Issues with Pyrocat-MC… Any suggestions?

[Lachlan 717]

I am trying to get my head around Pyro-MC and not having much luck.

As background, here is what I'm doing:

*Pyrocat-MC from Photographers' Formulary. Tried both tap water and distilled. Parts A&B added by syringe (one for each bottle; thoroughly clean). Mixed at 3:3:300ml in clean cylinders;
*Kodak TXP @ 9 minutes as per the recommended starting point;
*JOBO processor set at 3 seconds;
*20 degrees for all chemicals;
*Tried both water stop and Foto Speed SB50 stop;
*Tetenal Superfix as the fixer (checked as being pH neutral).

As for results, I am getting really, really thin negs with only highlight details; nothing at all in the shadows. Basically base+fog and a couple of weak highlight areas.

As a control, I have processed identically exposed sheets in Tetenal Ultrafin with no issues whatsoever. Nice, robust negs with no issues in tone range.

Before I head out and do even more test developments (messing round with Dev times to see if I can get some more density/image on the sheets), can anyone shed some light on this? I'd like to know why the images are so far off being even acceptable. Am I doing something significantly stupid?

Thanks in advance,

[Ron Marshall]

What EI did you use for the TXP?

[Lachlan 717]

What EI did you use for the TXP?

Shoot several at both 320 and at 400 (the latter as suggested by Formulary).

Both worked fine with the Tetenal Ultrafin developer (developed alternate sheet; i.e. shot 2 sheets of same image. Processed one in Pyro and one in Tetenal for a control).

[Sergei Antonov]

I had similar issues with Pyrocat MC from Formulary. It didn't work with any film I tried. All negatives were blank or very thin. Try to increase amount of developer, use 2:2:100 or more. I asked them to replace it by Pyrocat HD, this facility seems to have issues with QC sometimes. When I mixed MC myself from raw chemicals, it works, but I still have to use it in 2:2:100.

--Sergei

[Lachlan 717]

I had similar issues with Pyrocat MC from Formulary. It didn't work with any film I tried. All negatives were blank or very thin. Try to increase amount of developer, use 2:2:100 or more. I asked them to replace it by Pyrocat HD, this facility seems to have issues with QC sometimes. When I mixed MC myself from raw chemicals, it works, but I still have to use it in 2:2:100.

--Sergei

Interesting, Sergei, interesting.

What makes this weirder is that the first batch that I did came out fine. Nice stain, nice detail, nice tones.

I am very, very careful with cleaning/contamination. I have no idea right now...

[Ron Marshall]

I have only tried Pyrocat-HD. Wonderfu negs, but it always gave me 1 stop less speed than I got with the same film using XTOL. I tried a greater developer concentration and a few other modifications, but the difference remained.

Try shooting the TXP at 160 and see if that does it for you.

Also, if your negs are thin, but have some detail, try scanning or printing them. Many of my Pyrocat negs were very thin and still printed wonderfully.

[Lachlan 717]

Thanks, Ron.

Strangely, the results over a 3 day period seem to be rapidly declining. As I mentioned, the first batch I did seemed to work fine. The second gave thin results, causing me to think that I might have exposed poorly (even though the same shot with Tetenal worked well).

I then tried a batch with some Rollei R3 that produced absolutely no image. I was given this film (10 sheets) and had no info on its processing, so I just put through a couple of sheets at 9min@so degrees, 1:1:100. Absolutely clear film. Not a hint of detail.

I put this down to the weirdness of the film, not having the proprietary developer and no idea on times.

Then I shot an indoor scene, processed for 9min@20 degrees. I only got the highlights from the overhead skylight. The rest was clear.

So, I took some shots in my yard of a general scene - highlights, mid tones and some shade under a tree. Again, nothing but weak buildup in strong highlights.

Just seems to get weaker and weaker development….

[Jim Noel]

It sounds like it has been diluted and then re-used which doe snot work. This is a one shot developer. The concentrate should not lose vitality over such a short time. If the concentrate is mixed with glycol rather than water, the life span is tremendous. It takes a little chemical tricking of the metol to get it to dissolve in the glycol.

[Lachlan 717]

It sounds like it has been diluted and then re-used which doe snot work. This is a one shot developer. The concentrate should not lose vitality over such a short time. If the concentrate is mixed with glycol rather than water, the life span is tremendous. It takes a little chemical tricking of the metol to get it to dissolve in the glycol.

Jim,

Definitely used as a one-shot.

Made 306ml batch up each time, using carefully cleaned vessels. And the syringes I use are specific to the bottle used (I have an A and a B syringe).

[Lachlan 717]

What about suggested changes to development times?

Can anyone provide a guesstimate on how long I should try just in case my 9 minute period is the issue?

