I think I am in love...

[jim kitchen]

Dear Group,

For the past few weeks, I toiled over film development times and different developers, while processing my 8X10 black and white negatives in a JOBO rotary drum...

I started with FP4+, D76. Perceptol, ID11, HC-100, and any other developer sitting on the shelf at my local supply store. FP4 is my standard film with 4X5, developed in D76 and, or HC-110. So, I decided to start with that combination. Nice, but troublesome. I say troublesome, while thinking of non stationary objects, such as a tree gently rocking in the wind. Over the past few weeks, while hiking late in the evening, I encountered many beautiful scenes with soft mountain light, but the wind in Alberta knows when to howl like a friggin banshee, just as I am about to click the shutter.

The greater depth of field issues, while using the 8X10, drove me to look for a different film developer combination, allowing for faster shutter speeds, while using the smaller required f-stops. FP4, at my rated film speed, and Delta 100 and TMX 100, for that matter, have the same issue. At the request of a new friend on this site, Donald Hutton, I tried TMY, but not his suggested Pyro developer. Instead I tried XTOL.

I am in love with TMY and XTOL...

This combination is just brilliant, and scans beautifully. The midtones, compared to TMY and D76, opened up fabulously, and the subtle details in the shadows are very visible, compared to being blocked in D76. The difference between XTOL and D76 can be compared to a quality drum scan that opens up numerous shadow details present in a negative, and a get-by product flat bed scanner, which ultimately tends to create large blocked shadow detail areas.

Once my heart calms down, I know there are other developer combinations that could be associated with TMY, and I know everyone has their own lustful combination, so I will always keep my eyes open to that end. For the moment, TMY and XTOL are at the Prom, but they are not married.

I hope to see what PYRO development brings in the coming weeks. Maybe my love affair with TMY and XTOL will be short, but then again maybe I do not need to be so esoteric with my film development. If PYRO is better, then XTOL will be toast.

I thank Donald, and the archived notes in this forum, for helping me with my 8X10 film development process...

jim k

[Steve H]

Jim,
Lets see some scans !

[jim kitchen]

Dear Steve,

I will do that shortly, once I finish a few more scans. I am in the process of trying to get my preview negative scans to lay flat on my scanner.

I should be able to post the comparative images from Photoshop later this evening...

I must find out how small the image file should be, prior to posting.

jim k

[Ed Richards]

What dilution of Xtol? If you have not tried 1:3, you may have even more good news in store.

[Bruce Watson]

What dilution of Xtol? If you have not tried 1:3, you may have even more good news in store.
I'll second that. I've been using XTOL 1:3 with 5x4 Tri-X in a 3010 drum. Excellent results, plus my EI is 400 which is 1/3 stop above ISO rating.

[Henry Ambrose]

I third Xtol 1:3! Just be sure ot use plenty of stock solution - 100ml stock per 8x10 sheet.

[Bill_1856]

Just wait until the first time your Xtol fails to work.

[Ed Richards]

Just wait until the first time your Xtol fails to work.

Just make sure you do a test sheet or at least something you can reshoot whenever you mix a new batch. I have only had on batch that was bad, and if it is good when you mix it, and you keep it in a tank with a floating lid (about $25 from B&H), you will not have any problems.

[Ron Marshall]

Would anyone who has had an XTOL failure mind answering these questions:

Is distilled water used to mix it?

How long is the powder stored (at home) before mixing?

I plan to test several developers this summer, but am hesitant to give XTOL a try if there have been a signifigant number of failures since the new 5 litre packaging has been implemented.

[Ed Richards]

I had one failure about 6 months ago, with a 5 liter pack, but the old style. While I had not stored it long, I have NO idea how long it was stored before I got it, and whether it had been cooked along the way. Since you should be testing any developer before you put priceless negatives in it, I do not see this as a problem, and it is a very good developer. (Plus it is not very toxic.)

[Henry Ambrose]

Ron,

I've heard only a very few instances documented Xtol failures for a good long time. Most reports I have read seemed to involve sloppy, undocumented or questionable techniques in mixing or storage.

For whatever its worth I've used Xtol for 6-7 years with no trouble at all, totalling around 20-25 5 liter packs.
I am however extremely careful how I mix, handle and store all my chemicals.

I think if you follow the package directions explicitly (and maybe add a few precautions) you will not have any problems. Start with good water (I suggest distilled water) mix at proper temperature, wait for the first part to dissolve completely, don't whip air into the solution and use full, airtight storage (glass bottles with no air space) and always use plenty of stock solution.

I have several fresh packs of Xtol here now and no thoughts at all about changing to anything else.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Group,

I just returned from the mountains late this evening...

I did not finish my scanning quest, since I knew a storm was brewing due to the heat in Southern Alberta, and the wind would be very quiet at some point in time as the eye of the storm passed by, so a photo opportunity just called and called. The mountains are about an hour away, so I could not resist. I had fun with a Black Bear, extremely curious cattle and a new fawn, while setting up my equipment. As a side note, if was not for Donald Hutton trying to call me, in the middle of nowhere, the fawn might have stayed, the Black bear took off over the hill, and the cattle thought it was dinner time. I did not answer the cell phone because it was several metres away at the time.

That said, my developing process is rather tight, as always when developing film, but I do not become exremely concerned regarding my tap water's quality. I do concentrate though on temperature control, timing and absolute repeatability with all of my processing steps. The JOBO drum and my motorized base sure simplify matters...

When I mix XTOL, I make sure the A_package is completely dissolved, before introducing the B_package, and I tend to mix the ingredients at a slightly higher temperature than Kodak suggests, just out of habit. There is always some debris at the bottom of the tub that does not get dissolved, and I usually strain these minute remnants out, prior to mixing the B_package.

I do like quality control for repeatability, but I do not become extremely involved with tenths of a degree...

XTOL failed me in the beginning, but mostly due to my ignorance with development time issues, and an exhausted fixer failed me too, creating the TMY blue and, or purple cast of death. A simple fresh re-fix did the job, and it was not because of a short prewash. I can only purchase XTOL in the 5L packages.

During my experimental process I did notice though, XTOL opened up the midtones compared to D76, and I like that. XTOL also softens the extreme highlights. If any of you have ever flashed their silver paper in the darkroom, specifically in the highlight areas of the the paper, you know what I mean. The details in the hightlights go on forever. Photoshop handles this issue with ease, especially using layers.

Today, while setting up an image, I listened to the cell phone ring as Donald tried to call me, and I watched the animals flee, but I wondered if I could use TMY set at 400, compared to my usual setting of 250. I thought of this, since I always make sure I expose for the shadows with Zone III, and I am so tuned as to how FP4 reacts with D76 and, or HC-110, that I wondered if my initial shadow detail with TMY could be a bit darker, since my initial reaction is that TMY leans toward Zone IV. My immediate thought was no I should not, since I can control the level of darkness in Photoshop and, or the darkroom. My XTOL exposure seems to be about 1/2 to 2/3's of a stop out, but not enough to make me change to a setting of 400. If this was a complete full stop, and I therefore would be able to use a shorter shutter speed, I might consider re-evaluating my development times, but I do not want too.

Several years ago, Bruce Barnbaum told me, "If it's not there, it's not there..."

Where, Bruce tried to politely tell me, I should expose for enough detail in the shadow areas, develop the film accordingly, and print the image down if I had too.

Anyway, I digress...

For the moment and for those of you that might be curious, my XTOL blend is set at 1:1, where 12.5 minutes at 20 Degrees Celcius (typ) is my current normal development time, where continuous cyclical agitation on my motorized drum base is the norm. My N+1 is set at 15.5 minutes, N+2 is set at 19.5 minutes, N+3 is set at 22.5 minutes, N-1 is set at 10.5 minutes, N-2 is set at 7.8 minutes, and N-3 is set at 6.5 minutes. I am about to embark on a compensating development time procedure for N-2 and N-3, since my historical useage of HC-110 and FP4 demand a different process at the extreme dilution, and their associated extended development times. I do not know what the dilutions and, or the development times will be just yet for XTOL, but I will before the end of the year. I might also find out that TMY does not require this type of extreme compensation development.

