PDA

View Full Version : Pyrocat HD Failure Images



Andre Noble
22-Sep-2009, 09:03
Hello, here are the images from my recent rendezvous with Pyrocat HD. As you can see, some failed spectacularly others less so.
(See http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=53770)

I ran six runs of this in a Jobo Expert 3010 and 3006 drums. The first two images below represent various degrees of failure I had on three of the six runs.

The third image shows a run which came out too thin.

The fourth image represents the runs which turned out properly.

FYI, the light box these were photographed on has only one internal bulb down the middle, so on the failed runs it appears to be uneven development of those sheets.

Andre Noble
22-Sep-2009, 09:07
Two more examples of Pyrocat HD runs that turned out properly (although I am not sure of the top two images from the first lightbox on the left - contrast is too high?)

Michael Kadillak
22-Sep-2009, 09:33
We believed you when you stated that you had failures.

Purchase packaged one shot developers from Ilford or Kodak and get back to work and put this fiasco in the rear view mirror.

It would be terrible to have such a marvelous developer tarnished by an anomalous experience. If you were in Colorado I would have you come over and I absolutely guarantee that we would quickly resolve this mess once and for all.

Onward!

Andre Noble
22-Sep-2009, 09:36
No Michael, the developer tarnished my marvelous images.

Jim Michael
22-Sep-2009, 10:20
No, your procedures were at fault. I've read your posts in your other thread. Contamination is likely at fault as others have suggested. I use Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 with a distilled water stop as you described in one of your posts. I get consistently good results. I wash my equipment thoroughly after each batch is processed.

eddie
22-Sep-2009, 10:37
how do we know it is not a shutter issue? maybe it is sticking every other shot? have you tried a different shutter?

i mix my own pyro HD. no issues for me.

Don Hutton
22-Sep-2009, 10:44
One other thought - are you using enough developer for each run - how many sheets are you trying to process in how much solution?

Bjorn Nilsson
22-Sep-2009, 12:16
I've been using Pyrocat HD for some 3 years now, without failures. (I.e. without developing failures. :) ) It's in my mind a great developer for most purposes. One thing that almost all pyro/catheine developers have in common is that they are used very diluted which renders them very sensitive to contamination. While I'm not the most precise and careful darkroom worker, I do use separate syringes for the A and B parts, which are carefully rinsed after use. I do rinse my Jobo drums an extra time et cetera and so forth. As this have become routine, it doesn't take much time.
I've done darkroom work for some 35 years now and I do believe I've made almost all of the mistakes which can be done. I just wish I could say that there was something wrong with the film/developer/fixer/paper/... but each and every time all I could find was some s__t behind the steering wheel.
We all do understand that you are quite upset with your results. I would probably utter a few /&¤%#"&% too if it happened to me. If you read carefully, you will find that some of the best experts around are trying to help you spot and pinpoint the source of the problem, so you're in good hands. Trust me in the fact that the solution isn't another exotic/exoteric developer, but rather to calm down and to sort out your developing routines.

//Björn

Jeremy Moore
22-Sep-2009, 12:26
Did you take all of the example shots using the same shutter/aperture/iso on whatever camera you took them with? (the shots of the negatives on the light table)

Just taking your example images into photoshop and inverting shows, to my eye, that you are underexposing. When I look at Failure1 against Good1 the biggest difference is the lack of exposure in Failure 1 vs. Good 1.

edit: I took your images into Adobe Camera Raw and just moved the exposure slider and after adjusting it 2 stops Failure1 started to look like Good1.

For example, on "Good2_Questionable", you state:
(although I am not sure of the top two images from the first lightbox on the left - contrast is too high?)

The contrast isn't too high, there just isn't enough exposure into the shadows compared to the 2 negatives below--I'm assuming these were developed in the same batch.

John Bowen
22-Sep-2009, 13:02
I've used Pyrocat HD with TMY EXCLUSIVELY for the past 4 years. Developed nearly 1,000 8 x 10 and 200 7x17 negatives during that time. I've NEVER had a developer failure. My 1st experience was purchased from the Formulary as a pre-mixed kit. After that I mixed my own in Glycol.

I use distilled H20 for the Presoak, I dilute the Pyrocat with distilled H2O, I use TF-4 (mixed with distilled water) for my Fix and have never had an issue. I develop in trays and the trays are marked so that the same tray is used for the same step EVERY TIME.