I'm really doubting this is the issue; if there was some non-highlight detail things might be different, but there is none.

[nolindan]

Does the developer do a color change when you mix A and B? If it doesn't then something is screwy.

Sudden death with Pyrocat has been reported before, rapid decline over a period of days leading to completely clear negatives is the usual description. TTBOMK the cause of the problem hasn't been found.

[Lachlan 717]

Does the developer do a color change when you mix A and B? If it doesn't then something is screwy.

Sudden death with Pyrocat has been reported before, rapid decline over a period of days leading to completely clear negatives is the usual description. TTBOMK the cause of the problem hasn't been found.

Thanks for the information, nolindan.

I've just sent Sherry at Photographers' Formulary an email about this.

I'll let you know what the response is.

[Sergei Antonov]

When I posted description of my problem on APUG, Formulary asked Mr. King to handle this, he sent me e-mail asking details, wondering about my workflow, but indeed, reason for the failure was never found, and it seems that they didn't improve their quality control. I had glycole version of the developer. I also replaced part B by my own chemical and got the same result -- so it was a part A that failed. It also worked pretty randomly -- it did work for Foma 200, sometimes, but other films came out blank. Formulary tried to suggest contamination on my side, but I am doing the same with all developers, and only Pyrocat failed.
My advice -- don't waste your time and film on testing, send them e-mail and ask for replacement. I am not sure that replacement will work, but at least it is a chance to bring it to their attention one more time. This is a nice developer.

Good luck,
Sergei

[Lachlan 717]

When I posted description of my problem on APUG, Formulary asked Mr. King to handle this, he sent me e-mail asking details, wondering about my workflow, but indeed, reason for the failure was never found, and it seems that they didn't improve their quality control. I had glycole version of the developer. I also replaced part B by my own chemical and got the same result -- so it was a part A that failed. It also worked pretty randomly -- it did work for Foma 200, sometimes, but other films came out blank. Formulary tried to suggest contamination on my side, but I am doing the same with all developers, and only Pyrocat failed.
My advice -- don't waste your time and film on testing, send them e-mail and ask for replacement. I am not sure that replacement will work, but at least it is a chance to bring it to their attention one more time. This is a nice developer.

Good luck,
Sergei

Thanks, Sergei.

I'll be interested to get some feedback from PF. I really would like this developer to work! At this stage, this is not a deal breaker for me using it; I am more interested to find out what the issue is (including if it is my work flow).

A few other details that I left off:

*I pre-soaked as per the recommendations;
*I clean the JOBO with very hot water between each development. I do this by putting a single roll 120 tank on and repeatedly putting very hot fresh water through, pouting it out after every fill-up;
*Each component, including the baffles/scoops, of the tank re cleaned in very hot water (no detergents) and rinsed in fresh hot water. I shake them to remove excess water and then leave to dry;
*Thermometer is cleaned between use.

[Steve Hamley]

Sounds very much like the developer is exhausted. How many sheets in the Jobo? 300ml would be barely enough for a couple of 4x5 sheets and I typically use 500ml in a tray per sheet.

Try mixing up 500ml and tray developing one sheet and see if there's a difference.

Cheers, Steve

[Lachlan 717]

Sounds very much like the developer is exhausted. How many sheets in the Jobo? 300ml would be barely enough for a couple of 4x5 sheets and I typically use 500ml in a tray per sheet.

Try mixing up 500ml and tray developing one sheet and see if there's a difference.

Cheers, Steve

Thanks, Steve.

One sheet.

And the theory doesn't explain the first batch working. Nor the drop in "performance" over multiple batches.

I have done 4 sheets per batch using 1:30 Ultrafin (regular is 1:10) using 330ml, so I doubt volume is the issue.

As for tray test? No trays, no darkroom... Good idea, though!

[Ken Lee]

I renamed the thread to Issues with Pyrocat MC.

[evan clarke]

I used MC (homebrew) exclusively for about 1 year and it's great for TMax400, Tri-x and HP5. In my Jobo, with the same dilutions, temp and rotation you are using, my times are around the 15-16 minute range. Tmax 400@320, HP5@320 and Tri-x@250. You also need to be VERY careful about any residual fixer contamination in your Jobo, it will kill development..Evan Clarke

[Lachlan 717]

I renamed the thread to Issues with Pyrocat MC.

Thanks, Ken.

As I mentioned in my edit reason, I blame too much Doogie Howser...

[Lachlan 717]

I used MC (homebrew) exclusively for about 1 year and it's great for TMax400, Tri-x and HP5. In my Jobo, with the same dilutions, temp and rotation you are using, my times are around the 15-16 minute range. Tmax 400@320, HP5@320 and Tri-x@250. You also need to be VERY careful about any residual fixer contamination in your Jobo, it will kill development..Evan Clarke

Many thanks, Evan. That's some of the detail I've been hoping to get. I had thought about this kind of extension to the dev time, but couldn't bring myself to accept the suggested time being so far short.