XTOL at 1:3 sounds interesting, and TMY's acutance should improve, but I love the image tonality and sharpness I have in my images at the moment. I will try this blend later this year. Years ago I developed FP4 in D76 1:3, but eventually settled on the 1:1 blend, due to the restricted volumetric size of the JOBO 4X5 tank I had at the time. I must see how much liquid my drum can hold before the motor burns out.

I should have a couple of images to post sometime tomorrow, regarding a previous request, once I finish developing today's exposures...

What a great day it was.

Be back shortly,


jim k

[Jack Brady]

Jim,

I hate the "flavor of the month" logic of film and developer choices BUT I would like to suggest you try a pack of Fuji Acros 100 in XTol 1:1.

My prior film was TMax 100 in Kodak Tmax developer but I was frequently disappointed in the results. I tried numerous developers with it, including numerous Pyro formulations, but never got what I felt was an excellent scan on my drum scanner - 8,000 lines. Additionally, no film developer combo has match what I used to get from film and pyro 30 years ago.

I've been testing the Acros 100 over the last couple of weeks in different developers and find the XTol works great with the Acros.

I'll be doing more experiments this week at 1:2 and 1:3 dilution to see how it effects the scan, but in reality I could be quite happy with what I have at the moment in Acros and Xtol.

I experiment on 120 roll film first to set general peramiters and scan values, then go to 4x5 sheet film. I can do so much more experimenting on the 120 film and learn the general effects of developer, dilution, time at a fraction of the cost of 4x5, then use what I learned on 120 to accelerate my learning curve for 4x5.

Jack

[Bruce Watson]

Just wait until the first time your Xtol fails to work.
I am. I've never had a failure. I've been using XTOL at 1:3 for what, four years now? Always mixed in steam distilled water and stored in old wine bottles under vacuum. I've used 8+ month old stock without a problem.

[Ron Marshall]

I do not know what the dilutions and, or the development times will be just yet for XTOL, but I will before the end of the year. I might also find out that TMY does not require this type of extreme compensation development.



Jim I just read about someone using divided XTOL as a compensating developer: Xtol 1:3, 50 seconds constant agitation; 50 seconds stand; drain; Xtol 1:5 with 15 seconds agitation every two minutes for 12 minutes.

I intend to try variations of the above protocol and will post if anything comes of it.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Group,

The images I could post are very small, and do not exhibit the differences properly.

If any one would like to see the images, I can send them to you via email. There are three images where the TMY and D76 1:1 image is on the right, and the TMY XTOL 1:1 image is on the left, within each image. The D76 images all show blocked Zone II areas on the film. I will park these images somewhere safe on my HD, until I forget what they are all about, and delete them.

Images were taken about a minute apart, where my habit is to take a second image of the same scene in case I made an error in my processing. Such an old habit, but sometimes a fruitful one...

As for Acros, I have not tried this film. I moved to TMY due to shutter speed issues and DOF with my 8X10. I will try it though, since I parked my supply of FP4+, Delta 100, and TMX 100.

The compensating development times might be difficult for me since I use the JOBO drum, and therefore I would require a different process, such as trays. Maybe several development baths at a highly diluted rate might work in the JOBO with the motorized base. It will be fun to see if this works...

Anyway, my excitement about the shadow areas might be just an issue with the film speed I am using, not necessarily the film and developer's ability, to open up the midtones.

That said, if anyone would like to see the comparative images, I will send them to you.

Thank you in advance,


jim k

[Ron Marshall]

Jim, I do compensating dev with HC-110 in my Jobo 3006. I do 1 min constant agitation with 1:6.5 from stock (not syrup), drain, then add 2900 ml of 1:44 from stock. This I hand roll on the counter (it is too heavy for the roller base), 15 sec agitation every 1.5 min for a total of 12 min. Easily holds a 14 stop range. Because of the volume of soln I can still dev 6 sheets (10 actually) even at that dilution.

I need only 40 ml of stock for soln A, and 65 ml for soln B.

[lee\c]

My darkroom is an Xtol Free Zone. Why take a chance? Pyrocat-HD is the choice here.

lee\c

[jim kitchen]

Dear Group,

Out of curiosity...

What makes Pyrocat-HD so great and, or any Pyro developer, for that matter?

Is it because it produces smoother tones, less grain, or is it just an exquisite elixer for a specific type of film?

I guess I should try it for myself and find out...

jim k

[Jay DeFehr]

I love TMY developed in just about anything, but I develop mine in 510-Pyro and my Jobo ATL 2+, or semi-stand in tubes. Gorgeousness and gorgeosity. I don't think there's anything this film can't do. I don't think Xtol's keeping properties are any worse than any other single-aqueous stock solution when handled appropriately, but it's a far cry from a single TEA-based stock solution. If Xtol produced better results than 510-Pyro, I'd suffer the inconvenience gladly, but TMY and 510-Pyro seem to be perfectly matched, maybe because I used TMY as my primary test film while formulating 510-Pyro, but more likely, TMY brings out the best in any developer.

Jay

[sanking]

Dear Group,

Out of curiosity...

What makes Pyrocat-HD so great and, or any Pyro developer, for that matter?

Is it because it produces smoother tones, less grain, or is it just an exquisite elixir for a specific type of film?

I guess I should try it for myself and find out...

jim k


First, in order to prevent this from becoming another divisive thread about the comparison of different pyro developers, I am going to lump them together and treat them as one, with the one exception of the color of the stain as it impacts compensation with VC silver papers.

There are several reasons why many people prefer staining developers.

1. Most of the popular staining developers, including Diaxactol, PMK, Pyrocat-HD, and WD2D+ are high acutance developers, at least when used at the right dilution. That is, they create very enhanced adjacency effects which increases apparent sharpness. Some non-staining developers (FX-2 for example) are also high acutance developers, but the tanning you get with pyro developers hardens the gelatin and encourages more precise development, which further enhances sharpness. Howard Bond, not an advocate of staining developers, did an article in PhotoTechniques a couple of years back, and even he concluded that the pyro developers he tested gave sharper results with some films than non-staining developers.

2. The stain masks the grain and gives a smoother, less grainy look that you get with other high acutance developers. For example, PMK and Pyrocat-HD are every bit as sharp as Rodinal, when used correctly of course, but the appearance of grain is much finer because of the stain.

3. The stain is proportional to silver density and is therefore greatest in the highlights. This results in a compensation effect with VC silver papers. I won't go into the mechanics of this, but you can find good explanations for this in both Gordon Hutcings' The Book of Pyro and in my article on pyro developers at www.unblinkingeye.com. Some people like the compensation, others don't, but as a rule I believe it is desirable when exposing negatives in very high contrast scenes. As a rule formulas that give a brown stain (PMK, Rollo Pyro) give less compensation with VC papers than yellow/green stain formulas (Pyrocat-HD, Diaxactol).

4. Stain is also very desirable with processes that require negatives of high CI since the stain adds contrast for both AZO 2 and for alternative processes.

5. Most of the staining developers have long shelf life and are also very convenient to use. They come in concentrated stock solutions which last for months or even years, and are diluted for use. This assures consistent results. Staining developer are also highly efficient in their use of reducers, which makes them much more economical than most other developers, especially those that require a lot of sulfite, D76 for example.

6. One disadvantage of staining developers is that the stain makes it more difficult to use sensitometry. This is not a great problem with graded silver papers, but with VC papers the application of sensitometry can be quite complicated. Lack of precision in the use of BTZS has been one of the reasons some BTZS users have avoided staining developers. However, as a BTZS proponent who uses only graded silver papers (AZO) and alternative processes I have not found any problem in obtaining precise results with BTZS and stained negatives.

Staining developers are not elixirs, or magic bullets, and the difference in results between them and other acutance formulas are not all that great, as a general rule. Unfortunately there are many myths out there about the properties of staining developers and it is sometime hard for a novice to sort fact from fiction. However, for persons who know exactly what they want in a developer staining developers offers some specific advantages that may be of some interest.

Sandy King

[Chris Strobel]

How do these pyro's like pmk work for scanning compared to developers like xtol?


First, in order to prevent this from becoming another divisive thread about the comparison of different pyro developers, I am going to lump them together and treat them as one, with the one exception of the color of the stain as it impacts compensation with VC silver papers.

There are several reasons why many people prefer staining developers.

