PDA

View Full Version : Pyrocat HD in Glycol, Step bt Step Mixing Instructions



Andre Noble
11-Jun-2006, 09:28
Is there anyone who can post here, as a resource, A step by step mixing instruction for a Pyrocat HD stock solution A preparation in glycol, inclucluding each component chemistry amounts, the order of mixing, and the recommended glycol temperatures at each stage?

(Hopefully, your recipe will be for a Pyrocat HD stock A solution equivalent in development action to the standard Photographers Formulary/Sandy King Pyrocat HD stock A solution.)

There are various tidbits how some do this on APUG and Paula And Michael's Azo website, but nothing comprehensive enough to go from step one to finish with confidence.

Thanks in advance for any and all input.

Jay DeFehr
11-Jun-2006, 14:06
Andre,

I can provide detailed instructions for Hypercat A solution:

Add 10g catechol and .5g ascorbic acid to 90ml room temp glycol, and heat with stirring until dissolved. That's it!

This solution will be about 2X as concentrated as Pyrocat HD, and can share the same B solution. If you want to make a working solution roughly equivalent to a 1:1:100 dilution of Pyrocat HD, use a 1:2:200 dilution of Hypercat.

Jay

sanking
11-Jun-2006, 15:16
Is there anyone who can post here, as a resource, A step by step mixing instruction for a Pyrocat HD stock solution A preparation in glycol, inclucluding each component chemistry amounts, the order of mixing, and the recommended glycol temperatures at each stage?

(Hopefully, your recipe will be for a Pyrocat HD stock A solution equivalent in development action to the standard Photographers Formulary/Sandy King Pyrocat HD stock A solution.)

There are various tidbits how some do this on APUG and Paula And Michael's Azo website, but nothing comprehensive enough to go from step one to finish with confidence.

Thanks in advance for any and all input.

Andre,

You will find instructions for mixing Pyrocat-HD in Glycol in the following thread on APUG.

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=24806&highlight=Pyrocat-HD+glycol

If you are going to use Glycol you might might also want to consider the Pyrocat-MC formula. See
http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=27497&highlight=Pyrocat-M

Both formulas mix easily and readily following the instructions.

Sandy

Andre Noble
11-Jun-2006, 18:41
Sandy and Jay, thank you very much. Sandy, I reproduced your instructions from that link here. Now THIS looks like it will be fun (while making me feel like a real photographer in the Mathew Brady tradition.)

Per Sandy King:

"MIXING STOCK SOLUTIONS OF PYROCAT HD (PART A) WITH GLYCOL

On mixing Pyrocat-HD in Propylene Glycol. As many of you know, mixing Stock Solution A of Pyrocat-HD in Propylene Glycol provides stability of the stock solution on the order of years, similar to HC-110. Here is a very safe way to do this, measured for the 1000ml kit.

1. Weigh out all of the chemicals for Stock A. 50.0g of pyrocatechin, 10.0g of sodium metabisulfite, 2.0g of phenidone and 1.0g of potassium bromide.

2. Pre-heat in a water bath 750ml of propylene glycol to about 150F.

3. Add the pyrocatechin to the glycol and stir until dissolved. Should take no more than about a minute.

4. Now add the phenidone and stir. Should dissolve completely in about a minute.

5. Add the bromide and sodium metabisulfite to about 50-75ml of hot water at about 120F. Stir until completely dissolved, then mix with the propylene glycol solution.

6. Top off the solution with glycol to 1000ml..."

Thanks again Sandy

sanking
14-Jun-2006, 21:30
Andre, and anyone else interested,

I provided mixing intructions to the folks at PF for Pyrocat-HD and Pyrocat-MC in glycol and they mixed up liter bottles of the two solutions for me today. This afternoon I exposed three sheets of 5X7 fillm identically and tonight developed one in the original Pyrocat-HD in water, one in Pyrocat-HD in glycol and a third in Pyrocat-MC.

The first two are virtually identical in density, contrast range and stain color and density, as I would have expected from my own comparison tests. That means that when using the glycol based -HD any development data one might have worked out for the water mixed version can be used without any modification. The Pyrocat-MC negative has a slightly higher visible contrast range, and the stain is more intense, so some slight decrease in development times should be anticipated when using it.

Also, I asked Bud about date stamping the developer and there will be no problem in doing that. He did mention, however, that the Pyrocat-HD kits they have been mixing in the past are generally sold withing two weeks of when mixed.

In any event I imagine PF will be offering both of these kits for sale within a fairly short period of time. Check with them for details as to exact date and pricing.

Sandy

BBW
14-Jun-2006, 22:59
I was wondering Sandy, will using automotive anitfreeze work also, specifically Prestone LoTox antifreeze in place of lab grade propylene glycol?

