Pyro and 4x5 negatives

[Rory_3532]

Morley Baer, in his forward to Gordon Hutchings's The Book of Pyro, says a page iv:

"It was after I began to work with my own large negatives that I learned tht pyrogallol crystals combined in a prescribed formula with sulfite and carbonate made up ABC Pyro. It was many years later that I learned components could be altered in degree according to desired contrasts and that it worked well only with large negatives, no smaller than 8x10."

This would seem to suggest that Pyro does not work well, or at least does not live up to the claims made for it, when used to develop 4x5 negatives. Hutchings, in the text proper, neither expresses nor addresses such a reservation. Is the reservation correct and, if so, why?

[Alex Hawley]

It would be interesting to learn what Morley was talking about. In my brief experience with pyro, I haven't seen such a distinction between 4x5 and 8x10. However, 8x10 is easier to develop by inspection because one can see the image better than with 4x5, just due to the size.

With 4x5, I found that shadow detail and highlight detail is finer and crisper using ABC pyro than it was with Rodinal or HC110. One caution though; Tri-X and ABC easily blocks up highlights so I wouldn't recommend that combination unless contrast is low; then its beautiful.

Just my two cents worth using Tri-X, APX 100, J&C Classic 200, Rodinal, HC110, and ABC Pyro.

[Ken Lee]

There are some informative articles concerning Pyro various formulas on the web, which suggest that it can very nicely with small formats, since its grain-reducing benefit is helpful in medium format, 35mm, etc.



See An Introduction to Pyro Staining Developers,
With Special Attention to the Pyrocat-HD Formula (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/pcat.html" target="_blank)



Also see The Effects of Pyro Stain in Platinum Printing (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Pyro/pyro.html" target="_blank)



Also see these articles (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Pyrocat/pyrocat.html" target="_blank).



For what it's worth, I have had no problems with PyroCat HD in mediaum format and 4x5. For a recent sample in 4x5, see this image (http://www.kenleegallery.com/bchurch.htm" target="_blank) which was a delight to print. The highlights did not block up at all. Full Sun with no clouds, at around 9:14 AM apparently :-)

[sanking]

The issue is not that ABC Pyro does not work at all with small negatives. The problem is that it produces very large and pronounced grain. If you contact print an 8X10 negative developed in ABC Pyro grain size is not a consideration. However, if you print a 4X5 negative with enlargement of 2X and over the grain size can become very objectionable.

Some other Pyro developers such as PMK, Pyrocat-HD and WD2D+ produce more stain than ABC Pyro, and this stain masks the the grain. As much as 40-50% of the actual effective printing density of a PMK, Pyrocat-HD or WD2D+ negative is stain density, whereas that figure for ABC Pyro would typically be much less than 20%.

I assume that Morely Baer's statement was made based on his expectation that 8X10 negatives would generally be printed by contact.

[Rory_3532]

Sandy,

As someone who has written about pyro as a developer, do your comments mean that you ednorse PMK, Pyrocat-HD or WD2D+ for 4x5 negatives or that you think other developers are equivalent or better?

[Bill_1856]

I thought that one of the advantages of Pyro was that it avoids blocked-up highlights. Is this incorrect?

[sanking]

Yes, I endorse the use of PMK, Pyrocat-HD and WD2D with 4X5" film. They are all excellent general purpose developers that give very high sharpness and nice tight grain. And all are used from Stock A and B solutions that have excellent keeping qualities, much better than most other traditional developers. Each has its own charactertics, however, and might prove optimum for a particular situation as I discuss in my article on staining developers mentioned in a previous post.

In my experience the results you will get from these developers are at least as good in all lighting situations as what you can expect from the best traditional developers, and in certain lighting situations, such as backlit scenes, much better. And I don't think there are any traditional formulas out there that will give you better overall sharpness than these three developers when used with 4X5" film.

However, there are situations where another developer might be prefered. For example people who place a lot of importance of getting the finest grain possible can find finer grain formulas than PMK, Pyrocat-HD and WD2D+. Also, the practice of sensitometry is slightly more complicated with staining developers than with traditional developers.

[Bruce Watson]

Yes, I endorse the use of PMK, Pyrocat-HD and WD2D with 4X5" film.

What about when developed with a Jobo in an Expert 3010 tank?

[sanking]

No, for For Jobo and other forms of rotary development I would not recommend either PMK or WD2D+. Many people have gotten excellent results with PMK with rotary processing, but many others have experienced difficulties of one sort or the other. In fact, my own problems with PMK and rotary processing is the main reason I developed the Pyrocat-HD formula, which in my opinion on the whole gives much more consistent results with rotary processing than any of the pyrogallol based developers.