1. Most of the popular staining developers, including Diaxactol, PMK, Pyrocat-HD, and WD2D+ are high acutance developers, at least when used at the right dilution. That is, they create very enhanced adjacency effects which increases apparent sharpness. Some non-staining developers (FX-2 for example) are also high acutance developers, but the tanning you get with pyro developers hardens the gelatin and encourages more precise development, which further enhances sharpness. Howard Bond, not an advocate of staining developers, did an article in PhotoTechniques a couple of years back, and even he concluded that the pyro developers he tested gave sharper results with some films than non-staining developers.

2. The stain masks the grain and gives a smoother, less grainy look that you get with other high acutance developers. For example, PMK and Pyrocat-HD are every bit as sharp as Rodinal, when used correctly of course, but the appearance of grain is much finer because of the stain.

3. The stain is proportional to silver density and is therefore greatest in the highlights. This results in a compensation effect with VC silver papers. Some people like the compensation, others don't, but as a rule I believe it is desirable when exposing negatives in very high contrast scenes. As a rule formulas that give a brown stain (PMK, Rollo Pyro) give less compensation with VC papers than yellow/green stain formulas (Pyrocat-HD, Diaxactol).

4. Stain is also very desirable with processes that require negatives of high CI since the stain adds contrast for both AZO 2 and for alternative processes.

5. Most of the staining developers have long shelf life and are also very convenient to use. They come in concentrated stock solutions which last for months or even years, and are diluted for use. This assures consistent results. Staining developer are also highly efficient in their use of reducers, which makes them much more economical than most other developers, especially those that require a lot of sulfite, D76 for example.

6. One disadvantage of staining developers is that the stain makes it more difficult to use sensitometry. This is not a great problem with graded silver papers, but with VC papers the application of sensitometry can be quite complicated. Lack of precision in the use of BTZS has been one of the reasons some BTZS users have avoided staining developers. However, as a BTZS proponent who uses only graded silver papers (AZO) and alternative processes I have not found any problem in obtaining precise results with BTZS and stained negatives.

Staining developers are not elixirs, or magic bullets, and the difference in results between them and other acutance formulas are not all that great, as a general rule. Unfortunately there are many myths out there about the properties of staining developers and it is sometime hard for a novice to sort fact from fiction. However, for persons who know exactly what they want in a developer staining developers offers some specific advantages that may be of some interest.

Sandy King

[sanking]

How do these pyro's like pmk work for scanning compared to developers like xtol?


I have personally scanned a lot of PMK and Pyrocat-HD negatives. They are much smoother in terms of grain appearance than scanned D76 and HC110 negatives of the same format. Whether you see this on the print depends on how much you enlarge.

A friend of mine who regulary prints up to 40X50" from 8X10 negatives has done a lot of comparision between a pyrocatechin developer (very similar but not same as Pyrocat-HD) and Xtol, and he tells me that the results are so close one could not tell them apart. I must confess this is anecdotal information since I have not personally compared Xtol with any of the staining developers.

In scanning the dye mask of the stain minimizes the appearance of silver grain. Also, if you scan a stained negative in RGB it is possible that one of the layers will give better tonal rendition.

Sandy

[Henry Ambrose]

The only reason I'm not using Pyrocat HD now is that I found that sometimes the stain color gave me problems with VC printing and it seemed that the first kits I got varied. The stain was not consistent from film to film and sometimes not even with the same film. So some VC prints might look like they had been filtered at exposure of the film in a way that was not attractive. It took me a while to see this during the six months I used Pyrocat to the exclusion of Xtol.

This is not a criticism of Pyrocat HD at all, its a truly excellent developer. It was just easier for me to standardize on Xtol since I got great results and no stain to cause trouble in VC printing. Xtol was and is consistent from package to package. I'm pretty sure that if I mixed Pyrocat HD from scratch with good chemicals and figured out how to strip the stain I'd be perfectly happy to use it from here on out. Both those things should be easy enough.

Sandy, do you have any comments about those two issues (mixing for consistency and stripping the stain)?

[sanking]

The only reason I'm not using Pyrocat HD now is that I found that sometimes the stain color gave me problems with VC printing and it seemed that the first kits I got varied. The stain was not consistent from film to film and sometimes not even with the same film. So some VC prints might look like they had been filtered at exposure of the film in a way that was not attractive. It took me a while to see this during the six months I used Pyrocat to the exclusion of Xtol.

This is not a criticism of Pyrocat HD at all, its a truly excellent developer. It was just easier for me to standardize on Xtol since I got great results and no stain to cause trouble in VC printing. Xtol was and is consistent from package to package. I'm pretty sure that if I mixed Pyrocat HD from scratch with good chemicals and figured out how to strip the stain I'd be perfectly happy to use it from here on out. Both those things should be easy enough.

Sandy, do you have any comments about those two issues (mixing for consistency and stripping the stain)?

Henry,

If you mix from scratch and use fresh chemicals and distilled water to mix the stock solution you control consistency of the developer. I would also recommend distilled water for the working solution to anyone having trouble with any pyro developer since both pyrogallol and pyrocatechin are very sensitive to water problems.

As for consistency with the kit form, I am very optimistic that the liquid kits with Part A mixed in propylene glycol now being distributed by Photogrphers' Formulary will prove to be very consistent, with a shelf life of years. And mixing in glycol instead of water adds only pennies to the cost.

Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do about stain variation with different films. This just comes with the territory with all pyro staining developers. There is no staining developer I am aware of that gives the same color and intensity of stain with all films.

Pyrocatechin is highly sensitive to sulfite so you can easily kill the stain of Pyrocat-HD by simply adding more sulfite. A liter of working solution of Pyrocat-HD, diluted 1:1:100, contains about 0.1g of sulfite, released in water from the sodium metabisulfite in the stock solution. If you were to increase this amount to somewhere between 5.0g - 10.0g of sulfite per liter of working you would completely kill the stain. You could achieve this by increasing the amount of sodium metabisulfite in the stock solution, or by just adding about one-half to one teaspoonful of sulfite directly to a liter of working solution. If you chose to add sulfite be consistent with the amount you add because the energy of the developer will increase as you add sulfite. You will have to experiment with exactly how much sulfite is needed to kill the stain, but from past experiments I know that it is not very much.

If you strip the stain you will still have a very high acutance developer, but with a different look. Probably something more like Neofin or FX-1 than the present Pyrocat-HD.

Sandy

[scott_6029]

Sandy, which ULF sheet films have you found best to work when contact printed on AZO, using the Pyro HD formula? Also, I purchase my Pyro HD in liquid form from PF - they carry one in glycol and the other does not mention glycol - which one do you now recommend? So, many choices....

[sanking]

Sandy, which ULF sheet films have you found best to work when contact printed on AZO, using the Pyro HD formula? Also, I purchase my Pyro HD in liquid form from PF - they carry one in glycol and the other does not mention glycol - which one do you now recommend? So, many choices....

Scott,

What AZO are you using? If you are using AZO 2 you need a film that can be developed to a very high CI because this paper needs a very contrasty film. You might be able to get away with any available film if shooting in normal and high contrast scenes, but for low contrast scenes and AZO 2 I would recommend: FP4+, TMAX-400 and Efke PL 100. With AZO 3 you can use any film that gives good results with VC silver papers. Course, what films are available in ULF at any given time is hard to predict and anticipate because of market conditins.

PF is currently selling both water and glycol kits of Pyrocat-HD. Both give identical results but the glycol based kit has greater stability so if you don't anticipate using up the kit in about six months I would recommend the glycol one for sure.

Sandy

[John Berry]

If PYRO is better, then XTOL will be toast.

Pyrocat is toast with real butter.

[Wayne Crider]

No comments on the tanning developers. I am a Xtol user in 4x5 at the 1:3 dilution and have been for some years now. I've never had a problem even with the older single liters packs. My stock solutions usually last a year and I find that the color changes indicating it's going bad.

I did not read the whole post in depth but caught the fact that you are looking for speed with your changing to TMY and developer to Xtol. As I know, Xtol usually gives about a 2/3 stop increase in speed for a solvent developer while maintaining fine grain. Dilution increases speed. Your choices to find real speed are obviously in speed enhancing high definition developers, Crawley's being some preferred choices. Most all HD developers are compensating developers providing longer tonal scales. If you are contacting printing maybe FX2 or in your case TFX2 would be a choice to try; If the results are not to your liking, they may be different enough to use for a particular look. FX2 is also a choice developer to be used for stand or semi-stand developing giving increased adjacency effects; I have no idea about Jobo results with this developer.

