Pyrocat HD dilution, why not just use 1a+1b+100

[Camerashy]

I have seen various dilutions PyrocatHD, for example:
1.5a+1b+250
1.5a+1b+200
2a+2b+100
What are the benefits of using these dilutions over the recommended 1a+1b+100 water.

 

[Ian Grant]

I've been using Pyrocat HD for 21 years now, always at ! + 1 to 100. The exception is tray developing 10x8 sheet film, where I use 2 _ 2 to 100 to get shorter development times.

Increasing the concentration may give a slight increase in grain, but that will not be noticeable with 10x8.

I've always had excellent results at 1 + 1 to 100 shooting in the bright sunshine in the Aegean, through to the sea mists of Cornwall, that's 120 (6x6 & 6x17) and LF 5x4, and 10x8 in a Paterson Orbital. As I get very consistent results, there's no need to change.

Ian

 

[Alan Clark]

I used to use the 2+2+100 dilution quite a bit. It gives a shorter development time than 1+1+100. It also gives more grain. This was why I used it , with 35mm film, when I actually wanted grain. It produced grain like Rodinal, but with better film speed and more compensating effect than Rodinal is capable of.

 

[PaulBarden]

I have seen various dilutions PyrocatHD, for example:
1.5a+1b+250
1.5a+1b+200
2a+2b+100
What are the benefits of using these dilutions over the recommended 1a+1b+100 water.

As Alan and Ian have said, you can shorten development times (if that's meaningful for you), but you'll see an increase in grain, but at 4x5 and up, that's not really relevant.
Myself, I stick to 1:1:100 unless I'm making a negative for Kallitype or Salt printing, in which case I will switch to 2:2:100 to obtain more contrast and high value density appropriate for the process. Otherwise, its 1:1:100 for "normal" negatives.

 

[Dave_P]

I have used 2+2+100 when developing 10x8 with increased contrast for van dyke printing using a Paterson Orbital, because it means you can develop for 10-14 mins instead of using 1+1+100 and having to stand there rotating it by hand for 20-30 mins.

 

[thronobulax]

1.5:1:200-300 are often used with EMA and Semistand development methods, neither of which are recommended for everyday use.

 

[mpirie]

I use Pyrocat HD at 2+2+100 for Rotary development in Expert tanks on a Jobo CPA2 to avoid oxidation.

Mike

 

[Camerashy]

1.5:1:200-300 are often used with EMA and Semistand development methods, neither of which are recommended for everyday use.

Is there a specific reason to use Semi-stand or EMA? Do those methods give box speed, improved actuance or better control over the shadow details and highlights, more so than using the 1a+1b+100 dilution. What is your experience?

 

[PaulBarden]

Is there a specific reason to use Semi-stand or EMA? Do those methods give box speed, improved actuance or better control over the shadow details and highlights, more so than using the 1a+1b+100 dilution. What is your experience?

All that EMA type techniques offer is increased/exaggerated edge effects (=acutance), which I can't image wanting, given Pyrocat's already extreme acutance properties when used normally. I find Pyrocat can produce negatives that look "oversharpened" and I use it sparingly. I find PMK gives a more balanced negative, without the extreme acutance effects. But that's just one man's opinion, and it's all down to taste and preferences.

 

[thronobulax]

Is there a specific reason to use Semi-stand or EMA? Do those methods give box speed, improved actuance or better control over the shadow details and highlights, more so than using the 1a+1b+100 dilution. What is your experience?

WARNING: This subject engenders all manner of noise from the Internet High Priesthood Of Photography. I have seen amazing verbal fisticuffs fly by these self-anointed Keepers Of Truth (tm). What should invoke curiosity often ends up in these silly slap fests to no good end. For myself, I share my results but ignore the noise machine. I will say that this whole thing is VERY fiddly, not recommend for people early in their photographic journey and, if used at all, it should be used with care and restraint. Now onward ...


I have made my notes from a multi-year exploration of this topic available here. They are bit dated in some respects but substantially still relevant:

tundra/Stand-Development

gitbucket.tundraware.com

All that EMA type techniques offer is increased/exaggerated edge effects (=acutance), which I can't image wanting, given Pyrocat's already extreme acutance properties when used normally. I find Pyrocat can produce negatives that look "oversharpened" and I use it sparingly. I find PMK gives a more balanced negative, without the extreme acutance effects. But that's just one man's opinion, and it's all down to taste and preferences.

That isn't really all it offers. When it is properly applied (right subject, right technique) it yields full shadow speed, expanded midtones, and even more compression of highlights if you are in a huge range of light. HOWEVER, it is very fiddly and has to be attempted with caution and patience.

Here is an example done on 5x4 with a Crown Graphic and a 127mm f/4.7 Ektar lens. This was done on Fomapan 200@EI 200 in DK-50 1+3 for 60min with 2 min initial agitation and one midpoint agitation at 31min for 10 seconds.