If you are getting 3 failures out of 6 attempts, then it CAN'T BE THE DEVELOPER and it shouldn't be your water. Developer can't be bad on run 1, good on run 2, then bad, then good etc.

I believe your failures are due to sloppy darkroom habits. Since some of your runs turn out as expected the Developer bottles can't be contaminated. I would suggest you examine your measurung tools, your mixing graduates and the Jobo Drum as your source of contamination.

Are you sure you are using the developer 1 shot?

Once you've determined the source of your contamination I would suggest you make a public apology to Sandy King.

Good luck in your quest to squelch your demons

IanG
22-Sep-2009, 13:50
A quick search of this forum shows you've been whinging about Pyrocat for 5 years now.

The fact that you can show negatives that in your estimation are fine shows quite clearly that there's nothing wrong with the developer per se.

The fact that many well known photographers and thousands of others use the developer day in day out would indicate that as the developer itself is fine it's your technique.

A quick glance at the negatives you've scanned show exposures that appear wildly off, my gut feeling is your not remotely close to an optimum EI and development time.

Poor workmen blame their tools, or in this case the developer. I think you need to look much closer at other aspects of your exposure & development techniques.

I'd suggest finding someone who lives near you to work alongside and learn from, help you clear up these issue.

Ian

IanG
22-Sep-2009, 14:05
I'll go further and make you an offer:

You fly out here for a week (accomadation and food is extremely cheap) and I'll personally run you through using Pyrocat HD in a variety of situations and I'll make images alongside you, I know my negs will be fine.

I'll add that I've just returned from showing around 60 images to a couple who collect photography and every image was made in the last 12 months with a variety of films but all developed in Pyrocat HD, they are now deciding which 2 possibly 3 images to buy.

Ian

Andre Noble
22-Sep-2009, 14:15
IanG, My EI for FP4+ of 32 is admittedly likely too high by one stop.

I have returned from a three year hiatus in photography, so I have been whinning about pyrocat HD for two years, not five.

It was my whinning that prompted Mr. king and others to press PF to make their Pyrocat kits in glycol, by the way. I talked to PF last week, and they mentioned they now sell many more of the glycol based kits than their water based kits of pyrocat.

I feel no apology is needed. I criticized the developer and many have justifiably criticized my technique in return.

It's helping me to become a better photographer, fine. If it's bringing to mention that this developer is very finicky as to oxidation, contamination, and capacity fine.

If I had money and free time I would take you up on your offer for the workshop in the Aegean (You're not trying to pick me up, are you).

Jeremy Moore
22-Sep-2009, 14:33
My EI for FP4+ of 32 is admittedly likely too high by one stop.

My EI for FP4+ in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 is 64, yet you're saying you should be shooting at 16 and yet I still find your negatives to be sorely underexposed. Maybe it's your metering technique that's causing all of these problems.


If it's bringing to mention that this developer is very finicky as to oxidation, contamination, and capacity fine.

I completely disagree as NOTHING you have shared/provided in these two recent posts in regards to Pyrocat HD has shown that it is a problem with the chemistry.

Ken Lee
22-Sep-2009, 14:44
"No Michael, the developer tarnished my marvelous images."

"Humility makes great men twice honorable" - Benjamin Franklin

IanG
22-Sep-2009, 14:50
You're not trying to pick me up, are you.
No I'm happily married :D

And my wife cooks mean meat balls :)


I
f it's bringing to mention that this developer is very finicky as to oxidation, contamination, and capacity fine.
If I had money and free time I would take you up on your offer for the workshop in the Aegean.

There's never been anything wrong with Pyrocat HD developer itself.

Pyrocatechin has a tendency to oxidise, I use it in other applications where it oxidises very rapidly.

From here-say I've heard that the early Pyrocat from the PF didn't keep well, but then I found that out for myself when I stored my first batch in the wrong type of plastic bottles.

That has zero to do with Sandy King himself or his formula and is entirely down to who bottles the developer. In my case I rapidly spotted the problem (with no film failures) but also knew why, so could solve it.

Stored properly Pyrocat HD is as good as many other concentrated developer, without Glycol it has a shelf life of over 18 months, in the right packaging even part full.

With normal darkroom practice and cleanliness there are NO issues of oxidation, contamination or capacity, it's remarkably consistent and certainly not finicky.