[Alex Hawley]

Bill, myself and others have reported that Tri-X developed in ABC pyro blocks up in the highlights. I haven't read nor experienced this with any other films using the ABC formula. Those that have tried Pyrocat HD with Tri-X have had good success. Don't know why Tri-X does this but it does.

[Jim_3565]

I've also blocked highlights very badly with JandC Classic 200 developed in ABC. 400TMax is much more expandable than either JandC or Tri-X. I should think that in Pyrocat HD it would be capable of producing a printable negative from a scene with incredibly long SBR.

[Rory_3532]

Maybe I'm missing something, but what I'm getting from this discussion is that the claimed advantages of pyro over other developers are largely based on the premise that one is contact printing rather than shooting, and enlarging, 4x5 film. I understand the point that pyro has a long shelf-life, but for me that is not a significant consideration. Given the choice between a fairly toxic solution with a long shelf-life, and a harmless, or at least less toxic, solution with a shorter shelf life, I'll pick the latter.

[Paul Moshay]

Many years ago I tried ABC Pyro in several of the formulas and got very large grain so I did not like it. A few years ago I tried Hutchings Pyro PMK and love it. I use 4x5 HP5+ and Arista 400 rated about EI200+/- and get very good and easily printabe negs that do not block up the highlights at all and have good shadow detail. Rubber gloves and senseable precautions make it easy to use.

[Tim Curry]

I think this one aspect of Morley Baer's intro comes from his time frame. When he was starting in photography many years ago, film speeds tended to be slower and grain tended to be larger than today, in general. With this combination in mind, he would have had some pretty large grain to deal with in some of the available film choices and formats. It's no wonder that the seemingly arbitrary 8x10 comment was made.

As far as contact vs. enlargement printing, the staining developers do have an advantage over more common developers, especially with the smaller film sizes. I use Efke 25 in 35mm when I have enough light. My developer of choice is PMK pyro. This combination has a very good tonal range, good sharpness and virtually no grain. Even with enlargements up to 8x10, it's impossible to see grain in the print. It still yields crisp edges and very sharp transitions from light to dark, but is also very smooth. This is a very good combination for small film formats, so it really is versatile. With 4x5 film, there is no limit to the size of enlargement for most cases. If you are planning on a billboard size enlargement, go with 8x20.

The toxicity issues are not a problem if normal lab procedures are followed and clean work habits are adhered to. If you need foul weather gear to work in the darkroom, forget about pyro, or any other developers for that matter, go digital!

[sanking]

In a preceding message Rory wrote, "Maybe I'm missing something, but what I'm getting from this discussion is that the claimed advantages of pyro over other developers are largely based on the premise that one is contact printing rather than shooting, and enlarging, 4x5 film."

I think you may indeeed be missing something. I looked back through this thread and can't find any basis for your comment that what is proposed in this discussion is that the advanges of pyro over other developers is based on a premise that one is contact printing. What has been proposed is that ABC Pyro, one of several Pyro developers, is not ideal for enlargment because of the large grain. All of the other developers mentioned, which include PMK, Pyrocat-HD and WD2D+, produce a very tight grain pattern and are perfectly suitable for enlargment with 4X5" film, and with 35mm and roll film sizes for that matter.

[Rory_3532]

Sandy,

In your previous post, and in this one, you make the point that certain pyro formulations are suitable for 4x5 negatives. That is not the same thing as saying that those formulations have advantages over other devlelopers, although you do make that statement in relation to backlit photographs. Between Baer's comments, and yours, I get the impression that there is not much to be gained from this developer for 4x5 negatives. If that is so, for me the toxicity issue weighs in favour of using others. I would like to add that I greatly appreciated your comments.

[lee\c]

Rory,

Sandy King said: All of the other developers mentioned, which include PMK, Pyrocat-HD and WD2D+, produce a very tight grain pattern and are perfectly suitable for enlargment with 4X5" film, and with 35mm and roll film sizes for that matter.

Maybe a pyro based developer is not meant for your photographic intents. But you will never know unless you choose to try one. Sandys statement above seems perfectly clear to me. ABC pyro is best suited for contact printing and PMK, Pyrocat-HD and WD2D+ all yeild excellent negative for enlarging. Jobo users may like Rollo Pyro for rotary processing.

leec

[Alex Hawley]

Rory, I'm not sure how you draw your conclusion, but I strongly second Lee's recommendation to try it before condemning it. To me, the differences were obvious on 4x5 negatives using ABC. I don't enlarge beyond 11x14 so I can't address the grain issue from personal experience. I'll take Sandy's authoritative word for it.

After following and researching the various articles/threads on the various pyro developers for the past year, my recommendation is to try Pyrocat with your 4x5. The current concensus is that it yields the best results over a wide variety of films in the 4x5 format for enlargements. I intend to try it personnally with 4x5 and have a small kit from PH standing by, waiting for the winter weather to break.

