Processing 510 Pyro & 100TMX with Jobo CPP-2

[Michael Kadillak]

Very little of that's likely to be the pyro. Of either sort. The useful pyro effects seem to be largely restricted to emulsion tanning in unhardened emulsions.

It seems (from the available industry literature - at the engineering/ research/ academic level - not the relatively popular market books that come to a halt in disclosable knowledge somewhere between 1950/1960) that in those developers, it's largely Metol exhaustion effects or Phenidone byproducts causing development inhibition that produces the observable edge effects. Adding an effective source of electron replenishment (e.g. HQ/ AA/ HQMS etc - and this seems to work even outside conditions that might be characterised as 'superadditive' - even though superadditivity is not as clear-cut as home-brewers assume once any emulsion addenda come into play) will largely switch off the effect in MQ developers, but can be exploited in PQ type developers to produce radically differing levels of the effect. If you strip out the pyrogallol from various staining developers what you're largely left with are bowdlerised Beutler (which produces high sharpness both microdensitometrically and perceptually) derivatives - or accidentally functional PQ relationships - and that one of the isomers of HQ seems to behave sufficiently like it in specific formulae, just producing a slightly different dye. The research wasn't purely microdensitometric, it involved large quantities of double blind print testing - which found that adjacency effects had to be balanced against granularity - and that extremely strong adjacency effect producing developers (POTA) could produce markedly unpleasant prints. By using non-solvent developers the ability to access the Bromide & Iodide placed in the emulsions to produce sharpness enhancing adjacency effects through development inhibition is left unused as well - and it is in accessing the Br and I that D-76 and ID-11 are able to deliver remarkably sharp results - if basic process controls are instigated. The other aspect that is often ignored is that a pH of around 10 seems to maximise sharpness. If you put all these together, you can zero in on potential candidate developers. In other words, an appropriate ratio of P:Q (or AA etc), some solvency and carbonate buffered to just under a pH of 10.

From microdensitometric study we also know that the visually perceivable effects of anything more than nil agitation effectively boil down to differences in overall contrast with no meaningful impact on sharpness measurable or perceivable (when the experiments are properly controlled) - with possible exceptions for litho film in litho developer in specific situations. In other words all that is happening is that the developers you are using & how you are using them is probably widening your margin of error against overdevelopment for the grade you want to print on and possibly underexposure. I've had enough staining developer outcomes through my hands to feel that it's pretty obvious to me why the manufacturers with large basic research capacity, never mind significant organic chemical synthesis resources, seem to have stopped research on staining developers a long time ago. DIR/ DIAR couplers (and research into how to potentially get similar effects from regular B&W emulsions through new emulsion making approaches) were able to deliver effects that many assume their magical-developer-recipe-silver-bullet is delivering (even though it isn't).

You can read all of the literature and study this topic all you want. In this instance because the objective net result is aesthetic, the literature can only get you so far. Years ago I similarly choose the "technical" path since it was engrained in me as an engineer. It was a terribly frustrating experience as I literally spent countless hours reading everything I could get my hands on and doing the density testing and plotting up film and paper curves from step chart exposures ad nausium and then trying to take that information into the darkroom. I was a mess and I was ready to throw in the towel. Then I had a conversation with Michael Smith and he encouraged me to ditch the BS with the data and simply make prints and adjust in the darkroom. Changed the game from despair to meaningful upside at each darkroom session. Pyro was one of these physical ah ha moments as well after probably a dozen iterations with developers from Harveys 777 to DDX and all points in between. And the calibrating venue that never lies is the print as it should be.

[interneg]

You can read all of the literature and study this topic all you want. In this instance because the objective net result is aesthetic, the literature can only get you so far. Years ago I similarly choose the "technical" path since it was engrained in me as an engineer. It was a terribly frustrating experience as I literally spent countless hours reading everything I could get my hands on and doing the density testing and plotting up film and paper curves from step chart exposures ad nausium and then trying to take that information into the darkroom. I was a mess and I was ready to throw in the towel. Then I had a conversation with Michael Smith and he encouraged me to ditch the BS with the data and simply make prints and adjust in the darkroom. Changed the game from despair to meaningful upside at each darkroom session. Pyro was one of these physical ah ha moments as well after probably a dozen iterations with developers from Harveys 777 to DDX and all points in between. And the calibrating venue that never lies is the print as it should be.

You could have got to the same end point with ID-11/ D-76. Seriously. I only started to dig into the science when I wanted to know why I was apparently (without any real effort other than baseline exposure and process controls - i.e. a lightmeter, a competent thermometer, bog-standard but consistent agitation technique and timer) readily able to manipulate negs to get more than good sharpness without massive pseudotechnical exposure/ process conniptions and potentially hazardous developers. As I'd suspected from the start, the R&D labs knew their stuff - and that the homebrewing brigade were still stuck blundering around the late 1930s. Basic process control is simple to learn yet apparently far too boring for people obsessed with being artsy in the most dilettante ways - yet the irony is that a (very) basic understanding of the useful bits of process control delivers the most rapid and efficient ways to manipulate visual outcomes (and we're not talking baseline landscape imagery - if you can't do that with a 4x5 camera and a box of HP5+ (or whatever) you may have difficulties falling off a log) across a wide range of expressive methods.