Ian

eddie
22-Sep-2009, 15:20
A quick search of this forum shows you've been whinging about Pyrocat for 5 years now.


Ian

har har har!


I'll go further and make you an offer:

You fly out here for a week (accomadation and food is extremely cheap) and I'll personally run you through using Pyrocat HD in a variety of situations and I'll make images alongside you, I know my negs will be fine.



Ian

can i come?!?!?

IT IS YOUR SHUTTER!

i have posted this twice already. you have yet to address the issue. what kind of shutter are you using? has it been CLAd lately? show us some E6 shots with it so we know it is (not) your shutter. i bet it is!



This message has been deleted by sanking. Reason: No reason for more dialog with this person.

i am with sandy on this!

Andre Noble
22-Sep-2009, 17:39
Ian, please forgive me, since I moved to Los Angeles California, when I meet a man, I don’t assume anything anymore.

Ken, by marvelous I was referring to the marvelous subject matter in marvelous little towns I visited.

Jeremy, by “one stop too high”, I meant one stop over exposed. So, I agree with you 64 ASA is a more reasonable ASA for FP4+. Thanks for the clarification.

eddie (with a small "e"), it’s not my shutter. These are two separate lenses, both almost brand new lenses. Admittedly, my EI is one stop too high, and my metering off. But my shutters are fine, thanks for your suggestion.

Mr. King, I apologize if I have caused you distress. I appreciate the passion you have for your baby. I am just an average idiot who is trying to use something I'm not qualified to use.

sanking
22-Sep-2009, 18:23
Mr. King, I apologize if I have caused you distress. I appreciate the passion you have for your baby. I am just an average idiot who is trying to use something I'm not qualified to use.


Andre,

Thank you . I accept your apology, and no hard feelings. I hope this experience does not diminish your enthusiasm for film photography.

All of us have made mistakes in developing film. Making a mistake is not always a bad thing because it can also serve as a real growing and learning experience. I must admit that more than once I have made mistakes with several different developers that ruined a day of field work or a day of testing. And sometimes the cause was not immediately apparent, though I have learned that good red wine and careful work with chemicals in the darkroom don't go together.

Sandy King

Andre Noble
23-Sep-2009, 02:15
After a couple of beers and a few hours of sleep I awoke in the middle of the night with a revelation with what I think the problem was, and the theory would explain the wide variation in density I achieved with the six runs.

It's not chemical contamination - I am sloppy, but not THAT sloppy.

Even though I was using a jobo cpp2 with a full water bath, the issue I believe is lack of consistent temperature control.

I did not use a pre-soak on any of these runs. Its a bad habit I have gotten into on my return to darkroom work lately. I used to always use a pre-soak.

I recently moved to a new apt. In the process of paking to move, my previous landlord tossed my 1000ml jobo bottles (that I used to keep my wash water tempered in) thinking they were merely empty reagent containers, perhaps. So on all these runs, some of my final washes consited of cold distilled water - some from jugs sitting at room temp, sometimes from jugs recently pulled from the fridge in a room cooled by AC.

Likewise, a few months ago I use SS tanks in a room cooled by my AC without a pre-soak. The film came out the same as my recent failed runs. Nevertheless, I did not throw out the three year old pyrocat, moved to my new apt., and used it successfully on another batch of film.

With a run of 6 mins, and on some runs starting with a tank that may have been too warm or too cold - even though my working developer was at proper temperature, lack of a pre-soak with tempered water, combined with the large piece of plastic of the 3000 series drum, resulted in uncontrolled process temps, and the wide variation in negative densities.

So the slop in my technique was likely lack of precise temperature control, despite the Jobo CPP2. I am going to make a huge note of this for the future with ALL developers.

Also, I have two sets of 1000ml Jobo bottles in route from B&H.

pepeguitarra
30-May-2019, 07:24
90210 :cool:

agregov
30-May-2019, 11:17
If you are using Formulary liquid Pyrocat, I think that may be the root cause. I would suggest testing by either buying your own fresh chemistry and mixing by hand or trying the kit from Bostick & Sullivan. The Bostick kit comes with part A in dry form. You simply fill the part A bottle and you're good to go.