I'll give 15mins a go tomorrow. As long as I get some shadow detail coming in, I'll know that the stock's okay. Fine tuning will come thereafter.

By the way, how do you keep your machine clean?

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I had the exact same issues a couple of years ago with MC from PF. I developed several runs which were great and then all of a sudden there were many failures. I followed the directions and was very careful with my process and it still failed. PF sent me a new set up but by that time I was gun shy and didn't really want to risk any additional failure so I went back to my old developer. I don't think it is development time but that is worth a try (I tried extending my development times and did film tests with the product).

Now, at the time I posted this ont he forum and several people who mix their own reported they never had a failure and I am sure Sandy (who also contacted me) knows his stuff, we could never really pin down what was going on. I will say the negs that came out good were great! I was really excited by the developer and was looking forward to working with it, but after the issues I decided just to stick with my tried and true products.

Good luck, I hope you figure it out. Like I said, those negs that developed correctly are a joy to print with. If I were to go back and try again, I would just buy the chemicals and mix my own as that seems to never have an issue.

[Ken Lee]

I would just buy the chemicals and mix my own as that seems to never have an issue.

I'll second that. I also store Solutions A and B in affordable vacuum bottles (http://www.pyrocat-hd.com/html/preservation.html) so that they last even longer.

[evan clarke]

Many thanks, Evan. That's some of the detail I've been hoping to get. I had thought about this kind of extension to the dev time, but couldn't bring myself to accept the suggested time being so far short.

I'll give 15mins a go tomorrow. As long as I get some shadow detail coming in, I'll know that the stock's okay. Fine tuning will come thereafter.

By the way, how do you keep your machine clean?

Most importantly, I only do one drum of film per session when using the MC, it stung me a couple of times. My Jobo has the drains mounted over a double well sink which is next to an 8' SS sink where my film and paper washer live. I have a really good, 2 tank reserve of highly filtered water which has a spigot on the DW sink. I normally wash the tank and feed channel with about 8 500cc filtered washes, fill 4 more times but overflow the pour tube on the lift in to the sink. I then take the film from the drums, put them in the washer and then dump a couple more liters of filtered water through the lift and then wipe it down. EArly when i first used MC, I had 3 catastrophic failures where no development occurred, always on a second drum, and I believe this to be because of residual fixer and dilute developer in the Jobo, I could probably test this all but the routine works like a charm now.
I haven't used the pre made stuff from Formulary but my first homebrew easily lasted a year and the second batch is probably older, I make a 500cc batch and that's a lot of developer at this dilution!!...EC

[evan clarke]

I would also use distilled water, I think if your supply is acidic or highly chlorinated that it might not be good. The ph of the water can be a big issue with developer, especially high dilutions, and a reason people have varying times with commercial developers...EC

[Steve Hamley]

Just a note, I also mix my own MC and HD and I had some 2-year old MC solution A that was the color and consistency of crankcase sludge, but it was still active and developed film just fine. I did replace it as a precaution though.

Can you give some of the solutions to someone else who develops film and see if they have a similar issue?

Cheers, Steve

[Ken Lee]

"I clean the JOBO"

One way to rule out the influence of the Jobo, is to develop - one sheet at least - in a tray.

If you don't have a trays, you can use affordable food containers (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/devtray.html).

[Kirk Keyes]

Which Jobo tank and what size film are you using?

If you're doing 4 rolls of 120 or 4 sheets of 8x10, you probably don't have enough developer there with 330 mls. You also want extra volume if developer as pyro developers react with air and degrade rather quickly, so extra volume helps counteract that.

I use 1 liter with up to 10 sheets of 4x5 and I have good results with Pyrocat.

[domaz]

Pyrocat-MC and HD has been trouble-free for me. The only time it didn't work was when I left the working solution out too long (overnight). You can do that with a lot of developers but Pyrocat is not one of them. I use a Jobo 2500 and 1500 tanks. I never really "clean" the tank- just rinse it out. Never had a problem.

[Lachlan 717]

"I clean the JOBO"

One way to rule out the influence of the Jobo, is to develop - one sheet at least - in a tray.

If you don't have a trays, you can use affordable food containers (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/devtray.html).

Thanks, Ken.

The real issue is a dark place, rather than the trays.

I might run a roll of T-Max 400 through a Patterson tank (don't have the TXP in roll) with the Pyro.

If that works (i.e. I get an image!), I'll try the extended development.

[Lachlan 717]

Which Jobo tank and what size film are you using?