I also recommend studying the excellent articles Sandy has written and posted on Unblinking Eye. They are quite objective and his testing results have been validated in part by others.

As far as the toxicity issue is concerned, wear gloves. Pyro has been in use for nearly a hundred years. I think if it were a serious hazard it would have been banned by now. Just an opinion.

[sanking]

Rory,

This thread did not begin as one in which the desired information was a list of the advantages of Pyro developers over traditional ones and it was not my intention to address that issue. You can find that information, however, in several places, including Gordon Hutchins' The Book of Pyro and in my article An Introduction to Pyro Staining Developers, With Special Attention to the Pyrocat-HD Formula at www.unblinkingeye.com. Ultimately, however, you will have to determine for yourself if the advantages touted by others pertain to your own work.

I believe that as a general rule Pyro developers give better results than traditional developers but one must bear in mind that the differences between general purpose developers, either Pyro or traiditional, are really quite small. In fact, they are all about 90-95% or more alike and it is only in the remaining 5-10% that you find specific reasons for choosing one developer over another. This is true whether you are comparing Pyro to traditional developers, are whether you are comparing different Pyro developers Obviously if you are going to take advantage of the 5-10% difference between developers you must have some idea of what to look for and what you really want.

I do not intend to exagerate the benefits of Pyro developers by suggesting that they are in every case superior to traiditional developers because that is not the state. There are many factors that one must take into consideration in choosing an appropriate developer: cost, ease of use, sharpness, develoment time, grain size, ability to perform in backlit situations, etc. Having weighed all of these factors I have concluded that Pyro developers are more appropriate for my work than traditional ones. But I made that decidion on an empirical rather than theoretical grounds, by carefully comparing results on the print. There is some sound theoretical basis for the contention that Pyro developers are capable of sharper results and perform much better in backlit situations than others but in the end such contentions are only valid if you actually see the difference on the print.

[steve simmons]

So here is my blunt opinion (based on 25+ years of experience with a variety of Pyro developers).

The old ABC formula had many problems. The B solution was not stable, the film speed of the film used dropped considerably, and the results were grainy. This was the formula Morley was talkning about. The PMK is a big improvement.

In about 1978 John Wimberly came out with the W2D2 formula that was a big inmprovement. By combining Pyro and Metol film speeds were close to normal and the two solutions were very stable over a long period of time.

in the early 80s Gordon Hutchings came out with his PMK formula which is the best to date. He also combined Pyro and Metol. This is a two solution stock formula. The A and B parts are combined with water for use and then discarded. These solutions are also very stable over long periods of time.

Since the PMK developer was created many people have dismissed its claims. But, many of them, when you question them, never tried it, had a bad experience with ABC, sell competing products (including trying to come up with what they claim is a better formula), or simply aren't experienced enough looking at good black and white prints to tell the difference. The only problems I am aware of with the PMK forumla is that it won't work with the BTSZ tubes and sometimes does not work in a Jobo. I have tray developed my sheet film in PMK for 20 years and never had a problem (my tray processing technique is described in a free artic.e on the View Camera magazine web site). Some have suggested a Pyrocatechin variation but this is more toxic and only works with minus developmenmt. It is also more grainy.

I have used the PMK with medium format and sheet film (4x5, 5x7, 8x10) and would not now use anything else. If I used a Jobo I might try the Rollo Pyro formula. I would not use any Pyro formula with 35mm as it is just too grainy . Grain in med and large format is not a problem and I would go for the much improved tonal scale.

I do not sell Gordon's book. I just use his formula.

steve simmons www.viewcamera.com

[Andre Noble]

My first experience with Pyro was just a few days ago when I bought some WD2D+ at Freestyle (they didn’t stock Pyrocat HD) and spent the week testing the WD2D+ for the effective film speed it renders.

In the process of making standardized prints for the test, I FINALLY found out how to get exquisite highlight gradation (in lieu of my previous empty white paper). So, the additional benefit of using Pyro seems more like 50% than only 5% when shooting under direct sunlight conditions.

I also disagree somewhat about WD2D+ Pyro being too grainy for 35mm size based on the following very limited anecdote: I accidentally overcooked (78F instead of 68F –oops!) a test roll of 35mm HP5+ rated @ 200 in WD2D+, and the grain, while not Microdol-Xish, was only mildly grainy, but very sharp.

However, I do have unanswered questions about Pyro being good for shooting under very low contrast lighting.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Some have suggested a Pyrocatechin variation but this is more toxic and only works with minus developmenmt. It is also more grainy.