I have been meaning to publish my ordeal with Pyrocat in a separate post at some point, but after many years of struggle I finally concluded that liquid based Pyrocat formula from Formulary was the root cause of my issues. And that includes the glycol formula as well (tried both). Once I switched to Bostick Pyrocat HD, all my development times/film speed finally snapped into place. For example, my "N" 4x5 FP4 times are 8m at 64asa with a 1:1:100 dilution processing in a 3010 drum (full 10 sheets) with 1lt of chemistry on a CPP3. A recent test I did with Pyrocat MC liquid formula from Formulary saw my asa around 6. Just crazy numbers. I always assumed that Formulary chemistry was rock solid but I now see I should have tested that part of the puzzle long ago. I love the folks at Formulary but I just can't recommend using their liquid Pyrocat kits--any of them. I'd stick with dry chemistry.

It's worth mentioning that if you aren't doing any alt process work or contact printing with silver chloride papers (like Lodima), pyro based developers probably aren't more beneficial than using standard developers like XTOL.

Tim V
1-Jun-2019, 14:12
I’ve heard a few people say this about PF Pyrocat, but how could it be so? It’s my understanding they get the basic chemicals from the same place? In any event, B&S shipping to my part of the world is insane, leaving me little choice.

Pere Casals
1-Jun-2019, 15:04
It's worth mentioning that if you aren't doing any alt process work or contact printing with silver chloride papers (like Lodima), pyro based developers probably aren't more beneficial than using standard developers like XTOL.

When staining developers have an effect on silver photopaper is when using variable contrast papers !

The reason is that the stronger the density in an spot of the negative the stronger the stain, so the stronger the yellow filter. This ends in highlights being selectively printed with an stronger yellow filter, thus with a lower contrast grade.

This modifies the effective sensitometric curve of the paper, delivering a modified paper toe for the highlights, as highlights from the negative shoulder are printed in the paper toe.

With graded paper we don't see that effect, because the selective yellow filtration in the high densities does not have an impact in the local contrast grade.

Doremus Scudder
2-Jun-2019, 12:40
When staining developers have an effect on silver photopaper is when using variable contrast papers !

The reason is that the stronger the density in an spot of the negative the stronger the stain, so the stronger the yellow filter. This ends in highlights being selectively printed with an stronger yellow filter, thus with a lower contrast grade.

This modifies the effective sensitometric curve of the paper, delivering a modified paper toe for the highlights, as highlights from the negative shoulder are printed in the paper toe.

With graded paper we don't see that effect, because the selective yellow filtration in the high densities does not have an impact in the local contrast grade.

Pere,

This is, I think, a common misconception that doesn't hold up to reason. Think about it a bit. Sure if you print with white light only on VC papers, there might be some selective filtration of the light making it through the negative. However, imagine what happens when you dial in a lot of magenta filtration. Magenta blocks green and transmits blue. If the stain blocked (more) blue and transmitted (more) green, as your description implies, then you'd have, in essence, a "double filtration" in areas of the negative with lots of yellow stain. The result would be neutral density; i.e., the negative stain would block blue, but transmit green and the magenta filtration would block the green, but not have much blue to transmit since it's already been removed by the stain. This should result in higher contrast for the areas of greater stain, not the "easily-printable" highlights everyone seems to get... If there's any "VC effect" from the stain, it should show up as a more pronounced increase in overall contrast with increasing magenta filtration.

Best,

Doremus

Pere Casals
2-Jun-2019, 13:43
This is, I think, a common misconception that doesn't hold up to reason. Think about it a bit.


Doremus, of course if we print with Grade 5 blocking all green then we won't have a selective contrast from the stain, we will simply have an additional dodging in the yet dense areas(if stain is yellow), but in regular conditions (say grade 3) we have green and blue reaching the negative, and the negative will block a higher blue proportion in the dense areas (if stain is yellow).


As VC grade depends on the Green vs Blue exposure relationship. If you mesure that relationship in different spots of a Pyrocat-HD developed negative you will find that dense areas have a lower Blue proportion than in less dense areas, thus modifying grade depending density.

So dense areas tend to expose curve D of the bottom graph.

191986


But, yes, I guess that you are right: with extreme filters (00, 5) we don't have a selective contrast depending on density, what we have is a selective dodging depending on density.

In the middle filters it is another thing, here we have an impat on contrast depending on density.

_________________________

What is also true is that if our light source throws UV then we have the contrary effect, as stain is very transparent to UV.

