Strange Negs with Pyrocat MC

[Eric Biggerstaff]

So, I just finished a batch of negs from my recent trip to Yosemite which were developed in Pyrocat MC.

When I pulled the negs from the Jobo, the image looked like a positive as opposed to a negative! That is strange.

I am pretty new to this developer and mixed it according to the directions at 1+1+100. I used distilled water.

I will probably not develop the remaining negatives in this developer as I am pretty nervous at this point, don't want to lose anymore.

Anyone have an idea of what is going on?

[steve simmons]

try proofing them and see what you get before making any decisions or processing any more.

steve simmons

[Michael Kadillak]

So, I just finished a batch of negs from my recent trip to Yosemite which were developed in Pyrocat MC.

When I pulled the negs from the Jobo, the image looked like a positive as opposed to a negative! That is strange.

I am pretty new to this developer and mixed it according to the directions at 1+1+100. I used distilled water.

I will probably not develop the remaining negatives in this developer as I am pretty nervous at this point, don't want to lose anymore.

Anyone have an idea of what is going on?

At the risk of asking the obvious, are you sure that you are processing negatives and not transparencies? Is the film notch correct?

I have seen thin and dense and mottled and banded and many strange things between these ends but never a positive image from negative materials. Maybe Sandy can chime in.

I would go back to D76 or Xtol (or your regular developer) with these negatives.

I have always had good luck with Pyrocat. Did you mix this from scratch or from a kit?

Cheers!

[sanking]

Eric,

You may have under-exposed the negatives . If so, they might look like positives if viewed under certain light.

There is always a chance that something is wrong with the developer, but in my experience underexposure is the most common reason that a negative will look like a positive.


Sandy King

[John Berry]

I was thinking along the lines of Sandy, but noticed the effect when looking at the neg and a dark background.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Well, thanks.

The film is FP4, should of said that. It may be underexposure - geeeeeze! Very strange indeed. These were all 5X7, I had developed a few runs of 4X5 and all seemed just fine - so perhaps I messed up the exposure as Sandy indicates. Oh, the developer is the pre-mixed version in glycol that is sold via Photographers Formulary.

As Steve noted, I will proof these tomorrow and see what they look like.

Thanks all.

[Merg Ross]

Hi Eric,

As Sandy suggested, you may be looking at a "thin" negative (underexposed). They seem to reverse against a dark background. There is, however, a good chance that you will be able to get an acceptable print. I hope that will be the case, let us know.

Good to hear that you are out with the camera. I did, by the way, enjoy your recent article in View Camera.

All best,
Merg

[N Dhananjay]

I'm inclined to agree that this is a case of the reversal being the result of viewing the neg under a certain light at a certain angle. Specifically, if you place the neg on a dark surface and shine a light at an oblique angle on it, you can see a reversed image (i.e., a positive). This results from the fact that silver actually reflects light and the more heavy the deposit of silver, the greater the reflectance. The dark background helps by making underexposed areas look dark (by letting the light pass through to the dark background). Thus, it is easier to see this with underexposed negs. I would proof the negs first before deciding anything else. Cheers, DJ

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Thanks everyone.

Well, as luck would have it I always make a second negative of each scene when I am out. So, today I developed the second set of negs using Rodinal diluted 1+50. Guessing that I under exposed the negs, I added a little time to my standard time for Normal development.

So, when I removed the negs from the Jobo drum, guess what - I had nice, fully exposed and developed images on the film. In fact, they were a little over developed!

I have another batch of negs running right now and I am using the Pyrocat MC on these, if they are also see through then I will guess it is the developer (which I hope it is not as I really like the Pyrocat MC). If these come out fine, then I will still develope the second set on the Rodinal just to see what the difference is when I print them.

Thanks again everyone.

[Michael Kadillak]

Thanks everyone.

Well, as luck would have it I always make a second negative of each scene when I am out. So, today I developed the second set of negs using Rodinal diluted 1+50. Guessing that I under exposed the negs, I added a little time to my standard time for Normal development.

So, when I removed the negs from the Jobo drum, guess what - I had nice, fully exposed and developed images on the film. In fact, they were a little over developed!

I have another batch of negs running right now and I am using the Pyrocat MC on these, if they are also see through then I will guess it is the developer (which I hope it is not as I really like the Pyrocat MC). If these come out fine, then I will still develope the second set on the Rodinal just to see what the difference is when I print them.

Thanks again everyone.