If you're doing 4 rolls of 120 or 4 sheets of 8x10, you probably don't have enough developer there with 330 mls. You also want extra volume if developer as pyro developers react with air and degrade rather quickly, so extra volume helps counteract that.

I use 1 liter with up to 10 sheets of 4x5 and I have good results with Pyrocat.

To reiterate, 1 sheet.

Also to reiterate, 306ml produced good images in the first batch.

The developer is not being exhausted.

[Lachlan 717]

I would also use distilled water, I think if your supply is acidic or highly chlorinated that it might not be good. The ph of the water can be a big issue with developer, especially high dilutions, and a reason people have varying times with commercial developers...EC

Tried it; no difference!

[Andrew O'Neill]

Have you considered mixing up your own from scratch? There are even easier pyro formulas out there to mix up from scratch...

[Lachlan 717]

Have you considered mixing up your own from scratch? There are even easier pyro formulas out there to mix up from scratch...

That was the end plan, Andrew.

I purchased a medium volume kit from PF to try it.

Like Eric, I really like the idea of Pyro, and have not fallen out of lust with it; I just want it to work!!

I'll wait for PF's response to my email and a couple more tests before I decide on my long-term developer.

[bob carnie]

good advice

though I use Hutchings formula, I saw some Pyrocat-HD film at Steve Shermans that looked thin to me , but boy did they print nice.
If I felt the need to change pyro dev then I would use Pyrocat -HD.

I rate Trix and Hp5 at 160 as well , and adjust dev time to original scene.
As I use a lot of 160iso colour keeping the film at this rating makes sense to me when I meter , I use an onboard densitometer located behind my left ear and use the sunny f16 method with 160 equalling 1/125 sec.

With Pyro I also split the dev time into two, with a complete fresh hit of chems half way through the overall time. This works wonders for us. Pyro seems to exhaust over the 14min timeline faster than I wanted , by splitting into two 7 min hits with fresh chemistry our results were better and more predictable.





I have only tried Pyrocat-HD. Wonderfu negs, but it always gave me 1 stop less speed than I got with the same film using XTOL. I tried a greater developer concentration and a few other modifications, but the difference remained.

Try shooting the TXP at 160 and see if that does it for you.

Also, if your negs are thin, but have some detail, try scanning or printing them. Many of my Pyrocat negs were very thin and still printed wonderfully.

[bob carnie]

I agree , one litre per run, in fact I split it into two one litre hits.
Also do not wait too long after the concoction is mixed, develop right away.


Which Jobo tank and what size film are you using?

If you're doing 4 rolls of 120 or 4 sheets of 8x10, you probably don't have enough developer there with 330 mls. You also want extra volume if developer as pyro developers react with air and degrade rather quickly, so extra volume helps counteract that.

I use 1 liter with up to 10 sheets of 4x5 and I have good results with Pyrocat.

[bob carnie]

I think volume is definately a consideration.
If you are doing a test of one sheet and the subsequently following up with full runs you are definately in for a whole can of whoopass , due to exhaustion.

Thanks, Steve.

One sheet.

And the theory doesn't explain the first batch working. Nor the drop in "performance" over multiple batches.

I have done 4 sheets per batch using 1:30 Ultrafin (regular is 1:10) using 330ml, so I doubt volume is the issue.

As for tray test? No trays, no darkroom... Good idea, though!

[bob carnie]

Split it into two 7.5 minutes , use distilled water and do a presoak.
Make sure you get a good agitation in the first 20secs.

Many thanks, Evan. That's some of the detail I've been hoping to get. I had thought about this kind of extension to the dev time, but couldn't bring myself to accept the suggested time being so far short.

I'll give 15mins a go tomorrow. As long as I get some shadow detail coming in, I'll know that the stock's okay. Fine tuning will come thereafter.

By the way, how do you keep your machine clean?

[bob carnie]

Yes Yes Yes

I would also use distilled water, I think if your supply is acidic or highly chlorinated that it might not be good. The ph of the water can be a big issue with developer, especially high dilutions, and a reason people have varying times with commercial developers...EC

[Peter De Smidt]

It sounds to me like you might've gotten a bad batch of developer, although the initial good results are perplexing. I to use it in a Jobo, and I don't use any special precautions compared to any other developer. It gives me a little less speed than Xtol, but not enough to give the results you're getting. I'd do what someone recommended above and develop a test sheet in a tray. That'll hopefully remove the Jobo as a source of the problem. I prefer the Pyrocat forumulas over PMK, as I don't get near the highlight compression with the former as I do with the latter.

[Gary Samson]

Let me suggest that you mix up a working solution of Pyrocat and place it in a small beaker large enough to hold a sheet of 4x5 inch film. Place a sheet of film exposed to room light into the beaker of developer and observe whether the film is actually developing. It should start to get dark in a few minutes. if it does not you will know that the developer is defective. I have always mixed Pyrocat from scratch and never had a problem. Good luck!