[Jay DeFehr]

Pyrocat is toast with real butter.


John,

I don't know which Pyrocat you're using, but Pat Gainer's Pyrocat MC makes Pyrocat HD completely obsolete. If you haven't tried that version, you're in for a pleasant surprise. I don't know why anyone would continue to use Pyrocat HD.

Jay

[Michael Kadillak]

John,

I don't know which Pyrocat you're using, but Pat Gainer's Pyrocat MC makes Pyrocat HD completely obsolete. If you haven't tried that version, you're in for a pleasant surprise. I don't know why anyone would continue to use Pyrocat HD.

Jay

If you find personally satisfactory results with any developer why change? Xtol has been praised for years because of what people see in the prints that eminate from their negatives developed with it. If I was printing silver I would be using it as well.

Ditto with Pyrocat HD. We use it in massive quantities because it just works like a champ each and every time and has been very effectively supported with an articulate well written article that both educates and informs. Change for the sake of change is like chasing your tail. Instead of making photographs you are continually looking for the holy grail which not only confuses you, it is a proven waste of one of your most valuable resources as a LF photographer - the time you have to photograph.

Onward!

[sanking]

If you find personally satisfactory results with any developer why change? Xtol has been praised for years because of what people see in the prints that eminate from their negatives developed with it. If I was printing silver I would be using it as well.

Ditto with Pyrocat HD. We use it in massive quantities because it just works like a champ each and every time and has been very effectively supported with an articulate well written article that both educates and informs. Change for the sake of change is like chasing your tail. Instead of making photographs you are continually looking for the holy grail which not only confuses you, it is a proven waste of one of your most valuable resources as a LF photographer - the time you have to photograph.

Onward!

Hi Michael,

Wow, I wondered how long the Medusa creature would hide the ugly heads.

For a complete story of the development of Pyrocat-HD to Pyrocat-M to Pyrocat-MC have a look at this thread on APUG, http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=27497&highlight=Pyrocat-M.

See especially what Pat Gainer says about the collaboration that led from Pyrocat-HD to Pyrocat-M to Pyrocat-MC. But don't forget about Pyrocat-P because it is really good!

The bottom line is that Pyrocat-MC resulted from a collaboration between Pat Gainer and myself, and I have already (see the APUG thread) cleary recognized Pat's contribibutions in this collaborative work, for which I am personally very grateful.

Sandy

[lee\c]

Gosh who would have thought Jay would not have all the info? I am a HD user and I see no reason to change.

lee\c

[Jay DeFehr]

I have all the info, Lee. Pat was being generous in crediting Sandy and the original Pyrocat HD formula as the basis for his version, which is much better. Sandy has taken full credit for the formula, and Pat's name is not even mentioned in the Photographers Formulary description. Pyrocat MC is more similar to the original Hypercat formula than it is to the original Pyrocat HD formula, but it is an improvement over the original Hypercat as well. I never liked including phenidone in a catechol developer, and have since eliminated it from the latest version, along with most of the ascorbic acid and the restrainer, and a new alkali. This new version works better than the original, so I no longer use the original version. It just makes sense to me that when an improved version of a developer I use becomes available, that I stop using the obsolete version. It doesn't surprise me at all that you're determined to stick with an inferior developer rather than move on to a superior one. It's a typically conservative mindset. Enjoy your HD.

Jay

[sanking]

For a complete story of the development of Pyrocat-HD to Pyrocat-M to Pyrocat-MC have a look at this thread on APUG, http://www.apug.org/forums/showthrea...ight=Pyrocat-M.

And remember, people lie and distort. Facts are facts.

Sandy

[David Karp]

It looks as if the Formulary just copied the description from Pyrocat HD and used it for Pyrocat MC. Is this correct? I think that this is probably their error, as I am sure that Mr. King and Mr. Gainer know that MC is different. For example, one or both (I can't remember which) have stated that MC has less base fog, and is sharper. If I am not mistaken, either or both of them have stated that the phenidone version gives a bit more film speed. The Formulary is doing the new formula a disservice by merely copying the description of the HD formula for the MC as well.

[sanking]

It looks as if the Formulary just copied the description from Pyrocat HD and used it for Pyrocat MC. Is this correct? I think that this is probably their error, as I am sure that Mr. King and Mr. Gainer know that MC is different. For example, one or both (I can't remember which) have stated that MC has less base fog, and is sharper. If I am not mistaken, either or both of them have stated that the phenidone version gives a bit more film speed. The Formulary is doing the new formula a disservice by merely copying the description of the HD formula for the MC as well.

Hi David,

Please send me a copy of the description to which you refer. I would like to clear up any differences with PF.

Sandy.

[David Karp]

Sure Sandy, here they are, straight from the Formulary website:

The description for Pyrocat HD Liquid 10:

PYROCAT-HD FILM DEVELOPER-Pyrocat HD is a high acutance developer, formulated by Sandy King as an alternative to other pyrogallol based staining developers. The advantages over PMK that Mr. King cites for his formula include an approximately 1/3 stop greater effective film speed, 10-15% shorter development times, more consistent staining action, lower toxicity, and no streaking or mottling with reduced agitation. Makes 10 liters of working solution.

The description for Pyrocat HD in Glycol 10:

PYROCAT-HD FILM DEVELOPER-Pyrocat HD is a high acutance developer, formulated by Sandy King as an alternative to other pyrogallol based staining developers. The advantages over PMK that Mr. King cites for his formula include an approximately 1/3 stop greater effective film speed, 10-15% shorter development times, more consistent staining action, lower toxicity, and no streaking or mottling with reduced agitation. Makes 10 liters of working solution.

The description for Pyrocat MC in Glycol 10:

PYROCAT-MC FILM DEVELOPER-Pyrocat MC is a high acutance developer, formulated by Sandy King as an alternative to other pyrogallol based staining developers. The advantages over PMK that Mr. King cites for his formula include an approximately 1/3 stop greater effective film speed, 10-15% shorter development times, more consistent staining action, lower toxicity, and no streaking or mottling with reduced agitation. Makes 10 liters of working solution.

The descriptions are all the same. Even if these statements are accurate, it would be good for them to explain the differences. For example, why someone would be interested in one of the glycol formulations, or the differences they might expect from having used HD vs. MC.

[sanking]

Hi David,

I think we are involved here with a copy system gone wild.

Will try to clean this up with PF soon.

Thanks,

Sandy



Sure Sandy, here they are, straight from the Formulary website:

The description for Pyrocat HD Liquid 10:

PYROCAT-HD FILM DEVELOPER-Pyrocat HD is a high acutance developer, formulated by Sandy King as an alternative to other pyrogallol based staining developers. The advantages over PMK that Mr. King cites for his formula include an approximately 1/3 stop greater effective film speed, 10-15% shorter development times, more consistent staining action, lower toxicity, and no streaking or mottling with reduced agitation. Makes 10 liters of working solution.

The description for Pyrocat HD in Glycol 10:

PYROCAT-HD FILM DEVELOPER-Pyrocat HD is a high acutance developer, formulated by Sandy King as an alternative to other pyrogallol based staining developers. The advantages over PMK that Mr. King cites for his formula include an approximately 1/3 stop greater effective film speed, 10-15% shorter development times, more consistent staining action, lower toxicity, and no streaking or mottling with reduced agitation. Makes 10 liters of working solution.

The description for Pyrocat MC in Glycol 10:

PYROCAT-MC FILM DEVELOPER-Pyrocat MC is a high acutance developer, formulated by Sandy King as an alternative to other pyrogallol based staining developers. The advantages over PMK that Mr. King cites for his formula include an approximately 1/3 stop greater effective film speed, 10-15% shorter development times, more consistent staining action, lower toxicity, and no streaking or mottling with reduced agitation. Makes 10 liters of working solution.

The descriptions are all the same. Even if these statements are accurate, it would be good for them to explain the differences. For example, why someone would be interested in one of the glycol formulations, or the differences they might expect from having used HD vs. MC.

[David Karp]

If I am not mistaken, either or both of them have stated that the phenidone version gives a bit more film speed.

