Pyrocat HD FAilure - AGAIN!!!

[Andre Noble]

O.K. this is like the fourth or fifth time. Used Photographer's Formulary Premixed Bottle. Was opened immediately and placed in clean grolsch type bottle on Feb 10, 2006. This same Pyrocat HD solution worked well on some negatives even 3 days ago. I haven't used it much or at all since February, BTW.

However, developed some film today in same and imaged/frame numbers very faint. Tried second roll, same.

I was careful not to contaminate A with B.

Developer is suppose to last six months in patially full bottles.

When I poured it out after failure, i noticed it had oxidized (very light brown).

I'm about to give up on it. Where do I go from here? When it works, it's wonderful.

[Kerey]

Weird. Just what you wanted to hear, huh? :) I've never used the premixed version, but I did have some problems with the dry ingredient kit a while back (see apug post (http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=22561&highlight=kerey)). Considering that it was working just fine at some point, my from-the-hip guess would be pipette contamination (perhaps residual fixer, countertop compound, etc. in/on the tip?) or temperature spike since its last use. Perhaps the bottle was shaken excessively at some point? Others hopefully may offer better explanations, but I don't blame you for frustration after this many failures. Good luck tracking it down.

[Jay DeFehr]

Hypercat is simpler, more effective, more economical, and immune to the problems you're having. You might consider giving it a try.

Jay

[Andre Noble]

I need a pyro alternative that's as good as pyrocat and will work in a Jobo without excessive aerial fog. I may try Pyrocat HD one more time, this mixed with glycol instaed of water.

For hand inversion, I'll go with Wimberly WD2D+ Pyro.

[Amund BLix Aaeng]

I got dry chemicals from Artscraftchemicals for Pyrocat HD last year, and the solutions have been working perfectly for almost a year. Yesterday(with barely anything left in 1liter bottles) the working solution turned green so I decided I did not take the chance using it. But I got 11 months out of it, pretty good IMO.

[Jay DeFehr]

Andre',

you might try 510-Pyro. It's a single solution pyrogallol developer that works as well for rotary processing as it does for tank or tray development. It also gives full film speed, and very fine grain.

Jay

[clay harmon]

FWIW, I have never had a pyrocat HD failure in 6 years of use. I mix my own from the constituent chemicals, take care in measurement of the working solution, and discard the A solution if it has been longer than four months since mixing it up.

It is cheap and easy to use. I have heard reports from others of this mysterious developer 'death', but I have never experienced it myself. In one case I know of, we were able to track down the failure to omitting the B solution accidentally - IOW, the user put in 'A' twice.

There are many fine developers out there, and if this one just doesn't fit your way of working, then investigation of alternatives is probably a good idea. But that has not been necessary for me.

[Erik Gould]

I've been using the pre-mixed stuff from PF for the last two years or more. I haven't had any failures. I don't transfer it to other bottles. I shake up the "B" bottle like it says and mix it with tap water. I use it in the Jobos and in small tanks for 35mm on up to 8x10. I ran about 600 sheets of 8x10 last year with no trouble, except a couple of times that were Jobo related, but the developer never has failed. Maybe Sandy King can offer some advice, stuff like that can really kill your confidence in your process. Good luck.

[sanking]

I've been using the pre-mixed stuff from PF for the last two years or more. I haven't had any failures. I don't transfer it to other bottles. I shake up the "B" bottle like it says and mix it with tap water. I use it in the Jobos and in small tanks for 35mm on up to 8x10. I ran about 600 sheets of 8x10 last year with no trouble, except a couple of times that were Jobo related, but the developer never has failed. Maybe Sandy King can offer some advice, stuff like that can really kill your confidence in your process. Good luck.

Nope, I have no suggestions. Every developer is subject to operator error, and I am convinved that in this case the problem is not the developer but the way it is being used. What the error is I can not say since I am not able to monitor Andre's darkroom. However, the fact that a very large number of persons (thousands I believe) have been able to use this developer without any problem makes me believe that the user is making some kind of serious mistake in either mixing the working solution or in storing the solutions.

I would have to agree with what Clay wrote. There are many good developers out there and if for some reason you can not make this one work I would recommend that you move on to another one.

However, just to state the obvious. Pyrocat-HD is provided in Stock A and Stock B solutions. The stock solutions are stored separately until the developing sessions, at which time we mix the working solution by adding one part of A + one part of B to 100 parts of water, or some other dilution, say two parts of A + two parts of B to 100 parts of water. We take care to not contaminate A with B, and we take special care to make sure that when mixing the working solution we add both A and B, cause if you do this you will get almost no developing action.


