-
pyro developer, but which?
I want to start developing with pyro. I am currently using 4x5 with FP4 and Fomapan 100. Will probaby open the repertoire to HP5 and that will be it at least for some time until I get a better feel for film again.
Sorry if this has been done to death here, but there is so much info on pyro that it is difficult to filter out. I am not a novice in the darkroom and have some experience mixing my own stuff, and I know how to handle chemistry and so on. But I have never used pyro and I closed my darkroom 8 years ago. Now i want to at least develop my film and scan afterwards. Maybe I'll start doing some contact printing which I guess is as far I can go in making prints at home with no darkroom. It has got to be airline friendly since I will fly it in the luggage. Which recipe do you think is best for my needs? What are your suggestions and advice on this topic? Thanks in advance. :)
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
I use pyrocat-hd, formulated by Sandy King. He also formulated a split pyrocat-hd and I believe it's mainly for people who want to scan in their negatives. I'm sure Sandy will comment on this.
I settled on pyrocat-hd mainly because it's stain is yellow/brown, and can be used for either tray or rotary. It's also one of the best developers for stand development, in my opionion. FP4 stains nicely in it, but HP5 seems to stain more.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
What is it exactly that has to "fly in the luggage?". Chemistry is not going to be acceptable to the TSA.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Pyrocat HD is superb with FP4. I dont know of a better combination. I like the minimal agitation approach, 1:1:150, 4 agitation cycles every 9 minutes for 36 minutes at 72F for FP4 assuming a normal 7 stop subject brightness range, gives a useful boost in speed. Works really well in BTZS tubes. I have not had success with divided pyrocat. Mine is still good a year after mixing, nearly all gone though. I ship the dry 50l kit from photographers formulary to New Zealand, I usually buy it from B&H with a film order. I am not shure I would fly with it in my luggage though. It is available in europe too if that is where you are, see the pyrocat web page. Rodinal is nice too, but liquid so not flyable. Listen to the sheeple on this one, it is a winner.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Is it Pyro you want, or a staining developer? If the latter, then I am very happy with Moersch Tanol, fabulous developer for the work I do.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
You might find it interesting to peruse www.pyrocat-hd.com
It contains lots of information and some sample photos.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Sergio,
My favorite pyro developer is 510-Pyro. 510-Pyro is unique in several ways, most notably, it is a single, highly concentrated solution, much like Kodak HC110, that is simply diluted with water to make a working solution. 510-Pyro is suitable for all formats and development techniques, from rotary to stand development, and everything in between. I know of no other developer with greater development capacity; 1ml of 510-Pyro concentrate will develop an 8x10 sheet, or roll film. You can find more info here:
http://pyrostains.blogspot.com/
There are many good staining developers, some pyro, others catechol-based, that are capable of excellent results. In fact, I'd venture to say every published staining developer is capable of excellent results, but this should not suggest all staining developers are alike.
In my opinion, there are three significant pyro developers:
ABC Pyro
WD2D and variants
510-Pyro
ABC-Pyro (aka Kodak SD-1) has produced many historically significant, and beautiful negatives, but there are problems with its 3-part formulation and keeping properties that make it inconsistent in use.
WD2D is an excellent 2-part developer formulated for use with modern films.
510-Pyro is the only developer of its kind.
There are many catechol-based staining developers of varying complexity. My favorite is among the simplest. Hypercat contains the following ingredients:
Catechol
ascorbic acid
sodium carbonate
propylene glycol
Hypercat is an incredibly efficient, single agent, true acutance developer, and a working solution sufficient for development of 1 8x10 sheet or roll film contains .3g developing agent. The combined effects of a dilute single agent, tanning, and staining produce very sharp, fine grained negatives. Hypercat can be used as a single solution developer, or a 2-bath developer. You can find more information here:
http://hypercatacutancedeveloper.blogspot.com/
Among the most controversial issues regarding staining developers involves differences in stain colors, and printing on VC papers. Stained negatives scan very well, as evidenced by the beautiful work posted here by users of staining developers.
Good luck, and enjoy!
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Thanks a lot. I'll be posting my discoveries as soon as I receive it.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Segio, I regularly fly with my Pyrocat HD in my hold baggage, but I now only take Part A as it's easier to make up Part B anywhere.
To cut down on weight & bulk I now make up Part A at double the normal strength before flying then dilute it back to normal before using it as usual.
Ian
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Jay -
The 510-Pyro blog lists the formula as follows:
* ascorbic acid 5g
* pyrogallol 10g
* phenidone .25g
* Triethanolamine 100ml
I presume this makes 100ml of stock solution. How do we dilute the formula for use ? Are there any recommended starting points for time/temperature/film speed for various films ?
I would love to try the formula.
Is it called 510 because of the first two ingredients being 5 and 10 grams ?
Finally: You distinguish between Pryrogallol and Pyrocatechin/Pyrocatchetol, calling Pyrogallol "Pyro", and Pyrocatechin/Pyrocatechol "Catechol" or "Cat". I know these are two different compounds, but could you please explain why you refer to one as Pyro and the other, as... something else ?
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Hi Ken,
You're correct; the formula as given makes 100ml of concentrate, and I call it 510-Pyro for the ratio of pyro to ascorbic acid.
510-Pyro can be diluted over a very wide range, but "standard" dilutions could be considered to be 1:100, 1:300, and 1:500, for no better reason than the following: 1:100 gives development times within the low-normal range (5-7 minutes for most films), with standard intermittent, or rotary agitation, 1:300 requires 1ml of developer in 300ml of solution, which covers one 35mm film in a standard daylight tank, and 1:500 requires 1ml of concentrate in 500ml of solution, which covers one 120 film in a standard daylight tank. These dilute solutions are typically used with reduced agitation and extended development times. There is more specific information at the blog.
I make the distinction between pyrogallol developers and catechol developers consistent with historical usage. When pyro is mentioned in the literature, it always refers to pyrogallol, and not to catechol, and the descriptions and characterizations of pyro are not interchangeable with catechol. Catechol is chemically more similar to hydroquinone than it is to pyrogallol, and this can be confirmed by the fact that catechol can be substituted for hydroquinone weight-for-weight in most formulas without important changes in the resulting developers. The same is not true for pyrogallol and catechol. In my opinion, which is consistent with the historical literature, catechol developers should not be referred to as pyro developers, but staining/tanning developers, where appropriate (not all catechol developers are staining developers). I hope that clarifies my usage of the terms.
If you decide to try 510-Pyro, or any of my developers, please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions you might have.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
I personally believe it is a waste of time equivalent to intellectual masturbation to attempt to limit the use of the term pyro staining developer to only pyrogallol based formulas. The word pyro itself has wide meanings both in photography and in general use and does not refer to any specific reducing characteristic of either pyrogallol or catechol (which was historically better known as either pyrocatechol and pyrocatechin).
As for which is the best pyro formula, I am reminded of something that was recently said to me in my travels in Galicia, in northwestern Spain. I was photographing there for a couple of weeks with a well-known landscape photographer from the area who has published a number of books, who actually uses a very old pyro-metol formula that pre-dates any of the modern formulas. He mentioned that he recently took someone to buy some “corn cakes” (tortas de maiz) from a person who is widely known for making the best cakes of this kind. The person asked, “Do you make the best corn cakes in Galicia?” to which the baker replied, “Eso tem que decir a torta, non eu” Translated, the cake has to speak to that, not me. So by analogy, I say, let your pictures talk.
Sandy King
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
I confess, I'm confused.
Apparently, Catechin is derived from certain plants, and if you heat it (pyro) you can break off a molecule of Catechol (hence the name pyrocatechol).
In the image below, you can see a Catechol molecule, loosely bonded to a (larger) Catechin molecule.
According to Catechin in Wikipedia...
"Catechin... derives from catechu which is the juice or boiled extract of Mimosa catechu"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...9-Catechin.png
According to Catechol in Wikipedia...
"Catechol, also known as pyrocatechol... Not to be confused with Catechin, also sometimes called catechol."
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...techin.svg.png
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken Lee
I confess, I'm confused.
Apparently, Catechin is derived from certain plants, and if you heat it (pyro) you can break off a molecule of Catechol (hence the name pyrocatechol).
%29-Catechin.png/200px-%28%2B%29-Catechin.png[/IMG]
Hydroquinone (1,4,-Dihydroxybenzene), Catechol/Pyrocatechol (1,2-Dihydroxybenzene) and Pyrogallol (1,2,3-Trihydroxybenzene) are quite similar and while each can produce a stain in favorable circumstances (absence of preservative) neither is fully interchangeable with the other two. Hydroquinone can be substituted for pyrocatechol but does not give the same result (different color stain and different energy if substitution is by equal weight), and pyrocatechol can be substititued for pyrogallol in formulas that use carbonate as the accelerator (but equal weight substitution will not give identical results. Hydroquinoine and pyrocatechol can not be substitued for pyrogallol in formulas that use metaboate as the accelerator.
Sandy King
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Another question if I may, namely the difference between staining and tanning - and for that matter, dyeing.
With a stain or dye, we introduce a new compound deep into the matrix of the original material. With tanning, we coat the surface of the material, but do not penetrate very far below the surface.
By this analogy, a stain would be like a coloring stain we commonly apply to wood products, where tanning would be more like paint, applied to the surface.
If this is true, then as far as photography is concerned, what is the qualitative difference between developers which stain, and those which tan ?
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken Lee
Another question if I may, namely the difference between staining and tanning - and for that matter, dyeing.
With a stain or dye, we introduce a new compound deep into the matrix of the original material. With tanning, we coat the surface of the material, but do not penetrate very far below the surface.
By this analogy, a stain would be like a coloring stain we commonly apply to wood products, where tanning would be more like paint, applied to the surface.
If this is true, then as far as photography is concerned, what is the qualitative difference between developers which stain, and those which tan ?
Ken,
Stain adds printing contrast with graded silver papers and UV processes. It also can create a shoulder in the highlights with VC silver papers that can control very high tonal values. Stain also minimizes the appearance of grain. With enough preservative (sulfite, ascorbic acid, etc.) both pyrocatechol and pyrogallol based developers will lose the stain, but grain will be much more pronounced.
Tanning adds sharpness as it hardens the gelatin in situ and prevents infectious development outside of the desired image area. However, staining and tanning do not always go together as you can have staining without tanning, and vice-versa. Most modern pyro developers do both, however.
Sandy King
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Sandy,
Masturbation aside, I know of no instance in the literature I've read, and I don't mean to suggest I've read everything, in which the term pyro is used to refer to anything but pyrogallol. I see no reason to confuse this very old convention by the inclusion of other compounds. I use the term, staining developer to refer to all developers that produce a useful stain. Pyro belongs to this class of developers, when used in appropriate formulations, as do catechol, hydroquinone, coffee and tea developers. When one reads historical literature and comes upon the the term pyro, one can be confident the authors are referring to pyrogallol; why confuse the issue? I use catechol, as opposed to pyrocatechol, or pyrocatechin, or catechin, because that's how the chemical is listed by most suppliers, and I don't feel there's much danger of the term being confused for something else. Maybe I'm overly cautious in my use of language, but with so much confusion surrounding these developers, I feel justified in my efforts to be as clear as I can in my writing and in the terminology I use. For instance, consider the description of Pyrocat HD, from the Photographers Formulary website:
Quote:
Pyrocat HD is a high acutance developer, formulated by Sandy King as an alternative to other pyrogallol based staining developers.
The use of the word other, implies Pyrocat HD is a pyrogallol-based developer, and since pyro is used in the product name, it's a logical assumption to make, if one is not intimately familiar with the compounds and formulations in question.
Others are free to use any terminology they prefer; I just meant to explain why I use the terminology I do, and not to suggest anyone is wrong for using alternative terms.
As for your corn cake analogy, you sum up as "Let your pictures talk", I feel that is a little aggressive in addition to being a gross oversimplification, unless of course, you believe developer choice is the one factor that determines the quality of an image. Personally, I feel developer choice borders on irrelevance, regarding image quality, for most LF photographers.
Ken,
Here's a link to a brief description of tanning and staining:
http://pyrostains.blogspot.com/2007/...d-tanning.html
In a nutshell; staining colors, and tanning hardens. The fact that tan, can be used to refer to a color, or a change of color, as in: tan trousers, or suntan, can be confusing, but the tan in tanning developers, is derived from the word tannin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannin
I hope I've clarified rather than confused.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Jay
You are perfectly free to use any terminology you like. It is true that in the 19th century pyro meant pyrogallo. Indeed, pyrocatechol was not even invented until around 1880. However, in the contemporary period a number of pyrocatechol based staining developers, in addition to Pyrocat-HD, have been routinely referred to as pyro developers. These include Diaxactol, which preceded Pyrocat-HD, as well as Prescysol and Tanol. But more important than practice is the fact that pyrogallol based and pyrocatechol based developers do essentially the same thing in the way they stain and tan. In fact, the differences between them are more apt to be in the other reducer used in the formula, in the method of agitation, or in the choice of accelerator.
So my own opinion is that it is simply not consistent with current practice, or common sense, to limit the use of pyro to pyrogallol based developers, but then again you are free to use any terminology you like, and ultimately what you or I think is probably not going to make much difference as to what others choose to do. And that is why I think the discussion is essentially pointless.
As for my corn cake analogy being in your opinion a bit aggressive, it was not meant that way and I see no reason why you would take it that way since the comment was generally directed, not toward you. The original question was "which pyro developer"? and if the ability to produce image quality is irrelevant to that question it is not clear to me why we would be talking about developers in the first place.
Sandy
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Sandy,
You might be right about some catechol developers being referred to as pyro developers; I've just not seen these references in my reading, which has consisted mostly of 20th century literature, and as recent as I could find. In fact, in Barry Thornton's Edge of Darkness, Thornton distinguished between pyro developers and catechol developers, the former being developers based on pyrogallol. Jacobson and Jacobson in Developing similarly don't interchange the two, but refer only to pyrogallol-based developers as pyro developers, and so on with everything I've read . I'm not sure where catechol developers are referred to as pyro developers, but I'll take your word for it. Is it an important distinction to make? I think so. Pyrogallol developers have a separate history from catechol developers, and I find it more accurate to refer to pyrogallol developers as pyro developers, and catechol developers as catechol developers, and to all staining developers as staining developers. When one reads about the working methods of revered photographers, like Weston, or Adams, and their pyro developers, there is no need to wonder whether they used pyrogallol or catechol, because pyro is historically specific to pyrogallol developers. This is more clear to me, and a more common sense approach, than lumping all staining developers together as pyro developers. But, to each his own.
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your corn cakes analogy as suggesting superior developers make superior images. I'm not sure what else, "let your pictures do the talking" could mean. In any case, it's not very useful in the context of a discussion about the relative merits of various staining developers. Weston made some pretty nice pictures with ABC Pyro, but that shouldn't suggest that developer was responsible, or that he couldn't have made his pictures as well, or better with another developer. "Let your pictures do the talking" is a meaningless statement in this context.
As for my statement, I wrote: ..developer choice borders on irrelevance, regarding image quality, for most LF photographers. , and I stand by that. But, the OP's question wasn't, "How important is choice of developer for LF photographers?", it was, "Which pyro developer is best?". The latter is a specific question about pyro developers, on which I feel qualified to comment. While I made a distinction between pyro and catechol developers in my post, I did include information about both kinds of staining developers, because I suspect many photographers, particularly those unfamiliar with them, think only of pyrogallol developers when they refer to pyro developers, and might not be aware there is more than one kind of staining developer, and they're not all pyrogallol-based.
In the end, whether one refers to all staining developers as pyro developers, or just pyrogallol developers, is of little importance, so long as it's understood who refers to which as what.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jay DeFehr
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your corn cakes analogy as suggesting superior developers make superior images. I'm not sure what else, "let your pictures do the talking" could mean. In any case, it's not very useful in the context of a discussion about the relative merits of various staining developers. Weston made some pretty nice pictures with ABC Pyro, but that shouldn't suggest that developer was responsible, or that he couldn't have made his pictures as well, or better with another developer. "Let your pictures do the talking" is a meaningless statement in this context.
You rather misunderstood my meaning. My comment about the pictures talking was not meant to suggest there was a superior developer, but in fact to downplay the importance of any given formula, the very opposite of your interpretation.
Photographers who have a vision make superior photographs because they understand their tools, of which the developer is one of many. Weston made great photographs because of his great talent and because he knew how to control his tools, including ABC Pyro. I am certain that he could have learned to control other developers as well, but the fact is that he used ABC Pyro almost exclusively for much of his career because he understood how it worked and knew how to take advantage of its characteristics.
Developers, whether pyro or traditional, are not inherently either good, bad or in between. Same is true of films. They have characteristics which one must learn how to control. When one learns this control, the pictures do the talking. One may compare the various characteristics of different developers and films but that will tell you little or nothing about what kind of images a given photographer will produce when using any given combination.
Sandy King
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
FWIW
Quote:
Pyrocatechol is the name recommended by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) in its 1993 Recommendations for the Nomenclature of Organic Chemistry.[1]
quote from:http://www.search.com/reference/Pyrocatechol
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Sandy,
I'm afraid your analogy is not at all clear to me. In fact, I can't make heads or tails of most of what you've written in this thread, but that's neither here, nor there, as none of it, so far as I can tell, addresses the OP's question. I think we agree that developer choice is one factor of many that combine to determine image quality, but I can't be sure, even of this. And even if we do agree, this is not relevant to the OP's question about pyro developers, and probably best discussed elsewhere.
Kirk,
Thanks for the official word on the nomenclature of pyrocatechol. Still, if one is looking for the chemical at Artcraft Chemicals, or Photographers Formulary, etc., it will be found under C for Catechol, and not under P, for Pyrocatechol, for whatever reason.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jay DeFehr
Sandy,
I'm afraid your analogy is not at all clear to me. \
Since what I previously said was not clear to you, let me wrap up.
1. The OP was interested in a pyro type developer that would fly, presumbably with him. I don't recommend this as any unusual looking chemical has a good chance of being pulled from your luggage or carry-on baggage in the current climate of terrorist threads. In the last five years or so I have lost quite a number of expensive chemicals this way so my recommendation at this point would be to have the developer shipped from a well-known supplier.
2. All of the major pyro tanning developers, whether pyrogallol based or pyrocatechol based, have certain pros and cons and require some experience to use. While some of the formulas can be classified as general purpose developers I would never recommend one over the other without understanding the specific type of photography the person had in mind because making good images is much more about understanding how to use a developer than the technical qualities of the developer.
3. Pyro staining and tanning developers, as I use the term, include both Pyrogallol based formulas and Pyrocatechol based formulas. Most people, in my experience, tend to lump these together in one group known as pyro staining and tanning developers. This seem reasonable to me because they all basically do the same general thing, i.e. they add a color stain to the negative, and they harden the gelatin. I use the duck analogy here. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, I am ok with calling it a duck.
People who don't agree with my opinion are obviously free to use whatever nomenclature they choose. But this is where I stand, and by and large I believe my position is consistent with current practice, starting with Chapter 8 (Tanning Developers) of The Film Developing Cookbook (Anchell and Troop, 1998) where both pyrogallol and pyrocatechin are discussed together as equally effective staining and tanning developers.
Sandy King
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Sandy,
Thank you for the clarification, and please find mine below:
1. I fly every three weeks, year round, and have never had a problem carrying a small bottle of 510-Pyro. Even if I did lose it, it would be more of an inconvenience than an expense, on a par with losing cheap shampoo.
2. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend 510-Pyro to anyone interested in trying a staining developer; it's the easiest to use, works with all films and formats, and all development processes. I sincerely believe 510-Pyro is the best staining developer one can use, and particularly for a beginner. Others are free to disagree, of course, and I think the OP is looking for opinions on the pros and cons of various staining developers. I mentioned 510-Pyro because I think it's the best all around staining developer, for many reasons, and I mentioned Hypercat because I think it's the sharpest staining developer, and surely the simplest in formulation, and most economical to use. In short, unless maximum acutance is desired, I recommend 510-Pyro, and if maximum acutance is desired, I recommend Hypercat. These recommendations stand without regard to the user's experience or specific intentions. I don't mean to say there are not many other staining developers capable of excellent results;there are, but in my opinion, some are better than others, and my recommendations reflect my opinions.
3. I think the term staining and tanning developer is more clear than pyro staining and tanning developer, but this is an insignificant issue. Ken asked why I use the terminology I do, and I did my best to explain my reasons. Others are free to use whatever terminology they choose. I don't think anyone is going to be confused when I refer to pyrogallol-based developers as pyro developers, or catechol-based developers as catechol developers, or staining developers, in general, as staining developers.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Thanks, fellers, for taking the time to explain these things in such detail.
Since this thread has already had close to 1000 views, we can trust that others share an interest, but may have been reluctant to enquire.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Ken,
I'm always happy to contribute where I think I can. I would like to reiterate that I think developer choice is very low on the complete image quality totem pole, as evidenced by the very fine work posted here, using a wide variety of developers and processes.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
I was just glancing through Steve Anchell's The Darkroom Cookbook, Third Edition. He has a chapter entitled Pyrogallol and Pyrocatechin, and within that chapter a section called Tanning Developers. In this section he lumps pyro and catechol developers together with the term "pyro/cat" developers, which he uses numerous times. However, in the same section he sometimes uses "pyro" without "cat" in situations where it is obvious that he is talking about both pyrogallol and pyrocatechin formulas.
This is a good example of what I consider contemporary practice in the use of terminology. I did not invent this stuff, just reporting what appears to me to be the general practice.
Obviously there are situations where one might want to be more specific as to the nature of the reducers in a staining/tanning developer as the characteristics of pyrogallol and pyrocatechol, while very similar, are not exactly the same, and a case could be made here and there that for a given objective one of the other might serve better.
Sandy King
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Do you guys know the Argenti Weston Pyro developer? The reason I ask is it's the only developer of this kind I've seen available in Spain (I suppose others could be found) and I'd really like to give it a go.
BTW I am curious now as to who the known landscape photographer is :D
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ramiroelena
Do you guys know the Argenti Weston Pyro developer? The reason I ask is it's the only developer of this kind I've seen available in Spain (I suppose others could be found) and I'd really like to give it a go.
BTW I am curious now as to who the known landscape photographer is :D
I am not familiar with the Argenti Weston Pyro developer but if it has Weston in the name I suspect that it is similar to ABC Pyro.
The photographer I mentioned is Jose Vazquez Caruncho, from La Coruņa. He has several published books and has done a lot of work for the Xunta de Galicia and the CGAI. You can see a fair amount about him by doing a google search. He does beautiful portrait work rather in the style of Paul Strand.
Sandy King
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jay DeFehr
1. I fly every three weeks, year round, and have never had a problem carrying a small bottle of 510-Pyro. Even if I did lose it, it would be more of an inconvenience than an expense, on a par with losing cheap shampoo.
I assume you are carrying the made up solution in a 100 ml bottle, not labeled with (from customs eyes) some obscure chemical name. I would expect this to be fine.
Now, put a brown powder in a bottle with a chemical label on it that also says poisonous and have your luggage searched..............
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Brian,
I carry my developer in a small, unmarked bottle. I've never had a problem. I've never even considered trying to carry powders in my luggage; that seems like asking for trouble.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
I went back to Wimberly WD2D+ pyro developer after giving Pyrocat HD a go.
I recently printed a WD2D+ developed negative (I believe it was Kodak Tri X) of a portrait shot between shade and direct sun. It had a huge subject brightness range. Once I set the correct exposure in the enlarger and viewed the first test prints, the idea never occured to me that I needed to do any buring to get proper details in the highlights. This does not occur with traditional developers.
Also, although not touted as a developer for rotatry processing, I have gotten beautifully clean wd2d+ negs by in my jobo cpp2 but using slowest rotation speed and replacing the developer mid way through development time with fresh wd2d+ developer.
I have to admit that WD2D+ negatives with their yellowish brown color look kind of 'weak'. But the are a dream to print.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Remember, "The milk-man did not get caught for adding water to the milk; he just told someone".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jay DeFehr
Brian,
I carry my developer in a small, unmarked bottle. I've never had a problem. I've never even considered trying to carry powders in my luggage; that seems like asking for trouble.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Ok, experts. I hate using gloves. Pyro is toxic, and everyone says to use gloves.
Did Weston use gloves? His volume of negatives will exceed mine (in quantity as well as, most certainly, quality).
What's likely to happen if I don't? Will I shrink, for instance? I'm 6'6". I'd probably like that. Won't bump my head on the doors of my old NE farmhouse.
Ditto amidol, for the informed. What would happen?
Sorry to be slightly off-topic, but I think still relevant, sort of.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Bruce, if nothing else, contact dermatitis is a very nasty thing. I was lucky, my case cleared up quickly. But everyone is different; and once you're sensitized, there it is. Many people are permanently affected and have to give up the darkroom; I don't think you'd like that. In Weston's day, little was known about the toxicity of common photo chemicals, now we do. Remember that EW contracted, and died of, Parkinson's disease. AFAIK no one has connected that to his darkroom habits but how big a risk do you want to take?
Pyrogallol hasn't been extensively studied because so few modern photographers use it. Metol, on the other hand, is a well-known source for contact dermatitis. (I believe that it was Selectol-Soft that made me allergic to metol.)So since 1985 I've worn gloves to tray-develop sheet film and to print. Not a big deal.
Safe practices are generally worth the effort.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Quote:
Did Weston use gloves?
I believe he didn't, but Parkinson's disease is a really nasty thing. Was it related to darkroom chemicals? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know. But why take chances?
Amidol, if nothing else, stains your skin and nails pretty badly.
I also wouldn't be too surprised if some of the chemicals, especially those derived from phenol, had carcinogenic effects on long term exposures. They may not have been proven as such yet, but again - why take chances?
Contact dermatitis is real, and quite nasty at that.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Thanks. "get over it," and "get used to them" seem to be the operative phrases. So be it.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
I'm about to mix up my first batch of Pyrocat-MC in glycol. Considering how important health is, I'm going to wear nitrile gloves and develop in the jobo tank. It's not worth the risk. My skin gets a bit dry and irritated if I don't use gloves with D-76, Dektol, etc.
It was quite a few years ago, but I remember reading a table top book in NYC about artists through the centuries. It documented their work processes, their illnesses and causes of death, and proposed links between the two. It was very interesting! Many were probably at times "mad as a hatter" too!
Of course there are a few individuals around here who could probably use that excuse...
;)
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bruce Barlow
Thanks. "get over it," and "get used to them" seem to be the operative phrases. So be it.
Bruce, I was the same way. Horrible contact dermitis resulting from Metol exposure changed my tune fast. I use Pyro and Amidol.
I get the smallest, tightest pair of gloves I can find and, I can pick up a dime or, perhaps more appropriate, pull an 8x10 negative out of the holder. Just be careful and monitor for holes and tears.
I buy 'em boxes from the drug store and leave 'em on my counter. It really doesn't take much to get used to 'em.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
One of the best darkroom printers in Toronto had to quit the darkroom because of this.
I am no expert but for years I worked with my hands with no protection, I do have some funny marks and scars on my hand. That was enough to scare me.
Also at 5ft 6 I cannot afford to shrink much more so its gloves for me.
and everyone who works in my darkroom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mark Sampson
Bruce, if nothing else, contact dermatitis is a very nasty thing. I was lucky, my case cleared up quickly. But everyone is different; and once you're sensitized, there it is. Many people are permanently affected and have to give up the darkroom; I don't think you'd like that. In Weston's day, little was known about the toxicity of common photo chemicals, now we do. Remember that EW contracted, and died of, Parkinson's disease. AFAIK no one has connected that to his darkroom habits but how big a risk do you want to take?
Pyrogallol hasn't been extensively studied because so few modern photographers use it. Metol, on the other hand, is a well-known source for contact dermatitis. (I believe that it was Selectol-Soft that made me allergic to metol.)So since 1985 I've worn gloves to tray-develop sheet film and to print. Not a big deal.
Safe practices are generally worth the effort.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
You often hear the advice to use gloves, but rarely is it specified which kind. Are the thin nitrile or latex ones satisfactory, or is it better to step up to some kind of thicker rubber? Dishwashing gloves? What about my wool winter mittens? There's all kinds of them out there.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
The Darkroom Cookbook, 3rd edition, Anchell... index:" Pyro. see pyrogallol (pyro) " The Negative, Adams... Index: "Pyro (pyrogallic acid, pyrogallol)" Both index listings are followed by Pyrocatechin as a separate listing. I've been processing film since 1950 and my understanding is pyro is pyrogallic acid, pyrocatechin is not... I don't own a photographic dictionary but I bet it's in there with pyrogallic acid as the primary meaning.... First thing you learn in stress reduction is not to HAVE to be right... hate to loose anyone over a pissing contest on developers.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Pyrogallol is 1,2,3 tri-hydroxy-benzene.
Pyrocatechin, or catehol, is 1,2 di-hydroxy-benzene.
They are not the same thing.
"Pyrogallic acid" is an improper name for pyrogallol (which is actually not an acid).
The short name "pyro" usually refers to pyrogallol, though the syntagm "pyro developer" is sometimes used for designating all staining developers in general.
Quote:
You often hear the advice to use gloves, but rarely is it specified which kind. Are the thin nitrile or latex ones satisfactory, or is it better to step up to some kind of thicker rubber? Dishwashing gloves?
Right now I'm using unpowdered nitrile gloves. Before discovering these, I used to use regular latex surgeon's gloves from drug stores, but I didn't like them because they were powdered, and everything I touched remained white. Dish-washing gloves are fine from a safety point of view, but I think they're too clumsy for the kind of work required in the darkroom.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Pyro is just a shortform colloquialism, and both of those chemicals start with "pyro". I can see how it might be confusing or not matter for those not of the cloth.
Can't Pyro be an umbrella term for both? They're not all that incredibly different anyway, and where they are, it doesn't seem any more substantial than the differences between developers within other categories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vlad Soare
Right now I'm using unpowdered nitrile gloves. Before discovering these, I used to use regular latex surgeon's gloves from drug stores, but I didn't like them because they were powdered, and everything I touched remained white. Dish-washing gloves are fine from a safety point of view, but I think they're too clumsy for the kind of work required in the darkroom.
I agree, that's why I wondered about the nitrile/latex. Thanks.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
I posted on here awhile ago talking about my problems with pyro i have since worked out the kinks. I shoot FP4 and i develop in PMK, and it works very nicely for me. For the project i am working on i have been shooting with a hasselblad and with direct flash, and i find the pmk does wonders for skin tones. It works for me.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Quote:
Can't Pyro be an umbrella term for both? They're not all that incredibly different anyway, and where they are, it doesn't seem any more substantial than the differences between developers within other categories.
Interestingly, catehol is closer to hydroquinone than to pyrogallol. Hydroquinone is 1,4 di-hydroxy-benzene. They're almost the same, it's just the position of a hydroxyl group that differs. :)
Catehol and pyrogallol behave quite differently. The only thing they have in common is that they're both staining developing agents. But then, so can be hydroquinone.
I think it's best to be aware of the differences and to always call them by their proper names. This way we'll avoid any confusion, particularly among people who are new to staining developers and/or have no background in chemistry.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vlad Soare
Catehol and pyrogallol behave quite differently. The only thing they have in common is that they're both staining developing agents. But then, so can be hydroquinone.
Actually both pyrocatechol and pyrogallol are staining *and* tanning developers. The tanning quality is in my mind more important than staining since it is tanning that makes these developers sharper than traditional developers.
I am not sure what you mean by when you say that catechol and pyrogallol behave quite differently. There are some differences to be sure but in my experience the two reducers actually behave very much alike. They both stain in the absence of sulfite or ascorbic, they both tan gelatin, and they both produce oxidation by products that can create B+F stain if the formula is not well balanced.
Sandy
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tbeaman
Can't Pyro be an umbrella term for both? They're not all that incredibly different anyway, and where they are, it doesn't seem any more substantial than the differences between developers within other categories.
If a developer stains and tans I place it in a category called Pyro staining and tanning developers, regardless of whether the reducer is pyrocatechol, pyrogallol, or hydroquinone (which can also stain and tan in some conditions).
Sandy King
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Quote:
Actually both pyrocatechol and pyrogallol are staining *and* tanning developers.
Indeed, they're also tanning. I keep forgetting that. My mistake. But this has nothing to do with the fact that pyrogallol and catehol are two different chemical compounds, with different physical and chemical properties, which should be called by their proper names to avoid any confusion.
Quote:
I am not sure what you mean by when you say that catechol and pyrogallol behave quite differently. There are some differences to be sure but in my experience the two reducers actually behave very much alike.
I don't have your experience with formulating developers, so I'm not going to contradict you here. My impression was that if one were to roughly describe them, one could say that pyrogallol tends to give coarse grain, lower film speed, a pronounced toe, and yellowish-green stain, while catehol, especially in conjunction with phenidone, tends to give fine grain, good film speed, a shorter toe, and brown/reddish stain. But of course this depends a lot on the overall formula, and if you're saying they are really so much alike, then I have no reason not to believe you. Do you think you could make Pyrocat work the same by replacing catehol with pyrogallol, without making major changes to the rest of the formula? I'm not trying to provoke you, I'm genuinely interested.
-
Re: pyro developer, but which?
Gloves: For chemcial mixing and general dkrm activities I prefer slightly loose-fitting
thicker nitrile gloves, which can be taken on and off easily and aren't fragile. For actual
film hanling and tray development, I use thin disposable non-powdered (but textured) nitrile gloves. Nitrile is now priced barely higher than latex, and is superior is many ways. PYRO: I've tried quite a few different formulas and even concocted a couple of
my own, of both pyrocat and pyrogallol. The pros and cons are subtle but worth knowing. The color of image stain can be important with respect to a particular light
source and type of paper (VC vs blue-sensitive). Performance on long-scale contact
media vs ordinary silver projection papers also is a significant factor in the opinion about which "pyro" is "best" for what. But most of the popular options are in my own
"non-humble" opinion going to give much more easily printable negative than conventional "non-pyro" developers. Well worth learning the ropes. I'd probably start
with something with a lot of background info readily accessible, like Gordon Hutchings
PMK formula or one of Sandy's popular pyrocat ones.