_________________________

Here http://sandykingphotography.com/resources/technical-writing/pyro-staining-developers Sandy explains that there are effects on paper contrast from stain, see section "VARIABLE CONTRAST SILVER GELATIN PAPERS"

I don't agree with some statements in that section, for example VC papers don't have 2 emulsion layers but 3 mixed emulsions in a single layer. When we mix emulsions silver crystals retain its original sensitization so IMHO there is no need to spread 3 layers. While some BW films have two emulsion layers, the less sensitive is under the most sensitive one, (IIRC) papers there have a single silver emulsion layer, please correct me if I'm wrong.

(https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Contrast-control-for-Ilford-Multigrade.pdf)

There are other debatable issues in that section, but what is for sure, as Sandy says: "stain acts as a continuously variable contrast filter that has as its practical consequence the ability to hold highlight values extremely well"

Also Sandy says:

3. When printing with variable contrast papers, pyro stain, which is always proportional to silver density, functions as a continuous variable color mask that reduces printing contrast, particularly in the high values. This allows shadow and mid-tones to be printed without compressing or blocking the highlights, reducing time spent burning and dodging.


Well, we can do something, this is a paper calibration, we can plot the paper curve from stained densities, to see if the paper toe varies or not, IMHO that curve is what will enlight about that.

interneg
2-Jun-2019, 14:43
I don't agree with some statements in that section, for example VC papers don't have 2 emulsion layers but 3 mixed emulsions in a single layer. When we mix emulsions silver crystals retain its original sensitization so IMHO there is no need to spread 3 layers. While some BW films have two emulsion layers, the less sensitive is under the most sensitive one, (IIRC) papers there have a single silver emulsion layer, please correct me if I'm wrong.


Try 3-5 emulsions in 2+ layers + supercoat for your average multilayer coated paper (Adox, Ilford etc). Apparently this has significance in getting a full contrast range. The blended single layer ones tend to get G1-4 if you're lucky.

Pere Casals
2-Jun-2019, 15:13
Try 4-5 emulsions in 2+ layers + supercoat for your average multilayer coated paper (Adox, Ilford etc). Apparently this is crucial to getting a full contrast range. The blended single layer ones tend to get G1-4 if you're lucky.

hmmm... for papers I don't understand the need to place silver emulsion in more than one layer. The emulsion on paper is very transparent, we see perfectly the baryte or the plastic under !!!

With high speed film emulsions this is different, the emulsion on top is casting shadow on the emulsions under.

In fact baryted (FB) paper has a baryted layer under, but... are you sure that silver photopaper has several silver layers ? Is there any source explaining it?

Ilford Inkjet papers are "multi-layer", but this is not related to silver gelatin paper...

______________


These (VC) papers are coated with a mixture of two or three emulsions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_paper

interneg
2-Jun-2019, 16:12
hmmm... for papers I don't understand the need to place silver emulsion in more than one layer. The emulsion on paper is very transparent, we see perfectly the baryte or the plastic under !!!

With high speed film emulsions this is different, the emulsion on top is casting shadow on the emulsions under.

In fact baryted (FB) paper has a baryted layer under, but... are you sure that silver photopaper has several silver layers ? Is there any source explaining it?

Ilford Inkjet papers are "multi-layer", but this is not related to silver gelatin paper...

______________


These (VC) papers are coated with a mixture of two or three emulsions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_paper

I should add a refinement of my previous statement, you can build a single layer full range VC paper, but it requires the emulsions be ballasted & otherwise carefully controlled (including some pretty specialist sensitising etc) to minimise their 'crosstalk' which would reduce the available range. In other words, they effectively behave as if they were in separate layers without needing to be coated as such. Unlike a BW film, it's essential that the sensitising dyes don't migrate to the wrong emulsion & that would be the strongest reason to coat in discreet layers.

Otherwise, multilayer apparently does offer some advantages in terms of being able to not ballast emulsions as heavily, so you can get away with slower, warmer emulsions, which offers some advantages in detail sharpness etc at the cost of being trickier to make - as the new Adox Polywarmtone will apparently do - the Agfa/ Adox MCC apparently lands somewhere in the middle between the two approaches of ballasting & multilayer.

There's a whole heap of Agfa/ Ilford/ Kodak patents that describe the technological approaches, and some of the gaps are filled by comments from Ron Mowrey & Mirko Boedekker (Adox) at Photrio. It can get quite confusing at times as it sometimes means connecting hints & inferences.