Sandy

[Steve Hamley]

Are you using truly as a 1 shot? For a while, if I wanted 500 ml per 8x10 neg, I'd put a liter in a tray and do one after the other. That didn't work well on the second one. Sandy helped me diagnose and fix that problem. No thin negs since.

BTW, it is easier than you think to get two of one solution and none of the other. Y'all be careful now, hear?

Steve

[lee\c]

every failure I have had with Pyrocat HD has been operator error.

lee\c

[Andre Noble]

However, just to state the obvious. Pyrocat-HD is provided in Stock A and Stock B solutions. The stock solutions are stored separately until the developing sessions, at which time we mix the working solution by adding one part of A + one part of B to 100 parts of water...make sure that when mixing the working solution we add both A and B, cause if you do this you will get almost no developing action.
Sandy

This was a Photographer's Formulary pre-mixed kit that went straight into seperapate, sterile 500ml Grolsch bottles. I have two plainly-marked "A & B" 20ml graduated cylinders. The A cylinder never gets near the B Grolsh. I decant the A then B graduated cylinder contents into 500mml or 1000ml of distilled H20 JUST before development. Somehow, either something I'm doing (expecting too much from 4 month old premixed Kit, which may itself already be few weeks old???) or not taking into consideration (some other source of user initited contamination thats sets up rapid oxidation of part A ???), is prematurely (and rapidly on some occaisions) oxidizing the Pyrocat HD part A solution.

One more try: I am going to mix this Pyrocat from scratch with glycol and see where that takes me. I have a feeling I'll have much better success that way.

BTW, my Wimberly Pyro, six months old (the Freestyle salesman and I agree looked the PF pre mixed Wimberly Pyro solutions looked a little 'old' even back then) had PERFECT working action yesterday using identical processesing conditions.

There's no doubt about it, pyrocat HD is a delicate developer, in my experience compared to Wimberly WD2D+. Using Wimberly, I've had zero failures in three years.

[Steve Hamley]

Andre,

You might try the pyrocat-MC in glycol. I've tried it on a couple of negs so far and it is nice.

The only thing left I can think of is look in the mirror and stick your tongue out. If it's black, you drank your developer and you're trying to develop film with beer.

Steve

[brook]

I have to say I have found Pyrocat hd to be anything but a delicate developer. I think I could mix working solutions from polluted Mississippi River water and get aceptable results. ABC in particular and pyrogallol developers in general are a different story.

Because I develop by inspection I have found a lot of my own mistakes, like forgeting to add the carbonate or the developing agents, or grabbing a bottle of sodium citrate insted of the sodium carbonate, and caught the mistake because no image had come up in 5-10 minutes of "developing". I have been very lucky, as each time I have been able to resolve the problem in the dark and got my negatives. My problems are always operator errors as well.

[sanking]

There's no doubt about it, pyrocat HD is a delicate developer, in my experience compared to Wimberly WD2D+. Using Wimberly, I've had zero failures in three years.

If I were having your problems I would believe that as well. However, since the type of problem you are having appears to be highly unusual, especially considering the age of your solution, my suspicion is that you are doing something wrong, though from what you have said I don't know what.

But something you said at the beginning of this thread caught my attention. You wrote: "O.K. this is like the fourth or fifth time. Used Photographer's Formulary Premixed Bottle. Was opened immediately and placed in clean grolsch type bottle on Feb 10, 2006. This same Pyrocat HD solution worked well on some negatives even 3 days ago."

The fact that Pyrocat solutions that were mixed in bottles on February 10, 2006, and that worked on some negatives three days ago, clearly suggests to me that something happened to the solutions in the interval. Four month old solutions in partially full glass containers would simply not go bad in three days on their own. Also, when you wrote "this same Pyrocat HD solution worked well on some negatives even three days ago" did you mean a working solution that you mixed several days ago? If so, let me state again that Pyrocat-HD is meant to be used as a one-shot developer. You mix the devleoper for a given batch of films, develop them all at one time, and then discard the developer.

Again, the most likely cause for faint images is that either A or B is omitted from the working solution. The omission of either will result in a very pale or in no image.

If something you are doing is contaminating the A solution and causing it to go bad very early mixing in glycol will probably solve the problem. However, my expereince is that most people use up the supply of the stock solutions before they either go bad and normal stock life of Stock A is on the order of at least 8-12 months in partially full bottles, indefinite for Stock B. Just wondering, does anyone else have access to the area where you store your developers and mix the solutions?

