Pyrocat HD FAilure - AGAIN!!!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well, if anybody wants my opinion, please look at my pics on the APUG gallery (http://www.apug-gallery.com/index.php) All of the negatives have been developed in Pyrocat HD with exception of one which was done in ABC. I advocate testing but I am not a fanatic of it (it is why I use the right aproach) I tested Pyrocat HD 5 years ago, it did what it needed to do for me better than PMK, WD2D and ABC so I have been using it since then. I have not had any failures, when I read about the failures it is invariably about the PF mix and or user error. In any case, my experience with pyrocat has been much more positive than using PMK and ABC.

Since my testing Sandy has come up with at least 3 different variants, other people have come up with dissolving the developers on glycols, etc, etc. If you ask me all a PITA search for the magic bullet, IMO do like I do, learn how to use one developer, if you cannot get it from a manufacturer mix it yourself and go out to take pictures.

[brook]

If complaints about a film developer were the criteria for its usefullness, D76 would have to be put in the catogory of utterly useless, as I bet all of us have screwed up a roll of film or two in it at one point or another.

Only a poor carpenter blames his hammer.

[Jay DeFehr]

I accept and appreciate all comments, critical and positive, about Pyrocat-HD that are made in good faith and without self-serving interests. However, given the fact that Jay De Fehr was recently banned from APUG for unethical behaviour directed toward me I do not believe his comments about Pyrocat-HD are made in good faith. For that reason believe it would be in the best interest of the both of us, and the LF community in general, if he would refrain from taking advantages of threads about Pyrocat-HD to offer opinions about it, and to hawk and promote and his own formulas. I find very little useful or positive in his interjections, and much that is self-serving.

Readers of this forum will note that I have refrained to this point in responding to DeFehr, and from commenting in any way about his formulas. Similar restraint on his part would be very much appreciated by me. If De Fehr needs to hawk his formulas I would suggest that he, or one of his other identities, start a new thread about them.

Sandy

I understand completely why Sandy King doesn't want to compare developers, and it has nothing to do with me, personally. For the record, I'm not "hawking" anything. I don't sell or profit from my developers in any way other than by their use. Pyrocat HD is unnecessarily complex in formulation, in my opinion, and Hypercat is a far simpler, and more effective two-solution, catechol formula, and I'm happy to say so when the subject comes up. 510-Pyro is unique, as a single solution staining developer, and offers many advantages over other pyrogallol developers, and catechol developers. Response to 510-Pyro has been universally positive, and I encourage anyone interested in staining developers to save themselves a lot of unnecessary frustration, and give it a try.

Jay

[Michael Kadillak]

I understand completely why Sandy King doesn't want to compare developers, and it has nothing to do with me, personally.
Jay

If that were the case, then why are you no longer welcomed at APUG? I witnessed the event and it was a real piece of work. I will leave it at that.

Have a great day!

[Ralph Barker]

Enough bickering. Please keep the discussion on-topic and civil. Thanks.

[Steve Hamley]

So if you mix pyrocat HD in glycol, do you still mix the phenidone A in a few ml of alcohol first?

Thanks, Steve

[sanking]

So if you mix pyrocat HD in glycol, do you still mix the phenidone A in a few ml of alcohol first?

Thanks, Steve

BTW, I am at the Photographer' Formulary in Montana right now teaching a class on carbon printing. I have discussed with Bud the issue of packaging Pyrocat-HD and Pyrocat-MC in glycol based kits and we have agreed to do this. During the next few days I am here I will go over with him the mixing instructions that I follow in mixing these two formulas in glycol.

Sandy

[sanking]

My methodology was not flawed but a straight ahead and simple test. You and your followers did not like the results and came up with a variety of spurious complaints. For Bond to test a staining developer with a film basically unfriendly to such a developer and then claim a staining developer did not offer any advantages was clearly biased and flawed.

Your credibility with me went down the drain several months ago when you threw up that locker room slur against me from the safety of being behind your computer 2,000 miles away. It was an ugly personal attack and showed no integrity or guts at all. Until you offer me a public apology I will have no respect for you.

Either way, I will continue to put out simple straight forward information on this and other forums and in View Camera magazine. As for Sandy being just a finger tip away well Gordon Hutchings will answer questions about staining developers on the View Camera forum. He won't particiapte here becasue of the behavior of some of the people who do. I will always disagree with people if I feel they are wrong. I will not throw locker room slurs at people as a distraction to the real issue when I am disagreed with on any issue. .

steve simmons

It is unfortunate that you allege that Bond's results were biased. The really ironic thing about this is that Bond, who does not use staining developers, used a methodology and testing procedure that allowed him to discover and report a number of very interesting and useful characteristics about staining developers.

I highly recommend Bond's article Darkroom Techniques as one of the single best piece that has been done comparing staining developers with non-staining ones. The methodology is sound, the testing was complete and the conclusions were for the most part supported by his data.

As for the comment I made about you in a rather animated discussion, you may remember that I sent you a personal message apologizing for the comment, but reminidng you that you needed to accept some of the responsibility for the nature of the discussion for your insulting remarks about Jorge. I would hope that at this time, some six or seven months after the event we might be able to put this behind us and move on.

Sandy

[steve simmons]

I did not say that Bond was biased. I said that he picked a film least likely to respond to a staining developer and then generalized casting doubts on the benefits of a staining developer. If you are going to debate me at least read and respond to what I say not what you wish'd I said.


Yes, there may actually be more questions with Hutchings formula ove rthe course of its life compared to yours, but it has been around since about 1984. His book has sold thousands of copies and he is always one of the biggest draws at the View Camera conferences when he speaks. Your formula is much newer and the fact that you have to keep tweaking it means that it was publicized too early before you tested it enough to work out the kinks. Gordon had his formula tested by many people for several years before he went public. You should have done the same.

steve simmons

[Andre Noble]

BTW, I am at the Photographer' Formulary in Montana right now teaching a class on carbon printing. I have discussed with Bud the issue of packaging Pyrocat-HD and Pyrocat-MC in glycol based kits and we have agreed to do this. During the next few days I am here I will go over with him the mixing instructions that I follow in mixing these two formulas in glycol.

Sandy

Sandy, can you have them to date-stamp the Pyro in glycol mixture as well, either with a "Born On" date, or an expiration date of some sort, please?