaborate developer too?

 

[Alan Johnson]

This looks like a very handy developer, a very elegant formula. I wondered about the effervescence: do you have any idea what that is about? And if one tried to dissolve the ingredients without so much heating, which might take a while, if the effervescence did not take place would it be different? I assume that effervescence is visible evidence of a reaction.

You might not have to worry too much about the water of crystallization if you look at reports of Pyrocat-HD (Original formula with metabisulphite and bromide) being made in propylene glycol with a bit of water used to dissolve those two ingredients. People seemed to get the advantage of very long life with it. Also Pyrocat_MC which also used a tiny bit of water to get metol to dissolve.

Thanks John. I don't recommend that anybody read this but it does mention a dehydration condensation of borate with polyol [p38-9] [1,2 propanediol = propylene glycol ] which means the effervescence might be water. It forms a kind of foam on the surface which disperses eventually.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167732221020675

I am glad to hear of the long shelf life of pyrocat in glycol.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Alan,
I had read about Dr. Blood's acorbic acid developer before, but if I remember right its developing agent was Penidone and not Metol. Did he have a Metol-Ascorbic-Metaborate developer too?

I have looked at the original BJP article 10 Nov 99 and you are correct, he used phenidone not metol as I wrongly stated.
He did mention that he knew metol is also regenerated by ascorbate though.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have looked at the original BJP article 10 Nov 99 and you are correct, he used phenidone not metol as I wrongly stated.
He did mention that he knew metol is also regenerated by ascorbate though.

Alan,
I wasn't being critical, but merely curious if Dr. Blood had a Metol/Acorbic developer formula. I have often thought about making a simple Metol/Ascorbic/Metaborate developer since I have all the ingredients. Also, I have to figure out away to use the several pounds of pure Kodak Kodalk I have before I croak.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I have to figure out away to use the several pounds of pure Kodak Kodalk I have.

Two heaped teaspoons for every film with Barry Thornton:

Barry Thornton’s Writings - Geoffrey Billett Photography

FINE NEGATIVES, AUTOMATICALLY The clue to a fine monochrome negative is to give so much exposure as to give rich detail in the shadows, and so little development as to avoid highlights becoming too dense to print with subtle graduation. The vast majority of the negatives arriving in the Fine...

sannyassa.co.uk

 

[John Wiegerink]

Two heaped teaspoons for every film with Barry Thornton:

Barry Thornton’s Writings - Geoffrey Billett Photography

FINE NEGATIVES, AUTOMATICALLY The clue to a fine monochrome negative is to give so much exposure as to give rich detail in the shadows, and so little development as to avoid highlights becoming too dense to print with subtle graduation. The vast majority of the negatives arriving in the Fine...

sannyassa.co.uk

Funny you should suggest that. I was testing out two Rolleiflex cameras I just tuned up and used the last of my Thornton's two-bath about a week ago. I always keep it on hand for quick tests like this. It's a very steady performer and easy to use. Most of my other films are in staining developers and Xtol(XT-3) replenished.

 

[relistan]

Looks good @Alan Johnson . You had mentioned earlier in the thread that the graininess of Delta in your testing was not much affected by the pH. This seems noticeably grainier than my results with PC-512 Borax. A lot of that could be down to the scans, of course. Just wondering if you noticed that you are now seeing somewhat grainier results in real life inspection?

 

[Alan Johnson]

My pics are 6144 pixels wide. How many pixels for one of yours that can be seen on here, I can show one the same size.

 

[relistan]

My pics are 6144 pixels wide. How many pixels for one of yours that can be seen on here, I can show one the same size.

Hi Alan, They are 1500 pixels wide like this one:

 

[Alan Johnson]

Thanks.
The attachments show pics from DCM18 and PC-512 Borax at 1500 pixels wide.
If zoom in to the grey wall above the shop and the grey book cover it appears that digital jaggies are larger than grain at 1500 pixels wide and the comparison regarding grain is inconclusive.
There is little incentive to make a better test as there appears no intention to change either formula.

 

[Alan Johnson]

A slightly overdeveloped result using DCM18 with FP4+ EI 125 12m 20C, which is the time for HC-110/Ilfotec-HC in the massive development chart.
However, Michael Covington comments [end of the curve shape section] that only 85% of the Kodak times may be preferred:

Kodak HC-110 Developer - Unofficial Resource Page

Apparent grain may be affected by scanning at higher resolutions [dokko], in the image above this is about 3600 lppm.

Scan of Grain Texture at 11'000ppi

As a side issue, or maybe it's really a central issue, the results in this thread should permanently put to rest the idea that once you get to 4000 ppi you have extracted all of the information the film can give. "Extracting all information" is not a practical goal. I interpreted the OPs...

www.photrio.com

Also the grain shows up more if the output from the scanner on auto is further sharpened as was done for the image above.

Conclusion - time for HC-110/Ilfotec 1+47 may be used for FP4+ in DCM18 1+50, reduce time according to preference.

 

[Alan Johnson]

From the Film Developing Cookbook 2020 p75 1liter of the former viscous HC-110 contains about 310 g of the addition product:

Diethanolamine sulfur dioxide - Hazardous Agents | Haz-Map

Diethanolamine sulfur dioxide agent detailed information in Haz-Map database.

haz-map.com

For the same sulfur content this is equivalent to (310/169)x126 =230 g/L sodium sulfite.
At 1+47 the equivalent sulfite concentration is 4.8g/L sodium sulfite, ie the sulfite in HC-110 is not a significant solvent but is only there to remove oxides of HQ giving the monosulfonate which is itself a developing agent, cf D-76.

