WD2D+ & BTZS Tubes

[rich caramadre]

Will this combination work. I've read that with some pyro developers it introduces to much oxygen?

[Jay DeFehr]

Rich, work is a relative term. Yes, it will work, but not as well as 510-Pyro.

[Shen45]

Will this combination work. I've read that with some pyro developers it introduces to much oxygen?

I made up some WD2D from the online formula [not the + version] and because of the Sodium Carbonate part B got very high overall staining using the BTZS tubes. I replaced the Sodium Carbonate part B with the Kodalk [metaborate] part B I use for my PMK and the WD2D developed out to 16 minutes almost the same as the PMK. I don't know what the "+" in WD2D is but suspect it may be EDTA. Nothing to base that on but I followed Gordon Hutchings suggestion of adding EDTA to my PMK and developed in BTZS tubes and the developer returns very evenly spaced film curves out beyond the traditional 16 minutes BTZS test. Any Pyro style developers I have made for use in BTZS tubes with Sodium Carbonate part B have always return lousy looking film curves and very high overall stain as opposed to proportional stain.

[Mark Barendt]

I use a JOBO with constant rotation and it seems to work just fine.

[Jay DeFehr]

Honestly -- 510-Pyro. You could modify other developers to make them more like 510-Pyro, but what's the point?

[rich caramadre]

Jay, is 510 pyro available or is something I would have to make?

[Jay DeFehr]

You can get a pre-measured kit from Artcraft Chemicals, so you don't need a scale or anything -- just like mixing up D-76 or Xtol, except you mix in TEA instead of water. I think Jay Decker is mixing up a kit even as we speak.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Or... you could just mix up some pyrocat-hd, which is good in trays or rotary, and you don't need TEA.

[Gary Samson]

Or... you could just mix up some pyrocat-hd, which is good in trays or rotary, and you don't need TEA.

Yes, I second this recommendation based on many years of using Pyrocat-HD for both rotary and small tank processing of sheet and roll film.

[Jay DeFehr]

510-Pyro is also good in trays, and you only need one solution, which keeps for years on the shelf. I could go into all the other advantages, but I'm sure you've all read them before.

[Mike McMullen]

Remind me why I should use Pyrocat instead of PMK for FP4+? Thanks.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Mike, PMK is not good for rotary processing. The PMK version for that is Rollo-Pyro. Pyrocat-HD will work fine for both rotary and tray... and you don't need Triethanolamine.

[Jay DeFehr]

Mike, PMK is not good for rotary processing. The PMK version for that is Rollo-Pyro. Pyrocat-HD will work fine for both rotary and tray... and you don't need Triethanolamine.

Why would you want to avoid TEA? TEA does all kinds of good things for this kind of developer.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Jay, it is difficult to source in Canada and by the time it's shipped to me (from Ontario) it's over $50 a litre.

[Jay DeFehr]

Jay, it is difficult to source in Canada and by the time it's shipped to me (from Ontario) it's over $50 a litre.

Ouch!

You could try this --

Distilled water 70ml
Sodium metabisulfite 15g
Metol 7.5g
Pyrogallol 30g
Distilled water to 100ml


Dilute 1:500 - 1:1500 with 0.2% solution of sodium carbonate.

1:500 should give development times similar to a 1+2+100 dilution of PMK-Pyro, and 1:1000 should be good for Low Frequency Agitation development. Shelf life should be excellent. A lot of shoulds there. I just improvised this formula based very roughly on 510-Pyro, with a little OA thrown in for good measure. I would expect more grain and less film speed compared to 510-Pyro, but I can't say how much. It should be good for rotary processing, or any other kind. The first thing I'd look for would be fog/ general stain -- if that's ok, it's probably a pretty good developer.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I just happen to have those chems in my darkroom, so may try it... I like semi-stand. How does it hold up to that? Thank you.

[Jay DeFehr]

Andrew, let me be clear, I just improvised this formula between your last post and mine, so I've never used it. That said, it should work very well with Low Frequency Agitation. This formula belongs more to the 510-Pyro family than the Obsidian Aqua family -- it's pretty heavily loaded with developing agents, and the ratio of primary to secondary is low, and iffy. It should be fairly soft working, and probably pretty sharp, but it's intended to produce excellent gradation above all. If you try it, you'll be a pioneer, so keep notes, as you'll be the world's leading authority on the developer.:)

[Andrew O'Neill]

Lol

[Shen45]

Jay that formula looks enticing :) One question? I've always found Pyro difficult to dissolve and the total amount of chemistry has me a bit concerned that it may not dissolve properly. Could you comment please? Would it be acceptable to make a total of 150ml but with the same amount of chemistry or would that somehow alter something other than dilutions?

Like Andrew I have an afternoon to fill.

[Jay DeFehr]

Steve, that should dissolve fairly easily. You might want to use hot water for mixing, just to reduce stirring time. A more concentrated stock will keep better than a more dilute one, and this is very concentrated, so it should have excellent keeping properties. However, if you find you can't get everything dissolved, you could simply add water until it does dissolve. You'd have to recalculate the working dilutions, but that's not terribly demanding.

[Shen45]

So many formulas and so little time. What the heck - I'll try it later today.
Any suggestions on the amount of EDTA to add. I've added EDTA to my PMK as per Hutchings as I use BTZS tubes.

From memory his suggestion is about 5 gms/litre

Steve

[Jay DeFehr]

So many formulas and so little time. What the heck - I'll try it later today.
Any suggestions on the amount of EDTA to add. I've added EDTA to my PMK as per Hutchings as I use BTZS tubes.

