Has MY PyrocatHD (A) Died ?

Ian-Barber said:
In some recent tests I have done, I have placed the low values on Zone 4 and not done any N- development for N-1 and it still handled it. Anything above N-2 I usually switch over to the EMA process
Click to expand...

Exactly! An SBR of 7 stops, which in my experience is pretty extreme, is generally easily handled with Pyro without resorting to any special development technique.
 
Alan,
Don't stop them. I can't believe that so much can be squeezed out from so little. It might go on until Christmas. I'm waiting for RGB figures for the oxidised tint and possibly a Pantone reference.
And despite the eulogies, I've seen nothing that couldn't have been done with D76. The actual prints may show a difference, but not the screen.
 
David M said:
And despite the eulogies, I've seen nothing that couldn't have been done with D76. The actual prints may show a difference, but not the screen.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with D76; it's what I'd call a solid, reliable, standard developer. You pick what works for you and go with it! ;) I don't use Pyrocat for everything; for example, I absolutely love what I get with Delta 100 developed in Clayton F76 Plus. But, when I know I'm pushing the limits I'll reach for FP4+ and Pyrocat-HD every time because that combination has never failed me.
 
Solid, Reliable. Good words.
How long until we hit a thousand posts on the colour of one sample of one kind of developer?
 
Well I am certainly learning from this thread as I use Pyrocat, if you don't use it then I can see why it might not be of interest, if that's the case then do not contribute to the thread, I hope it does go on, its good to gain a little knowledge from people especially Ian Grant who has a lot of expertise in this field and other users.
 
Fair enough. I'll remain an interested bystander.
 
Developer A gives superb results, but it is awkward to buy, may be of questionable quality when you do buy it, and has to be kept in special bottles. And you have to perpetually live with the nagging question "is it going off ?"

Developers B and C give results that are just as good, almost identical in fact, to developer A. But they are available from every photo supplier and when mixed keep for 12 months in used Coca-Cola bottles.

So which would you use?

Developer A is Pyrocat. B and C are Perceptol 1+3 and ID11 1+2.

Alan
 
If I may be forgiven for breaking my vow of silence so soon, may I add that I would have devised a test and discovered the facts for myself, but I was born in Yorkshire.
 
I've used and tested a lot of different films and developers over the years, but in practice stuck mostly to a medium speed and high speed film and mostly 2 developers, only changing when I felt there was a tangible benefit.

For me it's the quality of my exhibition print that matters and I want films and developers that will consistently give me the results I aimed for.

Now for nearly 20 years that was Rodinal and AP100/APX100 or Tmax 100, or TMay 400 in replenished Xtol. I was forced to switch to Delta 100 as Kodak films are almost impossible to find abroad but at I'd already begun to use Pyrocat HD and final image quality was similar.

I only had Pyrocat HD with me in Turkey but would still use my Xtol on visits home, however after a few printing sessions when back in the UK I realised the Pyrocat HD negatives were so easy to print. Now I'm doing retrospective prints at the same time of older negatives,while they aren't difficult to print I know the Pyrocat HD negatives are better and even easier to print.

So that's why Pyrocat HD is now the only film developer I use and have done for a decade, although I began using it earlier before finally retiring my replenished Xtol.

One thing I would say is you need to appreciate what print quality really is, and that can vary. Ian B saw some John Blakemore prints and a few others from my collection, he missed the Doisneau :D. Now you might want to print like Ralph Gibson that's equally as valid :)

Ian
 
David M said:
If I may be forgiven for breaking my vow of silence so soon, may I add that I would have devised a test and discovered the facts for myself, but I was born in Yorkshire.
Click to expand...

David, I too was born In Yorkshire, but I have done the tests, and that's why I can say with confidence that Perceptol 1+3 and ID11 1+2 give results that are equal to Pyrocat HD .
Ian mentions Xtol and Rodinal as his one-time favourite developers. In my tests they were a very poor second in terms of tonality to Pyrocat HD Perceptol 1+3 and ID11 1+2.

Alan
 
Ian, I think I do know what print quality really is. Not sure why you think I don't.
You mention Blakemore's prints. I've seen a lot of these, first hand. He used ID11.

Alan
 
Alan, I was talking about appreciating print quality in general.