In the interest of fairness, I want to correct the above, which is a misstatement. After reviewing the APUG thread posted by Sandy, I found this statement by him:

"I agree with Tom in that the -MC gives slightly higher effective film speed."

Also, in fairness to Sandy, here are some quotes from that same thread. By Sandy King:

"I am grateful to Pat for posting working directions for Pyrocat-MC. The formula is a a result of both Pat's work and ideas, and mine, so think of this as the Gainer/King Pyrocat. It is really a very nice developer, especially for folks looking for low B+F, very high stain, and very high accutance.

And best of all, it is free for the taking."

And prior to that he said:
"Pat Gainer has provided me with some data that may lead to yet another formula, Pyrocat-MC, which contains pyrocatechin + metol + a tiny bit of ascorbic, and no sulfite. I like it a lot, but it must be mixed in glycol and the method of mixing metol in glycol is a bit beyond the scope of most casual users so this may be something better sold in kit form."

Here is a quote by Patrick Gainer:
"I didn't really want to spill the beans until Sandy mentioned it because it was his impetus and original work that built the platform. I think if you give it a try, you will find it was worth the effort."

It seems as if each is happy to credit the other.

[David Karp]

All this stuff about Pyrocat MC has got me thinking. Sandy, have you or anyone tried This formula (or Pyrocat HD) as a divided (2 bath) developer? This was Barry Thornton's original idea when he was developing Dixactol, but he found that combining A and B and following a semi-stand approach worked better. Is this the same with your formulae?

If you have not tried it, do you have any thoughts as to how a potential divided developer approach might work with these formulae? For example, at what dilutions would someone try the A and B solutions?

At one time, I was thinking about trying to work out a divided version of one of Patrick Gainer's vitamin C developers, but never got around to it because I really liked Barry Thornton's metol 2 bath variant of the Stoeckler formula, and because I have two toddler boys and barely enough time to make and develop a photograph, much less a developer formula. Add to that that I am no chemist - I don't even play one on TV! But now you have me thinking.

[Michael Kadillak]

The bottom line is that Pyrocat-MC resulted from a collaboration between Pat Gainer and myself, and I have already (see the APUG thread) cleary recognized Pat's contribibutions in this collaborative work, for which I am personally very grateful.

Sandy

Thanks Sandy and David for setting this subject perfectly straight. Clearly for obvious reasons I have been spending much more time photographing and in the darkroom and less following these forums. And that is not a bad thing.....

Cheers!

[sanking]

Hi David,

Thank you. What more can a person expect than to be judged fairly and objectively by a person of integrity? I consider Pat Gainer a great friend, and I am honored by his collaboration in the creation of Pyrocat-MC. I have been told by PF that they would like to sign a royalty agrement for this formula. Don't know how much money that will involve (probably not much), but whatever amount it is, Pat will share in it with me. \


Sandy



In the interest of fairness, I want to correct the above, which is a misstatement. After reviewing the APUG thread posted by Sandy, I found this statement by him:

"I agree with Tom in that the -MC gives slightly higher effective film speed."

Also, in fairness to Sandy, here are some quotes from that same thread. By Sandy King:

"I am grateful to Pat for posting working directions for Pyrocat-MC. The formula is a a result of both Pat's work and ideas, and mine, so think of this as the Gainer/King Pyrocat. It is really a very nice developer, especially for folks looking for low B+F, very high stain, and very high accutance.

And best of all, it is free for the taking."

And prior to that he said:
"Pat Gainer has provided me with some data that may lead to yet another formula, Pyrocat-MC, which contains pyrocatechin + metol + a tiny bit of ascorbic, and no sulfite. I like it a lot, but it must be mixed in glycol and the method of mixing metol in glycol is a bit beyond the scope of most casual users so this may be something better sold in kit form."

Here is a quote by Patrick Gainer:
"I didn't really want to spill the beans until Sandy mentioned it because it was his impetus and original work that built the platform. I think if you give it a try, you will find it was worth the effort."

It seems as if each is happy to credit the other.

[David Karp]

Sandy,

It just seems that what is fair is fair. I remembered you writing somewhere that the metol version gave a bit slower speed, but that must have been the original metol version, without the ascorbic. When I saw that I made an error, I thought it should be corrected. As for the other quotes, as I read them in the original APUG thread, I thought that fairness dictated that anyone reading this thread should know what both you and Patrick Gainer said at that time, without the reader having to dig through that long APUG thread to find it.

Now, any thoughts about that 2 bath?

[sanking]

Sandy,

It just seems that what is fair is fair. I remembered you writing somewhere that the metol version gave a bit slower speed, but that must have been the original metol version, without the ascorbic. When I saw that I made an error, I thought it should be corrected. As for the other quotes, as I read them in the original APUG thread, I thought that fairness dictated that anyone reading this thread should know what both you and Patrick Gainer said at that time, without the reader having to dig through that long APUG thread to find it.

Now, any thoughts about that 2 bath?

David,

I will think about the 2nd bath and get back to you. However, it is 1 am ESt and my wife calls me to bed. I will return to this tomorrow with some thoughts about the second bath, and meanwhile, thank you so very much for the cordial exchange,

Sandy

[Jay DeFehr]

David,

I've posted a few formulae for divided ascorbate developers. As with all ascorbate developers, preservation is the fly in the ointment. My solution to the problem was to avoid it completely by making the ascorbate solution disposable after a development session, which allows the complete omission of sulfite from the formula. I've had excellent results with a simple sodium ascorbate/metol A solution, and a sodium carbonate B solution. It's extremely simple to make up, as teaspoons provide adequate precision, and the constituent chemicals dissolve readily in room temp water. I've since found this to be an excellent developer for Jobo processors.

So, divided ascorbate developers can be very practical and economical, and produce excellent results. If you're interested, I'd be happy to provide the formula.

Jay

[David Karp]

Sandy: Many thanks. It is 10:14 on the west coast, and I am heading in the same direction. I look forward to reading your thoughts on a divided developer version.

Jay: I would love to see the formulae. I use a slosher type device, but my guess is that a Jobo is not required.

I was raised on a divided developer. Left it for many years. Came back to it, and then went to Thornton's metol 2 bath. So, I am very interested in both of your thoughts.

[sanking]

All this stuff about Pyrocat MC has got me thinking. Sandy, have you or anyone tried This formula (or Pyrocat HD) as a divided (2 bath) developer? This was Barry Thornton's original idea when he was developing Dixactol, but he found that combining A and B and following a semi-stand approach worked better. Is this the same with your formulae?

If you have not tried it, do you have any thoughts as to how a potential divided developer approach might work with these formulae? For example, at what dilutions would someone try the A and B solutions?

At one time, I was thinking about trying to work out a divided version of one of Patrick Gainer's vitamin C developers, but never got around to it because I really liked Barry Thornton's metol 2 bath variant of the Stoeckler formula, and because I have two toddler boys and barely enough time to make and develop a photograph, much less a developer formula. Add to that that I am no chemist - I don't even play one on TV! But now you have me thinking.

David,

I promised to comment on this so here are my thoughts. Basically, yes, you can use Pyrocat-HD as a divided developer. Or you could use any of the other two-part pyro developers, for that matter. In fact, the original instructions for Barry Thornton's Diaxactol called for it to be used as a divided developer. I experimented with Pyrocat-HD a few years ago as a divided developer and it worked fine, but I found no advantage to this method of development for normal scenes, and if the purpose is contrast control in high SBR scenes my persoanl opinion is that one is better off using a more dilute solution in combination with reduced agitation. Also, it appears that divided devleopers do not work as well with contemporary films as with the older emulsions.

To be fair, there was some work published many years ago in View Camera from using D23 as a divided developer and the results were very impressive.

Sandy

[David Karp]

Hi Sandy,

Thanks for the thoughts. When you used Pyrocat HD as a divided developer, did you use a particular dilution from the stock solution, or did you use the stock solutions unchanged as the A or B bath? I am assuming that you diluted the stock. Also, do you recall how long you left your film in each solution?

As for the glycol MC version, do you have any thoughts regarding dilution of the glycol stock for use as a two bath?

I am assuming that using Pyrocat in one of its forms as a 2 bath would be as a one shot (based on the idea that it will have to be diluted). That would be fine with me if I like the results.