Pyrocatechin is less toxic than pyrogallol. If the suggestion is to substitute Catechol for pyrogallol and given the adequate amount of Metol added the results should be the same or very similar as PMK. If OTOH you are suggesting that Catechol will produce grainier negatives with other formulations you are mistaken, I have experimented with PMK, a single shot Catechol developer, ABC, WD2D and Pyrocat HD and those which gave me the best and smallest grain were the Catechol formulations.



The grain present in TMX developed in the single shot developer was impossible to see under a 6x loupe and actually it was a PITA to focus under the enlarger with a grain focuser, I had to use straight edges to be able to focus the image. Of course the drawback was decreased film speed.



Given my experience I would say replacement of Catechol for Pyrogallol in the PMK formula and adding sufficient Metol to produce supperaditivity should produce smaller rather than bigger grain, but then I am happy with Pyrocat so I have not made this experiment.



Andre, the advantage of the pyro formulations is that you can tailor them by mixing different ratios to produce increased or decreased contrast. This is one of the reasons why those of us doing alt printing prefer them over conventional developers. I know that Pyrocat HD is excellent for increasing contrast and given a little bit of testing I am sure both PMK and WD2D+ should give you excellent result.

[sanking]

One of the good things about knowing how developers work is that you don't have to accept the generic one shoe fits all concept. PMK is a very good universal developer but it is not the best developer of the current crop of Pyro developers for my own work. I used PMK for a very long time and know exactly how it works and what is can and can not do. Eventually I came to understand that PMK has some characteristics which I either do not like or which make it less than ideal for my work, and that is why I developed the Pyrocat-HD formula. I go into these differences in the article at unblinkingeye.com so no point to state it again here.

A previous post suggested that pyrocatechin is more toxic than pyrogallol. I have looked carefully at the MSD sheets and by my reading the toxicity of pyrogallol and pyrocatechin appears to be roughly on a par. The same kind of care used for one should apply to the other.

And Jorge, pyrocatechin can not be substituted for pyrogallol in the PMK formula. Pyrocatechin and sodium metaborate are not compatible and combining them gives a developer with no reducing energy. At least that has been the result of my experiments in using pyrocatechin with metaborate.

[Andre Noble]

Wimberly also states somewhere (perhaps on a thread in photonet) that through extensive testing of his WD2D+, that altering the 1:1:50 ratio defeats the advantages to which he engineered this developer.

Sometimes, you just have to accept the hard work of the John Wimberlys and the Sandy Kings out there.

My hunch is that Pyrocat HD and WD2D+ pyro are the state of the art for film developers.

[steve simmons]

Pyrocatechin is less toxic than pyrogallol.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

20+ years ago when Gordon Hutchings was doing his research to develop the PMK formula the Merck Index rated the toxicity of Pyrogallol and Pyrochaten (SP?) to be essentially the same. The additional problem with Pyrocatechin is that it escapes into the air much more quickly than pyrogallol. It goes from a liquid to a gas at a lower temperature and if you open a bottle of powder of each the Pyrocatechin elevates into the air more readily than pyrogallol. For these reasons I would not consider it to be any safer.

steve simmons www.viewcamera.com

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The additional problem with Pyrocatechin is that it escapes into the air much more quickly than pyrogallol



The percent volatility for both pyrogallol and Catechol is 0% at 21 ºC (71ºF). They essentially do not "escape" into the air as readily as you state. The LD50 for pyrogallol is 789mg/Kg, the LD50 for Catechol is 260 mg/Kg, this is for oral rat dose, clearly pyrogallol is more toxic than catechol.



Sandy, since I never tried this I will take your word for that.



Andre, since WD2D+ is a proprietary formulation I am sure Wimberley is correct, but with the old WD2D I tried it at different concentrations and it worked just fine. As a matter of fact I tried formulations of WD2D and ABC with phenidone with very interesting results.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Just to offer another concurring opinion, I've pretty much settled on PMK for most negatives that I enlarge (4x5" and medium format) and ABC for negatives that I contact print, usually on Azo (8x10" and 11x14"). The films that I develop in pyro are Tri-X (in its various flavors), Efke PL100, and Ektapan (until I run out).

The advantage of PMK over ABC for me are grain masking, delicate rendering of highlights, and edge effects that produce an enhanced sense of sharpness.

Whether pyro developers are better for your tastes, you will have to decide. I recommend working with it for a while, before making a final judgment, and above all do not try to judge from the negatives at first, until you have made some prints, because pyro negatives tend to be contrastier than they look at first.

Other combos I use for specific purposes:

Tri-X 4x5" and medium format in Acufine for extra speed, above all for handheld 4x5" work.

Delta 400 Pro medium format in Perceptol, because it's really beautiful--solid blacks, delicate highlights, smooth transitions, fine grain, but alas not available in sheet sizes. If Delta 400 were available in sheet sizes, I might consider using it instead of Tri-X in pyro, because I like the look, and it's a bit easier to work with.