Good luck in finding the answer to your problem. But to , be quite frank, if you are very confident that you are not causing the problem, and you have no such problem with other staining developers, I think the best course of action is to just avoid Pyrocat-HD. Who knows, there may be some type of kill chemical in your enviroment that somehow is finding itself into your stock solutions.



Sandy

[Eric Rose]

heck I've had solutions A and B in partially filled bottles last for over 1.5 years with no failure. The aliens must be getting into your darkroom at night and spitting in your bottles LOL.

[Andre Noble]

Of cousre I do it as a one shot developer, always have. By "this same pyrocat solution", I meant stock solution of each seperate components, A & B.

In retrospect, even my "three days ago prior-to-failure , negatives were fine" negatives exhibited signs of what has come to me to represent "early Pyro Hd failure": high contrast, way underdeveloped shadows area. Three days later, I see undeniable failure: in this case, negatives and frame numbers that were significantly faint, displaying significant underdevelopment of highlights and shadows. I repeated with another roll to rule out operator error and got negatives that look exactly like ones done 30 minutes earlier

I'm not a quitter. I've just quit the Photographers Formulary pre-mixes pf Pyrocat HD dissolved in water. I'll make my own, and use glycol as solvent in future.

No one else is having this problem, so why should I accept that I don't know how to use it properly?

This developer is too good to give up just yet.

Anyways, Sandy, et al, I'll let you know in future how Pyrocat in glycol has worked for me.

[Steve Hamley]

Andre,

I had the same problems when i wasn't doing "1 shot" in the proper spirit, but one thing that was suggested that I now do is not dump "A" and "B" directly together. I'll put in "A", add the water, then "B". Don't know if this does anything or not, but worth a try.

Steve

[sanking]

I'm not a quitter. I've just quit the Photographers Formulary pre-mixes pf Pyrocat HD dissolved in water. I'll make my own, and use glycol as solvent in future.

No one else is having this problem, so why should I accept that I don't know how to use it properly?

This developer is too good to give up just yet.

Anyways, Sandy, et al, I'll let you know in future how Pyrocat in glycol has worked for me.


Well, I have to admire your tenacity. A quitter you sure are not.

Let me know how your glycol mixed solution works out. And just to be on the safe side, I would suggest that you go ahead and mix up a separate Stock B solution.

BTW, just wondering if you have any of the pH strips to test the working solution? If so, it should be over about pH 10.9.

Sandy

[Ken Lee]

"Was opened immediately and placed in clean grolsch type bottle on Feb 10, 2006."

I don't know what a grolsch bottle is. Why not just leave everything in the original bottles ? That is one less place for contamination. The bottles may be clean, but perhaps your funnel is not.

[Steve Hamley]

Ken,

Grolsch is a brand of beer (Dutch I believe) that comes in a bottle with a spring latch and a rubber gasket, hence my "black tongue" joke.

Steve

[Andre Noble]

"Why not just leave everything in the original bottles...


Ken, the original Photographer's Formulary bottles are made of breathable plastic. Even the peope I spoke to at Photographers Formulary (months ago when I began to encounter problems with prematurely oxidized Pyrocat HD) recommended that I transfer the contents to sterile, non-breathable actinic bottles upon receiving the order.

[sanking]

One very smart person who actually read one of my messages alerted me to a mistake in an earlier message.

I wrote:

"We take care to not contaminate A with B, and we take special care to make sure that when mixing the working solution we add both A and B, cause if you do this you will get almost no developing action."

That should have been.

We take care to not contaminate A with B. And, we take special care to make sure that when mixing the working solution we add both A and B, cause if you don't do this you will get almost no developing action.

Actually, fairly poor use of language as corrected, but at least it now makes sense!

Sandy

[Ken Lee]

Ken, the original Photographer's Formulary bottles are made of breathable plastic. Even the peope I spoke to at Photographers Formulary (months ago when I began to encounter problems with prematurely oxidized Pyrocat HD) recommended that I transfer the contents to sterile, non-breathable actinic bottles upon receiving the order.

I presume that you are washing the beer away rather carefully. Perhaps the rubber stopper is to blame. Are you storing at room temperature ?

For what it's worth, I add glass marbles to my bottles as I use up the solution. This helps reduce the air in the bottle, and makes it easy to stir the solution gently before pouring.