For what its worth, I have been using Thornton's metol 2 bath for a while now, and it seems to work fine with the three modern films I have tried it on: HP5+, FP4+, and Delta 100. No photographer I know ever noticed any negative issues in my prints associated with this developer. Funny story: I once had a telephone conversation with a photo chemist who works at a photo chemical supplier. When I described Thornton's formula to him, he said he doubted whether I could even get an image on film using it. I found that interesting since I was looking at some nice negs developed in that very formula, and had been using the formula for a long time.

Thanks again.

[sanking]

Hi Sandy,

Thanks for the thoughts. When you used Pyrocat HD as a divided developer, did you use a particular dilution from the stock solution, or did you use the stock solutions unchanged as the A or B bath? I am assuming that you diluted the stock. Also, do you recall how long you left your film in each solution?

As for the glycol MC version, do you have any thoughts regarding dilution of the glycol stock for use as a two bath?

I am assuming that using Pyrocat in one of its forms as a 2 bath would be as a one shot (based on the idea that it will have to be diluted). That would be fine with me if I like the results.

For what its worth, I have been using Thornton's metol 2 bath for a while now, and it seems to work fine with the three modern films I have tried it on: HP5+, FP4+, and Delta 100. No photographer I know ever noticed any negative issues in my prints associated with this developer. Funny story: I once had a telephone conversation with a photo chemist who works at a photo chemical supplier. When I described Thornton's formula to him, he said he doubted whether I could even get an image on film using it. I found that interesting since I was looking at some nice negs developed in that very formula, and had been using the formula for a long time.

Thanks again.

Hi David,

Those tests were done about five years ago and the notes and memory are gone. However, I did post some of my results and data at the time on APUG and will see if I can retrieve the information.

Anothre thing, I have a friend in Charlotte whose primary method of developing 8X10 B&W film is with a divided pyrocatechin developer. The formula is very similar to Pyrocat-HD, though he made some adjustments. He claims that this is about as close to a magic bullet for a developer as he has ever seen, and this guy is a real outstanding silver printer who makes real large prints. I will give him a call and see if he is willing to share any information about his technique.

As for the question about the Pyrocat-MC diluted for divided development, there will be no problem with diluting the glycol version with water. Just do it as you would with a water based solution.

BTW, I am going to post a follow-up about the differences between the original Pyrocat-HD that used metol, and the current -MC and -HD versions in the post about Pyrocat-M that I referenced earlier in this thread. I think it more logical to place it there than on the LF forum, plus I have another reason for doing so that I won't mention here in public. In any event, I plan to do that sometime this afternoon or evening so if interested just dial in that thread again.


Sandy

[Jay DeFehr]

I re-read the apug thread to be sure I hadn't misinterpreted what I had read there previously, and I'm confident that I have not. It is very clear to me that Pat Gainer, after having devised a method for dissolving metol in glycol, formulated the developer known as Pyrocat-MC before King formulated his Pyrocat-M. Here's a timeline of sorts, from that thread. Italics are mine, for clarity.


3-17-06

Sandy,
Would you forsee any problem in substituting glycol for the distilled water in these formulas?


King:

Not with Pyrocat-P, which uses p-aminophenol, except for the fact that I strongly recommend you add sodium metabisulfite (or sodium sulfite at a 13:10 ration with metabisulfite) first, then add the p-aminophenol. In other words, just mix in the order given on the formula.

Pyrocat-M is another issues. Metol will not dissolve in glycol, unless you first convert it to base. This is not difficult and Pat Gainer has been playing around with various methods of doing this over the past few weeks. His procedures are quite simple but since the precise amount of metol in the formula is very critical to the objective I set forth for the formula I have not yet determined exact figures for making the conversion. I will be working on this in the future as I do find some advantages to storage in glycol.
Sandy




5-10-06

King:


Pat Gainer has provided me with some data that may lead to yet another formula, Pyrocat-MC, which contains pyrocatechin + metol + a tiny bit of ascorbic, and no sulfite. I like it a lot, but it must be mixed in glycol and the method of mixing metol in glycol is a bit beyond the scope of most casual users so this may be something better sold in kit form.
What I can say is that the Pyrocat-MC provides the lowest B+F and highest staining of any of the Pyrocats. I also believe that is slightly sharper than Pyrocat-HD, if the agitation is of the same type.



5-10-06

Gainer:

If the cat is out of the bag I guess it's OK to tell it.
You need 2.5 grams metol, 4 grams ascorbic or erythorbic acid, about 8 grams of TEA (about 7 ml at room temperature) and about a teaspoon of water to start. Mix the metol, ascorbic acid, TEA and water to make a slurry. It will warm up somewhat by the reaction, but a little more heat won't hurt. A water bath will get plenty hot. This is eventually going to make a liter, but you can start in a 1/4 liter cup. After the slutty gets a little more fluid, add some warm propylene glycol. You could also use ethylene if you are not worried about pets and kids getting into it. Now you can transfer to a larger container and add 50 grams of pyrocatechol. keep it warm and keep stirring. It will get clear and will stay in solution after it cools. The warming is more to speed up solution than to cause a reaction.

I had though there would be a precipitate of some TEA-sulfate compound, but I havent seen any. I've been using it for a couple of months with no sign of change. The activity is quite surprising, as I had always thought metol and catechol or hydroquinone had to have sulfite for synergism. I have found that metol and ascorbate do not need sulfite, so perhaps the mechanism is much like catalysis. I have read that metallic silver is a catalyst for reduction of silver halides. At any rate, the combination gives high activity, about like the HD I think, and very good tanning and staining. I think the tanning is conducive to sharpness due to the refractive effects of the proportional hardening of the gelatin. Metol, ascorbic acid and catechol are all tanners to some extent.
I didn't really want to spill the beans until Sandy mentioned it because it was his impetus and original work that built the platform. I think if you give it a try, you will find it was worth the effort.
Use it with the potassium carbonate B part about as you would Pyrocat HD for starters. 1:1:100 with semi stand development opens new doors. I have done 35 mm HP5+ and whatever the Arista II 100 is.

The above puts Gainer's formulation of "Pyrocat" MC in Feb. or March '06, ahead of King's Pyrocat-M, and it's quite obvious King had little to contribute, and didn't even know about it until 5-06.

5-11-06


King:

I am grateful to Pat for posting working directions for Pyrocat-MC. The formula is a a result of both Pat's work and ideas, and mine, so think of this as the Gainer/King Pyrocat. It is really a very nice developer, especially for folks looking for low B+F, very high stain, and very high accutance.

And best of all, it is free for the taking.

However, the mixing is a bit complicated so I will be looking to offer this formula in kit form.

Sandy

$$$$$

It seems that the procedure for dissolving metol in glycol went from simple to complicated once King saw the monetary potential of Gainer's developer.



5-12-06

Gainer:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Hamley

"Is the Metol cited in the Pyrocat-MC formula "out of the box" Metol or the converted Metol base as described in Pat's "recipe" post?

Thanks

Steve"


The metol in my version of the formula is out of the box. The TEA and water convert it into the base as you mix it.
__________________
Gadget Gainer


Some people cannot be content to do their own work, and stand by it, but must attack or usurp the work of others. Pathetic.

As I've said, "Pyrocat"-MC is more closely related to Hypercat than to Pyrocat HD. Hypercat was formulated to be made up in glycol without sulfites or bromides, and utilized ascorbic acid in place of sulfites. I didn't know how to dissolve metol in glycol, or I would have preferred that agent to the phenidone in the original Hypercat, and wouldn't have needed to use a restrainer (BZT). The new version of Hypercat contains only catechol and a tiny amount of ascorbic acid, and despite King's claims to the contrary, works beautifully, as does Gainer's developer, which deserves its own name.

David,

here's a formula for a divided catechol developer that works well:


Pextral's Two-bath

A:
1.5 g Pyrocatechol
0.3 g sodium sulfite
Water to 300 ml

B:
6 g sodium hydroxide
Water to 300 ml.

2 minutes in A, 1 minute in B at 20°C.

Thanks to Ole for the above.

Jay

[sanking]

I re-read the apug thread to be sure I hadn't misinterpreted what I had read there previously, and I'm confident that I have not. It is very clear to me that Pat Gainer, after having devised a method for dissolving metol in glycol, formulated the developer known as Pyrocat-MC before King formulated his Pyrocat-M. Here's a timeline of sorts, from that thread. Italics are mine, for clarity.