[Lachlan 717]

Bob,

Thanks for the input, but I think that I have covered most of your suggestion in my postings. To reiterate my reiterations, volume and chemical exhaustion are not the issue here. I am using over 4 times the suggested minimum volume per sheet when I use 306ml for one sheet.

I mix the solution just prior to using it, so it is not "stale" when I use it.

I will, however, give the split developer idea a go once I work out how to get an image on the film, especially if I fine that Evan's prolonged development times are successful.

[Kirk Keyes]

With PMK and Pyrocat, I found that they did not gain much contrast when getting into development times past 12 or so minutes as the developer dies from aerial oxidation in the Jobo. My solution is to use a nitrogen tank to full the drum as it's running through the development process. Or do as Bob suggests, split your development time and use two portions of developer.

Also, what color is the developer when it's done with that step - is it dark brown in color?

[Lachlan 717]

With PMK and Pyrocat, I found that they did not gain much contrast when getting into development times past 12 or so minutes as the developer dies from aerial oxidation in the Jobo. My solution is to use a nitrogen tank to full the drum as it's running through the development process. Or do as Bob suggests, split your development time and use two portions of developer.

Also, what color is the developer when it's done with that step - is it dark brown in color?

Yep. It was brown. More like milk/regular chocolate than dark/cooking chocolate, but chocolate nonetheless.

[evan clarke]

I may have missed it in your posts Lachlan, but as Bob said a pre soak is important. I don't do it with any other developer but give it a 5 minute pre soak with the MC...EC

[Lachlan 717]

I may have missed it in your posts Lachlan, but as Bob said a pre soak is important. I don't do it with any other developer but give it a 5 minute pre soak with the MC...EC

Thanks, Evan.

Yep, I presoak.

I should have time to run an extended development today, and will post the outcome...

[sanking]

If mixed and used correctly Pyrocat-MC should give good film speed and contrast with well exposed negatives with a 1+1+100 dilution with 12-16 minutes of development at 72F in a Jobo or with any other type of continuous agitation. If the negative was well exposed and developed as above it should not look very thin. If it does something is wrong. There are several possibilities, of which the most likely are the following.

1. The stock solution was not mixed correctly.
2. The stock solution(s) has been contaminated.
3. The working solution was not mixed correctly.

That is about it. The stock solutions, even if mixed in water, are very long lived unless contaminated and should be good at least 8-12 months. In glycol they should be good for years.

If you purchased the stock solution from Photographers Formulary and believe it is no good you should contact them about the batch. My understanding is that Photographer's Formulary mixes the Pyrocat-MC in batches and if a batch were for some reason bad chances are great that there would be many complaints. On the other hand, if PF has received no complaints for a particular batch the odds are that there is some kind of user error.

Bottom line is that there is absolutely nothing about the developer that would explain the stock solutions spontaneously going bad over a period of several days. That simply will not happen if it was mixed correctly to begin with, and was not subsequently contaminated.

Sandy

[Lachlan 717]

Well, I fastidiously cleaned everything, made absolutely sure all volumes were exact, along with temperatures. I ran a 12 minute dev time.

Very slight difference/improvement, way too little when I consider this a 33.333333333% increase.

My last roll of the dice will be trying a 12 minute at 1:1:50.

Oh, and I haven't had any response from PF to my email on Monday. That's git me a bit concerned as well...

[Gem Singer]

Photographer's Formulary probably was unable to respond to your Email because they are in the process of re-vamping their online store.

Their computer system has been down for several weeks.

Call their toll free number, 1-800-922-5255 for orders and information.

[sanking]

Photographer's Formulary probably was unable to respond to your Email because they are in the process of re-vamping their online store.

Their computer system has been down for several weeks.

Call their toll free number, 1-800-922-5255 for orders and information.


PF contacted me about the matter a week or so ago but I was not able to get back to them until yesterday. According to the folks at PF there have been no other complaints about this particular batch of of Pyrocat-MC.

I carefully read the description of the work flow of the OP and did not see any problem that would explain the problem. However, early on the OP wrote, "What makes this weirder is that the first batch that I did came out fine." That is indeed pretty weird because, as I mentioned earlier, there really is no explanation for this because the stock solutions (whether mixed in water or glycol), unless contaminated, simply do not spontaneously go bad over a period of several days, or even several weeks.

Sandy King

[nolindan]

...simply do not spontaneously go bad over a period of several days...

Well, I've had it happen to me. It does seem to happen and seems to happen to lots of other users. The problem is similar to Xtol's sudden death syndrome. Stating that it doesn't happen isn't getting to the nub of the problem.