That is great Eric.

I have a load of pyrocat bulk chemicals so if you want to mix up a batch come on over and we can knock it out in short order. I am close to Parker Road and Arapahoe. Great stuff.

Cheers!

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Michael,

Thanks for the kind offer, I might take you up on it but with negs that we can use for testing.

I just completed two more runs, one set with Pyrocat and the duplicate set with Rodinal. Again, the Pyrocat was thin (not as thin as before however) and the Rodinal were robust with lots of detail.

I think I will stay with the Rodinal for these negs and do some additional testing with the Pyrocat. I REALLY like the Pyrocat as the images are easy to print when developed correctly. I have been using the product for a couple of months and have had excellent results with it, so something is not working right. Maybe the developer just doesn't like my work! Sort of a built in self editing feature! :-)

Anyway, thanks to everyone for the advice and help.

Have a great day and week and month!

Eric

[evan clarke]

Thanks everyone.

Well, as luck would have it I always make a second negative of each scene when I am out. So, today I developed the second set of negs using Rodinal diluted 1+50. Guessing that I under exposed the negs, I added a little time to my standard time for Normal development.

So, when I removed the negs from the Jobo drum, guess what - I had nice, fully exposed and developed images on the film. In fact, they were a little over developed!

I have another batch of negs running right now and I am using the Pyrocat MC on these, if they are also see through then I will guess it is the developer (which I hope it is not as I really like the Pyrocat MC). If these come out fine, then I will still develope the second set on the Rodinal just to see what the difference is when I print them.

Thanks again everyone.

I have had thin negs twice with MC when developing a second drum in the same session. I think my drums and machine were not adequately purged of alkaline fixer (TF4) and that is what knocked the development down..Evan Clarke

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Evan,

Thanks, I will scrub out the drum better and try again. I use Clayton Archival Fixer but probably I need to wash it better. If this works I will post the results.

Eruc

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Are you washing the film in the drums as well? This is what I do with my negs and never had any problem with PC.

[evan clarke]

Are you washing the film in the drums as well? This is what I do with my negs and never had any problem with PC.

I give mine a little wash in the drum but remove to a film washer. It's such a dilute developer that I think it could be sensitive to contamination...EC

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I do wash the film in the drum and then rinse the drum out as well, but I went and gave it a very good cleaning and will run a batch through it tonight, keeping my fingers crossed of course.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Did you buy the PMC made or did you make it? I seem to recall someone, somehwere getting thin negatives and it turned out they did not add enough Metol to the mix, it requires a lot more than regular Pyrocat, which has only .2 gr per 100 ml of phenidone.

[Mike Castles]

Not sure if it helps much, but have had really thin negatives with FP4+ using the 1+1+100 - never figured out why though. Change the dilution to 2+2+100, and it seemed to solve the issue. I know there are folks that use the same combo and have no issue, only thing I can think of is maybe the water (but then I use tap water to mix the working stock). Oh, and I use Besler drums on a motor base.

Go figure.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Jorge,

I bought the pre-mixed kit in glycol from the Formulary, so not sure what is going on.

Mike - I might try the 2+2+100 mix and see what happens. I use distilled water to mix. I am a little nervous as I don't want to ruin any additional negs but we will see.

Thanks,

[Ken Lee]

Just try some test negatives. Don't waste any good ones.

[steve simmons]

Eric

really, before you do anythng else proof the first set:)

They might be awful but then again.....

Looking at a stained negative the first time can create some concern because they are different. What really matters is the print.

steve simmons

[sanking]

I give mine a little wash in the drum but remove to a film washer. It's such a dilute developer that I think it could be sensitive to contamination...EC

Evan is correct. The Pyrocat working solution is especially sensitive to any contamination that lowers the pH. The energy of the working solution will be significantly lowered if contamined with any solution that is acidic. Even small amounts of acidic solution added to the working solution could drop the pH of the working solutoin to 9.0 or less. That would slow down the developing action by a lot.

Given the information I have learned so far in this thread this would be my first suspect.

Sandy King

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Thanks again everyone.

Steve - The first batch were so thin that they are almost clear, I mean REALLY thin. The duplicate set developed in Rodinal were fine.

Sandy - That may be it. I have cleaned the drum very well and will try again, but only with some test negs. The remaining negs from this trip will go though Rodinal.

This was the first time I had any failures and the developer is great (usually). I don't want to stop using it, just need to figure out the problem and fix it.