Jay

You appear to find new ways every day to reveal yourself as the jerk you really are.

What you claim is absolutely false, and if you had bothered to check with Pat Gainer you would know the truth. Well after the Pyrocat-M formula was published Pat and I exchanged some data on the similar role played by sulfite and ascorbic in the pyrocat formulas. They play similar roles and when optimized at the right amount give identical results. Pat felt there might be some advantage to ascorbic since it is easier to mix in glycol than sulfite so he modified the Pyrocat-M formula to use ascorbic rather than sulfite. Since Pyrocat-MC used the Pyrocat-M platform Pat sent me the formula and said, and I quote from his e-mail message of 18 April, "I will not make this formula public. It is mostly your work. If you want to get someone to produce it, like P. F., or just make it public, go ahead." However, I chose to make sure that people knew Pat's involvment in the formula, and acknowledged that fact in a forum on APUG.

Also, Pat himself has noted on APUG that ascorbic and sulfite give similar results in the Pyrocat-M and -MC formulas. In any event, when the amount of sulfite and ascorbic are optimized one gets identical results, and I have tests from curve families that show it.

Bottom line, I should thank you for posting your message. I think it reveals what a truly petty person you really are.

Sandy

[Ron Marshall]

I think there must be some chemical component in the staining developers that tends to bring out the combative side in ones personality.

[sanking]

I think there must be some chemical component in the staining developers that tends to bring out the combative side in ones personality.

Hopefully some people will focus on the merits of what is being said. I understand that the tendency is to lump together everyone who does not "get along" on our forum, but there is a need for responsibility in how others responds to these arguments. Life is not always a 18% gray. There is sometimes truth, and there are are lies.

Sandy

[Ron Marshall]

Sandy, that was meant as a lighthearted comment and not intended to be offensive in anyway. Actually I have learned much from the discussions of the merits of the various staining developers, and I appreciate your efforts.

[sanking]

Sandy, that was meant as a lighthearted comment and not intended to be offensive in anyway. Actually I have learned much from the discussions of the merits of the various staining developers, and I appreciate your efforts.

Ron,

I was responding reactively to another comment on another thread, not yours. The suggestion was that a recent thread made both me and another person, whose name I won't mention, both look bad.

Do people who write stuff like this ever bother to look at the merits of the case? We appear to live in a relativistic world where the premium is on just "getting along" rather than truthfully and honestly dealing with and evaluating differences of opinion.

I hope that I did not offend you, but it is hard to be lighthearted when folks make completely false and scurilious attacks against you. And this is a person I try to ignore completely.

But I can tell you this. If the LF forum administrators do not take steps to tighten up their guidelines about abusive commentary, that is going to change.

Sandy

[David Karp]

Hi David,

Those tests were done about five years ago and the notes and memory are gone. However, I did post some of my results and data at the time on APUG and will see if I can retrieve the information.

Anothre thing, I have a friend in Charlotte whose primary method of developing 8X10 B&W film is with a divided pyrocatechin developer. The formula is very similar to Pyrocat-HD, though he made some adjustments. He claims that this is about as close to a magic bullet for a developer as he has ever seen, and this guy is a real outstanding silver printer who makes real large prints. I will give him a call and see if he is willing to share any information about his technique.

As for the question about the Pyrocat-MC diluted for divided development, there will be no problem with diluting the glycol version with water. Just do it as you would with a water based solution.

BTW, I am going to post a follow-up about the differences between the original Pyrocat-HD that used metol, and the current -MC and -HD versions in the post about Pyrocat-M that I referenced earlier in this thread. I think it more logical to place it there than on the LF forum, plus I have another reason for doing so that I won't mention here in public. In any event, I plan to do that sometime this afternoon or evening so if interested just dial in that thread again.


Sandy

Sandy,

Thanks for your reply, and yes, I would love to hear what your friend is doing with his divided developer. I am interested in this for silver printing as well.

Sorry this thread has devolved.

[David Karp]

here's a formula for a divided catechol developer that works well:

Thanks to Ole for the above.

Jay

Jay (and Ole),

Thanks for the formula.

As regards the rest, I have no horse in this "race." However, if Patrick Gainer and Sandy King are content with their discussion/determination of who is responsible for Pyrocat MC, then why should any of us assume it to be any different than what they say? I can't think of any.

[sanking]

Sandy,

Thanks for your reply, and yes, I would love to hear what your friend is doing with his divided developer. I am interested in this for silver printing as well.

Sorry this thread has devolved.



David,

I will call him this weekend and get back in touch with you by pm as soon as I have some information to share.

And even thought the thread has "devolved," I am very appreciative of your comments and contributions.

Best,

Sandy

[Michael Kadillak]

At times like this I am reminded of an old Cowboy "On The Trail" comment that I hear recently on a trip to my home state of Montana:

"No man is completely worthless if he can still serve as a bad example."

Time to get out and make some photographs....

[Jay DeFehr]

Sandy,

you're so transparent. If Pat sent you his formula on 4-18, why did you write this on 5-10?


King:

Pat Gainer has provided me with some data that may lead to yet another formula, Pyrocat-MC....

It seems the "data" Pat sent was his formula, which he'd already been using for a couple of months, and which you have since claimed as your own.

By the way, I'm well aware of the role of ascorbic acid in TEA/glycol developers as a substitute for sulfite. I'm sure you'd like to forget that we discussed these issues at length before I published my formulae for 510-Pyro and Hypercat over a year ago.

You've never had an original idea in your life, and it shows. Now you can call me a jerk, or something equally imaginative, and go cry to the moderators, you sad little man.

David,

sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who sees King for what he is, and I feel compelled to expose him to the light of day. I get a lot of private emails expressing support, but most people are not willing to bear the abuse King metes out to anyone who dares contradict him. I think it's very funny, and get a huge kick out of his squirming and pissing and moaning, and I understand that it is uncomfortable for others, but someone's got to do it.

Jay

[sanking]

At times like this I am reminded of an old Cowboy "On The Trail" comment that I hear recently on a trip to my home state of Montana:

"No man is completely worthless if he can still serve as a bad example."

Time to get out and make some photographs....


Whooaaa, cowboy!! I an think of at least two persons who fit that description.

What place in the USA is better than Montana? Even better than Sout Caroliana for duels. I especially like the history of hunting in Montana. Now, how does it go? No one has ever been convicted of murder in Montana from discharge of a firearm while out there on the trails?

Next time someone insults me via internet I am going to invite the SOB to a hunting trip in Montana. Hey, we park the car, put on the backpacks and head up into the wildeerness to solve our differnces.

Best,

Sandy

[Jay DeFehr]

Sandy,

Idaho is even more conservative and gun-happy than Montana. Anytime you want to go out shooting, just let me know, I know just the spot.

Jay

[sanking]

sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who sees King for what he is, and I feel compelled to expose him to the light of day. I get a lot of private emails expressing support, but most people are not willing to bear the abuse King metes out to anyone who dares contradict him. I think it's very funny, and get a huge kick out of his squirming and pissing and moaning, and I understand that it is uncomfortable for others, but someone's got to do it.

Jay

Did you tell any of those folks that your know virtually nothing about chemistry, even at the most elementary stage, and that your entire knowledge of developer formulae was acquired by parasitic leeching off others for your knowledge?

Why anyone would wast their time with a charlatan like you is beyond me.


Sandy

[Michael Kadillak]

It is probably time for the moderators to look carefully at this most unfortunate (but completely expected) sequence of events and do the right thing.

We do not need this continuous diatribe of sniping at Sandy by Jay. And if you look at the history of this it is by no means a random event. it happens every time that Sandy posts. It adds nothing to the forum in any way shape or form. Just makes me nausious that someone would continue to feel that they cannot just LET IT GO and get on with their life.

If you cannot adhere to the forum guidlines, stay the course and be respectful at all times then the guilty parties should get a no post penalty. That would solve the problem.

Cheers!

[sanking]

It is probably time for the moderators to look carefully at this most unfortunate (but completely expected) sequence of events and do the right thing.

We do not need this continuous diatribe of sniping at Sandy by Jay. And if you look at the history of this it is by no means a random event. it happens every time that Sandy posts. It adds nothing to the forum in any way shape or form. Just makes me nausious that someone would continue to feel that they cannot just LET IT GO and get on with their life.