[steve simmons]

If you are having problems with these developers may I suggest either PMK or the Rollo Pyro for rotary processing. Both of these are very stable, do not have to be mixed in anything but water and are preferred by many people who like a staining developer.

steve simmons

[lee\c]

Pyrocat hd does not need to be mixed in anything but water either Steve. I used PMK for many years and after using pyrocat hd in my mind it wins hands down. And any failures I have had with Pyrocat were my fault and not the chemicals.

lee\c

[steve simmons]

I made the comment about mixing because of comments made earlier in the thread.

Not everyone agrees that the Pyrocat is the better formula.Many people have tested it against the PMK and rollo formulae and preferred one of these instead.

There are lots of choices. People should knbow about them and decide for themselves.

steve simmons

[sanking]

I made the comment about mixing because of comments made earlier in the thread.

Not everyone agrees that the Pyrocat is the better formula.Many people have tested it against the PMK and rollo formulae and preferred one of these instead.

There are lots of choices. People should knbow about them and decide for themselves.

steve simmons

But until Steve Simmons dropped in with the comment that PMK and Rollo Pyro "are preferred by many people who like a staining developer" no one had stated or implied that Pyrocat is a better formula than PMK, Rollo Pyro, or for that matter, of any developer, staining or otherwise. This thread was simply about someone experiencing a problem with Pyrocat-HD and looking for a solution. And since the individual in question also uses the WD2D formula I think it fairly likely that he was already aware of the existence of other choices such as PMK and Rollo Pyro.

I would also comment that both PMK and Rollo Pyro are both subject to short life span if one or both of the stock solutions, especially Part A, is contaminated. If anyone doubts this just transfer a small amount of Stock A from the main container to a smaller bottle and add a small amount of B solution to it. Test a month later and see how it performs.

Sandy

[steve simmons]

Any A - B developer will have a short life span if you contaminate the two parts which are supposed to be kept separate until use. That is a no brainer. That is nothing against PMK or the Rollo formula that would not be true of any two or three part staining developer.

My point was that if there are problems mixing the Pyrocat formula there might be easier and possibly better develpers to use which are also staining developers. Just information, that is all.

steve simmons

[sanking]

Any A - B developer will have a short life span if you contaminate the two parts which are supposed to be kept separate until use. That is a no brainer. That is nothing against PMK or the Rollo formula that would not be true of any two or three part staining developer.

My point was that if there are problems mixing the Pyrocat formula there might be easier and possibly better develpers to use which are also staining developers. Just information, that is all.

steve simmons

Of course all two part developers will go bad if one of the stock solutions is contaminated. My point was that PMK and Rollo Pyro are no different than Pyrocat-HD in this regard, and I mentioned them only because you suggested that some people prefer them. It is also true that all three of these developers will not work at all if one of the stock solutions is left out of the working solution.

As for mixing the Pyrocat formula, there are no problem at all in mixing it from scratch. Mixing Pyrocat is neither easier nor more complicated than mixing PMK, Rollo Pyro or WD2D+. Mixing in glycol, if one chooses to do so, is only different in that it involves heating the glycol to 150F, not exactly something that should challenge many of us.

Regarding the issue of failure of the Pyrocat stock solutions, I am not aware of any other situation outside of this thread where the stock solutions have failed in less than 6-12 months, *unless* some type of contamination was involved. And I don't believe we can discount the possibilioty that contamination is the culprit in this case, though from Andre's description of his operating procedures I find nothing that would suggest how this might have happened.

Finally, I would never base my own choice of developer on ease of mixing the stock solutions, within reasonable limits of course. My own selection would be based on performance specific to a certain number of developer characteristics. For that reason I encourage folks interested in staining developers to actually carry out side by side comparison tests, making negatives in the type of lighting conditions in which they customarily photograph, and making comparison prints on their normal paper or process.

When I compare developers I talk about characteristics, not about what developer I prefer. There are many situations where a traditional non-staining developer would be the better choice, other situations where pyrogallol/metaborate developers that produce a predominatly green stain would serve best, and other situations where a pyrocatechin/carbonate developer that produces a brain stain (or WD2D+, which also tends to produce a brown stain) would give better results. Again, it is not about what I or someone else may prefer, but which developer best suits our needs given a given set of conditions.

