The problem with heavily modifying a formula is that it isn't that
formula anymore.
I don't know what is in FX-39 so its difficult to predicet the
effect of Boric acid. I've never seen it used in another formula.
In general lowering the pH of a developer will reduce its activity
but it may also affect other properties. In the case of D-76, in its
buffered form, or other buffered developers like Microphen, the
buffering is adjusted to about the same activity as an unbuffered
formula. In some older developers, like Kodak D-61a, an acid is added
to adjust pH as well as to add some buffering.
If your developing times are very short I suggest using another
developer of less activity. Delta 100 in D-76 1:1 or in Xtol 1:1 should
give you times long enough to shorten them for contrast adjustment. As
a rule of thumb standard emulsion films cnange about one paper grade
with about 33% change in development time but core shell films like
Delta or T-Max need only about 20% to 25% time changehe same contrast
change. I think, in fact, this is why many photographers have problems
with these films.
There are even less active developers. For instance D-25 requires
substantially longer time than most other developers. It is an
extra-fine-grain developer with very little edge/border effects so does
not produce "acutance" effects but diluted 1:3 it becomes an acutance
developer with quite long development times. At 1:3 it looses its
extra-fine-grain property and is about the same as D-76 but produces
full film speed.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com - 21 Dec 2004 17:23 GMT
The problem is simply that FX-39 is very good as it is, but dilutions
of beyond 1+17 are required to get the times long enough for my
satisfaction (at least 8 minutes, preferably 10-12).
Having tried numerous other developers, I can with assurance say that
FX-39 is one of the best. It certainly is the sharpest! Acutol offers a
bit more shadow detail and a little less highlight density, but I can
use Acutol in the range of dilutions from 1+14 to 1+17, at which it
seems to be optimum.
Why FX-39 is more active than Acutol is beyond me, but it is. The
Health & Safety (COSSH) Data Sheets show a higher ph for FX-39 (ph
10-10.5) than for Acutol (ph 9.0-10.0), so I'm not crazy for thinking
that the activity of FX-39 is higher.
http://www.patersonphotographic.com/safetydata/Cossh-Tol.pdf
http://www.patersonphotographic.com/safetydata/Cossh-FX39.pdf
The question for me is how to get FX-39's ph down to give 10-minute
developing times on the fast-developing films such as Pan-F, Neopan
1600, and Delta 100, while affecting the other properties as little as
possible.
Adding a mild acid such as sodium bisulphite or boric acid is the usual
route to adjusting the ph in a photographic developer. I have both
acids in my chemical stocks.
I must admit the negatives look fine, so I shall continue to experiment
to titrate the amount of acid to be used. I'm going to prepare a 1%
solution of boric acid (10g in 1000ml water) and work with a 1:1 ratio
of that solution to the FX-39 in the next round of trials. That's about
half the ratio of boric acid I used this past weekend.
Richard Knoppow - 22 Dec 2004 05:37 GMT
> The problem is simply that FX-39 is very good as it is,
> but dilutions
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
> That's about
> half the ratio of boric acid I used this past weekend.
The problem is that neither MSDS gives even a hint about
the actual ingredients. Without knowing at least what
reducing agents are being used its pretty difficult to guess
at what a modification will do. I really don't like using
"secret" formulas.

Signature
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Mark Rabiner - 22 Dec 2004 10:40 GMT
> The problem is that neither MSDS gives even a hint about
> the actual ingredients. Without knowing at least what
> reducing agents are being used its pretty difficult to guess
> at what a modification will do. I really don't like using
> "secret" formulas.
Me neither!
Mark
uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com - 22 Dec 2004 14:46 GMT
It has hydroquinone, that's for sure; says so on the bottle.
What I wanted to say is that this boric acid seems to work quite well.