Pyrocat HD

mpirie said:
I saw that previously Ian, but was hoping someone else would try it before i jumped in ;)

£7.80 with the same for postage (plus customs?) means it's not cheap either. I placed an order with Silverprint to make my own (based on Sandy King's formula) but after placing the order, they called to tell me the Pyro was no longer available. :mad:

I may just give it a try now that my darkroom is fully up and running.

Mike
Click to expand...


MIke...
Surviving on my pension income I have found that 'making up Pyrocat HD from 'scratch" is a LOT less expensive than purchasing it 'READY' to go..... i used 'HER' inexpensive Kitchen scale until got a 'real bargain' on a three-beam balance (accurate to a 1/10th of gram with all the required 'counter weights'). In all honesty, I will do not think i will ever go back to 'commercial' developers purchased 'off the shelf'
I Really believe the grain is 'sharper' and... (somehow much "finer').. thus so it has become the only film developer in my darkroom

It is also 'really' helpful for making up my own 'alternative' archaic print processes 'emulsions' from the early 1800's. which is my main means of making prints from my slightly enlaged digital negatives printed onto the slightly frosted side of "Pictorico' "over-head projection film"

Ken
 
Thanks Ken,

I've recently become a convert to Pyro-HD too, but as i've had limited success in tanks, i've resorted to using tray development for sheet film.

The real difficulty seems to be getting the raw chemicals to allow a home brew approach, especially with the extra emphasis nowadays on health and safety by the suppliers and delivery companies.

There is a guy in the UK who has started importing PF materials, so hopefully we can have a reliable supply at reasonable cost going forward.

Mike
 
Ken,
You mention Pictorico film. My friend who does all sorts of alternative processes uses it too. There are other brands which seem cheaper. What are the advantages of Pictorico?
 
Someone sent me this chart they had compiled using a densitometer with Fomapan 200 rated at 100 ISO

They used a dilution of 2.6 : 2: 100 which I don't know why but I have asked him the question.
The tests were carried out at 23°C tray processed.

Looking at the chart, 8 minutes seems to map the closest to the target value.
My estimation is that 8 minutes at 23°C is around 10 minutes 47 seconds at 20°C

53760974_10219097242009758_6847645610472898560_o.jpg
 
Pictorico has the one side 'slightly frosted' to 'accept the ink' from the printer. Gave some 'other' OH film a try, but it had a tendency
to 'smudge' if yo were not 'careful enough' handling the film coming out of the printer before it was 'perfectly dry' from my "El Cheapo" (read $75) Cannon.It also seems to 'easier' to determine which side should be in contact with the hand-applied emulsion
when making prints using the 'archaic print' processes. The one 8 inch 'end' has a red 'edge' which (if my 'ageing memory' serves me well enough) indicated the "leading edge for feeding". I do not load the tray but put the sheet in the 'top' by hand.

Your friend got the right idea.. and puts it to a "good use" :cool:

Ken
 
David M said:
Ken,
You mention Pictorico film. My friend who does all sorts of alternative processes uses it too. There are other brands which seem cheaper. What are the advantages of Pictorico?
Click to expand...

David,

In all 'honesty', I did try the 'comon 'overhead projection materials from a local outlet but they seem to lay the 'ink' on a 'smooth surface... which has a tendency to 'smudge' (as I have stated before) while the 'frosted' side of Pictorico tend to 'absorb' it better.
That being said... I do not 'touch' the printed side until I am sure the deposited 'ink' has dried' properly. It comes in 'standard 8 1/2
by 11 inch sheets... as well as larger 'rolls you can cut to meet your needs. It is FAR superior to the usual 'class-room' overhead projection films for making digital negative for the 'alternative/'archaic' print processes

Ken
 
mpirie said:
Thanks Ken,

I've recently become a convert to Pyro-HD too, but as i've had limited success in tanks, i've resorted to using tray development for sheet film.

The real difficulty seems to be getting the raw chemicals to allow a home brew approach, especially with the extra emphasis nowadays on health and safety by the suppliers and delivery companies.

There is a guy in the UK who has started importing PF materials, so hopefully we can have a reliable supply at reasonable cost going forward.

Mike
Click to expand...


Sir Mike'
I have been using the BTZS tubes since I was 'retired' early in '97. I had found 'rotary' development (usind a Wing-Lynch) for quite a few years for both Ektachromes and 'all' the LF negatives proved to be 'easier/better' than hangers in tank or 'tray' development. I invested in a set of BTZS tube for both 4x5 and 8x10 films. the ONLY B/W film developer in my darkroom (nowadays) is 'home brewed/mixed Pyrocat HD (check Dr, Sandy King's website for info on Pyrocat HD)
I make my Pyrocat HD up from "scratch" to 'reduce' my costs while maintaing or 'bettering' the quality of my film development.
I believe I have stated elsewhere on the forum that I will probably never 'go back to the 'the more popular commercial BW film
developers... or to either hangers-in-tank or trays.

