View Full Version : TMAX RS vs Pyrocat HD Negatives and POP

Michael Heald
24-Nov-2005, 08:16
Hello! I am interested to see what difference people have seen between TMax RS and Pyrocat HD developer. Currently, I develop 4x5 TMax 100 and 400 films in TMax RS using a Unicolor drum.

I am experimenting with larger formats - currently 8x10 pinhole, and soon a larger hyperfocal camera. I am trying paper negatives now to get a hang of things. I'd like to use Printing Out Paper for contact printing the 8x10 and larger negatives once I get some experience and move to film from paper negatives.

1) How do 4x5 Tmax negatives respond to TMax RS vs Pyrocat HD developers? I don't have an enlarger, so I would end up scanning these negatives for enlargements. Is there a discernible difference?

2) From what I've read, it is recommended to use POP with negatives with a large tonal range, such as TMax films developed in TMax RS. Is this true? If so, do 8x10 and larger films such as Efke and J&C films developed in Pyrocat HD have the tonal range to contact print well with POP? Thank you and best regards.


24-Nov-2005, 09:16
Try it. Then you'll know. Otherwise it'e just other's opinions and subject to thier individual differences in processing. Other's work is always a starting point. Your's will be different. Plus think about all you'll learn by doing the work yourself.

24-Nov-2005, 10:43
I have never used Tmax RS so don't know how it compares to Pyrocat-HD. However, there is no question but that Pyrocat-HD is capable of developing film to the high average gradient (contrast) needed for UV sensitive processes like POP that have very long exposure scales.

Go to http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/pcat.html for more informatin about staining developers.

John Berry ( Roadkill )
24-Nov-2005, 12:12
Switch to pyrocat and you'll never look back.

clay harmon
24-Nov-2005, 14:55
FYI, you might want to stop using the TMax 100 if you plan on doing POP. It has a UV blocking layer that will make your printing times intolerably long. Tmax 400 and Tri-X do not share this problem.

Stan. Laurenson-Batten
26-Nov-2005, 06:45
For some time I have been using T.Max 100 Dev. TMaxRS and printing by contact of the 10X8 negs. on to Kodak AZO paper.
I use a 100w. UV lighting set up on a gantry with a sliding UV reduction panel that allows me to control the exposure times to those most suitable for the purpose. The distance of the light source can be altered from about six inches to six feet.
I have never found any problem with exposure using my home made set up as I can regulate the exposure time from about five seconds to fifteen minutes. Yours contented- Stan.

David A. Goldfarb
26-Nov-2005, 09:01
This is not exactly an answer to the question you're asking, but I tested a range of negs for albumen, which is also a printing-out process, to find out just this thing, and I found that I could get good results both with old TMX (before they added the UV-blocking layer) in D-76 (1+1) and with Tri-X in ABC pyro, developed to a similar density range (i.e., yielding a similar exposure time to produce a similar range of tones in the print).

I'm not sure what kind of density range Centennial POP likes, but for albumen, I find that the neg should have about two zones more density range than negs for enlargement, or about one zone more than I would want for Azo grade 2. Because of the self-masking property of printing-out papers, you're better off erring on the side of too much than too little contrast.