Is PC-TEA a good idea for my only film developer ?

[Godfrey]

Thank you all for the very helpful replies.

All US suppliers (I'm in Texas) say ADOX XT-3 is not available now.
I can't find any US suppliers of Moersch Eco Film Developer. Lots carry paper developer and other Moersch developers.

So, maybe I should just go with XTOL and buy a new batch every 6 months (if not all used before then).

Otherwise, is there a good derivative of PC-TEA that has a buffer that I could make at home? I'm pretty good at mixing chemicals. I see some have made versions based on PC-TEA with borate, getting results they like. For example, Jay DeFehr's PGB110 or PC512 Borax by Karl Matthias. Both of these seem to be easy to make and are said to be very stable and easy to use intermittently.

Hc110, no need to reinvent the wheel.

Develop two rolls with one portion straight from concentrate.

I agree with Ko.Fe on this, it's what I've been doing for 28 years. Since Kodak is no longer producing HC-100 in the 500ML size, and their formulation has changed (as of 2019 most recently), you can get either the latest Kodak formulation in a 1L size or the ADOX replacement for the original formula in 500ml size:

ADOX SYRUP 110 FILM DEVELOPER - 500ML --- $26.99

ADOX SYRUP 110 FILM DEVELOPER 500ML

The

www.freestylephoto.com

Kodak Professional HC-110 Film Developer (1L, 2019 Version) --- $43.99

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1493206-REG/kodak_1058692_professional_hc_110_1l_developer.html

Either, mixed fresh in a 250ml working solution, should develop up to 4 or 5 rolls of 135-36 if the working solution is properly stored in a brown glass bottle, properly capped. Such a working solution stored that way will last up to six months after mixing. I process using dilution 1:49, so that's 5ml concentrate per 250ml working solution. Doing the math, and considering processing 4 rolls per couple of months, that's enough to process 400 rolls of 135-36 or 120 B&W film per 500ml of concentrate. I don't know about anyone else, but it takes me a very long time to shoot 400 rolls of film, even 120 6x6 format at 12 exposures per roll. If you're a very frequent shooter that comes out to 4,800 exposures, or approximately one roll of 120 6x6 or 135-36 per day.

As to what the negatives look like (grain structure, tonal scale, speed, etc), well that's an aesthetic judgement and manipulable even with just the one developer by adjusting film type, ISO setting, dilution, time@temp processing, etc. So you pick what film you want to work with, develop what ISO setting works for you with whatever dilution@time@temp numbers you use in processing. And work with it to develop your photographic expression... There are no absolute rules. 🙂

The Chair by the Church - Santa Clara 2021
Kodak Retina IIIc + Schneider 50mm f/2
Ferrania P30 in HC-110 1:99@16min@73°F
ISO 80 @ f/5.6 @ 1/250​

enjoy, G

 

[popavvakum]

I have been using PC-TEA for the last couple of years and I am very happy with it. I developed Ilford, Kentmere, Rollei and Kodak films with it. The only film which does not seem to agree with it was Rollei RPX-25 where the grain was visible, however, I am not sure whether I got the time right for it. For any other film PC-TEA certainly does not give excessive grain. Its acutance is impressive. When stored, you want to prevent any air moisture getting to the concentrate as it will slowly kill it, may be decanting it into progressively smaller bottles.

 

[popavvakum]

As an illustration: Kentmere-100 in PC-TEA, Jupiter-9, Kiev-4. The light was rather dim. The full image, re-scaled to comply with the upload rules and the crop scanned at 4800 dpi.

 

[PRJ]

I've had bad luck with TEA developers over the years. I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze with those.

The kings of long lasting developers are Rodinal and HC-110. Diafine I believe last a real long time but isn't used much anymore (still available?). Some others do as well, but probably aren't worth it due to toxicity. Pyrocat in Glycol and PMK will last years.