From memory his suggestion is about 5 gms/litre

Steve

Steve,

I've never used EDTA, and I think if you use distilled water for the stock solution it isn't necessary, but if you'd like to add some, I'd try about 0.2g, to keep with the concentration recommended for PMK.

[Kimberly Anderson]

Mike, PMK is not good for rotary processing. The PMK version for that is Rollo-Pyro. Pyrocat-HD will work fine for both rotary and tray... and you don't need Triethanolamine.

I have heard a lot on this board that I agree with and a lot that I disagree with. This is one of those that I disagree with. I have been using PMK in the JOBO with my 4x5, 5x7, 4x10 and 8x10 negatives for over 3 years now and I have to say that I have NEVER had better negatives. HP5+ in all formats.

[Jay DeFehr]

I have heard a lot on this board that I agree with and a lot that I disagree with. This is one of those that I disagree with. I have been using PMK in the JOBO with my 4x5, 5x7, 4x10 and 8x10 negatives for over 3 years now and I have to say that I have NEVER had better negatives. HP5+ in all formats.

Michael,

What other staining developers have you tried?

[Kimberly Anderson]

MaxPyro and Rollo Pyro.

[Jay DeFehr]

And you prefer PMK to both, with rotary processing?

[Kimberly Anderson]

Yeah.

[Jay DeFehr]

That's interesting. How are you printing?

[Kimberly Anderson]

Printing GSP's, PT/PD, cyanotypes and VDB's. Also scanning and doing inkjet prints.

[Jay DeFehr]

Printing GSP's, PT/PD, cyanotypes and VDB's. Also scanning and doing inkjet prints.

Wow! The full gamut! I'm not sure why Rollo Pyro or Max Pyro gave you negatives of lower quality than PMK -- I would expect either to at least equal PMK in rotary processing. The problem, and it's well documented, with PMK in rotary processing is that it produces excessive general stain. Excessive is a relative term, but in this case it's relative to other staining developers designed to be used in rotary processing. There's any number of reasons you might not see this as a problem, but that shouldn't be taken to mean the developer somehow works differently for you than it does for other people, although that is one possibility. The good news is that you're happy with your results, so there's not really any good reason to worry about others' experiences or results.

[Kimberly Anderson]

Wow! The full gamut! I'm not sure why Rollo Pyro or Max Pyro gave you negatives of lower quality than PMK -- I would expect either to at least equal PMK in rotary processing.

I never indicated that Rollo or Max Pyro gave me negatives of lower quality than PMK. I merely indicated that I disagreed with the fact that PMK was being characterized as a developer that shouldn't be used with rotary processing. My experience has been contrary. I landed on PMK and have had wonderful results with it, both pulling and pushing two-stops, so I am very satisfied with the performance it is giving me.


The problem, and it's well documented, with PMK in rotary processing is that it produces excessive general stain. Excessive is a relative term, but in this case it's relative to other staining developers designed to be used in rotary processing. There's any number of reasons you might not see this as a problem, but that shouldn't be taken to mean the developer somehow works differently for you than it does for other people, although that is one possibility. The good news is that you're happy with your results, so there's not really any good reason to worry about others' experiences or results.

Well now you're talking about something that I have to admit I have little comparative knowledge of...'excessive' stain. I will say that the negs I am getting do have quite a bit of stain, but is it 'excessive'? I don't know the answer to that. Maybe it is...maybe it isn't. You did hit the nail on the head though saying that I don't have a good reason to worry about others' experiences or results. When and if I am dissatisfied, or someone can demonstrate why I should repeat all of my testing and calibrating of my exposure system, then I'll consider changing. Until then I have enough raw chemicals in my garage to be making PMK for the next 10 years or so.

[Jay DeFehr]

I've seen your web site, Michael, and you're clearly getting excellent results, however you get them. I think the disconnect is in interpreting what is meant when it's said that PMK is not suitable for rotary processing. I don't think anyone who says so means that PMK will not develop film in rotary processing, so they must be talking about some specific deficit. In this case, that deficit is the production of general stain, which acts just like fog in printing. Few would argue that fog serves a useful purpose, and it's clear it increases printing time, if nothing else. It makes sense to conclude a developer suitable for rotary processing is one that does not produce excessive general stain in the process. Foggy negatives can print beautifully despite the general stain, not because of it. So while it might make little sense for you to abandon your hard earned process over a little general stain, it makes no more sense to consider PMK equally as good for rotary processing as developers that do not produce excessive general stain. I don't argue that you're not getting excellent results from PMK with rotary processing, but that you do so despite a handicap, and there's no good reason to promote that handicap for others.

[Kimberly Anderson]

Jay,

It's unfortunate that you consider my developer a 'handicap'. It's also unfortunate that you feel that I am promoting said 'handicap' for others. I feel that neither is true.

[Jay DeFehr]

Jay,

It's unfortunate that you consider my developer a 'handicap'. It's also unfortunate that you feel that I am promoting said 'handicap' for others. I feel that neither is true.

Michael,

Please forgive my inarticulate expression of what was intended much differently than received, and sadly, I'm not sure I can express myself better than I have, so I'll simply beg your pardon, and reiterate my appreciation for your fine work.

[Kimberly Anderson]

Apology accepted. I may have to try out your Pyro recipe in the future... :)

[Jay DeFehr]

Jay that formula looks enticing :) One question? I've always found Pyro difficult to dissolve and the total amount of chemistry has me a bit concerned that it may not dissolve properly. Could you comment please? Would it be acceptable to make a total of 150ml but with the same amount of chemistry or would that somehow alter something other than dilutions?

Like Andrew I have an afternoon to fill.

I should have been more careful about the order of ingredients -- the metol should be first, with a few grains of metabisulfite.