If there is some common user error that results in this failure mode it would be nice to identify it. And then publish instructions for mitigating the failure - such as "Be sure not to zig the bobarol when dixing" or some such specific advice.

The first step is to find all the ways of getting PMC to fail reliably on demand.

[sanking]

Well, I've had it happen to me. It does seem to happen and seems to happen to lots of other users. The problem is similar to Xtol's sudden death syndrome. Stating that it doesn't happen isn't getting to the nub of the problem.

If there is some common user error that results in this failure mode it would be nice to identify it. And then publish instructions for mitigating the failure - such as "Be sure not to zig the bobarol when dixing" or some such specific advice.

I am not saying that it does not happen, only that it does not happen without some type of contamination, and if a person were to accidentally contaminate the stock solution they would not be aware that they had done so. And there are probably more than a half dozen ways that a person could accidentally contaminate the stock solutions, including just mixing up the lids of the two solutions.

The problem, IMO, is not similar to Xtol because in that case the cause is pretty clear, ascorbic acid in water. But the ascorbic acid in Pyrocat-MC is in a glycol environment that prevents oxidation, except when the developer is very old and in very small volume.

Also, as best I can see there are not a lot of people having this problem. There are hundreds of people using Pyrocat-MC but only a handful having a problem of this type.

Sandy King

[Jay DeFehr]

A few observations: The contamination could be occurring at the time of packaging, which might not affect the entire batch, but only individual packages. I've never experienced this kind of failure with either the old version of Hypercat, which was very similar to Pyrocat MC, being made up of catechol, ascorbic acid, and phenidone in glycol, or the new version, which is made up of only catechol and a very small amount of ascorbic acid in glycol. I make all of my developers from bulk chemicals, and I never keep both solutions in similar containers, so there's no chance of swapping lids.

It seems a simple thing to test for the effects of contamination, by intentionally contaminating a small amount of A solution with a very small amount of B solution, and measuring the effect over time. By decreasing the amount of contamination in iterative testing, it should be possible to find a minimum required volume of contamination, and to correlate contamination with a timetable for failure. The challenge would be to measure the tiny volumes of B solution required to contaminate the A solution.

[evan clarke]

Well, it's a great developer. I tried it as soon as it was published and mixed mine in glycol. The stuff sat on my mixing bench in two 500cc squirt bottles, turned brown, part B precipitated out so I had to shake it up each time and it just kept working. I finally just made a new batch after 1 1/2 years due to paranoia. At 1:1:100, 68 deg. for 15-16 minutes I get wonderful negatives with no weakness. They print marvelously. Lachlan, how long are you letting the developer sit after mixing before you use it? Also. why not take a big jump in developer time just to find out if there's a point where you can overdevelop, unless you're just losing interest in it? I have friends who use MC and some use the HD and all of them love the stuff..Evan

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Why not box up the two bottles and a few sheets of film then send it to someone (Sandy?) to try, if it fails then it might point to some contamination issues, if it doesn't then it might point to user error.

[sanking]

A few observations: The contamination could be occurring at the time of packaging, which might not affect the entire batch, but only individual packages.

I would not totally discount any reasonable possibility but there are a couple of things that argue against contamination at the time of packaging. One, Photographers Formulary is a professional organization with personnel trained to handle chemicals, and two, they have a system of quality control which allows them to ascertain if there have been any other complaints about a particular batch of chemicals. For example, if they mixed ten kits of Pyrocat-MC on a certain date and all of those kits have been sold it is probable that if one batch was contaminated all of the others would also be contaminated, and there would be multiple complaints. I understand that there have been no other complaints about this batch of Pyrocat-MC.

There is of course the remote possibility than one kit from a larger batch might be contaminated but based on the quality control in place at PF I would very much doubt that to be the case. But not impossible of course.

Sandy King

[Lachlan 717]

To reiterate, I want this goop to work! This thread was not posted to rubbish either Pyro, nor PF.

As Sandy said, this is made weird by the first batch working.

I simply was after anecdotal evidence of this happening to others, or criticism of my process(es).

To date, the balance seems to be on this happening to others more than being caused by me.

But, my Jury's still out...

[Lachlan 717]

Well, it's a great developer. I tried it as soon as it was published and mixed mine in glycol. The stuff sat on my mixing bench in two 500cc squirt bottles, turned brown, part B precipitated out so I had to shake it up each time and it just kept working. I finally just made a new batch after 1 1/2 years due to paranoia. At 1:1:100, 68 deg. for 15-16 minutes I get wonderful negatives with no weakness. They print marvelously. Lachlan, how long are you letting the developer sit after mixing before you use it? Also. why not take a big jump in developer time just to find out if there's a point where you can overdevelop, unless you're just losing interest in it? I have friends who use MC and some use the HD and all of them love the stuff..Evan

Evan,

Developer mixed just prior to use.