If you want to mix your own developer all you need is Metol, Sodium Sulfite, and Sodium Carbonate. With just those you can mix several different developers that have different characteristics. D23, Beutler's, or a two part. D23 is about as simple as can be. Just Metol and Sulfite. Gives softer results with lots of tonallity. Beutler's is a high acutance developer, so almost the opposite of D23.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I've had bad luck with TEA developers over the years. I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze with those.

The kings of long lasting developers are Rodinal and HC-110. Diafine I believe last a real long time but isn't used much anymore (still available?). Some others do as well, but probably aren't worth it due to toxicity. Pyrocat in Glycol and PMK will last years.

If you want to mix your own developer all you need is Metol, Sodium Sulfite, and Sodium Carbonate. With just those you can mix several different developers that have different characteristics. D23, Beutler's, or a two part. D23 is about as simple as can be. Just Metol and Sulfite. Gives softer results with lots of tonallity. Beutler's is a high acutance developer, so almost the opposite of D23.

I’ve use Anchell’s two part with good results too.

 

[Freakscene]

I've had bad luck with TEA developers over the years. I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze with those.

The kings of long lasting developers are Rodinal and HC-110. Diafine I believe last a real long time but isn't used much anymore (still available?). Some others do as well, but probably aren't worth it due to toxicity. Pyrocat in Glycol and PMK will last years.

If you want to mix your own developer all you need is Metol, Sodium Sulfite, and Sodium Carbonate. With just those you can mix several different developers that have different characteristics. D23, Beutler's, or a two part. D23 is about as simple as can be. Just Metol and Sulfite. Gives softer results with lots of tonallity. Beutler's is a high acutance developer, so almost the opposite of D23.

It’s the home made, simple EA developers that are problematic. A majority of the alkali in original syrup HC-110 is DEA, and syrup HC-110 is about as robust as a developer can be. The problem is that in the 2000s there was a huge film developer DIY movement, and many of the developers from that time have problems, including unusual curve shapes, inconsistent time-temperature performance, low toe speed and lack of consistency between different types of films. Essentially, not all developers are formulated equal.

 

[popavvakum]

It’s the home made, simple EA developers that are problematic. A majority of the alkali in original syrup HC-110 is DEA, and syrup HC-110 is about as robust as a developer can be. The problem is that in the 2000s there was a huge film developer DIY movement, and many of the developers from that time have problems, including unusual curve shapes, inconsistent time-temperature performance, low toe speed and lack of consistency between different types of films. Essentially, not all developers are formulated equal.

"unusual curve shapes, inconsistent time-temperature performance, low toe speed and lack of consistency between different types of films". Why this slander? Have you actually tried the PC-TEA with different films?

 

[Freakscene]

"unusual curve shapes, inconsistent time-temperature performance, low toe speed and lack of consistency between different types of films". Why this slander? Have you actually tried the PC-TEA with different films?

View attachment 4886068

Of course. I trialled PC-TEA with over 30 films in the 2000s and published the results, I also formulated a modified version with a buffered alkali, two chelating agents, and a secondary antioxidant, originally proposing it to Kodak as a one-liquid Xtol, but after Kodak collapsed and Kodak Australia was shut down in 2004, I provided it for commercial sale through a small manufacturer. The comments about are about EA developers generally. The main issue with PC-TEA specifically is inconsistent grain performance across films. It works very well with some, but is quite to very grainy with others.


It was always much grainier with Tri-X than an ascorbate developer with a weakly alkaline buffered alkali, for example.

 

[popavvakum]

Below is a Tri-X frame developed in PC-TEA, the picture taken by my wife (OM-2sp, Zuiko 50/1.4) in April in Oslo. As may seen in the 4800 dpi crop, the grain is there, but this crop is 25x magnification, a 25"x40" print size. The grain from PC-TEA is not any larger than I got with ID-11, Ilfosol or Microphen.






I am not claiming that the PC-TEA is the best developer for every film and, certainly lowering pH will decrease grain at the expense of complicating the recipe. However, going back to the original question, whether PC-TEA is a good universal developer suitable for someone with infrequent use, my answer will be "yes".

