Pyrocat HD - Differences/Effects between 1:1:100 and 2:2:100

[MarsZhukov]

I shoot FP4+ and contact print from the in-camera negative using Pt/Pd. I have traditionally developed my film using the 2:2:100 dilution because I thought the benefit of the 1:1:100 dilution was primarily to increase film speed (a notion I took from Sandy King's article - https://www.sandykingphotography.com/resources/technical-writing/pyro-staining-developers), which really isn't an issue for me. Are there other reasons or benefits that I should consider about the more dilute form of developer?

Thanks in advance for all thoughts and suggestions.

[Vaughn]

I use it at 2:2:100 also. But I use it to shorten my otherwise long development times (reduces oxidation in rotary processing.)

I believe increasing the Part B only will increase staining, but too much will also increase base fog (via staining).

[Alan9940]

I use it at 2:2:100 for pt/pd printing and for use on silver chloride papers such as Lodima or Adox Lupex; 1:1:100 for everything else. I've never tried it myself, but I'd guess that 2:2:100 densities could be obtained with the standard dilution, if you develop for long enough. Also, FWIW, I've never measured any increase in film speed with either dilution.

[MarsZhukov]

I'd guess that 2:2:100 densities could be obtained with the standard dilution, if you develop for long enough.

This is my sense as well, but given that my development times are currently around 8-9 minutes, I didn't think that was something that I needed to investigate for my setup. Interesting that you don't see an increase in film speed.

[Alan9940]

Interesting that you don't see an increase in film speed.

Please allow me to be clear with this point... I, personally, and on my calibrated densitometer have never measured a true increase in film speed with any film/developer combo I've used. Have I tried 'em all? No. Others claim an increase in film speed, but even when I've tried their combinations I still don't see it. YMMV, of course.

[Jim Noel]

I agree with Alan. I have not found a developer which increases the film speed set by the manufacturer. I usually choose to expose at a lower number , that is give it more light. But this is not a lower ISO/ASA, it is a personal exposure index. Likewise exposure at a higher EI does not mean the film speed has been increased,

[MarsZhukov]

I agree with Alan. I have not found a developer which increases the film speed set by the manufacturer. I usually choose to expose at a lower number , that is give it more light. But this is not a lower ISO/ASA, it is a personal exposure index.

As do I and my understanding is similar - the film speed (i.e. the properties of the chemical emulsion) has quite obviously not changed, the personal EI for your gear/your setup has. Again, I do not have any need to recover film speed so wasn't interested in this aspect of the 1:1:100 solution.

[esearing]

2:2:100 was initially suggested for Rotary development with shorter time. Others now use it to shorten development time even when using tray/tank development. Some of us even use it more dilute and process for longer with fewer agitations which gives some control over expansion/contraction and possibly acutance. It also depends how you scan/print. And what will you do if your times are short and you need to contract the negative? Pyrocat developers really allow you some dilution and time flexibility once you get to know them. HD is not the only version.

[Carl J]

I use it at 2:2:100 for pt/pd printing and for use on silver chloride papers such as Lodima or Adox Lupex; 1:1:100 for everything else. I've never tried it myself, but I'd guess that 2:2:100 densities could be obtained with the standard dilution, if you develop for long enough. Also, FWIW, I've never measured any increase in film speed with either dilution.

What might your typical times be for 2:2:100 for Lodima, Lupex, pt/pd, vs 1:1:100 for everything else (enlargements)?

[Alan9940]

What might your typical times be for 2:2:100 for Lodima, Lupex, pt/pd, vs 1:1:100 for everything else (enlargements)?

It varies, of course, by film and development technique, but, for example, for 8x10 Foma 100 I develop with tanks & hangers for 15 mins @21C (1:1:100) for normal silver printing, and for roughly the same time (maybe, 14 mins) at 2:2:100 for pt/pd or silver chloride printing. Agitation is continuous for the first minute followed by 1 "cycle" at the 3/4, 1/2, and 1/4 marks. A "cycle" of agitation is: up/right/down, up/left/down, straight up and when the hanger gets near the top of the tank I drop it to dislodge any bubbles. Since I do all this with IR goggles, I can stop development at any point if the neg looks right; somewhat DBI, but mostly based on time.

[Carl J]

It varies, of course, by film and development technique, but, for example, for 8x10 Foma 100 I develop with tanks & hangers for 15 mins @21C (1:1:100) for normal silver printing, and for roughly the same time (maybe, 14 mins) at 2:2:100 for pt/pd or silver chloride printing. Agitation is continuous for the first minute followed by 1 "cycle" at the 3/4, 1/2, and 1/4 marks. A "cycle" of agitation is: up/right/down, up/left/down, straight up and when the hanger gets near the top of the tank I drop it to dislodge any bubbles. Since I do all this with IR goggles, I can stop development at any point if the neg looks right; somewhat DBI, but mostly based on time.


Thanks, very interesting. Yes, film dependent, etc. By 'everything else' I should have said for regular (typically non-silver chloride) enlarging papers. :) I have some Lodima G2/G3 and with FP4+, for example, at 1:1:100 using times in the 12-14 min range (developed in Unicolor drums on a rotary base) and thinking maybe that's not quite enough. Have done some salt with varied results, but even there that's been mostly in the ballpark, but could benefit from a bump up. Looking to try some alt processes that don't need quite such a dense negative. I've only made contact prints but 1:1:100 works well with variable contrast papers.

I'd like to be able to try DBI, what IR goggles are you using?

[Alan9940]

I'd like to be able to try DBI, what IR goggles are you using?

It's from a UK company named Nightfox and mine is the 119V. Unfortunately, I don't think this particular model is made any longer. My primary motivation for selecting this model is that the view is 1x; unlike most (all?) other goggles out there which have some level of magnification. I wanted a more normal view at arm's length and had to wait several months before the company produced this 1x version. If you're interested, you might find one on eBay.

[Carl J]

It's from a UK company named Nightfox and mine is the 119V. Unfortunately, I don't think this particular model is made any longer. My primary motivation for selecting this model is that the view is 1x; unlike most (all?) other goggles out there which have some level of magnification. I wanted a more normal view at arm's length and had to wait several months before the company produced this 1x version. If you're interested, you might find one on eBay.

Yes, when I searched online some weeks (months) ago I found I wasn't coming up with some of the models discussed extensively on LFF in the past. Admittedly, I didn't look very hard but was also curious if anyone might have any suggestions for current models. I didn't think of trying eBay, good suggestion.

Thanks

[Alan9940]

Yes, when I searched online some weeks (months) ago I found I wasn't coming up with some of the models discussed extensively on LFF in the past. Admittedly, I didn't look very hard but was also curious if anyone might have any suggestions for current models. I didn't think of trying eBay, good suggestion.

Thanks

I've also seen a couple of posts and, I think a YouTube video or two, discussing a DIY type IR thing. You might want to poke around the 'net a bit, if you're interested.