T-Max 100, all formats, in D-76 for really fine grain.

[steve simmons]

The escape rate may be the same at 71 degrees F but some people seem inclined to use these developers much warmer. What happens then? I have used both chemicals and I know from personal experience that there is much more odor from Pyrocatecol than from Pyrogallol when I open the jars of dry chemical.

In the mid 80s I tested PMK, ABC, and the pyrocatechol formulae. The pyrocatecol worked well for minus and maybe normal development but any plussing was tedious because the times were very long for normal. The PMK did as well with minus (I can do minus 4 with Tri-X and HP5+) and also has more reasonable times for normal and plus (assuming the film will do plus).

It is amusing to me that people keep trying to come up with better and better formulae. There was an article recently about using tea leaves. I am afraid that this activity sometimes begins to take the place of making photographs..

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The escape rate may be the same at 71 degrees F but some people seem inclined to use these developers much warmer. What happens then? I have used both chemicals and I know from personal experience that there is much more odor from Pyrocatecol than from Pyrogallol when I open the jars of dry chemical.



Ah men, sometimes I feel like I am talking to a wall. You stated the dry volatile rate of Catechol was higher, you are wrong. In solution they would not escape at all, not in the original form, they might scape as CO, CO2, etc, but not as pyrogallol or Catechol. So if the solution has a higher temp than 71º that is inmaterial as were or at least you were talking about dry rate volatile exhaustion.



As to the greater odor of Catechol that has to do with smell receptors not with the concentration of the chemical in the air, you might be able to detect a smaller concentration of catechol than of pyrogallol even though there is more pyrogallol in the air.....



In the mid 80s I tested PMK, ABC, and the pyrocatechol formulae. The pyrocatecol worked well for minus and maybe normal development but any plussing was tedious because the times were very long for normal.



Perhaps I am wrong but I dont think Sandy had created Pyrocat HD in the 80`s.Other formulations were not as good as his, I also tried them all.



It is amusing to me that people keep trying to come up with better and better formulae


Also better and better cars, homes, clothes, etc....A good thing does not exclude a better thing down the road.

[steve simmons]

Jorge

If you are going to quote me use my whole statement not just selected parts. If I am not mistaken you started a very ugly exchange with me on another network. Please leave your personal feeling in the lab and respond to my entire statements. You seem way to anxious to refute me.

Now, whether or not you agree with me I stand by my statements. Both forms need to be handled with care and the PMK, in my experience, is a better general formula than anything with catechol.

steve simmons www.viewcamera.com

[steve simmons]

Jorge

If you are going to quote me use my whole statement not just selected parts. If I am not mistaken you started a very ugly exchange with me on another network. Please leave your personal feeling in the lab and respond to my entire statements. You seem way to anxious to refute me.

Now, whether or not you agree with me I stand by my statements. Both forms need to be handled with care and the PMK, in my experience, is a better general formula than anything with catechol.

PS

Why not write an article discussing your scientific testing and showing comparison photographs. View Camerw will be happy to publish it.

steve simmons www.viewcamera.com

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

If you are going to quote me use my whole statement not just selected parts



Your statements are there for everybody to see, the "quote" as you call it is just to keep a common thread in the response. Nothing wrong with it, nor am I taking your responses out of context. Nice deflect though, I suppose if someone does not agree with you it becomes an "ugly" exchange, so be it. I have no feelings towards you good or bad, but as I told you before, if you make an erroneous statement I will correct you.



in my experience, is a better general formula than anything with catechol.



That is all you had to say from the beguinning. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I absolutely have no response for that and it is great you have found a developer that fills all your expectations.
As to the "toxicity" of Pyrogallol and Catechol I am tired of the scare tactic, you would have to keep your hands in these developers for 8 hours a day for many years before you start seeing chronic health effects. As you say, good lab practice is always preferable, but you arm will not fall off if you spill some developer on it. Nor will you have sudden kidney failure if you open a jar of Catechol once or twice a month. Let me give you a little lesson in occupational safety, something I did for many years.

Both Pyrocat HD and PMK require 5 gr (approx) per 100 ml of stock solution, this is a 5% solution. If you then dilute this 5% solution a hundred fold you obtain a 0.05% solution. This is equivalent to a 500 ppm solution. Now OSHA has set the PEL (permissible exposure level) for Catechol and Pyro at 5ppm TWA (time weighted average) 8 hours for no ill effects. Here you might think, well there you go, 500 is way higher than 5, but the catch is that it is a TWA, which means that in an 8 hour period you should have an average of 5 ppm. Since even if we dont use gloves we see the film develop we know we do not absorb all 500 ppm of Cat or Pyro through the skin in a developing session. Suppose you absorb a 100 ppm, if you then stop, go on to do other things and then continue next day, you will have for all practical and health purposes not done any harm to your body.
So you see when you say, "Catechol is more toxic" or "Catechol escapes easier and is worse for you" you are wrong, I just as soon have you say "IMO PMK is better than any developer" and keep your statments about something which obviously you know very little to your self.