 

[titrisol]

PC-TEA is fine if you know the limitations and are fine with them.
Lately I've standardized in Rodinal and Microphen,
Microphen comes in 1L packages, which I break into cough syrup bottles filled to the brim and use 1+1 or 1+3 for general purpose
It seems to last at least 12 months this way

 

[MarkWalberg]

Thanks to all for the very helpful input. I should probably start with a standard developer, and investigate the home made possibilities after I get the basics down again. So, I will start with Freestyle's version of XTOL, Ecopro. HC110 seems like another straightforward choice, but I like the idea of a vitamin C based developer, and I like what I've read about other's experience with XTOL. I'll try something home made later. Again, many thanks.

 

[Freakscene]

Thanks to all for the very helpful input. I should probably start with a standard developer, and investigate the home made possibilities after I get the basics down again. So, I will start with Freestyle's version of XTOL, Ecopro. HC110 seems like another straightforward choice, but I like the idea of a vitamin C based developer, and I like what I've read about other's experience with XTOL. I'll try something home made later. Again, many thanks.

The Ecopro should last 6 months in sealed bottles. I used ascorbate developers at 1+1 and 1+3, and used to split 5L between several 250mL and 500mL bottles for use in a 1L steel tank.

I note that the current Ecopro says it contains no borates, so it should also be environmentally benign, except that the MSDS says it still contains metaborate. So that might need clarification.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Thanks to all for the very helpful input. I should probably start with a standard developer, and investigate the home made possibilities after I get the basics down again. So, I will start with Freestyle's version of XTOL, Ecopro. HC110 seems like another straightforward choice, but I like the idea of a vitamin C based developer, and I like what I've read about other's experience with XTOL. I'll try something home made later. Again, many thanks.

As Marty said above, home brew developers are really for playing I think. Chemical supply, at least in Europe/UK, seems a bit better than a few years ago and if you can get Adox XT3 and either Rodinal or HC110 - the latter as a long lasting bottle you can always just mix up and run a film through - then you’re probably set for anything.

Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t play of course. But starting with an Xtol clone may mean you never feel the need to move on!

 

[Freakscene]

And one last note - Ecopro works at 1+3, but less well than original Xtol (I think Xtol now is more alike or the same as Ecopro). I used to develop one roll in 1L of Ecopro 1+3. The formulae seem to change periodically (maybe it’s batch-to-batch) but Ecopro is not recommended for use at 1+3, but then, neither is Xtol these days. The alkali buffer is very important for performance at increased dilution with ascorbate developers.

 

[Glenn2]

One thing I’ve been wanting to try again is D76 as a two bath developer with alkali in the second bath. Used it a lot during my early days in photography with good results. Very little development occurs in the first bath as the emulsion absorbs it. Development happens in the second alkali bath with highlights using up the soaked in developer before blocking up. Shadows continue to develop, so good shadows with detail.

With no alkali in the first bath it keeps very well and the second is just borax so very easy to make up.
There’s a PDF file called “Tom’s Developers “ that has the recipe for it and others. It may even be on the site somewhere.

Has anyone else tried two part developers?

 

[titrisol]

There wouldn't be any source for the formula would there?

Anchell and Troop state that D76H is probably the best for homemade

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/d76h-developer.207330/post-2803282

 

[Freakscene]

One thing I’ve been wanting to try again is D76 as a two bath developer with alkali in the second bath. Used it a lot during my early days in photography with good results. Very little development occurs in the first bath as the emulsion absorbs it. Development happens in the second alkali bath with highlights using up the soaked in developer before blocking up. Shadows continue to develop, so good shadows with detail.

With no alkali in the first bath it keeps very well and the second is just borax so very easy to make up.
There’s a PDF file called “Tom’s Developers “ that has the recipe for it and others. It may even be on the site somewhere.

Has anyone else tried two part developers?

