Pyrocat-HD No Stain

I compounded my first batch of Pyrocat-HD last week. My test sheet of 7x17 film (EFKE 100), came out very thin, and with no stain at all. It looked exactly like what I would have expected if the developer were formulated without the Pyrocatechol. Has anyone else had this problem?

I bought my pyro from artcraft chemicals. I noticed that it had a particularly strong and unpleasant smell - quite choking when weighing it out. It was in caked yellow form in the jar. It is a detergent type smell, niether sweet like decomposed developer, nor sulfurous.

I was thinking that I might not be able to use Pyrocat-HD because even in working solution the smell is noticably unpleasent.

So, given that my neg came out with no stain and my pyro has a terrible smell, is it possible that I have a bad batch of pyro? Is pyrochatechol supposed to smell that bad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by photocurio

I compounded my first batch of Pyrocat-HD last week. My test sheet of 7x17 film (EFKE 100), came out very thin, and with no stain at all. It looked exactly like what I would have expected if the developer were formulated without the Pyrocatechol. Has anyone else had this problem?

I bought my pyro from artcraft chemicals. I noticed that it had a particularly strong and unpleasant smell - quite choking when weighing it out. It was in caked yellow form in the jar. It is a detergent type smell, niether sweet like decomposed developer, nor sulfurous.

I was thinking that I might not be able to use Pyrocat-HD because even in working solution the smell is noticably unpleasent.

So, given that my neg came out with no stain and my pyro has a terrible smell, is it possible that I have a bad batch of pyro? Is pyrochatechol supposed to smell that bad?

---

Hi Photocurio,

From your description it sounds to me like the pyrocatechin was indeed bad. I purchase my pyrocatechin from Artcraft and when fresh it is quite white, or just slighlty off-white, and has a strong sweet smell. I have never seen it in cake form with the detergent smell and color that you describe.

As for the color, when pyrocatechin in powder form goes bad it oxidizes and turns brown. However, it has fairly good shelf life so it does not go bad for several years. I have on hand a bottle purchased from Artcraft over six months ago and the chemical is still very white, with a strong sweet smell.

I believe you should contact Mike about this as something sounds quite wrong.

Sandy

Well then I will ask my question. Film is JandC Pro 100.
I worked with two methods. Semistand and stand development.

With semi I used brush technique as follows:
Exposure was a low light scenery.
Pyrocat-HD 2:2:100 at 68 for 8 minutes.
2 minutes brush
3 minutes stand
1 minute brush
2 minutes stand

No brown stain. Actualy for azo I had to expose only for 12 seconds to get acceptable results.


With stand I used technique as follows:
Exposure was a low light scenery.
Pyrocat-HD 1:1:200 at 68 for 27 minutes.
2 minutes rolling slow agitation
12 minutes stand
1 minute slow agitation
12 minutes stand

Uneven Stain (more on the edges than in the middle, probable cause slow agitation between stands), but brownish stain. I had to expose Azo for 60 seconds to get acceptable results.

Also, I am using Catechol instead of Pyrocatechin.
Any suggestions?

Hi Peter.

There seems to be a lot of variation in the terminology we use to describe agitation technique. I would call your first example reduced agitation, which is a kind of umbrella term for non-specific agitation less than the standard 5 sec/30sec, or 10sec/min. I would call your second example semi-stand, which refers to development with initial agitation, and agitation at the halfway point of development only.

Regarding the differences in stain formation, I would guess that there is indeed stain present in your first example, but it is closely bound to the silver image, and not readily apparent. The obvious and uneven stain, and long printing time in your second example suggest general stain, and too little agitation. You might try adjusting the ratio of A:B stocks in your working solution (more A than B), and increasing agitation intervals. Good luck.

Jay

Thanks Jay,

So it may be helpful to re-cap the termilology of agitation techniques then:

1. Stand (No agitation)
2. Semi-stand
3. Reduced agitation
4. Normal agitation
5. Constant agitation

Did I forget any? Also, I do not wanna mess the explanations here so I ask very honorable and skilled people to fill-out the description of these agitation techniques. It might be a good article for LF website as well. So let's hear knowledgeable people and try to put some artilce for LF website about agitation techniques then.

I have always been a fan of tray development. You can develop several sheets simultaneously for different times. There is an article describing my tray developing procedure on the View Camera web site in the Free Article section.

steve simmons

And one correction,
my supplier told me he sold me last batch of pyrocatechin. So, my first look tonite would be what is the color of my pyrocatechin?

As far as I remember it is light brown and it is not a powder but little chunks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SAShruby

Thanks Jay,

So it may be helpful to re-cap the termilology of agitation techniques then:

1. Stand (No agitation)
2. Semi-stand
3. Reduced agitation
4. Normal agitation
5. Constant agitation

Did I forget any? Also, I do not wanna mess the explanations here so I ask very honorable and skilled people to fill-out the description of these agitation techniques. It might be a good article for LF website as well. So let's hear knowledgeable people and try to put some artilce for LF website about agitation techniques then.

---

My terminology is as follows.

1. Rotary. Continuous agitation in Jobo or in BTZS type tubes.
2. Nomal agitation. In tanks agitation for about 1.5 minutes at the begining and thereafter every 30-60 seconds, or for sheet film in trays with constant shuffle agitation.
3. Minimal agitation. Agitatin for about 1.5 minutes at the beginning and thereafter every two or three minutes.
4. Extreme Minimal agitation. Agitation for about 1.5 minutes at the beginning and thereafter at the 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 points of total develoment time.
5. Semi-stand. Agitation for about 1.5 minuts at the beginning and thereafter only once at the 1/2 point of time.
6. Stand. Agitatiobn for about 1.5 minutes at the beginning and thereafter none.


When using any of the reduced agitation procedures I recommend very vigorous agitation at the beginning and and each of the subsequent steps. Gentle agitation with these procedures can give unevent development.

Many people, Stever Sherman included who published an article in View Camera on the subject, have used Pyrocat-HD in very dilute working solutions, say 1.5:1:150 and gotten good even development. I personally prefer minimal and extreme minimal agitation, which for me are a good compromise in that you get very good adjacency effects with a low risk of uneven development.\

About the stain. Pyrocat-HD gives a brown stain that may look almost neutral in tone when viewed by itself. However, if you hold a Pyrcoat-HD negative next to one developed in a non-stiaing developer the difference is very obvious.

Sandy

Hi Peter.

I also meant to say that catechol and pyrocatechin are two names for the same chemical, and that the appearance of yours is one normal condition. Regarding agitation terminology, I break it down this way:

Stand= no agitation after initial agitation.

Semi-stand= one agitation period after initial agitation, at the halfway point of development.

Reduced agitation= anything less than standard/normal agitation as described by Kodak/Ilford, including stand and semi-stand.

Standard/normal agitation= 5sec/30sec (Kodak), or 10sec/min (Ilford)

Continuous/rotary= continuous agitation by whatever means

Good luck.

Jay

Back to the top of the thread (I seemed to have missed the start on this one).

You see no stain with your eye -- that means, mostly, that you have no *general* stain, i.e. no stain fog. The only ways I'm aware of to accurately assess whether you have imagewise stain (which, by its nature, is intermingled with the silver image) are to either compare densitometer readings in white or red light against those in blue or UV, do the same with red vs. blue channels of a color scan, or bleach the silver image (say, with Farmer's Reducer) and examine the negative for a residual non-silver image.

If you have only a white-light densitomer, it may still be possible to evaluate if you have imagewise stain, by developing negatives to the same white-light density in your Pyrocat-HD and a non-staining developer like D-76, and comparing the printed densities (stain would make a less dense print with other factors identical, because it "looks" denser in the blue and green light to which paper is sensitive than in white light).

I'd suggest trying to verify if you have the useful kind of stain before trying too hard to find out why your Pyrocat-HD isn't staining...

To follow up on my original post, I mixed up a second batch of developer, and it worked much better. In the first batch, I had substituted metol for phenidone: I used 20 g metol instead of the 2 g of phenidone. For the second batch, I switched to Pyrocat-M. The only change was to reduce the metol to 2.5 g. With the same developing time, this gave a neg that looked thin, but had a slight brownish tint. It printed with far more contrast than expected for such a thin looking neg. I print on salted paper, and in general it is hard to get enough density into my negs. My previous standard developer was D19.

I will continue with Pyrocat-M. My first neg is somewhat over-developed, in spite of its thin appearance. I processed for 12 minutes at 70 deg. The dilution was 2:2:100. I could try processing at 1:1:100 next, or reduce the time to 10 minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by photocurio

To follow up on my original post, I mixed up a second batch of developer, and it worked much better. In the first batch, I had substituted metol for phenidone: I used 20 g metol instead of the 2 g of phenidone. For the second batch, I switched to Pyrocat-M. The only change was to reduce the metol to 2.5 g. With the same developing time, this gave a neg that looked thin, but had a slight brownish tint. It printed with far more contrast than expected for such a thin looking neg. I print on salted paper, and in general it is hard to get enough density into my negs. My previous standard developer was D19.

I will continue with Pyrocat-M. My first neg is somewhat over-developed, in spite of its thin appearance. I processed for 12 minutes at 70 deg. The dilution was 2:2:100. I could try processing at 1:1:100 next, or reduce the time to 10 minutes.

---

I don't remember you mentioning in your first post that you were substituting metol for phenidone at 10X the amount of phenidone. What you have found is that the amount of secondary reducer in the formula can enhance or kill the stain. With metol at 10X the amount of phenidone the formula is very active but gives fairly low stain. Many people have been substituting metol in the formula over the years at about the same amount as phenidone and discovered that there is still a lot of regneration but that the stain is much greater. That is the path I chose for the new -M and -MC formulas.

If interested you might have a look at the following thread for more information about the -M and -MC versions of Pyorocat. http://www.apug.org/forums/showthrea...t=27497&page=1

BTW, Photographrs' Formulary is now supplying both Pyrocat-HD and Pyrocat-MC in liquid kits mixed in glycol. The kits are quite economical and the stock solutions should last for years.

Sandy

My home made Pyrocat-M is working out very well, but the promise of lower base+fog makes it worth trying the new Pyrocat-MC formula also. With my salted paper set up exposures are typically about an hour long. Any reduction in base+fog would be a wonderful help to me.

Good news about the pre-mixed solutions. This formula requires some chemicals I don't have on hand. I ordered a bottle of Pyrocat-MC from Formulary. Its not on the site yet but you can order by phone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by photocurio

My home made Pyrocat-M is working out very well, but the promise of lower base+fog makes it worth trying the new Pyrocat-MC formula also. With my salted paper set up exposures are typically about an hour long. Any reduction in base+fog would be a wonderful help to me.

Good news about the pre-mixed solutions. This formula requires some chemicals I don't have on hand. I ordered a bottle of Pyrocat-MC from Formulary. Its not on the site yet but you can order by phone.

---

I am assuming that for salted paper you are looking for a negative DR of about log 2.1, or an approximate CI of .95 (based on UV analysis of course). You can get that with Efke PL 100 with about 12 minutes of development with the 2:2:100 dilution of Pyrocat-MC, or 8 minutes at 5:3:100. This would be for rotary processing at 72F. Add about 15-20% to these times if tray processing.

Sandy

By pure coincidence, I did start with 12 minutes processing at 2:2:100, although my standard temperature is 70 deg. I use a unicolor drum that fits my 7x17 sheet film and continuous agitation from a unicolor roller base. My first negs were a little too contasty, so I am now using 10 minutes developing time and lowering my ASA slightly. The prints are very pretty, with sparkly highlights and rich shadows.

Thank you for your formulas, and your help, Sandy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sanking

My terminology is as follows.

1. Rotary. Continuous agitation in Jobo or in BTZS type tubes.
2. Nomal agitation. In tanks agitation for about 1.5 minutes at the begining and thereafter every 30-60 seconds, or for sheet film in trays with constant shuffle agitation.
3. Minimal agitation. Agitatin for about 1.5 minutes at the beginning and thereafter every two or three minutes.
4. Extreme Minimal agitation. Agitation for about 1.5 minutes at the beginning and thereafter at the 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 points of total develoment time.
5. Semi-stand. Agitation for about 1.5 minuts at the beginning and thereafter only once at the 1/2 point of time.
6. Stand. Agitatiobn for about 1.5 minutes at the beginning and thereafter none.


When using any of the reduced agitation procedures I recommend very vigorous agitation at the beginning and and each of the subsequent steps. Gentle agitation with these procedures can give unevent development.

Many people, Stever Sherman included who published an article in View Camera on the subject, have used Pyrocat-HD in very dilute working solutions, say 1.5:1:150 and gotten good even development. I personally prefer minimal and extreme minimal agitation, which for me are a good compromise in that you get very good adjacency effects with a low risk of uneven development.\

About the stain. Pyrocat-HD gives a brown stain that may look almost neutral in tone when viewed by itself. However, if you hold a Pyrcoat-HD negative next to one developed in a non-stiaing developer the difference is very obvious.

Sandy

---

Excellent, so can go one step further to determine unversal dilutions and times for Pyrocat-HD, N-1, N and N+1 development for each technique? I would say it would help lots of people get a starting point for Pyrocat-HD...

Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SAShruby

Excellent, so can go one step further to determine unversal dilutions and times for Pyrocat-HD, N-1, N and N+1 development for each technique? I would say it would help lots of people get a starting point for Pyrocat-HD...

Just a thought.

---

Well, since you ask!!!

For my own work I have worked out the following equivalencies for a couple of films. Treat the information as guideline, not dogma, as films may react differently to reduced agitation procedures.

However, for what it is worth, assuming desired contrast, X, is reached at 72" F with normal rotary processing using the 1:1:100 dilution here is what I recommend for other agitation procedures with the same dilution and temperature.

Rotary = Is 1X with 1:1:100 dilution
Intermittent Agitation in tanks or tray = 1.15X, 1:1:100 dilution
Minimal Agitation = 1.5X, 1:1:100 dilution
Extreme Minimal Agitation = 3X, 1.5:1:200 dilution
Semi-Stand Agitation = 4X, 1.5:1:200 dilution
Stand = 5X, 1.5:1:200 dilution

Sandy King

Thanks Sandy,

as always, your contributions and experiences are well documented in this and Michael and Paula forums.

So for clarification, if I have worked out the solution to get my contrast for film YYY les't day for rotary development, i.e. X = 8 minutes, other development techniques should yield approximatley same contrast by adjusting time X by factor you mentioned, right?

So another question, I know I am bugger, but anyway it would help everybody who is new, as I am, at least in developing my own pictures.

Question:

What developing technique would be most appropriate to what kind of effect? (contrast, sharpnes, tonality)
What I mean is, let's say, if you want to have your picture look more sharp, you would choose stand or semi-stand development to apply adjancency effect and therefore increasing local contrast visually results in better sharpness.

Another example, for portrait photography I would pick constant agitation (rotary) to minimize local contrast to blend surfaces and achieve better tonal transitions.

Is there any other reasons you would choose certain type of development technique to achieve particular effect which is affected mostly just by one type of development technique?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SAShruby

Thanks Sandy,

as always, your contributions and experiences are well documented in this and Michael and Paula forums.

So for clarification, if I have worked out the solution to get my contrast for film YYY les't day for rotary development, i.e. X = 8 minutes, other development techniques should yield approximatley same contrast by adjusting time X by factor you mentioned, right?

So another question, I know I am bugger, but anyway it would help everybody who is new, as I am, at least in developing my own pictures.

Question:

What developing technique would be most appropriate to what kind of effect? (contrast, sharpnes, tonality)
What I mean is, let's say, if you want to have your picture look more sharp, you would choose stand or semi-stand development to apply adjancency effect and therefore increasing local contrast visually results in better sharpness.

Another example, for portrait photography I would pick constant agitation (rotary) to minimize local contrast to blend surfaces and achieve better tonal transitions.

Is there any other reasons you would choose certain type of development technique to achieve particular effect which is affected mostly just by one type of development technique?

---

That is correctd. If you have adjusted your time and temperature to get the desired contrast with rotary development at 1X, then the other factors should give you approximately the same contrast at the dilutions indicated. In other words, if rotary development is X = 10 minutes, intermittent would be 11.5 mins, minimal 15 minutes, extreme minimal 30 mins, semi-stand 40 minutes and stand 50 minutes.

Determing what is the best type of development is a highly subjective decision but the examples you provided are are quite appropriate. In addition I would add that semi-stand and stand might be recommended for situations where you need to milk every bit of shadow density possible out of the negatives. And Steve Sherman uses semi-stand to enhance micro-contrast in mid-tone areas when working with subjects of very low overall contrast.

However, avoid semi-stand or stand with any type of subject that contains a lot of large even tonal areas, and even more so subjects that contain large areas of even shadow areas adjacent to large areas of mid-tones or highlights. The only exception would be if you are willing to make two or three negatives of the scene and are willing to sacrifice one of them for the very special qualities you might get with stand. But be aware that there are always some risk with stand development.


Sandy

Thanks Sandy, this is exactly I was looking for to undestand development techniques.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sanking

That is correctd. If you have adjusted your time and temperature to get the desired contrast with rotary development at 1X, then the other factors should give you approximately the same contrast at the dilutions indicated. In other words, if rotary development is X = 10 minutes, intermittent would be 11.5 mins, minimal 15 minutes, extreme minimal 30 mins, semi-stand 40 minutes and stand 50 minutes.

Determing what is the best type of development is a highly subjective decision but the examples you provided are are quite appropriate. In addition I would add that semi-stand and stand might be recommended for situations where you need to milk every bit of shadow density possible out of the negatives. And Steve Sherman uses semi-stand to enhance micro-contrast in mid-tone areas when working with subjects of very low overall contrast.

However, avoid semi-stand or stand with any type of subject that contains a lot of large even tonal areas, and even more so subjects that contain large areas of even shadow areas adjacent to large areas of mid-tones or highlights. The only exception would be if you are willing to make two or three negatives of the scene and are willing to sacrifice one of them for the very special qualities you might get with stand. But be aware that there are always some risk with stand development.


Sandy

---

Hi Sandy:

During a search on reduced agitation techniques, I came across this thread. The way I understand the technique, is to give increased contrast to a negative of a low contrast scene, correct? When I read your post on the dilutions you use for each agitation type, I thought you meant that to reach (for example) a contrast of 3 times your normal, you would use Extreme Minimal agitation and a dilution of 1:1.5:200 (for some unmentioned time). But you actually mean that the same contrast is maintained by making the dilution stated, and developing Extreme Minimal for 3 time the normal time. I don't understand why a person would bother, and not just do normal development, if they're wanting to maintain the same contrast in the neg. Or am I misunderstanding this second post, and had it right initially (I'm trying to find times and dilutions to try reduced agitation with FP4+)? I read also that reduced agitation with Pyrocat HD will give box speed for a film- is this true?

Thanks,
Tim

I have found the answer to this question in Steve Sherman's VC articles- great stuff! So a different question for Mr King: Are these times and dilutions you use specifically to create a denser neg for your carbon, or perhaps Pt/Pd printing, or could they be used to print "normally" on grade 2 VC paper?

Thanks,
Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timbo10ca

I have found the answer to this question in Steve Sherman's VC articles- great stuff!

Thanks,
Tim

---

so what is the answer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eddie

so what is the answer?

---

Hmmm- good point.

To condense a very good couple of articles, the various permutations of reduced agitation development (as I understand it) don't increase or decrease overall negative contrast (although you can do N-1 and N+1 dev times if needed), but rather increase local/micro contrast to give the overall impression of a sharper more separated negative while keeping detail in highlights (wherever you happen to want them to be).

Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timbo10ca

I have found the answer to this question in Steve Sherman's VC articles- great stuff! So a different question for Mr King: Are these times and dilutions you use specifically to create a denser neg for your carbon, or perhaps Pt/Pd printing, or could they be used to print "normally" on grade 2 VC paper?

Thanks,
Tim

---

The adjustments to time based on type of agitation apply to any process. I start with the idea that 1 is for continuous agitation with rotary type processing, as determined for your process, and then increase times for various type of reduced agitation and more diluted solutions.

The highly dilute solutions are recommended for semi-stand and stand development because there is less chance of bromide drag with very dilute solutions due to a highly technical reason that I won't go into here.

Sandy King

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timbo10ca

Hmmm- good point.

To condense a very good couple of articles, the various permutations of reduced agitation development (as I understand it) don't increase or decrease overall negative contrast (although you can do N-1 and N+1 dev times if needed), but rather increase local/micro contrast to give the overall impression of a sharper more separated negative while keeping detail in highlights (wherever you happen to want them to be).

Tim

---

Tim,

What you say is essentially correct, with emphasis on the fact that with any given type of agitation N- and N+ controls are also possible. This has to be determined by testing for processes that have different exposure scales.

Sandy King