Pere Casals
2-Jun-2019, 16:56
Sensitizing a VC emulsion is straight. You simply mix a color blind emulsion, not sensitized, with an ortho emulsion sensitized
during addition with Erythrosin B, then you may add a 3rd ortho Erythrosin emulsion sensitized after addition, which lowers ortho effect to the half...

It can be done with a single low tech dye with great results...

interneg
2-Jun-2019, 18:01
Sensitizing a VC emulsion is straight. You simply mix a color blind emulsion, not sensitized, with an ortho emulsion sensitized
during addition with Erythrosin B, then you may add a 3rd ortho Erythrosin emulsion sensitized after addition, which lowers ortho effect to the half...

It can be done with a single low tech dye with great results...

1. What type of emulsion are you making - from the sounds of it, probably not a sufficiently advanced one to be able to get the correct contrast at G5 once blended?
2. How are you preventing crosstalk?
3. How are you preventing dye migration & staining - especially with erythrosine?

Pere Casals
2-Jun-2019, 23:07
1

the light farm


My DIY VC emulsion does not go from G00 to G5, but I guess that I may reach from G1.5 to G3.5 or G4, which will cover a lot of situations for printing on glass, I'm interested on that. Buying Rollei Black Magic it's easier :)

A grade 5 component is the easiest thing in the word, monodisperse, the difficult thing is a G00, a long digestion provocates fog.

_________

2,3

Using small dye doses and extensive washing before mixing

_________

I'm playing with it and learning, but it looks that it has to be very easy for a manufacturer, layered dye sensitization is not layers of emulsions, but layers of dyes on the crystals, this allows a high flexibility for a manufacturer. I'm learning about that...

John Layton
3-Jun-2019, 04:33
Back to Pyrocat HD...seems like Bostick does not make a glycol version?

Tim V
3-Jun-2019, 19:30
No, seems not. And I’m still unclear as to why or how the PF kits are failing?


Back to Pyrocat HD...seems like Bostick does not make a glycol version?

agregov
3-Jun-2019, 21:54
My theory is the chemistry is old. When I was having my troubles, I found this thread where PF Pyrocat chemistry was allegedly years old after just ordering:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?147858-When-Good-Pyrocat-goes-Bad&p=1459698&viewfull=1#post1459698

And then a bit later, the problem was solved with chemistry from Bostick:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?147858-When-Good-Pyrocat-goes-Bad&p=1460064&viewfull=1#post1460064

That's when I ordered HD from Bostick and once I saw that the Part A came dry, the light bulb went on. I think it's as simple as PF mixes fairly large batches of wet chemistry and waits until they sell out their inventory before re-mixing. Or if they do have an expire date, maybe they miss taking some inventory out of stock. After I mixed the Bostick (on April 18th), I took a snap of the three chemistries I had on hand (see attached). Far left in the image is Bostick HD Part A (freshly mixed), center is Formulary HD Part A (opened sometime last August) and right is Formulary MC/Glycol Part A (opened sometime in January).

192082

I don't want to sensationalize anything here. The PF HD Part A in the center is likely contaminated or definitely oxidized. The PF MC should work fine given the glycol formula. But my FP4 times using the MC formula were in the 6-12 asa range. That just made no sense. With some research, I tried the Bostick formula and all my problems disappeared.

I've read a zillion Pyrocat threads in the forum over the years and the most common back and forth discussion I see is someone having a problem and about half a dozen folks say "works fine for me." What I just realized I rarely see is from the folks that have zero problems, how they mixed/obtained their chemistry. I've been using Formulary Pyrocat pre-mixed chemistry from day one for years now and for the film I started with, TXT 320, I've never been able to get past 100asa for my "N" times (1:1:100). I never understood how others got far faster times for TXT. Now I think I know. I'll bet there's a decent chance that many who are having Pryocat issues are using Formulary pre-mixed kits (any). Of course I doubt the power based kits have any issues.

Let me reiterate, that I'm a big fan of Formulary and have not been looking to bad mouth them at all. In fact before this thread even started, I tried to reach out to someone there to report my findings. Still haven't heard back from them yet. I just don't want anyone else to go through the pain people like me have had with Pyrocat. Because since moving to using good chemistry, it's been a problem free developer.