[Michael Kadillak]

You could have got to the same end point with ID-11/ D-76. Seriously. I only started to dig into the science when I wanted to know why I was apparently (without any real effort other than baseline exposure and process controls - i.e. a lightmeter, a competent thermometer, bog-standard but consistent agitation technique and timer) readily able to manipulate negs to get more than good sharpness without massive pseudotechnical exposure/ process conniptions and potentially hazardous developers. As I'd suspected from the start, the R&D labs knew their stuff - and that the homebrewing brigade were still stuck blundering around the late 1930s. Basic process control is simple to learn yet apparently far too boring for people obsessed with being artsy in the most dilettante ways - yet the irony is that a (very) basic understanding of the useful bits of process control delivers the most rapid and efficient ways to manipulate visual outcomes (and we're not talking baseline landscape imagery - if you can't do that with a 4x5 camera and a box of HP5+ (or whatever) you may have difficulties falling off a log) across a wide range of expressive methods.

Therein lies our aesthetic differences. ID11 and D76 were the first alternatives I ditched 20 years ago. I detest the milk toast granularity that it produces. Blahhhh. Seriously. Absolutely zero emotion but a technicians dream result relative to your propensity for data. I gave away a 24 sheet box of HP5 in 11x14 similarly because it was similarly worthless unless you had a perfectly normal exposure and had already optimized the film speed. Only exposed one sheet and I was able to conclude it was a dead dog right out of the box. Nothing like running into maximum negative density as its film curve tops out anything but normal light to drive you to drink. Nobody and I meant nobody uses HP5 unless they are silver printers under normal exposure conditions. I don't waste my time with 4x5. I go full Monty with 8x10 as my point and shoot and 11x14, 8x20 and 12x20 to step it up a notch. If what you do works for you, God Bless you. Send me some prints to elaborate your profound conclusion and prove me wrong. I will do the same.

[koraks]

[QUOTE=Michael In this instance because the objective net result is aesthetic, [/QUOTE]
Uhm, so in fact, the net result is anything BUT objective (hopefully you're not going to make a case for aesthetics having to meet an objective standard!) and that means that any rational discussion on your choice is pretty much precluded. You chose your methods for the good reason that they get you to the point where you want to be with the means that you have at your disposal. For me, that would be good enough. No need to convince you out of using pyro.
And yes, I think do pyro should NOT be the first option to consider if someone starts down the same path of finding their preferred methods and materials. @interneg gives an excellent line of reasoning why it's worthwhile to first give it a go with other, less obnoxious, materials. That is, worthwhile for anyone in the position where you were two decades ago.
There is something magical about pyro for sure. Part of it must be its ability to induce unbounded cell growth in mammals.

[martiansea]

Nobody and I meant nobody uses HP5 unless they are silver printers under normal exposure conditions.

Oh c'mon... I've made good alt prints (Chrysotype, Platinum, etc...) from HP5, and had plenty of density and contrast for it. And I know I'm not the only one.

[Michael Kadillak]

Oh c'mon... I've made good alt prints (Chrysotype, Platinum, etc...) from HP5, and had plenty of density and contrast for it. And I know I'm not the only one.

Yes, as long as you stay within its limited headspace it is absolutely possible to extract a quality print from HP5. All I am saying is factually HP5 does not have the density latitude capability as other sheet films and I do not want to be inhibited with what I choose to photograph in the field with having to be concerned about those factual imitations when I choose to make an image. And I do not need to look at a comparable film curve. All I need to do is try to print a negative that has been unintentionally taken where it does not do well to relegate HP5 to the end of the line. Fortunately, there are a host of more "dimensional" options to consider. FP4+, old version one T Max 400 and even Foma 200 are vastly superior for a photographer that wants optimal flexibility in the field.

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Of course there's some water in my TEA. Pure TEA is a solid at room temperature. Do you weigh your TEA by cutting blocks off it or do you pour it without having to heat it first? In case of the latter, there's also water in your TEA.

I use this TEA. It says purity is 98% and water content is less than 0.5%. It has always remained a viscous liquid and room temperature here is generally 25C and above.

Jay originally used commercial grade TEA which is a mixture (approximately) of 85% TEA and 15% DEA for making 510-Pyro. Later I saw 98% TEA being recommended, but I never saw low freeze grade TEA (one that contains water) for making 510-Pyro.