Why not write an article discussing your scientific testing and showing comparison photographs. View Camerw will be happy to publish it.



You know, if I thought you were sincere about this I would do it in a jiffy, but given my previous experience with you and your promises, I rather decline the offer since this is a lot of work to be done on a promise which I think is not given in good faith.

[sanking]

OK, let's put things in perspective. All of the safety data indicates that Pyrogallol and Pyrocatechin have about the same level of toxicity. Reasonable precautions should be exercised in the use of both, but no extraordinary measures are required, IMHO. And let us not forget that hydroquinone, which is very similar to Pyrocatechin and only slightly less toxic, according to MSDS data, is widely used in both film and paper developers and virtually no one has any concerns about its use.

Claiming that one developer is better than another is in my opinion is in my opinion a waste of time. Most developers are to some extent compromise solutions and they have different characteristics that we can take advantage of if we understand them and know what we want.

Steve, I would take you up on the article suggestion about a comparison of different Pyro developers but for the fact that I am working on a book at this time that involves a lot of testing with alternative processes and I simply don't have the time or disposition to do any work with silver gelatin materials. In fact, it has been several years since I last made a silver gelatin print. However, I do know a number of photographers who use Pyrocat-HD who might be interested in doing such an article and if you like I would be happy to let them know of your potential interest and contact you directly about the topic. Just let me know if you would like to pursue this.

[Rory_3532]

I'm sorry that I asked the original question. Some of the responses reinforce the impression that there is a messianic attitude to discussions about pyro, something that also seems to characterize discussions about Azo, and that this messianic attitude is at work not only in discussions about these processes versus others, but also in discussions about variations in process among the converted. It is a good way to turn people off.

[Francis Abad]

Dont be turned off Rory. Pyro and AZO are a good combination. Give it a try and you will see for yourself.

[sanking]

Rory,

Rodinal or D76 1:1 will most likely satisfy all of your requirments.

The differences between developers are really quite small. Lacking an understanding of the differences between developers, and/or of intended objectives, one would do just as well, IMHO, with a general formula such as D76 or Rodinal.

I regret wasting my time in trying to convey anything different to you.

[Rory_3813]

Sandy, re your statement: "I regret wasting my time in trying to convey anything different to you."

That pretty much says it all. It is the most singularly arrogant, and unhelphful, sentence that I have read on this site. The amazing thing is that you started by making what I made a point of describing as some very helpful statements, that I have stayed out of the discussion as it deteriorated, and that you are now being flippant with someone who expressed appreciation to you.

[sanking]

I am not being flippant. To the contrary, I am very serious. I spent a lot of time trying to address your questions, as did others. And after all the useful information generously contributed by me and others you dismiss our contributions with this comment.

"I'm sorry that I asked the original question. Some of the responses reinforce the impression that there is a messianic attitude to discussions about Pyro, something that also seems to characterize discussions about AZO, and that this messianic attitude is at work not only in discussions about these processes versus others, but also in discussions about variations in process among the converted. It is a good way to turn people off.."

I found this comment extremely insulting, demeaning of all of the time and effort I, .and others, spent in trying to address your questions.

I am not sure what you want to know/learn from your exchanges on this list but I will say this. If you expect to engage in informative exchanges on photography with very informed persons (and you will find some of the most informed persons in the world on this forum) you should try to bring something to the table other than attitude. And if you find my attitude arrogant, so be it..

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Rory, you have completely misread Sandy, he is one of the most helpful and generous person with his knowledge in this group. If you read his article in Unblinkingeye you will see he has no axe to grind and that he has explored the pyro vs catechol differences in depth.

To answer your original question, I used it with 4x5 and found it too grainy, but the tonalities were beautiful, much better than those obtained with "normal" developers. I think that what Sandy tried to say is that there is no magic bullet, you have to do your homework, test and "tailor" the developer to your paper and taste.

Is PMK better than other developers? IMO yes, when used properly. Is it the best staining developer? Depends what you are doing, for enlarging I would say probably yes, for contact printing or alt printing, no, there are better developers.

[steve simmons]

Why not write an article discussing your scientific testing and showing comparison photographs. View Camera will be happy to publish it.

You know, if I thought you were sincere about this I would do it in a jiffy, but given my previous experience with you and your promises, I rather decline the offer since this is a lot of work to be done on a promise which I think is not given in good faith. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Nice try but I am sincere. You write it and if it is scientifically sound I will publish it.

