Anybody using Pyrocat-HD or MC as a Compensating Developer?

[sanking]

On the left is a "proof" scan of the 5x7 negative. On the right, cropped, toned, and adjusted a little.

Not the best photo in the world, but an exciting scene to photograph.

The subject contrast was way too high, and a yellow filter + polarizer was required to get the sky values down. Shadows are blue, and get only worse with warm filters.

Pyrocat 2-Bath compensation has definitely come to the rescue. The shadow areas which appear as Zone IV one the left, were Zone II and lower at exposure time. The high values on the distant garage door, fell on Zone IX and higher, but in the negative, they retain have full texture.

The only problem is a bit of mottling in the sky - I presume due to the inadequate absorption of solution A.

Did you pre-soak the film?

I have found that two-bath Pyrocat likes a pre-soak, and lots of agitation.

Sandy

[Ken Lee]

I soaked the film for 3 minutes, and gave intermittent agitation.

With the second negative, I'll make sure the temperature is right, I'll bump up the soak to 5 minutes, and... give continuous agitation.

Thanks Sandy !

[David Karp]

Ken,

The proof is in the pudding - The technique worked.

I think Ansel Adams discusses a similar technique in "The Negative" albeit without the viewing device.

Glad you are enjoying the 2 bath technique.

[Ken Lee]

I think it worked this time - thanks for your help !!

Buckland, Massachusetts
Kodak 2D, 300mm Fujinon A
5x7 FP4+, 2-bath Pyrocat HD

[Alex Wei]

I have being thinking all morning about how to develop my contrasty FP4 negative today, and wolla, this thread came to the rescue!

I have some pyrocat MC and will give it a try tonight, thanks a lot guys.

Alex W.

[Ken Lee]

Alex -

Just to be clear: The photos from earlier in the thread, were purposely over-exposed: The negatives were given enough exposure to place the shadows into the printable range, and the high values fell far beyond where any standard method would result in printable values. The 2-bath developer rescued the high values, not the shadows.

The photo I just posted, is a bit different. It was exposed normally, not over-exposed. The low values didn't get enough exposure, and the high values fell a bit too high. The 2-bath approach did not help a lot with the shadows, but it did help a little. It did keep the high values within printable range, and thus saved the image.

Try a test negative first. Don't experiment with an important negative, or a whole set of them, until you've got things working to your satisfaction.

[Alex Wei]

Thanks, Ken, the pictures I took this time is not very serious. I have four negatives shot at the same scene, I will do one first just to see if I like it or not.

Alex W.

[Ken Lee]

Good - I was worried.

One of the great things about real 2-bath formulas, is that they last long enough for you to evaluate the results and re-use. Very cool.

[EdWorkman]

Wow!
Can't thank Ken and Sandy enough!
I was just procrastinating with an assortment of 120 films and spent last nite re-reading some of the old posts looking for pre-soak info and found none, and had decided I didn't need to. Meantime I finished some 2 reel sewer pipe tanks, hoping to conserve chemicals and avoid knocking them over in the dark
And I like the barn pic too.
Ooops- one more question: "Lots of" and "continuous" agitaton- is that for ALL three?- , A and B as well as pre-soak?
regards
Ed

[sanking]

Wow!
Can't thank Ken and Sandy enough!
I was just procrastinating with an assortment of 120 films and spent last nite re-reading some of the old posts looking for pre-soak info and found none, and had decided I didn't need to. Meantime I finished some 2 reel sewer pipe tanks, hoping to conserve chemicals and avoid knocking them over in the dark
And I like the barn pic too.
Ooops- one more question: "Lots of" and "continuous" agitaton- is that for ALL three?- , A and B as well as pre-soak?
regards
Ed

Ed,

No agitation is needed for the pre-soak, intermittent is ok for Solution A, and lots of agitation is needed for Solution B.

Sandy King