[tundra]

Uhm, so in fact, the net result is anything BUT objective (hopefully you're not going to make a case for aesthetics having to meet an objective standard!) and that means that any rational discussion on your choice is pretty much precluded. You chose your methods for the good reason that they get you to the point where you want to be with the means that you have at your disposal. For me, that would be good enough. No need to convince you out of using pyro.
And yes, I think do pyro should NOT be the first option to consider if someone starts down the same path of finding their preferred methods and materials. @interneg gives an excellent line of reasoning why it's worthwhile to first give it a go with other, less obnoxious, materials. That is, worthwhile for anyone in the position where you were two decades ago.
There is something magical about pyro for sure. Part of it must be its ability to induce unbounded cell growth in mammals.

A bit over the top. Yes, Pyrogallol is nasty stuff. That's why you wear a lab apron, nitrile gloves, and eye protection when using these developers and additionally a good mask and ventilation when mixing it. If people do not have good lab technique, I advise them against chemical photography entirely since you're supposed to use common sense when handling these materials.

In my lifetime I've done many dangerous things - firing semiautomatic pistols for hours on end, flying light planes over mountains, SCUBA diving at night in the ocean, skiing at high altitudes - but I've done these "dangerous" things very safely because, in every case, I was taught how to do so. The most dangerous thing I have ever done - by far - at least statistically, is to drive my car, especially within a tight radius of my home. At least in the US, automobile accidents kill far more people per capita than guns, accidents, or fires. If we accept the contemporary fears of anything that might hurt us, we should all stop driving ... except that trains are even worse and you cannot fly to work.

It is interesting to note that the folks who sell 510 Pyro in the UK have just had some sort of analysis done that suggests there is no significant environmental or health risk in the concentrate and were able - I am told - to get rid of the associated warning labels:

https://www.5x4.co.uk/threads/revise...-510-pyro.1909

If people are going to use chemical photography, they need to learn good lab technique, have proper protective equipment and ventilation, and use common sense.

[interneg]

Oh c'mon... I've made good alt prints (Chrysotype, Platinum, etc...) from HP5, and had plenty of density and contrast for it. And I know I'm not the only one.

I'd agree that it's easy to get plenty density & good curve behaviour from HP5+ for high contrast needs if you use appropriate developers (PQ Universal, D-72/ Dektol D-19b, D-11 would be good starting places for most) rather than the hearsay and cant of weekend-workshop-fetishised developers - which either run out of steam and/ or produce ever greater levels of development inhibition as they do so (i.e. the emulsion engineers were very considerably smarter than the 'buy-my-workshop' gurus slowly poisoning themselves with pyrogallol).

Never mind that people apparently don't have a micron of a clue how to manipulate D-76 (anyone who starts jumping up and down and yelling about it lacking 'something' is immediately telling me they've repetitiously screwed up the basics and are hunting for magic bullets - when almost always it's a basic failure of baseline level exposure and/ or process technique - often by alarmingly large margins) - or consider how emulsions were/ are engineered to attempt to rein in the actions of incompetent-end-users-in-potentia-who-have-magazine-columns-or-run-weekend-workshops-or-prominent-social-media-presences.

It is interesting to note that the folks who sell 510 Pyro in the UK have just had some sort of analysis done that suggests there is no significant environmental or health risk in the concentrate and were able - I am told - to get rid of the associated warning labels:

https://www.5x4.co.uk/threads/revise...-510-pyro.1909

The major manufacturers want to minimise their chances of getting sued & ensure their products can be readily sold worldwide. By those standards, essentially everything in Ilford, Kodak, Adox etc's ranges is considerably safer than 510-Pyro - the major manufacturers are not idiots, but are realists about ensuring their end users take appropriate precautions when handling their products. Everything Mr Lane claims should be treated with extreme care, especially when you can find where he lifted it from in the first place.

[tundra]

The major manufacturers want to minimise their chances of getting sued & ensure their products can be readily sold worldwide. By those standards, essentially everything in Ilford, Kodak, Adox etc's ranges is considerably safer than 510-Pyro - the major manufacturers are not idiots, but are realists about ensuring their end users take appropriate precautions when handling their products. Everything Mr Lane claims should be treated with extreme care, especially when you can find where he lifted it from in the first place.

Well ... that's not really an argument from the objective scientific facts but more of an oblique observation based on law. I'm not saying you are wrong, only that this is besides the point. Deeper pockets always have to be ready for larger lawsuits, which is chemically irrelevant.

It is almost certainly true that Pyrogallol based developers are inherently more dangerous (to humans and animals) than say metol-based developers (though I would note that metol has its own problems with long term exposure). I am less clear that every single product made by Kodak, Ilford, or Adox is guaranteed to be less risky/free of risk. In fact, I seem to recall that Kodak's own HC-110 does/did have a pyro component but that's from memory, I have no first source for this.

Again, good lab technique, protective equipment, and ventilation can be used to mitigate these risks, in my opinion. Anyone not having those at their disposal should run far, far away from using these developers. For that matter, anyone not having those at their disposal should probably stay out of a chemical darkroom entirely as there are all manner of other chemistry that can wreak havoc when mis-used.