Tim V
4-Jun-2019, 01:00
Thanks for the run down. Just so I’m absolutely clear, you think PF dry / powder packs should guarantee a trouble free experience; that the premixed kits may be old / oxidised by the time of sale.
Thanks again,
T

esearing
4-Jun-2019, 04:14
In response to Agregov's link to my earlier postings - After suffering failures from the B&S kits within months even, I have switched to Pyrocat M and am mixing my own with chemistry from Artcraft. 10 for 10 batches so far have come out perfect. For EMA I did have to bump part B a little bit when compared to _HD. For those that don't like semi stand or EMA, a more standard mix of 1A/0.8B/100W for 14 minutes gives a nice contrasty negative with little stain, 2 minutes initial agitation then 10seconds every three minutes, 70 degrees.

My theory of the pyrocat HD failures is :
Quality and Age of the chemistry is unknown to the user. It could fresh, it could be 5 years old.
Phenidone doesn't last or may oxidize in plastic containers.
The EMA dilution for only 500ML may not be sufficient for the Phenidone to act as initial speed developer or it exhausts too quickly. Metol does a better job.
The EMA dilution recommend by Steve Sherman may be fine for higher volumes. So one might consider finding that balance of A+B+W that is a little stronger yet still results in good acutance.

I once read a comment by Sandy King that stated to use glass containers for the Pyrocat formulas to make them last longer. So I am trying that in addition to making smaller batches.

Tin Can
4-Jun-2019, 05:15
Good thread.

Thank you all.

Corran
4-Jun-2019, 08:49
Eric, I'm glad you've gotten your Pyrocat handled.

My theory, is that whatever issue PF had, after Steven brought it up to them and discovered there was a bad batch, they must've threw it all away. My Pyrocat HD in gylcol, ordered right around that time, I specified to please mix it fresh. I got it and have been using it since with zero issues. So perhaps my request spurred them to mix a fresh batch.

I will mention that my first batch of Pyro ever, from PF, was a dry kit. It came with erroneous amounts of chemistry - they had mixed up bags for 1L and 5L in my kit, giving me 5x the needed amounts of some components. Mistakes happen. I have since only bought liquid kits and have been okay, luckily. Perhaps all the issues reported in the last year will help them ascertain their failure point(s) and moving forward everything will be fine? I hope so. I am not really interested in mixing my own from raw chemicals.

ParkerSmithPhoto
26-Sep-2019, 18:50
Far left in the image is Bostick HD Part A (freshly mixed), center is Formulary HD Part A (opened sometime last August) and right is Formulary MC/Glycol Part A (opened sometime in January)... I don't want to sensationalize anything here. The PF HD Part A in the center is likely contaminated or definitely oxidized. The PF MC should work fine given the glycol formula. But my FP4 times using the MC formula were in the 6-12 asa range. That just made no sense. With some research, I tried the Bostick formula and all my problems disappeared.

I think the answer is right in front of us. Those PF kits are clearly oxidized; the "Formulary HD Part A (opened sometime last August)" is now almost a year old, and the "Formulary MC/Glycol Part A (opened sometime in January)" is six months old at the time of your post.

And.... they are both in the original plastic bottles. One thing is for damn sure, any developer in a plastic bottle is going to go off. I've had fresh Dektol turn sludge brown inside 10 days in a full plastic bottle that was supposedly made to hold photo chemicals. Plastic totally sucks in the darkroom.

The catechol (dry powder) from PF came in a plastic jar and it just reeked out my cabinet. I funneled it into a brown glass bottle with a phenolic lid and now can't smell a thing.

I had some troubles with P-HD recently and went off on a puzzler before I realized, duh, the most likely explanation is I made a mistake. And it was my mistake. I have a dilution checklist now so I don't mess it up again.

The two rolls I ran last night are from the getting close to the bottom leftovers of some Jan 2015 Formulary HD glycol mix. This has been in glass bottles for almost the entire time, maybe 2-3 months in the original plastic bottles. I am going to save the last bits of it and then test it every year.

Greg Y
26-Sep-2019, 19:00
Corran "I am not really interested in mixing my own from raw chemicals." Ditto. I moved from PMK to Pyrocat years ago and saw the Pyrocat in glycol from the Photo Formulary as a godsend. I've also never had issues with the developer & I buy the 50liter kits in plastic bottles & continue to use them as sold.