Pyrocat-HD No Stain

[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.

[sanking]

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

[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.

[sanking]

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

[photocurio]

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.

[SAShruby]

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.

[sanking]

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

[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?

[sanking]

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

[SAShruby]

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