This was shot in afternoon open shade with a very short range of light. Take note of the edge effects to which you refer, but also how nicely the central tones expanded. Without it, this would have another dull middle-gray picture of a plant:

 

[Camerashy]

All that EMA type techniques offer is increased/exaggerated edge effects (=acutance), which I can't image wanting, given Pyrocat's already extreme acutance properties when used normally. I find Pyrocat can produce negatives that look "oversharpened" and I use it sparingly. I find PMK gives a more balanced negative, without the extreme acutance effects. But that's just one man's opinion, and it's all down to taste and preferences.

Do you use PMK AT 1A+2B+100?

 

[Dave_P]

All that EMA type techniques offer is increased/exaggerated edge effects (=acutance), which I can't image wanting, given Pyrocat's already extreme acutance properties when used normally. I find Pyrocat can produce negatives that look "oversharpened" and I use it sparingly. I find PMK gives a more balanced negative, without the extreme acutance effects. But that's just one man's opinion, and it's all down to taste and preferences.

I find that sort of high acutance look from pyrocat very dependent on the film used, and more so with generous exposure. Seen it most with TriX in 120 and some old Neopan 400 35mm i found (if I’m remembering it right) and massively leas noticeable or absent with other emulsions like delta 100.

 

[PaulBarden]

Do you use PMK AT 1A+2B+100?

Yes, with one exception: if I am making a negative specifically for Kallitype (or Salt) printing, in which case I follow Ellie Young's prescription, which is 2:4:100 for 10-13 minutes (depending on film choice, but typically I am using FP4 for that purpose).

 

[PaulBarden]

WARNING: This subject engenders all manner of noise from the Internet High Priesthood Of Photography. I have seen amazing verbal fisticuffs fly by these self-anointed Keepers Of Truth (tm). What should invoke curiosity often ends up in these silly slap fests to no good end. For myself, I share my results but ignore the noise machine. I will say that this whole thing is VERY fiddly, not recommend for people early in their photographic journey and, if used at all, it should be used with care and restraint. Now onward ...


I have made my notes from a multi-year exploration of this topic available here. They are bit dated in some respects but substantially still relevant:

tundra/Stand-Development

gitbucket.tundraware.com

That isn't really all it offers. When it is properly applied (right subject, right technique) it yields full shadow speed, expanded midtones, and even more compression of highlights if you are in a huge range of light. HOWEVER, it is very fiddly and has to be attempted with caution and patience.

Here is an example done on 5x4 with a Crown Graphic and a 127mm f/4.7 Ektar lens. This was done on Fomapan 200@EI 200 in DK-50 1+3 for 60min with 2 min initial agitation and one midpoint agitation at 31min for 10 seconds.

This was shot in afternoon open shade with a very short range of light. Take note of the edge effects to which you refer, but also how nicely the central tones expanded. Without it, this would have another dull middle-gray picture of a plant:

View attachment 5503

Quite right.
But I have found that sometimes, with certain photos, the expansion of the middle values can look quite artificial, kinda like how early HDR photos looked artificial. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with being curious about a technique and trying it for yourself.
In no way should my remarks be construed as intended to discourage someone from experimenting to see what they like/don't like.

 

[Camerashy]

Quite right.
But I have found that sometimes, with certain photos, the expansion of the middle values can look quite artificial, kinda like how early HDR photos looked artificial. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with being curious about a technique and trying it for yourself.
In no way should my remarks be construed as intended to discourage someone from experimenting to see what they like/don't like.

At what size print do the middle values start to look artificial? Is Semistand and EMA only worth considering for prints larger than for sake of discussion 8x10?

 

[Ian Grant]

At what size print do the middle values start to look artificial? Is Semistand and EMA only worth considering for prints larger than for sake of discussion 8x10?

When Steve Sherman began posting about EMA he was not enlarging his negatives, he was using ULF cameras and contact printing. Here it makes senses to exaggerate edge effects (Mackie lines) to improve print sharpness, But do the same with 120 or 5x4, and you get gross exaggeration which looks unreal if enlarged.

Ask yourself why no well known, and leading B&W photographers don't or didn't use Semi-stand or EMA. It's simple, they had enough controls without them.

There's also something being forgotten, we can control the tonal range while printing, that can be flashing, two bath, split grade, that gives us total control of the high, low, and also mid-tones. Even easier if scanning.

It's 31 years since my first large gallery exhibition, (Arts Council Funded), 64 framed prints, 6 prints were 24" x 20", the films used were Agfa APX100, & Tmax 100, developers Rodinal or Xttol. Mostly 5x4, but some 120 APX25. Definition was excellent, edge effects perfect, D76/ID-11 would have been mushy, ill-defined.

What is overlooked is craft is about consistency, so you go out regardless of weather, lighting, etc, and get negatives that are well-rounded, by that I mean can be interpreted in different ways. AA's comment the negative is "The Score", it must not be almost impossible to print.

At what size print do the middle values start to look artificial? Is Semistand and EMA only worth considering for prints larger than for sake of discussion 8x10

Not for decent sized enlargements.