Now, what promises have I broken?

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Now, what promises have I broken?



You really dont want me to embarass you here in front of all this folk. If you ask again, I will.

[steve simmons]

My offer for you to write an article is sincere. We can even have it reviewed by an independent editor. If you are so knowlegeable why not share it?

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

If you are so knowlegeable why not share it?



Is this a challange?..ok, you are on. This are the ground rules, I will present an article comparing 5 staining developers for enlargement. These will be ABC, WD2D (WD2D+ is propietary so I dont have a way to test it), PMK, Pyrocat HD and a single shot Catechol developer. All the tests will be done with TMY 400, and will be printed in Oriental Seagull #2. You will be presented with a family of curves for each developer and 10X enlargements of the grain as well a normal prints. With this article I hope to prove that Catechol developers produce finer grain and better tonal transition that pyro based developers and are just as capable of good expansion. I will be using BTZS terminology and will provide all the curves and comparisons in the same manner.



You will have this article reviewed by an independent editor, and if you decide not to publish it you have to post your scientific objections on this forum for all to see....deal?

[steve simmons]

Is this a challange?..ok, you are on. This are the ground rules, I will present an article comparing 5 staining developers for enlargement. These will be ABC, WD2D (WD2D+ is propietary so I dont have a way to test it), PMK, Pyrocat HD and a single shot Catechol developer. All the tests will be done with TMY 400, and will be printed in Oriental Seagull #2. You will be presented with a family of curves for each developer and 10X enlargements of the grain as well a normal prints. With this article I hope to prove that Catechol developers produce finer grain and better tonal transition that pyro based developers and are just as capable of good expansion. I will be using BTZS terminology and will provide all the curves and comparisons in the same manner.

You will have this article reviewed by an independent editor, and if you decide not to publish it you have to post your scientific objections on this forum for all to see....deal? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Agreed with the following additions. You must use a second film so the test is not T-Max specific. How about Tri-X - the new version that Kodak is now producing.

I may do some followup testing myself and will report my findings along with yours in the same issue.

If you agree to add Tri-X we're on and to my doing some followup testing and reporting myself we're on.

steve simmons

steve simmons

[sanking]

Well, this agreement is a pleasant surprise and I look forward to the results

A couple of comments. I would say choose either TMAX-400 or TRI-X plus a medium speed Ilford film like Ilford FP4+. One of the issues with the Kodak films, at least these two, is that for some reason they give a lot of general stain with both PMK and Pyrocat-HD. FP4+, on the other hand, is one of the most popular films used with both PMK and Pyrocat-HD.

Another issue is how to determine film speed, an issue sure to be of much interest. Unfortunately the only way to do this is by exposing your step wedges with a light integrator so that every combination will be sure to receive the same exposure.

And Jorge, please test Pyrocat-HD with my standard formula using potasium carbonate and not the accelerator you use in your own work. I am suspicious that using hydroxide as the accelerator would result in larger grain than carbonate, though in fact I have never tested this.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well, I dont have Tri X, nor do I use it for my personal work so I dont want to order it from the US just for this. What I am willing to do is follow Sandy's suggestion and use FP4 since this is what I have for the 12x20, I can cut a few sheets to make the test. As to your tests, I have no objection to that if you provide sensitometric data for your tests, not just subjective evaluations of a print. Which brings me to another point, the prints should be unmanipulated, no dodging, no burning, masks or PS. IOW you make the negative and present a straight print on #2 paper. This is necessary to remove one more variable which is paper contrast. Since we are talking about the properties of these developers the paper should be a fixed constant.

Sandy, I have a compensating digital timer for the enlarger, I assure you all the negs will get the same exposure.

I usually dont do requests, but I will use pot carbonate since you ask. I can tell you though, my TMY negs show almost no grain under a 6x loupe. I would have to make a 4x5 feet enlargement to barely see the grain. As to the general stain I get 0.21 for UV and 0.11 for visible (blue light) with the NaOH. Remember I wrote to you about this because I thought I was doing something wrong. I get very clean negatives with what would appear no stain, until you put them under the UV densitometer....amazing results.

[steve simmons]

FP4+ is fine instead of Tri-X. I just do not want this test to be T-Max specific.

I will provide an unmanipulated print on #2 paper as requested. I will pribably not provide sensitometric date. I have done this ad naseum (sp?) in my early days. I will; select a scene with shadow and high value detail and will probably use Tri-X since that is my standard film and will provide some nice data in addition to your results. I will show the results for my scenes that will show low, mid, and high value detail.

I will work on finding an independent editor. I will ask him/her/them privately and only make their name(s) public if they agree.

Thanks for doing this. I think it will be a very worthwhile article.

Do you have an approximate delivery date?