Jay DeFehr
15-Jun-2006, 00:22
For those who want to try Hypercat or 510-Pyro, but don't have scales, you can order a pre-measured kit of the dry chemicals from Artcraft Chemicals:

http://www.artcraftchemicals.com/scripts/shopplus.cgi?DN=artcraftchemicals.com&CARTID=%cartid%&ACTION=action&FILE=/kits.htm

for 250ml, 500ml, or 1 liter of stock solution. The premeasured kits are simply added to propylene glycol or TEA at room temp, and heated with stirring until the chemicals have dissolved. I get my propylene glycol and TEA from:

http://www.chemistrystore.com/propylene_glycol.htm

The glycol and TEA will last forever, and a gallon will make enough developer to develop up to 3800 rolls/8x10 sheets of film. This is an extremely simple and economic way to make up a developer, and offers the best of both the prepackaged, and homebrewed worlds.

Jay

P.S. the attached images are TMX negs developed in Hypercat.

Andre Noble
15-Jun-2006, 06:05
Sandy, that is good news, all. Perhaps Pyrocat in glycol will become the new standard. :)



...

He did mention, however, that the Pyrocat-HD kits they have been mixing in the past are generally sold withing two weeks of when mixed.


Sandy

I know that is the case for their Pyrocat HD in water kits, but certainly not the case for their Wimberly WD2D+ kits, many of which sit on dealer shelves after Photographers Formulary ships them.

Sandy,

Thanks again for diverting your time to look into all this.

sanking
15-Jun-2006, 07:25
I was wondering Sandy, will using automotive anitfreeze work also, specifically Prestone LoTox antifreeze in place of lab grade propylene glycol?


There have been some discussion of this in the past. See one of the most recent threads on the topic here. http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=26517&highlight=ethylene+glycol

Sandy

BBW
15-Jun-2006, 16:42
There have been some discussion of this in the past. See one of the most recent threads on the topic here. http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=26517&highlight=ethylene+glycol

Sandy

Thanks Sandy. Time to satisfy the itch to play again :)

sanking
16-Jun-2006, 23:33
Sandy, that is good news, all. Perhaps Pyrocat in glycol will become the new standard. :)




I know that is the case for their Pyrocat HD in water kits, but certainly not the case for their Wimberly WD2D+ kits, many of which sit on dealer shelves after Photographers Formulary ships them.

Sandy,

Thanks again for diverting your time to look into all this.

Andre,

Just one more bit of information. All of the liquid kits from Formulary have a batch number that indicates when the kit was actually mixed. This goes back for years. So if you have a question about the acutal date of mixing of either your Pyrocat-HD or Wimberly WD2D+ kit you can contact Formulary with the batch number on the kit to find out on what date it was actually mixed.

Sandy

steve simmons
18-Jun-2006, 19:34
What is it about this formula that makes it so unstable that batch dates, special mixing, etc, seems necessary. The old ABC pyro was also unstable, the B solution would change over time, but I thought the newer formulae improved on this problem. I have not heard of this stability and dating problem with W2D2 or the plus version or with PMK.

steve simmons

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-Jun-2006, 20:16
Would you leave it alone? Are you going to come and mess this thread too? There is nothing unstable about Pyrocat, it lasts longer than PMK, but people want to make large quatities and be able to store them for years, this is the capability that glycol gives to Pyrocat. You are really becoming tiresome!


What is it about this formula that makes it so unstable that batch dates, special mixing, etc, seems necessary. The old ABC pyro was also unstable, the B solution would change over time, but I thought the newer formulae improved on this problem. I have not heard of this stability and dating problem with W2D2 or the plus version or with PMK.

steve simmons

steve simmons
18-Jun-2006, 20:22
Given all the threads about Pyrocat and the mixing and stability probloms this is a fair question. PMK is very stable. I have kept the A and B solutions going for years just adding a new batch to what was about to run out. This is one of the qualities of the PMK and W2D2 formulae. I hope the Pyrocat group won't try and divert attention from the problems by engaging in personal attacks. The question I asked is a fair one and not personal. Lets keep the answer on a high level and not drop into personal insults.

steve simmons

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-Jun-2006, 21:03
YOu are the only one who sees many threads, there have been a few and they have been mostly operator error. There is no diverting here, there is mostly you trying to make something out of nothing. Now, you ruined the previosu thread, you plan on ruining this one too?

As I said in the previous thread, I just developed a negative last week with Pyrocat HD that was 6 months old and mixed with tap water. BTW, when I used PMK, it never lasted more than 3 or 4 months before it went bad...I dont see where you get this years of service.



Given all the threads about Pyrocat and the mixing and stability probloms this is a fair question. PMK is very stable. I have kept the A and B solutions going for years just adding a new batch to what was about to run out. This is one of the qualities of the PMK and W2D2 formulae. I hope the Pyrocat group won't try and divert attention from the problems by engaging in personal attacks. The question I asked is a fair one and not personal. Lets keep the answer on a high level and not drop into personal insults.

steve simmons

brook
18-Jun-2006, 21:11
I just finished off a liter of PyrocatHD I mixed in 4/04, for the last year it sat about 1/4 full, with nothing to slow down oxygination, no marbels, no nitrogen, nothing. It performed as well as the day I mixed it. It also worked as well as a fresh batch I just mixed.
In my experience, and thats all I have to go on, none of the pyrogallol based developers , even freshly mixed, do what Pyrocat HD does every time with working solutions mixed with tap water. Like many, including Gordon Hutchins from what i remember, PMK is worthless for Azo.

