<<<<I just re-read the beginning of this thread - where does the poster ask about problems...? In fact until you start in with your trolling I can't see any mention of problems?>>>>
This question has already been answered.
steve simmons
<<<<I just re-read the beginning of this thread - where does the poster ask about problems...? In fact until you start in with your trolling I can't see any mention of problems?>>>>
This question has already been answered.
steve simmons
Man, who are you? Other than animosity, intolerance or general brinksmanship what point are you trying to serve here by attacking a developer that works so well for so many? I'm into my second year of a liter batch of pyrocat mixed with water and it's still fine. I've used ABC, PMK, not to mention myriad other formulas but I've arrived at a developer that takes what I like out of all of them and puts it in one convenient package. What's wrong with this? Am I insane or just ignorant? I mean I feel okay....Originally Posted by steve simmons
If you look back at the history of photography you will find that staining developers are among the oldest. Much of the ‘discovery’ of these developers actually took place 75-100 years ago. Not much new happened until 1978 when John Wimberly came up with his W2D2 formula. This was a significant improvement over anything in the past, especially the old D1 or A-B-C formula. With this old formula the B solution, Sodium Sulfite changed over time to Sodium Sulfate and the developer then became unusable. Gordon Hutchings then began working on a Pyro/Metol combination, as is W2D2, and tested it for years and had many people testing it for him before he released anything to the public. His book, The Book of Pyro, came out in the early 1990s and has sold thousands of copies. This, as is the W2D2 formula, is a two part developer that is mixed and used once. It is very stable and I, and many others, have kept the A and B solutions going for years, like a yeast mixture for making bread. We simply add new fresh stuff to the older stuff we are running out of and it just works. Ansel himself played with several staining developers but did not really stay with any of them. He actually seemed to like using a variety of developers. He tried the pyrocatechol developers and liked them for minussing situations but that was about it.
Now, suddenly, a new group has rediscovered the wheel, or perhaps they think they have invented the wheel, with new staining developers. It is touted as being the best, etc., etc. In reality it/they are just a variation of an older wheel. If you like it fine. Use whatever you like. But it is not revolutionary by any means. Wimberly and Hutchings did something that could be called evolutionary. The fact that not everyone thinks these brand new formula are better wheels should not result in them being personally attacked.
I have raised questions about the Pyrocat HD developer for two reasons. As I have watched this staining developer debate over the last 27 years I have seen more ‘questions’ about using this formula than I have of the Hutchings and Wimberly formulae. The Hutchings formula was released to the public as the internet was becoming active so it is not fair to say had the internet been around there would have been more negative comments about it. It is a simple and stable formula as is the Wimberly developer. Secondly, when I tested the Pyrocat in a real situation not a lab with real sunlight, real shadows, real sunlit brick and concrete I did not like the results as well compared to PMK. This should not be a personal issue. Some people like D76 better. I would not think of attacking the integrity, credibility, etc. of these people just because they prefer something else.
Use what you like. What you like and what may work for you may not be everyone’s preference. One of Paul Simon’s songs talks about one man’s floor is another man’s ceiling.
steve simmons
Last edited by steve simmons; 21-Jun-2006 at 08:30.
Steve,
with all due respect, Pat Gainer's introduction of organic solvents to staining developers might not be revolutionary, but it certainly represents a major leap in the evolution of these developers, at least as important as the contributions of Wimberly and Hutchings, if not more so. Using these solvents allows formulators to consider possibilities unavailable to those using aqueous solutions, including sulfite-free and single solution developers with exemplary keeping properties. Pyrocat HD belongs to the same class of developers as WD2D and PMK, but 510-Pyro and Hypercat represent an evolutionary step beyond those, being formulated specifically for their respective solvents, and taking full advantage of the opportunities those solvents present. I don't think I've reinvented the wheel, but inspired by Pat Gainer's work, I do think I've provided two real-world examples of how simple and effective staining developers can be. I spent last night developing Fuji Acros in 510-Pyro, and looking at the negs this morning, all I can say is; viva la evolucion!