Sandy

[Jay DeFehr]

I've seen many threads on the subject of Pyrocat HD failure, and various other associated problems. I have my own theory regarding the causes, and the first thing I would do if I wanted to make that developer up in water would be to double the concentration of the stock A solution, but as others have noted, any two-solution developer is acutely susceptible to contamination, and prone to user error, especially the ones made up in water with very low sulfite content. PMK contains twice the sulfite concentration of Pyrocat HD, which, I'm sure, contributes to it's longer shelf life, but it's still a two-solution, water-based developer and susceptible to the same problems, albeit to a lesser degree than Pyrocat HD. Hypercat is also a two-solution developer, but the A solution is made up in glycol which makes it immune to the most serious problems that afflict aqueous solutions, but not to the user error to which all two-solution developers are vulnerable. 510-Pyro is a non-aqueous, single solution pyrogallol developer that gives full film speed, high acutance, fine grain and is practically foolproof in use, and for these reasons and others, I prefer it to all other staining developers.

Jay

[steve simmons]

With as many threads about problems with Pyrocat as there have been I would argue that the formula is flawed. For that reason alone I would avoid it. Additionally, when I compared it to PMK I preferred PMK's shadows detal and high value separation. For that reason, the mixing and keeping ease of PMK is an additional bonus, I am staying with the PMK.

At the recent View Camera conferecne Gordon Hutchings was a very popular speaker and his presence there sparked new interest in staining developers and the PMK formula. I think this is a good thing and I always appreciate his participation in these events.

steve simmons

[Steve Hamley]

Sandy,

When you mix HD in glycol, do you still dissolve the phenidone in alcohol?

Steve

[sanking]

510-Pyro is a non-aqueous, single solution pyrogallol developer that gives full film speed, high acutance, fine grain and is practically foolproof in use, and for these reasons and others, I prefer it to all other staining developers.

Jay

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

[sanking]

With as many threads about problems with Pyrocat as there have been I would argue that the formula is flawed. For that reason alone I would avoid it. Additionally, when I compared it to PMK I preferred PMK's shadows detal and high value separation. For that reason, the mixing and keeping ease of PMK is an additional bonus, I am staying with the PMK.

At the recent View Camera conferecne Gordon Hutchings was a very popular speaker and his presence there sparked new interest in staining developers and the PMK formula. I think this is a good thing and I always appreciate his participation in these events.

steve simmons

If one were to look back through all of the threads that deal with so-called failures of Pyrocat-HD they will find that in the end all of them (or all of them in which I have been involved) were the result of user error.

A search of the literature will show that there have also been dozens, if not hundreds of threads about about difficulties experienced by people using PMK, many of them of the same kind that have been associated with Pyrocat, i.e. using the developer in a way it was not intended to be used. This does not mean that PMK is flawed, any more than the present comments mean that the Pyrocat formula is flawed.

Your comments about "PMK's shadows detal and high value separation" result from your own testing, the methodology of which has been strongly criticized on this forum and on APUG. They are also based on the use of only one process, i.e. VC silver papers. It is unfortunate that you did not take advantage of that criticism to publish in View Camera a more critical and objective study comparing various non-staining and and staining developrers. To this point the only sound study of this type I have seen was the article published by Howard Bond in DT a couple of years ago.

Sandy King

[steve simmons]

You are wrong Sandy about my testing. I made direct and unmanipulated scans of the negs and showed the results. I did not introduce the variable of vc or graded papers. The PMK negs simply showed better shadow detail and better high value separation. Period.

The Howard Bond test was done with T-Max and was roundly criticized as he picked the one film that would show the least benefit from a staining developer.

Your criticizing Jay for his hawking as you call it ignores your bias toward your Pyrocat formula which you created. If there are that many threads about its failure then there is a problem with the formula. If it is so fussy that there is all of this operator error then maybe it is too hard to use, to fussy, etc./ Other staining developers do not seem to have this problem of frequent operator error..



steve simmons

[Andre Noble]

Steve, I have not tried PMK yet. The reason I first staring using WD2D+ was because of the article in Photo and darkroom techniques. The reason I also tried the Pyrocat HD was because of it's lack of aerial oxidaion fogging in rotary processors. I cannot use Wimberely WD2D+ in my Jobo because of my experiences with excessive base fog in the Jobo even at the slowest rotation speed, for example. Aside from the failures i have encountered, I have been extrememly please with the results from these.

Steve, just out of curiosity regarding your experiences comparing Pyrocat HD and PMK:

"I compared it to PMK I preferred PMK's shadows detal and high value separation"

Do you mean you are comparing print results and that the prints had even GREATER 'shadow detal and high value separation'? Or is it that you prefer the Gradation in the highlights and shadows? One other question: were you just comparing PMK and Pyrocat HD negatives purely visually, or did you compare the two types of negatives with a sensitometer?

