Extended Tonal Range Development: Pyro[cat] vs Pota vs Paterson FX39

[RJ-]

Hi there,

well it's 3am here and I'm almost done working with the high definition Paterson FX39 developer down to homeopathic dilutions with Fuji Acros sheet film.

One aspect of Paterson FX39 which I love is its tonality when diluted from 1:14 - 1:56 below the manufacturer's recommended concentrations, approaching semi-stand development.

Noticing that I have been tending towards hydroquinone as well as metol developers for most extended range development (although the grain is still there), I realise that I've barely touched phenidone based or pyro-based techniques for over a year.

Possibly because of a silver gelatin work flow, I've not found room to include pyro-[catechol] techniques. Whereas with POTA developers, for lith and high contrast film, the emphasis on grain suppression seems to force a trade off with respect to extended tonal range. The literature on POTAs seems to indicate (fleeting) interest in these phenidone based developers for some of the more novel ultra slow speed film currently available [Gigabit, Spur, Copex, Tech Pan] although it is harder to find any literature on the use of such developers in suppressing grain and extending the tonal range of more conventional film rated at an E.I. of 80-125 during the development phase. Most of the developer's recommendations seem to indicate ultra-fine grain or document film as the intended film. On the other hand pyro-[catechol] substitution as a developer is much older as a technique and seems to favour tonal range, despite its more recent application for developing micro- and document film, although at the expense of a possibly more noticeable grain structure in the negative.

I wonder if anyone who has used the three developers (not all at once) could offer any suggestions on their findings with respect to the negatives for silver gelatin printing.

Thanks for any suggestions.

Kind regards,

RJ

[sanking]

On the other hand pyro-[catechol] substitution as a developer is much older as a technique and seems to favour tonal range, despite its more recent application for developing micro- and document film, although at the expense of a possibly more noticeable grain structure in the negative.

Kind regards,

RJ

I have used Rollei Pan25 with Pyrocat-HD at a dilution of 1:1:200. Development for 10 minutes with rotary development gave a nice looking negative that scanned very well, with great sharpness and almost no grain. EFS was about 15-20. I plan to run some tests soon with reduced agitation in an effort to get full box speed.

Sandy King

[RJ-]

Thank you for your thoughts Sandy.

Which factor are you luping the Pan25 negatives in Pyrocat? At 10x magnification there is, or I visualise, grain in 5x4" Fuji Acros with the above combination.

Are you finding any advantages to reducing the molar concentration of sodium metaborate on the development of the negative using a Pyro[catechol] technique? In some respects, perhaps I'm finding myself favouring a move back to the traditional pyrogallol [PMK] as an option which makes more sense for extending the tonal range, beyond the gains of the Pyro[catechol] techniques we're aware of. (The management of the chemical instability and toxicity isn't a sufficient deterrent.)

I guess you'd be the most suitable person to ask, having authored the article which I have need to reference in the past:

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/pcat.html

Thank you too for making your work available on the public domain.

Kind regards,

RJ

[sanking]

RJ,

Pyrocat, and most catechol developers, use sodium or potassium carbonate, (or TSP or one of the hydroxides), not sodium metaborate. PMK uses metaboate.

My work with the combination of Pyrocat-HD and these types o films is fairly limited, and quite recent in nature, so you don't want to put too much into my advice as this time. I plan to do more experiments, however. But results appear to me to be as good as with the slow speed developer Rollei sells for this film. But I am basing my opinion purely on the appearance of grain and sharpness as scanned, not on wet processing.

Sandy King




Thank you for your thoughts Sandy.

Which factor are you luping the Pan25 negatives in Pyrocat? At 10x magnification there is, or I visualise, grain in 5x4" Fuji Acros with the above combination.

Are you finding any advantages to reducing the molar concentration of sodium metaborate on the development of the negative using a Pyro[catechol] technique? In some respects, perhaps I'm finding myself favouring a move back to the traditional pyrogallol [PMK] as an option which makes more sense for extending the tonal range, beyond the gains of the Pyro[catechol] techniques we're aware of. (The management of the chemical instability and toxicity isn't a sufficient deterrent.)

I guess you'd be the most suitable person to ask, having authored the article which I have need to reference in the past:

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/pcat.html

Thank you too for making your work available on the public domain.

Kind regards,

RJ

[RJ-]

Thanks Sandy - that would make sense (in explaining pyrogallol's chemical instability, but not pyro[catechol]).

I've not found much data on development technique for extending tonal range aside from Hutching's own book and 1977 literature on 'bomb photography' detailing the advent of POTAs and the more recent microfilm/document processing techniques. Perhaps it isn't an area anyone has explored very well despite the refinement to POTA developers and the renaissance of interest in Pyro techniques, courtesy of Hutchings.

If the Pyro[catechol] technique compares well to the tonal range elicited from the RLC developer (which I use for R3), then I'll look into it.

Kind regards,

RJ

[sanking]

RJ,

Do you have a copy of The Film Developing Cookbook by Stephen Anchell and Bill Troop. There is a chapter in there on developers for high contrast document type films.

Also, at www.unblinkingeye.com there are some developer recommendations for TechPan.

Sandy King



Thanks Sandy - that would make sense (in explaining pyrogallol's chemical instability, but not pyro[catechol]).

I've not found much data on development technique for extending tonal range aside from Hutching's own book and 1977 literature on 'bomb photography' detailing the advent of POTAs and the more recent microfilm/document processing techniques. Perhaps it isn't an area anyone has explored very well despite the refinement to POTA developers and the renaissance of interest in Pyro techniques, courtesy of Hutchings.

If the Pyro[catechol] technique compares well to the tonal range elicited from the RLC developer (which I use for R3), then I'll look into it.

Kind regards,

RJ

[RJ-]

Thank you Sandy.

I have Anchell & Troops' book as well as the reference link.

However I think I've learnt more from the synopsis given in your own account of the history of Pyro-techniques in terms of extending tonal range. The other information sources point towards grain suppression/reduction without a bias towards pictorial representation of tonal scales.

Perhaps I'm finding it slightly ironic that 156 years after Pyrogallol techniques were described, modern high dilution semi-stand development and POTA modification of developers seem to illuminate negatives less brilliantly than the old-fashioned pyrogallol.

Kind regards,

RJ

[steve simmons]

Sometimes the old is best. Staining developers offer many advantages according to those of us who use them. It is not always possible to quantify these advantages with a densitometer but they can show up in the print.

As another tool, you might want to think about Ansco 130 as a print developer. When used to develop a print from a negative developed in a staining developer the scale can be very long and delicate, especially in the high values.

steve simmons

[RJ-]

Hi Steve,

Thank you for the encouraging thoughts. I'm certainly finding my densitometer less and less used.

I see you're already on this [glycin] trail which I'm following or uncovering:

http://www.jackspcs.com/glycindv.htm

Kind regards,

RJ

[RJ-]

Well it's 3am again and 10 years later.

Kodak HIE now well and truly dead for longer presenting with fog problems which I've resorted to altering development to resolve. Glycin and other chemicals are just as hard to source now in the UK and even Phenidone is tripled. I wonder if anyone else has found an effective and affordable restrainer?

Test from a 35mm roll of HIE (expired 2004), shot on a pre-war Contax II rangefinder this weekend [2018] - northern hemisphere and definitely not sunny f16 conditions. I'm a little stunned that a nominal ISO 800 film with uncertain storage history is still salvageable. Film is just incredible.

177275


Kind regards,

RJ