[Lachlan 717]

Why not box up the two bottles and a few sheets of film then send it to someone (Sandy?) to try, if it fails then it might point to some contamination issues, if it doesn't then it might point to user error.

Eric,

Simply the cost. It'd be cheaper to buy and ship a new batch.

I'm not from the US...

[Lachlan 717]

It's not a cross-lid contamination, Sandy. I'm careful to only have one lid off at any time.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Well, that is a good reason!

[sanking]

It's not a cross-lid contamination, Sandy. I'm careful to only have one lid off at any time.

Your working procedures sound fine, but the developer is not working now, even though it worked fine the first time you used it. I am not able to figure out what happened, but I know for a fact that the stock solutions of this developer, if mixed correctly, do not spontaneously go bad. For one of them to go bad, it must have been somehow contaminated. Perhaps that was done by PF, perhaps by you, or perhaps there is some other way it was contaminated. But if it is not working now it must have somehow been contaminated. I have on hand at this time more than eight different Pyrocat-MC kits, all at least two years old, and two dating from 2006. Two were mixed by PF (the oldest ones) and six by me. All have been used to develop film, and all still work.

It should be noted that one of the reasons Pyrocat-MC (and HD) give such good accutance is because the formula is finely formulated to use as little reducer as possible, and the pH of the working solution is also carefully balanced. For this reason even small quantities of another chemical can easily contaminate the working solution. Even left over fixer in a Jobo drum has been known to ruin a working solution. It is harder to contaminate the stock solutions, but many people have managed to do that also.

I hope you figure out what is going on but from where I stand it looks to me like your stock solutions are contaminated. One thing you might do, if you have either a pH meter or pH strips, is measure the pH of a working solution. It should be around pH 11.0, ranging from 10.8-11.4. If you are way out of that range you would not get full development.

Sandy King

[Lachlan 717]

Your working procedures sound fine, but the developer is not working now, even though it worked fine the first time you used it. I am not able to figure out what happened, but I know for a fact that the stock solutions of this developer, if mixed correctly, do not spontaneously go bad. For one of them to go bad, it must have been somehow contaminated. Perhaps that was done by PF, perhaps by you, or perhaps there is some other way it was contaminated. But if it is not working now it must have somehow been contaminated. I have on hand at this time more than eight different Pyrocat-MC kits, all at least two years old, and two dating from 2006. Two were mixed by PF (the oldest ones) and six by me. All have been used to develop film, and all still work.

It should be noted that one of the reasons Pyrocat-MC (and HD) give such good accutance is because the formula is finely formulated to use as little reducer as possible, and the pH of the working solution is also carefully balanced. For this reason even small quantities of another chemical can easily contaminate the working solution. Even left over fixer in a Jobo drum has been known to ruin a working solution. It is harder to contaminate the stock solutions, but many people have managed to do that also.

I hope you figure out what is going on but from where I stand it looks to me like your stock solutions are contaminated. One thing you might do, if you have either a pH meter or pH strips, is measure the pH of a working solution. It should be around pH 11.0, ranging from 10.8-11.4. If you are way out of that range you would not get full development.

Sandy King

Thanks, Sandy.

My next tests will be a) extending dev time further b) refreshing the development with a fresh developer half way through a development and c) 1:1:50 mix. Seperately, of course. If the double strength mix doesn't fix this (disregarding contrast; I just want an image!!), then I think it's the product.

I'm not sure what to make of the suggested dev time from PF if this requires 15+ minutes given the suggested starting point is 9 minutes. But if that's what's required, so be it! I'm hoping that this is the case. Just seems a 66% increase is a massive amount to get to N.

[Ken Lee]

"My next tests will be a)..."

With all due respect: If you were the first person to ever test this developer, it would be one thing - but there's little chance at this point, that further adjustments to your methodology will reap any discoveries or breakthroughs.

As Sandy said: "Your working procedures sound fine, but the developer is not working now, even though it worked fine the first time you used it".

You'd save yourself a lot of time, and a minor expense, if you simply order another kit from PP, or mix some up yourself. :)

[sanking]

Thanks, Sandy.

My next tests will be a) extending dev time further b) refreshing the development with a fresh developer half way through a development and c) 1:1:50 mix. Seperately, of course. If the double strength mix doesn't fix this (disregarding contrast; I just want an image!!), then I think it's the product.

I'm not sure what to make of the suggested dev time from PF if this requires 15+ minutes given the suggested starting point is 9 minutes. But if that's what's required, so be it! I'm hoping that this is the case. Just seems a 66% increase is a massive amount to get to N.

If you need a 1+1+50 dilution to get acceptable density and contrast something is very wrong with the solutions. But actually, contrast is what you should be most interested in. Density is provided primarily by exposure, contrast by the energy of the developer and time of development.