Thanks again.

[scott_6029]

It may very well be contamination. This happened to me and they were VERY thin. If you pour A into a beaker then into the larger mixing beaker, then B into the smaller beaker, but overfill and pour remaining into B (with some leftover of A, if you didn't rinse the smaller beaker....)...then you will have problems? I think this is what I did to contaminate the solutions. At any rate they were extremely thin. Since then I have never had a problem like this as I am very careful about contamination.

[sanking]

Thanks again everyone.

Steve - The first batch were so thin that they are almost clear, I mean REALLY thin. The duplicate set developed in Rodinal were fine.

Sandy - That may be it. I have cleaned the drum very well and will try again, but only with some test negs. The remaining negs from this trip will go though Rodinal.

This was the first time I had any failures and the developer is great (usually). I don't want to stop using it, just need to figure out the problem and fix it.

Thanks again.


Eric,

The developer itself, mixed in glycol, has a shelf life of many years. Since it worked well for you recently, it should work well now unless somehow it has been contaminated. In other words, it will not go bad on its own.

One possibility is that the working solution was contaminated. I think that would be entirely feasible with Jobo.

Another possibility, and the least attractive one, is that the stock solutions themselves have been contaminated, as might happen for example if you accidentally pour Stock A into Stock B, or vice-versa. In the past the Pyrocat kits were mixed in water, and contamination resulted in very rapid break down of the stock solution. This still happens with the glycol kit, but more slowly. This situation is not unique to Pyrocat, rather it is common to all two-part pyro staining developers (PMK, Rollo Pyro, WD2D, etc.).

I definitely would not risk any more important negatives until the cause of the problem has been identified. There is definitely something very wrong if you are getting thinner negatives with Pyrocat than with Rodinal. In my own tests of these two developers Pyrocat gives at least as much film speed as Rodinal, if not slightly more.


Sandy

[evan clarke]

The two instances of thin negatives I had were when I developed more than 1 Jobo drum in a session. The second drums were dry and clean but I only gave the chute a couple rinses. My PCMC/glycol is over a year old and works wonderfully. I am rating TMY and TMY2 at 320 and seem to get a minute increase in density for the same exact exposure with the TMY2. I always expose 2 sheets of the same photograph and now 1 holder each of TMY and TMY2. I was not scuttled by the thin negs!!..EC

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Thanks again everyone.

So, today I did a test and made a couple of exposures on FP4+ in 5X7 around my backyard.

I cleaned my tank and measuring containers then used my normal routine. I did a pre-soak of 5 minutes, followed by the developer which was mixed at 1+1+100 in distilled water, then the stop, fix and hypo clear followed by a wash. Also, prior to mixing the Pyrocat I shook the bottles just to make sure all was mixed. Lastly, I only measure out enough solution A as needed and after adding that to the water, I wash the measuring cup then measure out soluiton B. I never pour anything back into the bottles.

I then processed the duplicate negative in Rodinal. I use Rodinal at 1+50 and just use normal tap water.

Here again, the Pyrocat negs looked far to thin as compared to the Rodinal. I have been using Pyrocat MC for the past few months and had nothing but success so I think I know what I am looking for. The Pyrocat I am using is the exact same as in previous months, I have not purchased any new. Also, I am using 1000 ml per run in the Jobo 3010 drum which in the past has been fine.

Also, what is strange is that when I developed the 4X5 FP4+ negs from the same trip in the Pyrocat, they came out perfect. Then once I moved up to the 5X7 film I started having failure. As I mentioned, I have been using Pyrocat MC for a few months for roll film, 4X5 and 5X7 and have not had any problems. Perhaps this is a film issue?

At this point I think I am going to toss out the remaining 1/2 full bottles of the developer and get some fresh from Photographers Formulary. I don't want to leave the impression to anyone who might read this that Pyrocat MC is not a quality developer, it is and I really like it. I just think that something has happened to one of these solutions (or perhaps it is a film issue?) and I want to get some fresh.

Thanks again to everyone. As always, it has been a great learning experience and the members of this forum have been a tremendous help.

Eric

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Do you always do a pre wash before the developer step? I have found I don't need it with my Jobo. This might be the step that is introducing the error, before you throw the developer away why don't you try a test without the pre wash. Another item you have not mentioned is the amount of developer you are using. Are you perhaps using too little and exhausting the developer before it has a chance to fully develop your film. I use at least 500ml of developer per sheet when I am doing expansion, I can get away with 3 sheets in the drum if all I am doing is contraction.

