Quick question on 2 bath pyrocat

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I mixed 500 ml of each a and b 1:20 each. I am going to develop four sheets of 4x5 to start. Can I reuse the mix for an additional 4 sheets or is this a 1 and done. I don't have infobon how many sheets can be done with 500ml at this dilution.

[Peter De Smidt]

One and done.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Ok. Now I am trying to see if it worked. I used 6 min for development time for A and B and my shadows are non existent. As though not exposed. Sky looks good. Exposure times were 4-9 seconds. I think I will try one more set and see what I get. I will post initial neg in a few minutes after dry. Tmax 100 with red 25A. I did expose for shadows. All I can think of is may e I did not compensate for the red filter.

Unless I did the development time wrong

[Ken Lee]

Shadows are blue so they are hit especially hard by red filters. If it's a deep sky you're after, you might try a yellow filter + polarizer.

That's how this shot was made on 8x10.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Here aresome shots of neg. They look all whacked. Definitely not an exposure issue. I must have done something wrong. Not worried, as I can always return to area. Its been there for a couple million years .

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Shadows are blue so they are hit especially hard by red filters. If it's a deep sky you're after, you might try a yellow filter + polarizer.

That's how this shot was made on 8x10.

I am after a skyvwith good detail and canyon detail well exposed. Typically with grand canyon shots at sunrise or sunset you can have one or tge otger, but not both.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Shadows are blue so they are hit especially hard by red filters. If it's a deep sky you're after, you might try a yellow filter + polarizer.

That's how this shot was made on 8x10.

Nice image!

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Here aresome shots of neg. They look all whacked. Definitely not an exposure issue. I must have done something wrong. Not worried, as I can always return to area. Its been there for a couple million years .

Could it be that I need more time in developer B?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I figured out what I did wrong. I am using the SP-445 tank and when I inserted the film i pit it in the holders with the emulsion facing in and not out. Sobthe lines are from the holder not allowing any developer to reach the film. And the uneven development is from the holder pieces touching emulsion not allowing development. That sucks. I just brain farted while putting film in holders. At least the Grand Canyon isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Developed second set at 1:15 A and B at 71 degrees for 6:30 I kinda guessed an additional 30 seconds would give me same as 6 min at 75 degrees. Changed to 1:15 for manual agitation in tank development per literature. But I think 1:20 would work fine.

Would varting strength of A and time in A vs B help with saving higlghts?

[Ken Lee]

Here aresome shots of neg. They look all whacked. Definitely not an exposure issue. I must have done something wrong. Not worried, as I can always return to area. Its been there for a couple million years .

In Photoshop, I simply inverted one of the images you posted. Apparently the chemistry did not reach the entire negative.

Remember that a rotary process is recommended, along with the use of a wetting agent like Photo-Flo, to avoid uneven development.

I've observed the process using an infra red viewing device: development in solution B is virtually instantaneous. For best results it's important to make sure that the negative is evenly saturated with solution A.

I abandoned this developer because with tray development of sheet film I could never fully avoid uneven development.

At first, you may find it helpful to shoot a simple target repeatedly, avoiding variables like filters.