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Ok, no sensitometric data is fine for your tests. In the end what matters is the final image and I welcome a refuting argument if it is well done.

May I suggest Steve Anchell, as I understand it he is now writing articles for your magazine and he is someone who I feel has a good handle in what we are about to do.

No need to thank me, I am confident in my scientific abilities, I hope the article meets your and the alternate editor expectations. I will have the article for you in 45 days, I have to order some stuff from the US and mail is not swift in Mexico....the burro tends to meander around.

[sanking]

I know that you are very pleased using hydroxide as the accelerator but for the article it makes sense to use the standard formula. And if you find that results are not as good with carbonate I might change my mind about the formula itself. I defninitely am very impressed with the low UV general stain you are getting with TMAX-400 with the NaOH. I tested some TMAX-400 film a few days ago with the 2:2:100 dilution and had to had some additional sulphite to the working solution to reduce UV general stain to that level. But of course this won't be an issue for your article since you are not comparing contact printing with alternative printing based on UV radiation.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I know that you are very pleased using hydroxide as the accelerator but for the article it makes sense to use the standard formula. And if you find that results are not as good with carbonate I might change my mind about the formula itself.



Agreed, I plan to use all the formulas as published with the possible exception of PMK where I will use sodium metaborate since I am unable to get Kodalk.



Additional info with NaOH, I use 1:1:100 for a DR of 1.4. As you well know NaOH is more alkaline and the reaction is more vigorous, when I used 1:1.5:100 I was blowing the highlights. In addition the b+f reading I gave you was from a neg I had just developed and it was started with water at 90º. For the article I will use standard 75º temp in a water bath, but my experience with Pyrocat and NaOH is that it produces very little b+f and is just as good at all temperatures.

[Christopher Nisperos]

regarding the original question:

I agree with Sandy King's answer of 3 Jan. 04 .… Pyro is a bit grainy and Morley probably meant that making contact prints from his 8x10 negatives would help to hide the problem.

[John Stockdale]

One thing that Pyrocat-HD can do that pyrogallol can't is minimal agitation in diluted developer for enhanced edge effects. I've been using the metol version of Pyrocat-HD 500mL+3mL+3mL for 120 film, agitating every 3 minutes (inversion tank) and the results are very pleasing. No shortage of contrast if you leave it in long enough.

[Paul Metcalf]

Hi guys - Having fun yet?

Your science experiment needs to include the criteria by which you're (or your independant judge) going judge the final prints, otherwise no one is going to learn anything from this exercise, and we'll all get another useless opinionated film/paper test. BTW, good luck coming up with those criteria that everyone agrees with...

I'd actually like to see unmanipulated scans of the negatives, along with zoomed in details of smooth areas (for grain comparison) and an edge between a light and dark object (for edge sharpness and effects). Color scans, so we can see the stain color, and full scans so we can see the amount of general stain around the edge. You can add the prints if you want, but that won't tell me anything. I probably don't print like anyone else. I want to see the negatives.

For anyone who cares and uses jobo (4x5 to 8x10), I use PMK in two batches dumping the first halfway through. I like my negatives (FP4+, Tri-X, and now Acros, all at same time but different ratings). I can provide details if anyone cares. Oh, and so far, most people like my prints, so I'm happy. If they don't like the print, it's always due to subject/composition, never the printing. Good Luck with testing...

[robert_4927]

Andre, I am also playing with Wimberly's w2d2+ formula. And I would have to dispute your claim that varing the mixture defeats the purpose that the developer was intended. John Wimberly writes in photo techniques about using w2d2+. I quote " mix 1 part A ...2 parts B and 50 Parts distilled water." I have used this and adjusted it accordingly to the amount of stain I want with excellent results. I mix .....1.5: 2: 50. Mixtures and temp can determine how aggressive the developer is. w2d2+ according to Wimberly can be used from 68F to 76F. I find it strange he would make a statement as to only use the 1: 1: 50 solution mix. In his original formula w2d2 one of his selling points is and I quote again. "When mixing Wimberly's wd2d contrast is controlled by varying the proportions of the stock solutions A and B and then he goes on to give you a chart for mixing for normal , increased, and decreased contrast. The only difference that i can see between the two formulas is he has added EDTA tetrasodium salt to the new formula. How much is the big secret. I also think it is a more concentrated mix. The original formula is mixed 1: 1: 15.. I have ordered some of the original formula to do a comparison. I will agree with one thing and that is solely opionion based. With the current pyro developers on the market PyrocatHD and WD2D+ are the choices I would, and have made. We should thank people like Sandy King and John Wimberly for developing these formulas to give us different choices. At one time ABC was the only choice they had. But don't be afraid to deviate from the stock recommendations that's the whole fun in playing with these developers.