If you cannot adhere to the forum guidlines, stay the course and be respectful at all times then the guilty parties should get a no post penalty. That would solve the problem.

Cheers!

Michael,

That is basically where I stand. If the moderators of this forum don't have the guts to stand up to this kind of abuse, I will not post here anymore.

I commend Sean over on APUG for his stance in dealing with miscreants. Until I see some positive response from QT and the modrators on this forum, I am out of here. The LF forum, for lack of moderation, has become more and more like the old rec.photo forums. I quit contributing to rec. photo because of the lack of moderation, and leaving here will be much less a loss.

Enouugh is enough. Anyone who wants to review how this thread "devolved," in the words of another, just start from the beginning.

Sandy

[Michael Kadillak]

Understand completely Sandy. I for one feel that your non-participation in this forum would be a shame that would lower the IQ of the respondant audience considerably.

No reason for me to stick around either. Got much better use for my time than play these $%*& games.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

FAr be it for me to disuade anybody who wants to leave to stay, but, it used to be with the old program you had no choice now you have the wonderful ignore list, USE IT....it works, it is far better than leaving in a huff IMO.....just my 2 cents.

[Ron Marshall]

Understand completely Sandy. I for one feel that your non-participation in this forum would be a shame that would lower the IQ of the respondant audience considerably.


I feel the same. You have frequently kindly contributed your time and expertise. I for one appreciate that and have benefited from your contribution.

It is acceptable to contradict, based on a sound argument, what someone has said. However nothing is accomplished by attacks on someones character.

I hope in future that the moderators prohibit negative personal comments.

[sanking]

FAr be it for me to disuade anybody who wants to leave to stay, but, it used to be with the old program you had no choice now you have the wonderful ignore list, USE IT....it works, it is far better than leaving in a huff IMO.....just my 2 cents.


Hi Jorge,

It is not in a huff that I leave. To the contrary, I have made my position very clear to QT and the moderators, from several weeks ago, and I don't see QT or any of the moderators stepping up to the plate to stop the abuse.

Bottom line for me is this this. Persons with real knowledge should not give it away to forums that do not respect, value and protect their contributions. And respect from the forum adminstrators does not mean just sitting back and allowing nasty exchanges.

On APUG, yes, we get disciplined, but in the end Sean is a person of integrity and cuts through the BS. Hope to see you back there, and if not, in Oaxaca or Queretaro, or somewhere else in Miexico.


Best,

Sandy

[lee\c]

It is probably time for the moderators to look carefully at this most unfortunate (but completely expected) sequence of events and do the right thing.

We do not need this continuous diatribe of sniping at Sandy by Jay. And if you look at the history of this it is by no means a random event. it happens every time that Sandy posts. It adds nothing to the forum in any way shape or form. Just makes me nausious that someone would continue to feel that they cannot just LET IT GO and get on with their life.

If you cannot adhere to the forum guidlines, stay the course and be respectful at all times then the guilty parties should get a no post penalty. That would solve the problem.

Cheers!

Agreed

lee\c

[Jay DeFehr]

Did you tell any of those folks that your know virtually nothing about chemistry, even at the most elementary stage, and that your entire knowledge of developer formulae was acquired by parasitic leeching off others for your knowledge?


So nasty for a person of such integrity and decorum. The high road just too high for you? What is your chemistry background again? Unlike yourself, I've never pretended to be anything but what I am. I am not a chemist and have relied on what I've been able to read in books and on the web for enough understanding of basic chemistry to formulate my developers. This is not news to anyone who has been paying attention, and I've certainly never claimed otherwise, and I've never claimed credit for others' work. If only you could say the same. Your developers are becoming more and more like mine every day; it must really irk you to follow in my footsteps. Your childish tantrums and ultimatum to the moderators is hypocritical and revealing. You think your such a fount of knowledge that you can threaten to leave when disgeed with, and the moderators will tremble at the thought and banish any dissenters. I think this would be a far better place without you. Anyone who can read can see that you're the one calling names and crying like a spoiled brat because you've been exposed for what you are. I hope the moderators take your advice and send you packing, and you and Kadillak can live happily ever after.

Jay

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I am not taking sides, my only concern is that if that one member demands that another one be banned, when is it going to end? And why should you or anybody in this forum place the moderators in the position of having to choose.

For example, you and I have both participated in flame wars with Simmons, what if Simmons writes to QT and tells him "Look, I am the publisher of a respected LF magazine, I have been publishing it for many years and I think I deserve the respect my knowledge and experience are due, if Jorge and Sandy are not banned I will not come back to the forum!" Granted, Simmons "gives away" little knowledge, but in essence this would be the same position you are taking. Why force the moderators to choose who is more "valuable" when with two simple clicks and a few key strokes you can ignore the guy you dislike and move on?

In the end, and with all due respect to you, if you let someone else dictate what forums you are going to visit, then IMO you are the one who is being foolish, in the end, the other guy "ran" you out...no?

PS. Since you mentioned, I have been banned from APUG so I a sure I will never see you there in the future, but you are welcome to send me a PM when you come back to Mexico and I will gladly meet you in Oaxaca or any other place.


Hi Jorge,

It is not in a huff that I leave. To the contrary, I have made my position very clear to QT and the moderators, from several weeks ago, and I don't see QT or any of the moderators stepping up to the plate to stop the abuse.

Bottom line for me is this this. Persons with real knowledge should not give it away to forums that do not respect, value and protect their contributions. And respect from the forum adminstrators does not mean just sitting back and allowing nasty exchanges.

On APUG, yes, we get disciplined, but in the end Sean is a person of integrity and cuts through the BS. Hope to see you back there, and if not, in Oaxaca or Queretaro, or somewhere else in Miexico.


Best,

Sandy

[sanking]

In the end, and with all due respect to you, if you let someone else dictate what forums you are going to visit, then IMO you are the one who is being foolish, in the end, the other guy "ran" you out...no?



One way to look at this is that the thread has drawn attention to just how good the Pyrocat-MC formula really is. It is simply an outstanding developr: low B+F, very high intensity stain in the highlights, high acutance, and it delivers full emulsion speed. It also shares with Pyrocat-HD the characteristic of a very great difference between stain density as read in Blue mode density and in UV mode, which makes both of these developers so good for dual purpose negatives, i.e that can be used with both silver and Pt./Pd. And the difference between Visual reading and UV reading is greater by far than any other pyrocatechin based developer. In fact, the difference is actuall greater than what my files on hand show for pyrogallol based developers. For example, just including Step 1 and Step 21 densities, the reading for a negative that received 10 minutes of development in rotary processing shows V = 0.8 (Step1) and 1.72 (Step 21), B = .10 - 2.08, and UV = .31 - 2.87. And this is a film that does not develop as much stain as some.

So if you using any other pyro staining developer, either one of mine or another one, you might really want to consider trying Pyrocat-MC and see how it compares.

Sandy

[Jay DeFehr]

Gainer's developer is very good; no argument there. It's not quite as sharp or easy to mix as Hypercat, but very good, and I would expect no less from Pat.

Jay

[Michael Kadillak]

I think this would be a far better place without you.

Well, you have accomplished your narrow minded objective on behalf of all of the participants. Sandy is no longer an active participant on this forum. You can find him at APUG where Sean has taken the appropriate actions to eliminate this unwanted distraction.

[Jay DeFehr]

I think Sandy and apug are a good fit, and I hope they're happy together.

Jay

[Gary Samson]

Well, this turn of events is really a shame. Sandy's decision not to contribute to this forum any longer because of Jay De Fehr's behavior is completly understandable, but it is a great loss to the rest of us who have learned so much from Sandy's research and work. I will look forward to Sandy's posts on APUG and I hope this issue will be resolved shortly so that Mr. King will feel welcome here at the Large Format Forum again.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi there,

Personally I do not care but I do want to get something straight here:

It's perfectly acceptable for Sandy to bust Steve Simmons' stones, basically over PMK v PyrocatHD (both sold by PF).

It's perfectly acceptable for Sandy & Jorge to tag-team Steve.

It's perfectly acceptable to drop this bag of trash on Q.T. and the moderators.

It's NOT acceptable for Jay to call Sandy on Pyrocat MC.

Does anyone want to explain this? Please use small words because I'm really, truly stupid.