Extensively. The one I liked best with traditional cubic grain films was Divided D-76, from David Vestal's book, The Art Of Photography.

Solution A.
Water 3L
Metol 8g
Sulfite 200g
Hydroquinine 20g
Water to make 4L

Solution B
Water 3L
Sulfite 200g
Borax 8g
Water to make 4L

You can also use metaborate for less contrast or sodium carbonate for more contrast, or potassium carbonate for a little more again, or you can titrate the pH up with sodium hydroxide until around 12 or so when 4 minutes in it will start to lift the emulsion off the film base.

There are a lot of variants with more, less or no sulfite in the b bath, and different alkalinity in the b bath. You can play with this to your heart’s content.

The “Very little development occurs in the first bath” is a myth - the sulfite is more than alkaline enough to activate metol and hydroquinone, and if you fix a test film after 3-4 min in the A bath you’ll see that plenty of development occurs. I have always had some problems with uneven development with 2 bath developers, but the look is nice. You need one with a crazy amount if activity to get enough density with modern films, but

Divided D-76 Film Developer (Variations)

Divided D-76 Film Developer (Phenidone Version)

web.archive.org

leica-users.org/leica-users/v10/msg07140.html

Instructions at Digital Truth for the Photographer’s Formulary D D-76: https://www.digitaltruth.com/produc...%20Divided%20D-76%20Developer%20[01-0300].pdf

Also pseudo divided D-76: leica-users.org/v13/msg12273.html - you can also do this with Xtol and a buffered b bath for a very interesting very low grain effect.

 

[Freakscene]

Anchell and Troop state that D76H is probably the best for homemade

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/d76h-developer.207330/post-2803282

Did you mean buffered D-76 generally? The borax-boric acid buffered one is definitely easiest and best. If you can reliably measure pH, check it batch to batch for consistency, but it is very reliable.

You can also buffer D-76 or an ascorbate developer with TEA-TRIS*, which is much more pH stable during development, but you need a bit more equipment and knowledge to mix it up.

*TRIS has quite high affinity for silver, which theoretically might be a problem, but it wasn’t when I tried it.

 

[titrisol]

D76H is a specific version by Grant Haist (thus H), it is in the darkroom cookbook and in that Photrio thread
Yes it is buffered to 9.4 +/-0.2

Divided developers do have development in both baths but isn't the idea of the 2nd bath to exhaust the highlights to allow the shadows to develop fully?

 

[Freakscene]

D76H is a specific version by Grant Haist (thus H), it is in the darkroom cookbook and in that Photrio thread
Yes it is buffered to 9.4 +/-0.2

Divided developers do have development in both baths but isn't the idea of the 2nd bath to exhaust the highlights to allow the shadows to develop fully?

Names are problematic.

Grant’s version of D-76 has no hydroquinone and more metol, and uses metaborate (Kodalk*) alone as the alkali.

When I mentioned to Grant that it was confusing that it was called H after *H*aist but that it had _no_ *H*ydroquinone in it in comparison to the traditional D-76 formula, he said “I guess that might be confusing”.

D-76H
Distilled Water (125 degrees F/52C) . . . 750 ml
Metol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 g
Sodium Sulfite (Anhydrous) . . . . . . . . . . 100 g
Borax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 g
Cold Water to make . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ltr

Provides the same development times** and effects as D-76, but without the variability that comes with ageing.

* Spellcheckers and copy editors have no idea that there is something called “Kodalk”. Naming things is hard.
**Test this before trying it, I cannot guarantee that this is correct.

Metaborate provides some buffering in the pH range used for traditional photographic developers. This formula does not shift much in pH after mixing, however, because no hydroquinone monosulfonate is formed after mixing, not because of buffering from the alkali. It is different to the ‘buffered’ D-76 above with the borate-boric acid alkali, and for that one, the times for that developer are _not_ the same as traditional D-76.

I strongly recommend testing prior to use for home-mixed developers.