BTW Steve, I believe it was you who noted somewhere that you liked the midtone gradation (or guts) of the Kodak films (Plus X, Tri-x) in pyro developers as compared to Ilford films.

I totally agree. The used to much prefer the Ilford films up until a year ago (and Ilford look much better in Pyro too, especially PanF, which finally becomes an outstanding film with controllable contrast) ,

But I've also seen on prints that the two traditional the Kodak films (Tri-X and Plus-X) do have better 'guts' and create an almost "color print" like richness in the mdtone gradations when printed from negatives developed in the two pyro developers pyrocat HD and WD2D+...


Final, off-topic question to Sandy or Steve if you're following this thread: Do you know what might cause and "overdeveloped negatives" phenomenon in Pyro developers? I MAY have had a problem with my Wimberly WD2D+ this weekend too but in the opposite direction - over cooked looking negatives. despite careful procesing and repeating the test. I used the Photographer's Formulary premade bottled mixture (now this did look slightly old six months ago when bought it new at Freestyle - even according to the experienced saleman there, and the Wimberly looked even darker brown than normal when A & B mixed into water just before development). despite careful exposure of film, mixture of developer ratios, and temperature, time and agitation control, my WD2D+ negatives came out WAY too dark - overdevloped!! Retested, and got same. Using 1:1:50 WD2D+ mixture at 68F on Pan F for 6 or 7 minutes, negatives were carefiully exposed but negatives come out way too dark - we are not talking a stop or two, but as if overexposed by five or six stops (which they weren't - or over developed for three times the recommended development time(which they weren't)

In the past Pan F in WD2D+ came out wonderfully! For record: I decant the solution directly into A and B labelled 10ml graduated cylinders and mix at 1:1:50. Part B never has a chance to touch part A. I rinse the tiny graduated cylinders multiple times with warm water after each use... Will do more testing this weekend. It may be poerator error, but since I repeated procedure and got same problem, I'm beginning to suspect the developer.

Argh!! Makes me look like a complete pyro idiot.

Would premature aging of component B in Wimberly cause overdevelopment action in the pyrogallol portion?

[sanking]

You are wrong Sandy about my testing. I made direct and unmanipulated scans of the negs and showed the results. I did not introduce the variable of vc or graded papers. The PMK negs simply showed better shadow detail and better high value separation. Period.

The Howard Bond test was done with T-Max and was roundly criticized as he picked the one film that would show the least benefit from a staining developer.

Your criticizing Jay for his hawking as you call it ignores your bias toward your Pyrocat formula which you created. If there are that many threads about its failure then there is a problem with the formula. If it is so fussy that there is all of this operator error then maybe it is too hard to use, to fussy, etc./ Other staining developers do not seem to have this problem of frequent operator error..



steve simmons

Your methodology was flawed, pure and simple. No point in going into great detail again about that as there is ample comments about that from experienced photographers in the various threads that ensued from that sad review. And yes, the article by Bond was criticized by some people, mostly by people like you who did not understand, or refused to accept, its implications. But in the end Bond's article did a lot more than you have ever published in View Camera to explain some of the important characteristics of staining versus non-staining developers.

I do not have any bias toward Pyrocat, certainly no greater than the bias you show toward PMK. And in fact, I regulary both use, and advise the use, of other developers for specific situations. And if I printed with VC papers, I would advise the use of PMK for many scenes. Also, I have never stated in any thread on this forum or on any forum that Pyrocat-HD is superior to any other developer, staining or non-staining. I answer questions about it and provide development information but I do not promote its use by comparison to other developers.

And I repeat again, if the issue is that Pyrocat-HD is flawed because of the number of threads involving problems with its use, then PMK must also be flawed because there are far more threads about user problems with it than with Pyrocat-HD, going back to the days of rec.photo. In fact there was one just a month or so ago on this forum, or perhaps it was on APUG, about someone who on receiving his stock solutions of PMK promptly mixed all of it up to make the working solution. There were 10-15 responses before someone figured out what he had done.

Sandy

[Michael Kadillak]

I have been mixing and using Pyrocat HD including the recent variations for a number of years now with consistent success and continue to recommend it with enthusiasm to new photographers. Having Sandy and all of his experience at your fingertips is icing on the cake. Sandy is a genuine asset to the photographic community and never made a dime on all of the work he shared with us freely.

I find it perplexing that some folks seem engrossed in unnecessary pointed commentary. Professional respect is grounded in positional neutrality and letting your work speak for itself. Case in point - The first question people want to know about a photographer (past or present) whose work they are inspired by or whom they admire is their technique and materials.

Cheers!

[steve simmons]

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

[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?

[sanking]

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.

steve simmons

That statement clearly says that Bond's study was biased, and if his study was biased then the only logical understanding that one can reach is that he too was biased toward a non-staining developer. So yes, you clearly did say that Bond was biased, and there is no way to read otherwise what you said. The implication in your statement is that Bond did not have the professional integrity to conduct a comparison of staining and non-staining developers and reach a fair and objective conclusion.

And, BTW, Bond used in his study at least one film, TRI-X 320, that even by your standards is one that performs well in staining developers. Perhaps you should go back and read the article again since you are now mis-representing facts.

Sandy

[sanking]

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?

Andre,

OK, I will inquire about this. However, there is no question but that the glycol mixture will have a shelf life of several years. Experience already tell us that. For example, I have on hand now a glycol mixed Pyrocat-HD A solution that is 1.5 - 2.0 years old and it gives the same results today as the day it was mixed.

Sandy

[sanking]

I

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

Sorry, but that is not correct. The Pyrocat-P and Pyrocat-MC formulas that I recently introuduced are not tweaks. They are new formulas tht give different results in terms of accutance and the appearance of film grain from Pyrocat-HD. And this has been tested and comfirmed by a number of beta testers, many of whom are highly respected members of the LF community.

Try to get your facts right.

Sandy

[Kirk Gittings]

I remember Richard Sullivan telling me onetime that he did all of his P/P printing with kits that had been returned from disgruntled customers who thought the chemistry was contaminated or out of date. He promptly replaced their product with "fresh" and then proceeded to use the returned "bad" product for his own work. The point being that operator error is usually the problem, though after going over a proceedure repeatedly in our minds leads us to believe otherwise.

[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


Steve,

Sorry, I responded to your question, but did not answer it.

No, there is no need to mix the phenidone first in alcohol. Just add it directly to the warm glycol.

Sandy

[Andre Noble]

Andre,

OK, I will inquire about this...

Sandy

Sandy, thanks for all your efforts. Regarding having PF date stamp the batch as it's made, it's to help prevent all this effort going towards them later saying, "Hey while were at it, let's run off 1,000 kits of this stuff in glycol as it last forever, and we can do a huge run and stockpile it."

A "Born On date" will keep them honest and keep the customer in good confidence, so if there is a "next time" I or anyone else has a failure, we can look in the mirror, and not at Photographer's Formulary or at anyone else.

BTW, I just ordered PF's powdered Pyrocat kit and a seperate bottle of their propylene glycol from B&H. (I'm going to mix some of my own in the meantime, waiting for their new kits to come out when my stuff runs out).

Like I said, when it works, Pyrocat HD is a phenomenal developer. Keep us updated, please.

[steve simmons]

I stand by my statement that with as many complaints in as short a time as have been registered with your formula it has to be flawed. Take it off the market and do some more testing. It is the only right thing to do. PMK never had this many problems early in its life. New formula to be better than the old. Sounds like tweaking to me.

You keep insisting I said Bond was biased. Show me where I said that. Don interpret, show me where I actually said Bond was biased. I did not and you are trying to confuse the issue because it suits you.

steve simmons

[sanking]

You keep insisting I said Bond was biased. Show me where I said that. Don interpret, show me where I actually said Bond was biased. I did not and you are trying to confuse the issue because it suits you.

steve simmons

I quoted what you said about Bond's study. Anyone with a high school reading knowledge would understand that you said his study was biased, and the implications of that statement. The statement does not require interpreation by people of average reading ability. It is what it is.

Perhaps a refresher course in reading comperhension in the English language should be on your agenda for this summer.

And in personal ethics. You clearly imply that Bond's study was biased because of his preference for non-staining developers. And here you are, someone who has demonstrated constant hostility toward me for years, trashing Pyrocat-HD. And you expect people to accept you as a person of integrity? I see no honor or integrity at all in what you are doing here. IMO this is bad faith behaviour in its most ugly and vicious form.


Sandy

[steve simmons]

OK, now we are into personal insults. I feel another locker room slur coming.

I have said what I have to say. It is my opinion that you released this formula without adequate testing and are now coming up with fixes. PMK never had this problem.

As far as my displaying constant hostility towards you for years that is nonsense. Our relationship went into the tank when you made your slur against me several months ago. Prior to that I had invited you to participate in the View Camera conferences and to write for View Camera. I was trying to maintain a good relatioship with you and made several overtures which you consistently declined or ignored. You are trying to confuse the issue with personal matters which I want no part of with you. I have seen what you will resort to when you lose your temper when challenged by someone who does not follow your teaching.

Lets stay with the facts and leave the personal stuff out. It does not belong here.

steve simmons

[sanking]

OK, now we are into personal insults. I feel another locker room slur coming.

I have said what I have to say. It is my opinion that you released this formula without adequate testing and are now coming up with fixes. PMK never had this problem.

steve simmons


You are really a piece of work. You trash Bonds, then try to weasel out of what you said, and now accuse me of personal insults.

At least you are true to character. You know how to dish it out, but when it comes time to take the medicine you squeal like a pig. As Yoga said, deja vu all over again.

Sandy

[steve simmons]

Ah, the name calling. All from the safety of being 1,000+ miles away. Deja vue all over again.

I am done with this debate. It has no where to go but farther downhill. I hope the moderators delete the last few posts and leave the rest for further study and review.

steve simmons

[sanking]

Ah, the name calling. All from the safety of being 1,000+ miles away. Deja vue all over again.

I am done with this debate. It has no where to go but farther downhill. I hope the moderators delete the last few posts and leave the rest for further study and review.

steve simmons


Well, I am glad to see you gone, and good riddance to your kind. You were only here from the start because of your long-standing, and documented, hostility toward me.

But I hope the moderators leave the messages as they are. If for no other reason to show how you tried to weasel your way out of your comment about Howard Bond. This information should be available to some future historian writing about the contributions of Steve Simmons to a sense of community in the LF community.

Sandy

[Colin Graham]

You keep insisting I said Bond was biased. Show me where I said that.
-here maybe?
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

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well, today I felt surprsingly better, enough to develop a few shots I had taken before I started treatments. For this I used Pyrocat HD which I had mixed 6 months ago, now, this is not glycol, just solution A and solution B in separate bottles with tap water.....the results were as good as if I had just mixed it. I dare anybody using PMK or ABC to say the same.

Mr. Simmons, one of the problems of evaluating negatives from staining developers visually is that you do not get the entire story, Tmx, and specially Tmx 400 stains very well, at least it does with pyrocat HD. I would be glad to send you one to see if you want. So, can you drop the pissing match? Your experience is not what many of us who have used not only PMK but ABC, WD2D and other developers have experienced.

[tim atherton]

You keep insisting I said Bond was biased. Show me where I said that. Don interpret, show me where I actually said Bond was biased. I did not and you are trying to confuse the issue because it suits you.

steve simmons

Try here:

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

perhaps time to eat your words? (or at least kiss and make up...)

[steve simmons]

Bond picked a film that is well known for being less benefitted by a staining developer than most others and then used the results to generalize questioning the benefits of a staining developer. That is a fact. I will retract my ststement that I did not sday he was biased but it was not a fair test, I was wrong in that I did say Bond was biased. I should have simply said that I do jot believe his test was fair and that the results could not be generalized to other films.

Sandy King is great at slinging locker room slurs and calling names when he is mailes and miles away and behind a keyboard. His commennts that I have been against him for years are clearly not true. As I said in an earlier post I made continual efforts to reach out to him until he started the slurring a few months ago. At that point I was done. We should be able to disagree at a professional level w/o the name calling, etc. After all it is only a film developer, not life itself.

The comparison I did a couple of years ago between PMK and Pyrocat was a fair test. It involved real sunshine, real blue skies, real clouds, real shadows, real sidelight concrete building, etc. The PMK was a much better image IMHO. By better I mena high value separation, mid tone detail and guts, and I tested and got a higher EI with PMK. Those were my results. I have received many, many e-mais from people telling me they have done the same test, with different films, and gotten the same results. Isn't it nice that people are deciding for themselves - whatever they decide.

Now, I have admitted I was wrong about the use of the word bias. Lets see if Sandy can apologize for the nam,e calling the and locker room slurs.

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well, moderators now have the capability of closing the threads, I think it is time to put this feature to use. We have been going down this road for at least two years now, Mr. Simmons wont recognize his testing procedures are flawed by virtue of him being the VC editor....so how about it QT, Ralph, anybody???? Can we close the door on this putrefact horse??????

[Ralph Barker]

I don't think Sandy needs to apologize for anything he has said, so I think Jorge's suggestion is a good one.