I have no axe to grind or bone to pick here, the stuff just works.

steve simmons
18-Jun-2006, 21:16
This is the second thread in the last week or so discussing problems with this formula and giving all kinds of fixes and tweaks. The Book of Pyro has been out for 15 years and sold thousands of copies. There has never been this much talk about problems with it. John Wimberly came out with the W2D2 about 1978 and there were never this many problems with it or his one newer verson W2D2+.

Many of us have been using Pyro/Metol based formulae for 20+ years and found them to be very stable. If the pyrocat group wants to ignore this experience and chase something else that is fine. But for those looking for a more stable and user friendly formula I suggest one of the W2D2 formulae or PMK.

steve simmons

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-Jun-2006, 22:05
Many of us have been using Pyro/Metol based formulae for 20+ years and found them to be very stable. If the pyrocat group wants to ignore this experience and chase something else that is fine. But for those looking for a more stable and user friendly formula I suggest one of the W2D2 formulae or PMK.

steve simmons

What is there to ignore? I have been using Pyrocat HD for 5 years, not once has it failed. The only one insisting there is a problem is you! The only reason you did not see the same about PMK is because it came out before the internet, otherwise I bet you there would have been many threads about PMK failure. WD2D+ is the tweaked old formula with EDTA, it has a little bit better shelf life but nothing anywhere near to that of Pyrocat.

Enough of this vendetta you are carrying, you wont listen to any reason just so you can keep harping about something you know nothing about since you have admited you dont know how to use Pyrocat, given your reported "tests". So, can you move on? Enough of your crap, you dont believe anything it is said about Pyrocat, fine publish it in your magazine, but stop crapping all over this site....

Jay DeFehr
18-Jun-2006, 23:47
I'm always interested in a discussion of staining developers, and their various properties, but I'm not interested in any personal rancor or hysterics, so I will confine my remarks to the subject of staining developers, and hope others will do the same.

Pyrocat HD, by some reports, lasts virtually forever, made up in tap water and stored in partially filled containers, and never varies in performance from freshly mixed until expired. By other reports, it is extremely sensitive to water quality, storage conditions, and contamination, lasts only a few weeks made up in distilled water and stored in completely full glass bottles, and its performance varies with the phase of the moon. I personally don't lend much creedence to either claim, and believe the truth to lie somewhere between, with a definite advantage to those who practice sound lab procedures.

As I've commented before, PMK contains 2X the concentration of sulfite that Pyrocat HD does, and pyrogallol is less sensitive to oxidation, both of which, I believe contribute to PMK's excellent longevity. I also believe that making up Pyrocat HD at 2X the standard concentration would increase the life and stability of the A solution when made up in water.

Making a two solution staining developer up in glycol is just a good idea, plain and simple. It is a simple and effective way to ensure the stability and longevity of a stock solution, and permits the omission of sulfite altogether, which can be beneficial. I think there is a distinction to be made between developers formulated to be made up in water, and modified to be made up in glycol, and those formulated specifically to be made up in glycol, such as Hypercat. I hope that statement is not read as inflammatory, but simply as point to be considered.

If I might respond to Mr. Simmons suggestion-


But for those looking for a more stable and user friendly formula I suggest one of the W2D2 formulae or PMK.

I would counter that those looking for the most stable, user-friendly staining developer consider 510-Pyro. 510-Pyro is the only single solution staining developer of its kind, and is as stable and easy to use as HC-110 or Rodinal, or more so, but with many important benefits that staining developers have to offer. 510-Pyro also offers many benefits over other pyrogallol developers, including PMK and WD2D, and is as close to an all-purpose staining developer as I've seen.

I look forward to reasoned replies.

Jay

tim atherton
19-Jun-2006, 08:03
This is the second thread in the last week or so discussing problems with this formula .

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?

steve simmons
21-Jun-2006, 07:15
<<<<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

Colin Graham
21-Jun-2006, 07:40
Many of us have been using Pyro/Metol based formulae for 20+ years and found them to be very stable. If the pyrocat group wants to ignore this experience and chase something else that is fine. But for those looking for a more stable and user friendly formula I suggest one of the W2D2 formulae or PMK.

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....

steve simmons
21-Jun-2006, 08:28
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

Jay DeFehr
21-Jun-2006, 12:59
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

sanking
21-Jun-2006, 19:09
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

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

Don Bryant
22-Jun-2006, 20:32
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

Andre Noble
23-Jun-2006, 03:47
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?

j.e.simmons
23-Jun-2006, 05:06
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