Well yes that is hard because contrast varies every day, every minute, and every mont and with every season, I think its fair to say that contrast is never the same at the same spot, twice in a lifetime.....
But then we have the question : WHAT ARE THESE CAMERAS, FILMS AND DEVELOPER F.O.R.?
I use my equipment to record everday incidents, being interested in local history, my negative files are a treasure.
I want the best pictures possible of that.
I do not make pictures in a lab, of inanimate test objects.
So if a film/developer combination works in that environment its OK by me, for my purpose.
Some good news: Tri-X (TX) also works well with this developer. I walked around the neighborhood this morning, in a short-sleeved shirt, taking pictures of miserable people trudging through the snow here in the southern California winter. Here's a scan and full-resolution crop:
Originally Posted by analog what is that?
And a crop:
This is why we tolerate earthquakes and wildfires. Anyway, the scan has the black-point at the left side of the histogram, so you can still see grain in the darkest shadows. White-point is as high as possible, and gamma is 1.0. The scan is unmodified, not even any fixes for scratches or dust.
Density, contrast and grain all look fine to me. This verifies that this developer works well with both T-grain and conventional-grain films. At least Tmax-400 and Tri-X anyway.
A little warning: The developer was slightly yellow after using it, probably indicating that it was feeling tired, so only use it one-shot!
The camera was an Olympus Trip-35, modified to give manual control over its two shutter-speeds. Hold it rightside-up to get 1/40th, and upside-down to get 1/200th. That even works in the two vertical orientations. The Trip is a fun little walk-about camera.
I know some people in the past have modified PC-TEA or PC-Glycol by adding sulfite in the quest for finer grain. (Reports differ on whether it works; I've never tried because the grain with PC-TEA doesn't bother me.) It seems to me that you've basically made an instant version of that same developer---in that sense I guess I wouldn't say it's really "new" so much as a variation of something existing.
It's interesting, especially the rough-and-ready compensation you described between the level of AA and the pH. It does seem less efficient with developing agents than the organic-solvent developers are; 3 l of PC-Sulfite contains about the same amount of AA as 5 l of PC-TEA 1+50, and a *lot* more phenidone.
Have you tried it without the sulfite, to see how much grain benefit it's conferring?
San Diego, CA, USA
The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_
Funny you should ask. Replacing the sulfite with TEA is exactly what I tried last night, and it failed. Here's a question I posted about this on the DS-10 thread:
Originally Posted by ntenny
Take a look. It's an interesting failure.
I'm keeping the pH lower than PC-TEA in order to get finer grain, and that means I must use more ascorbic acid and phenidone to get the same dev-time. The phenidone I'm using is the same as the dimezone-s-equivalent for XTOL.
And yes, this PC-Sulfite is similar to PC-Glycol, but using sulfite instead of carbonate, and removing the glycol carrier. But the proportions of developers and the pH are quite different also, which is enough changes that... it's a different animal.
And so far, looking like a well-behaved animal.
Mark, have you looked at "E76"? I can't remember who formulated it but it's one of the D76-type variants listed in Anchell's Darkroom Cookbook. It seems similar to yours in its formulation except it has more AA, and an alkali.
100g sodium sulfite
Xg Borax (I can't remember how much)
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'd forgotten about that formula. It's even in my developers file, and I still managed to forget. Here's the formula I have for it:
Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
You're right. Take E-76, eliminate the Borax and reduce the AA to compensate (the phenidone is also a little different), and you have PC-Sulfite.
Formula E-76 (Chris Patton), used like D-76 (but one user said D-76 times are suitable for E-76 1+1):
Water (125F/52C) ............ 800 ml
Phenidone ....................... 0.2 g
Sodium sulfite .................. 100 g
Ascorbic acid ................... 8 g
Borax ............................. 10 g
Water to make ................. 1 L
Thanks for pointing this out.
What do you suppose the difference, if any, would be? I would have thought E76 might be a little more active than PC Sulfite, slightly higher graininess than PC Sulfite, and perhaps slightly higher speed, but perhaps the differences would be too small to be considered more than trivial. Not sure.
I think the big question is: What pH does E-76 operate at? If it's near 8.3, then I doubt folks could tell any difference between PC-Sulfite and E-76. 90 vs 100g of sulfite won't matter, and 0.15 vs 0.2g of phenidone means a shorter dev-time for E-76, with unknown boost of grain.
Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
BTW, the pH of PC-Sulfite is sensitive to the amount of sodium sulfite, so that 90g of sulfite should be measured accurately (within 1 gram).
Try to mix PC-sulfite with sodium ascorbate instead of ascorbic acid. Multply the amount of ascorbic acid with 1.25 to get about the same amount of ascorbate in the solution.
Originally Posted by albada
In that way you won't have to balance sulfite - ascorbic acid.
This is a good idea, but it has one problem: The pH of the developer would be too high. The pH of sulfite is about 9.7, and without the ascorbic acid in there to reduce pH, the pH would stay around 9.7 (assuming ascorbate is neutral). That would make the developer too active, so negatives would be too dense, with high fog and grain. You need some kind of acid in the solution to reduce pH from 9.7 down to 8.2 or 8.3.
Originally Posted by Tronds