Jay
Whether you or anyone else prefers PMK (or some othe staining developer) to Pyrocat-HD is not a personal issue for me. The fact that you continue to claim that PMK gives better highlight detail based on tests that were flawed is a major concern. There may have been real sunlight, real shadows and real sulight bricks and concret in your test, but there was also real darkness when it came to the methodology you used. The plain fact of the matter is that if the PMK and Pyrocat-HD negatives had been developed to the same efffective printing CI there would have been no difference in highlight detail when printed on silver graded papers. In fact, if a D76 negatives were develped to the same effective printing CI it would render highlight detail in the same way on a graded silver paper as the PMK and Pyrocat-HD negative. The result might have been different on VC papers (probably would have been), but when printing on silver graded papers negatives develped to the same CI, whether developed in staining or non-staining developers, will print the same way in the highlights. Any person who is both a good silver printer and has a good understanding of sensitometry could prove this fact. So, in the end the only thing personal about this is your stubborness in defending your tests as valid, when they clearly were not.
There are of course issues involved in comparing developers other than highlight detail, such as effective film speed, grain and sharpness. Comparisons of grain and sharpness are somewhat subjective and people may in good faith come to different conclusions. Effective film speed can really only be determined by sensitometry since the actual differences between most developers are too small to be measured except with very precise light exposing systems. I would never pretend to compare film speed based on in-camera testing, and the results of anyone who claims to do so should be suspect.
Finally, as to the question of the stability of Pyrocat-HD stock solutions, I am not aware of any person other than Andre who has experienced failure with Pyrocat-HD than was no subsequently explained by operator error. And all of the two-part staining and non-staining developers are subject to the same types of failure, and there is a literature in the forum about such failures with both PMK and Rollo Pyro. Given the very obvious vendetta you have against me, which just for the record of others, includes a number of very abusive, hostile and insulting personal messages sent to me through the APUG and LF forums, your concerns about the stability of Pyrocat-HD should be seen as disingenious and dishonest, because they cloak your true attention, which is to continue indirectly your personal vendetta against me. And if you claim otherwise you are being dishonest.
However, just for the record, and I have noted this fact on many ocassions in the past, the absolute stability of PMK, which is on the order of years, is better than that of Pyrocat-HD. As for the actual stability of Pyrocat-HD stock solutions, I recomend them for up to six months, though in fact most users have reported excellent results with the formula after more than a year. This is nothing to sneeze at since most MQ formulas go bad much sooner.
I say let's put this dog to rest. In the end we probably agree on many things relating to comparison of staining and non-staining developers and I would like to avoid further conflict with you on this matter. However, if you insist on claiming that PMK gives better higrghlight detail than Pyrocat-HD based on your flawed testing I will continue to point out that your testing was flawed, and the reasons why.
Sandy
I'm wondering if PyroCat-HD may be similar to the developer DiXactol marketed by the late Barry Thorton. I beleive it too was a Catechol based formula.
And as I remeber Thornton had discussed the development of DiXactol with Gordon Hutchins and tha Hutchins admitted that PMK wasn't a perfect developer.
At any rate having used both PMK and Pyrocat both for several years I can say that using PyroCat is just as simple and fool proof as PMK but doesn't create a stain so anti-attinic as the PMK stain yields.
So I just don't understand Steve's angst about the developer.
Don Bryant
A magnetic heating stirrer is a few months down the budget road. In the meantime, can I heat up the propylene glycol to 150F in a microwave oven safely without the thing blowing up?
I mixed Pyrocat P yesterday in glycol. Heated the glycol in the microwave to 150F without anything exploding, catching fire or releasing poison gas.Yes, you can heat it with no trouble - just be careful with the hot solution as you would be with hot coffee or tea (the drinking kind, not triethanolomine).
For Pyrocat HD, Pat Gainer on APUG suggested adding the catechol and phenidone to the glycol before heating - just stir it in but don't worry about it not dissolving. He believes the heated glycol may release water that may react with the phenidone on the surface if the phenidone is added to the hot glycol. I don't know any more than that.
Juan
Last edited by j.e.simmons; 23-Jun-2006 at 05:50.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks