Printable View
I use Pyrocat for my regular film developing. It's great stuff. I haven't had as much success with it and x-ray film, though, as the combo lost an excessive amount of speed. (The film was Fuji Green HR-T.) Sergei reported the same thing, and so maybe that's an issue? You might try Rodinal, DS-10....
Hello Peter,
Yep, that's what I'm thinking too. I also have used Pyrocat-HD for many years with all formats from 35mm through 8x10 developing regular film in both my Jobo CPP2 and hand tanks. I've noticed as I've zeroed in on a standard developing time that shadow detail varies quite a bit; that is, longer development reveals more shadow detail while shorter development reveals less. And, I'm not talking wild fluctuations in development times--say, 7.5 vs 8.5 mins! This all leads me to believe that the Ektascan film loses film speed--at least in this developer--VERY quickly. I feel fairly confident in what I'm observing in this regard because two sheets were exposed one after the other under identical daylight conditions (cloudless skies, too.) Longer development to increase speed to reveal better shadow definition is good, but it leads to pretty contrasty negs which could be difficult to print with typical VC papers, even with very low grade filters. Therefore, based on my best derived development regimen it appears that the only option I have is to lower my EI; not something I really would want to do given shooting 8x10 in typical outdoor conditions. Wind is not our friend! :)
I've read on these boards of a couple photographers shooting EFKE 25. In the past, I had a photographer friend who always shot Tech Pan. Personally, I can't even begin to imagine shooting the kinds of scenes I do with an EI25 speed film. Heck, I'd probably find that slow speed problematic with 4x5! But, we're all different and YMMV...
Guess I'll have to give all this some more thought. Maybe try lowering my EI to 40/50 or keep the longer development time and print on a long-scale paper such as Lodima. I'll have to get in the darkroom and see what these various negs give me on different papers. Oh, and I did try Rodinal at 1:200 but got bullet-proof negs. If anyone is developing this film with Rodinal in a Jobo I'd love to get your dilution/time/temp.
These comments surprise me. I have used Pyrocat HD since Sandy first published the formula. I have no problem with a film speed of 100 for Ektascan. I should state that I do not print on VC papers, and very rarely on silver gelatin as I prefer to use any one of several alternative printing processes for my images. Some, but not all, of which require longer scaled negatives.
You have to read the X-Ray threads.
SergeiR did a long series on X-Ray double sided, not single sided where he changed both time and dilution with Rodinal in a JOBO. His work stands out.
Search for his results, they are not in a table. Any of us would also have to search. It's a PITA.
Jim, I found the results surprising as well. I get _three stops_ more speed with DS-10 and Fuji HR-T than with Pyrocat MC.
Wow great contrast!
Jim, I, too, have used Pyrocat in both its HD and HDC variations for many years, as I stated above, but like Peter was very surprised seeing this apparent quick drop in film speed as development time dropped. I say "apparent" because I'm not measuring density via a densitometer; simply 35 years experience shooting large format with regular film. I suspect the reason you're not seeing this anomaly is because you're developing much longer than me for alternative printing. I do print pt/pd on occasion and may just relegate use of this film for that process or long-scale chloro-bromide type paper such as Lodima.
Peter, based on your comment I may have to give DS-10 a try. Thanks!
Randy, do you have a link? I need a mannequin for my lighting tests & was not please with the prices & selections at [giant internet retailer].Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
I got Helen Hair Art # 4314 in barter. I traded some useless TV device.Quote:
Originally Posted by seezee
She was very dirty and I had to give Helen a shower. They claim real human hair. She is very sturdy and cleaned up fine.
I also have a store type full body plastic mannequin that looks almost real on a dark night, with wig delivered for $100 from somewhere. You will have to search online or look in dumpsters behind Macy's.
Some here prefer full size skeletons...
I have one of these: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...ilpage_o06_s00 plus a cheap wig. It's fine for lighting tests.