With DCM18 1+49 the oxidized ascorbate is acidic and not a developing agent , cf Xtol.
It seems quite possible that DCM18 would be slightly sharper than HC-110.
The same would apply for PC-512Borax.

 

[relistan]

Thanks.
The attachments show pics from DCM18 and PC-512 Borax at 1500 pixels wide.
If zoom in to the grey wall above the shop and the grey book cover it appears that digital jaggies are larger than grain at 1500 pixels wide and the comparison regarding grain is inconclusive.
There is little incentive to make a better test as there appears no intention to change either formula.

Thanks Alan, that does look quite similar

 

[Alan Johnson]

With DCM18 I decided to use the same dilutions and times as published for HC-110 (and Ilfotec-HC), ie 1+31, 1+47 etc, and the massive development chart.
This gives somewhat thinner negatives in the highlights than HC-110 but, as mentioned in post 340, HC-110 negatives might be considered a bit dense at these times.
These pics were developed in DCM18 1+47 7.5 min 20C:

 

[john_s]

A few years ago I promised myself that I'd stop experimenting with new formulas, as I am very happy with Pyrocat-HD for most things and ID-68 (Microphen) when a bit more speed is needed. However this DCM18 formula is intriguing, having several advantages. If it's close to XTol in results, it seems to me that it would be as environmentally sound as replenished XTol even though it's used one-shot, if you compare what's discarded with 70mL of XTol in replenishing per film.

 

[John Wiegerink]

With DCM18 I decided to use the same dilutions and times as published for HC-110 (and Ilfotec-HC), ie 1+31, 1+47 etc, and the massive development chart.
This gives somewhat thinner negatives in the highlights than HC-110 but, as mentioned in post 340, HC-110 negatives might be considered a bit dense at these times.
These pics were developed in DCM18 1+47 7.5 min 20C:

Alan,
Those look very nice! Is there really any difference between PCM 20 and DCM 18 other than one using Phenidone and the other using Dimezone-S? I have plenty of Phenidone, but no Dimezone. I shoot medium format almost exclusively and probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two. I'm at my cottage where all my chemical are, so I'll mix up a small batch of PCM 20 and see how it compares to my bottle of Kalogen.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I am using dimezone-s because I have a stash of it and little other use for it.
The PCM20 should give a very similar result.
I suggest try the dilutions and times for HC-110 in the massive development chart and modify according to the density of negative that is preferred.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Ferrania P30 at EI=25 under dull conditions retains the contrast for which it is noted while still showing shadow detail but is not so good under full sun/shade.
DCM18 1+63 12m 20C, the HC-110 times.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I am using dimezone-s because I have a stash of it and little other use for it.
The PCM20 should give a very similar result.
I suggest try the dilutions and times for HC-110 in the massive development chart and modify according to the density of negative that is preferred.

Thanks, Alan, I have a stash of Phenidone and no Dimezone. I'll be mixing a batch tonight to see how I like it.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I see that Adox say they are not allowed to sell a borate containing developer but noting there are so many such still on the market this appears hard to explain.
Evidence for the reproductive toxicity of borates was based on animal experiments :

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_027.pdf

There did not appear to be any effect on human borate miners, from the above document:

A recent study of nearly 1000 men working in boron mining or processing in Liaoning province in northeast China has been published in several Chinese and a few English language papers. The study of Scialli et al. (2010) included individual assessment of boron exposure, interview data on reproductive experience and semen analysis. Employed men living in the same community and in a remote community were used as controls. Boron workers (n = 75) had a mean daily boron intake of 31.3 mg B/day, and a subset of 16 of these men, employed at a plant where there was heavy boron contamination of the water supply, had an estimated mean daily boron intake of 125 mg B/day. Estimates of mean daily boron intake in local community and remote background controls were 4.25 mg B/day and 1.40 mg/day, respectively. Reproductive outcomes in the wives of 945 boron workers were not significantly different from outcomes in the wives of 249 background control men after adjustment for potential confounders. There were no statistically significant differences in semen characteristics between exposure groups, including in the highly exposed subset, except that sperm Y:X ratio was reduced in boron workers. Within exposure groups the Y:X ratio did not correlate with the boron concentration in blood, semen and urine. In conclusion, while boron has been shown to adversely affect male reproduction in laboratory animals, there is no clear evidence of male reproductive effects attributable to boron in studies of highly exposed workers.

 

[john_s]

This looks like a very handy developer, a very elegant formula. I wondered about the effervescence: do you have any idea what that is about? And if one tried to dissolve the ingredients without so much heating, which might take a while, if the effervescence did not take place would it be different? I assume that effervescence is visible evidence of a reaction.

You might not have to worry too much about the water of crystallization if you look at reports of Pyrocat-HD (Original formula with metabisulphite and bromide) being made in propylene glycol with a bit of water used to dissolve those two ingredients. People seemed to get the advantage of very long life with it. Also Pyrocat_MC which also used a tiny bit of water to get metol to dissolve.

Some clue to the effervescence "around 50degC"

See:

https://www.borax.com/BoraxCorp/media/Borax-Main/Resources/Data-Sheets/sodium-metaborate-8-mol.pdf

on page three, solubility table, it says "*Transition to sodium metaborate 4 mol, which is stable from 53.6°C to 105°C."

so it looks like the effervescence is something to do with the hydration state, and maybe heating to that temperature might be worthwhile to minimize the water content of the developer.