Ian

 

[thronobulax]

Quite right.
But I have found that sometimes, with certain photos, the expansion of the middle values can look quite artificial, kinda like how early HDR photos looked artificial. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with being curious about a technique and trying it for yourself.
In no way should my remarks be construed as intended to discourage someone from experimenting to see what they like/don't like.

Yes you have to know the film, developer, and how you plan to print/scan to plot whether or not middle tone expansion is sensible. As I note in the aforementioned monograph, subjects that have a lot of texture like close on brick walls can get a kind of gritty, graphics arts look to them.

The other thing is that you have to pay a lot of attention to how you place things. EMA/Semistand will deliver full shadow speed, sure, but they will do so at the expense of moving highlights up, no matter how little you agitate, if you use long development times (over 45 mins in my experience). There is this balancing act you have to do to keep the development time long enough to experience the edge effects, but short enough to make the highlights printable if you're in long brightness range situation. I am a silver printer. While I have yet to see a highlight I could not punch through from an EMA/Semistand negative, the problem is that some image geometries cannot easily be burned with clean lines. So, protecting the highlights somewhat is merited even given the compensation of effect these development schemes provide. You effectively have to balance shadow speed, mid tone contrast, edge effects, and highlight protection ... oh, all while making sure that when you do develop, you don't get bromide drag and streaking. Other than that, there's nothing to it

I have found that for all formats larger than 35mm, D-23 1+9 with 0.5g/l Sodium Hydroxide is actually preferable for very long brightness ranges where you want to do all this. (If you mix D-23 1+14 and add some carbonate you effectively get FX-1, or something very close as @Raghu Kuvempunagar pointed out to me recently, elsewhere.) These highly dilute variations of D-23 seem to exhaust faster in the highlights than Pyrocat does, at least to my eye, thereby protecting the highlights better in long development methods.

Here is one example shot in an absolutely blistering range of light. The sun was nearly overhead to the right of the scene and had the shoreline lit up like it was on fire. It's hard to see here in the downsampled image, but the original is extraordinarily sharp and holds the dynamic range, subject to a bit of split VC printing to bring the highlights down a bit.

This is a scan of print made from a 12x9 Fomapan 100 negative shot at EI 100 on a Crown Graphic with an 8 1/2" Commercial Ektar. It was developed for 30 min in the aforementioned homegrown version of FX-1 with 2 min initial agitation and another brief agitation at 16 min. The image holds both the shadows and the ridiculously bright light on the far shore. The only thing I should have done differently is expose at EI100 to move the entire negative down 1/3 stop or so:

 

[thronobulax]

At what size print do the middle values start to look artificial? Is Semistand and EMA only worth considering for prints larger than for sake of discussion 8x10?

It's not the print size that primarily drives this, it's the content of the material. If you already have a highly textured subject like a rock surface or rough brick wall, you can see the image starting to look cartoonish with these methods.

Assuming excellent optics, and modern films, max print size is more governed by the size of the negative and the intended viewing distance than anything else. Contrast also plays a role, as Barry Thornton cogently explained in "The Edge Of Darkness". We perceive the prints we view in our hands or hanging on a wall at some further distance as being "sharp" when they have somewhere between 15 and 30 line pairs/millimeter resolution. Yet a billboard with only 2-3 lp/mm looks perfectly sharp to us when viewed along side the motorway at a distance.

 

[thronobulax]

When Steve Sherman began posting about EMA he was not enlarging his negatives, he was using ULF cameras and contact printing. Here it makes senses to exaggerate edge effects (Mackie lines) to improve print sharpness, But do the same with 120 or 5x4, and you get gross exaggeration which looks unreal if enlarged.

Ask yourself why no well known, and leading B&W photographers don't or didn't use Semi-stand or EMA. It's simple, they had enough controls without them.

Well I'm not sure how you're scoring "well known" or "leading" but here are a few names, past and present who have used some version of stand or its equivalent, noting that the older photographers like Atget were dealing with rather different films:

Eugene Atget
William Mortensen
Ansel Adams
John Sexton
Ray McSavaney
Alex Bond
Barry Thornton
Bruce Barnbaum

I'd call all of them reasonably "leading" if not all "well known".

I actually got interested in the whole business when I saw the comments from Sandy King, father of Pyrocat, on the possibility of using it with stand. He is, at the very least, a "leading figure" in development chemistry.

This led to a multi-year dive down the stand/EMA rabbit hole to see what it could- and could not do. Unlike all the internet experts who think its absolutely the best/worst/only/magical/horrific technique ever, I chose to find out for myself. My conclusions:

• It's fiddly and requires extreme care in how the film is suspended in the developer
• It is absolutely not for people early in their film development journey
• It is absolutely not for people unwilling to invest the time and effort to overcome its hurdles
• It's not remotely appropriate for all- or even most subjects
• It's an arrow in the quiver every monochrome film photographer should considering having at their disposal

I, for one, have never understood the wild rants and fulminations the whole business seemed to engender some years ago. The best answer to a question is to try it and show the results.

 

[Camerashy]

A good variety of answers and suggestions to consider, thank you everyone for your comments, I have enjoyed the discussion.