Since your negs developed in rodinal are fine I guess you can rule out shutter or aperture error.

[Marko]

Here again, the Pyrocat negs looked far to thin as compared to the Rodinal. I have been using Pyrocat MC for the past few months and had nothing but success so I think I know what I am looking for. The Pyrocat I am using is the exact same as in previous months, I have not purchased any new. Also, I am using 1000 ml per run in the Jobo 3010 drum which in the past has been fine.

Also, what is strange is that when I developed the 4X5 FP4+ negs from the same trip in the Pyrocat, they came out perfect. Then once I moved up to the 5X7 film I started having failure. As I mentioned, I have been using Pyrocat MC for a few months for roll film, 4X5 and 5X7 and have not had any problems. Perhaps this is a film issue?

Eric, please excuse the obvious questions, but why don't you test the same developer with 4x5 again? Also, how many sheets do you develop per run in either format?

What you just described makes me think that the amount of developing agent in 1000ml of your solution may be sufficient for 4x5 but not for 5x7?

Another thing to try would be to develop fewer 5x7 sheets in the same volume.

[Jan Pedersen]

P-Cat MC has been my main developer for the last 2 years and from what i know, lack of developer is not the problem here.
1000 ml should be plenty for two sheets of 5x7 I dev 3 sheets of 8x10 in 700ml 1+1+100 in a 3005 although not FP4 but TMY, Foma and Delta 100. FP4 should not require more dev than any of those 3
It would be interesting to know if 2+2+100 with a 30-35 % reduction of time would change your negatives

[sanking]

P-Cat MC has been my main developer for the last 2 years and from what i know, lack of developer is not the problem here.
1000 ml should be plenty for two sheets of 5x7 I dev 3 sheets of 8x10 in 700ml 1+1+100 in a 3005 although not FP4 but TMY, Foma and Delta 100. FP4 should not require more dev than any of those 3
It would be interesting to know if 2+2+100 with a 30-35 % reduction of time would change your negatives

I agree with Jan. Two sheets of 5X7 in one liter of working solution gives far more developer than necessary. The development times I suggest for rotary processing with Pyrocat-MC are based on rotary processing and the use of 125ml of solution using the 1:1:100 dilution. That is, 10ml of Stock A + 10ml of Stock B with one liter of water.


Sandy King

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I agree with Jan. Two sheets of 5X7 in one liter of working solution gives far more developer than necessary. The development times I suggest for rotary processing with Pyrocat-MC are based on rotary processing and the use of 125ml of solution using the 1:1:100 dilution. That is, 10ml of Stock A + 10ml of Stock B with one liter of water.


Sandy King

That is the question, is Eric doing 2 sheets in one liter? What if he using 200ml per sheet at a 1+1+100 dilution. I don't think he has mention the volumes he is using. It is the only other reason I can think of that would give these results, specially if he is doing 8 to 10 minute runs where the developer might exhaust by aerial oxidation.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

hey guys, thanks for the input.

I normally develop 10 sheets of 4X5 or 5 sheets of 5X7 in the 3010 using 1000ml at 1+1+100. It always worked in the past so not sure why it is not now.

I think I might take Jorge's advice and do another test run with more developer, maybe 1,500 ml in the 3010 for 5 sheets of 5X7. Now, I did a run earlier with only 3 sheets of 5X7 and they were still thin, but not horrible, so perhaps I simply need to increase the amount of developer in the drum.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

hey guys, thanks for the input.

I normally develop 10 sheets of 4X5 or 5 sheets of 5X7 in the 3010 using 1000ml at 1+1+100. It always worked in the past so not sure why it is not now.

I think I might take Jorge's advice and do another test run with more developer, maybe 1,500 ml in the 3010 for 5 sheets of 5X7. Now, I did a run earlier with only 3 sheets of 5X7 and they were still thin, but not horrible, so perhaps I simply need to increase the amount of developer in the drum.

Eric, as I understand it the Jobos are designed to run with 1 liter max in the drums, if you put more you run the risk of overloading the motor. I would just go with 2 or 3 sheets and 1 liter, this should be enough.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Thanks Jorge.

I run the drum on a Besler base, but still probably best to stick with the liter and just develop 3 sheets at a time as you suggest.

I am going to do some testing next week when I have more time. I need to nail this down as I want to continue using this fine developer.