How much time you might need to develop your film to a high enough contrast depends on the dilution of the developer, temperature, method and frequency of agitation, and film type, as well as the process the negative is intended for. If you are using the 1+1+100 dilution development times might vary from as few as five or six minutes to as many as twenty to forty minutes depending on all of the factors above. The time of nine minutes for TXP was determined by the time needed to develop the film (rotary agitation, 72 degrees F) to a density range of log 1.05 (or CI of about .55) for printing with silver graded papers using a condenser light source. If developing for pt/pd printing the same negative would need from fifteen to twenty minutes of development time with the same type of agitation, and twice as much if you used minimal agitation.

Over the years I have tried to trouble shoot situations for people who have for one reason or another not been successful with Pyrocat-HD or Pyrocat-MC. However, for one reason or another there are a few out there who could just never get it right, and they moved on to other developers. I am sure that some of these persons still sincerely believe that the reason for the failure was the product. I wish you luck, but in the end there is no reason to fight against a product that is not working for you as there are literally hundreds of formulas that you can buy or mix that should give decent results.

Sandy King

[Lachlan 717]

Sandy,

Thanks for the information. When I mentioned the contrast thing, I was referring to not needing to get a perfect image. I meant that I am more concerned with getting an image that is usable/normal/scannable.

I'm not fighting against it, nor do I want to move on.

I want to both understand what is going on, and I want to work out a way to get this product to do its stuff.

As for not being able to "get it right", I have yet to have someone give me a reason for it not working based on my methodology. I have detailed my work flow and not had any criticism on it. So, unless you can direct me on any erroneous processes, I am left with the developer being the probable issue. And, as you mentioned in one of your first responses here, the fact that I was able to get a good image in the first batch implies that I can get it right; here lies the issue!

You will read that I still want to get this to work. I don't want to go back to Tetenal, nor resort to buying some D-76. There's no "romance" in these chemicals!!

If you have any suggestions on where to go with this (I'm thankful for the pH test advice, and I will do some lengthened developments in line with your suggested times as well), I would appreciate hearing them.

One final question: Do you think that it's worth trying some sheets of a different film? I have some HP4 and some Efke 25 that I can try…


Thanks again for all the feedback on this.

[sanking]

If you have any suggestions on where to go with this (I'm thankful for the pH test advice, and I will do some lengthened developments in line with your suggested times as well), I would appreciate hearing them.

One final question: Do you think that it's worth trying some sheets of a different film? I have some HP4 and some Efke 25 that I can try…



The pH test is the most important thing you can verify easily, assuming you have either the test strips or a meter. The pH of a working Pyrocat-MC solution must be above about 10.8 for there to be enough energy for the developer to perform as it should. If the pH is below this number the energy of the developer would be much lower, meaning that development times for the same contrast would take much longer. BTW, it is always a good idea to shake the B solution before mixing the working as some of the carbonate may have fallen out of solution. The pH test will let you know if the B solution is OK.

If the working solution is 10.8 or higher and you still don't get enough contrast then you know that the problem is with Solution A. Unless Solution A is very, very dark (which would suggest it might have oxidized) it should be ok. However, a very dark solution does not necessarily mean that the A solution is bad as the color may result from dyes that are not harmful. So there is really no easy test for Solution A rather than the final result.

Sandy King

[Andrew Tymon]

Lachlan,

Take a sheet of 4x5 film and cut it into 1" squares( I don't think it matters which film you use).then make up a working solution and in the daylight pop the exposed film in the dev(you could actually use three pieces and remove them at 9,15 20 min's)and agitate it as you would in development.If they don't darken in the developer,then it's obviously not working. I use this test every time I process film you get to see visually if the developer is working,you don't lose hard won pics or waste film and it's a great use for the 25th sheet in the box :). Good luck with the outcome and I can highly recommend mixing your own(I particularly enjoy using the M version).
regards
Andy

[Ken Lee]

Take a sheet of 4x5 film and cut it into 1" squares( I don't think it matters which film you use).then make up a working solution and in the daylight pop the exposed film in the dev(you could actually use three pieces and remove them at 9,15 20 min's)and agitate it as you would in development.If they don't darken in the developer,then it's obviously not working. I use this test every time I process film you get to see visually if the developer is working,you don't lose hard won pics or waste film and it's a great use for the 25th sheet in the box :). Good luck with the outcome and I can highly recommend mixing your own(I particularly enjoy using the M version).

Brilliant !

... and thanks for the explanation: I've been wondering what to do with that 25th sheet now for a while :cool:

[Lachlan 717]

Again, thanks to all who have provided input.

Hopefully, I'll get time to do these tests today!