You'll also see I've always qualified that it's particular films that give exceptional results, superb tonal range, very fine grain, with Rodinal, there's many I wouldn't recommend it with, HP5 for instance, and probably not FP4.

My experience with Xtol is finer grain and better tonality compared to D76/ID-11, but then I used ID-11 and later Xtol replenished and there's a noticeable improvement once seasoned, ID-11 at 1+2 is comparable but not quite such fine grain.

I don't shoot in the same conditions as John blakemore, nor do I necessarily want the same things from my negatives, yes I could use ID-11 either replenished (I'd mix my own) or at 1+2 and I know I'd get excellent results. However the film/developer combination would not give me the same quite as much control of the delicate highlights or the shadow detail. This is or rather wasn't something I noticed or thought about when I first began using Pyrocat HD but has come from the roughly 15 years I've used the developer and my observations when printing.

Ian
 
Morning Ian. I am not suggesting you change from Pyrocat HD. As I said earlier it is excellent stuff. You are obviously I full control of mixing and storing it and get excellent results with it, so why would you change to something else? I was simply pointing out to those with pyrocat problems that there are alternatives that are just as good.

Alan
 
I like to photograph church interiors. Sometimes the brightness range can be large, 8 stops in some cases.
I remember stood in one church and putting the shadow value on Zone IV resulted in the pattern in the stained glass window falling on Zone 12.

I was then using HC110 1:32 and each time I developed a negative of this scene I could not get the Zone 12 back down to Zone VIII without killing the mid-tones.

When I saw that Steve Sherman was using PyroCatHD through minimal agitation and read about how he could easily get a Zone 11, 12 back down to Zone VIII without killing the mid-tones, I was interested.

I bought some ready mixed Pyrocat, tried his suggested times for N-4 and not only was the detail in the stain glass window all there, I was seeing evidence of micro contrast (edge effects) which I had never seen before in HC110. This is why I started to pursue more interest into Pyrocat.

Having said that, whether Perceptol 1+3 or ID11 1+2 would give the same N-4 results I don't know.

Alan Clark said:
I was simply pointing out to those with pyrocat problems that there are alternatives that are just as good.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone has any problems apart from a sudden reaction as to why some batches are different in colour which led to questions regarding the chemistry of the developer. I think Ian G has explained the reasons quite well and for me, I have certainly learned from this.
 
Ian, it's important that you don't take my word for this. Do your own testing then you will know what is going on.
Next time you have your camera pointed at an interesting subject, in interesting light, don't just make one exposure, make several -before the light changes. (Yes, I know as a Yorkshireman you will have to grit your teeth to "waste" several sheets of film) Then you can develop the sheets in different developers, and make wet prints. Then you will be able to compare like with like, and you will easily be able to spot any differences.
I'd used Rodinal on and off for years, but it was only when I did the above test (I two rolls of 35mm FP4 then chopped them up) that I spotted how dull and compressed the midtones were, in comparison to Pytocat HD and Perceptol 1+3.


Alan
 
Alan Clark said:
I'd used Rodinal on and off for years, but it was only when I did the above test (I two rolls of 35mm FP4 then chopped them up) that I spotted how dull and compressed the midtones were, in comparison to Pytocat HD and Perceptol 1+3.
Click to expand...

Alan, when I began using Rodinal I quickly noticed that at 1:50 dilution the mid tones were sometimes compressed. I switched to using 2:75 which gave me exactly what I was after, I'd seen the same in the past with ID-11/D76 at 1+3 and had processed at 1+2 for a friend so knew what was needed.

In fact I used 1+50 for N-2 development and 1+25 for N+2 development, it was the late Peter Goldfield who claimed dilution was the better way to control contrast with Rodinal.

Ian
 
Ian, In my test I used rodinal at 1+25 and 1+50, with one inversion every half minute. I also tried one inversion every 5 minutes - partial stand. Someone claimed that this was the way to keep the highlights in check whilst allowing the shadows and midtones to build up. Well, all I can say is that it didn't work for me. Whichever way I tried it I got depressed midtones. And lack of detail in the shadows (i.e. reduced film speed) compared with perceptol 1+3 and Pyrocat HD at 1+1+100.
I also got a lot of grain with Rodinal. (This was with 35mm FP4)

Alan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top