Ken
 
I have some BTZ tubes but never use them, they are a rip off anyway as you can buy exactly the same welding rod storage tubes for a tiny fraction of the price.

Mike, I've used Pyrocat HD in Jobo and Paterson tanks for about 14+ years with no issues. My Jobo tanks are 2000 series and Inversion tanks, they pre-date the Rotary ones.

Ian
 
It was the inconsistency i suffered with sheet film and the Jobo processor and 2500 rotary tanks that drove me back to trays.

My 120's in Pyro-HD are successful, but the sheets in tanks are too hit or miss.

I'm beginning to think that my sheets in tanks are suffering from aerial oxidation, not from over-agitation, but from remnants of wetting agent in the tank spirals (despite washing) mixing with the Pyro-HD. I've even seen foamy developer coming out which is not right.

Anyone know of a good way of removing wetting agent remains?

Mike

PS, i've changed my process so that the tanks/spirals are not exposed to wetting agent anymore, so things may improve.
 
Mike, I mix my own Pyrocat HD from raw chemistry, it might surprise you that I actually add a very small amount of wetting agent when I mix the Part A stock solution.

When I first moved abroad to live in Turkey I had issues with air-bells, this was partly due to the every high mineral salt content of our tap water which came from a borehole. I did some visual tests and realised that agitation etc wouldn't shift the air bells even in just plain water but a trace of wetting agent would, too much would cause foaming. That completely solved my problem.

Emulsions also can contain surfactants as it helps during the coating process, some particularly papers contain more than others. These tend to be long chain surfactants which can build up on reels.

Pyrocat HD (in water) has a long shelf life stored in the right type of container as long as it was made up with reasonably fresh Metabisulphite, it oxidises quickly when this has broken down to Sulphite. In use the Metabisulphite breaks down as a result of the presence of the Carbonate in Part B but it's not instant and takes place over maybe 20-30 mins and even then not totally.

Ian
 
Fully dismantle everything, then plenty of plain hot water, perhaps using a shower head and then a distilled water rinse, followed by air-drying away from dust. What more can anyone do? This sounds extreme. You could perform open-heart surgery.
Have you checked your local water supply? Very soft water will froth more easily, but there may be something dissolved that's giving you your troubles. Gavroche are said to give their tableware an extra rinse after normal washing, in very dilute wine vinegar and a final plain rinse before hand polishing, but acetic acid residues might be even less welcome.
I wasn't aware that wetting agent was an oxidising agent, but I'm not a chemist. I believe that salt may neutralise the effect of detergent, so you might experiment with a brine rinse, but I have no idea if this would help. I've not found that a bit of foam does any harm, but this may be my own slovenliness.

Presumably, you are processing the 120 in a tank. If it's the same rotary tank, using the same chemicals, then the problem must lie elsewhere. Would we not expect tray development to risk more oxidation?
Film storage? Film age? Developer age? Contamination of mixing vessels? A different brand of wetting agent? Do you use a pre-wash? These are merely random ideas.
I apologise for suggesting operator error, but it can't be discounted.

If tray development is working for you, you might try this experiment. Add a drop of your wetting agent to either the pre-wash or the developer solution. This will exceed any possible amount of residue. Then develop a waste film normally in the tray. A refinement would be to cut the sheet in half and process each half individually, one with and one without the addition.
 
Traces of the emulsion's gelatin super-coat often start to build up on tank reels the residual wetting agents bind with this. It's worth bleaching reels in warm sodium hypochlorite (Domestos) solution occasionally, depending on how much use they are getting.

Some wetting agents are also anti-oxidants, the long chain surfactant used in Agfa Rodinal is a good example of this it was added in the 1930's to help with tank processing of 35mm films. I have the Patent somewhere.

Ian
 
On another forum when a build up of wetting agent was suspected it was cured by a cleaning cycle through a dish washer. That was with a Paterson tank and reels. If you go that route you do it at your own risk!
 
Bill Martindale said:
On another forum when a build up of wetting agent was suspected it was cured by a cleaning cycle through a dish washer. That was with a Paterson tank and reels. If you go that route you do it at your own risk!
Click to expand...

Or a soak in Biological washing powder.

Ian
 
The final rinse cycle on a dishwasher uses a wetting agent. Are we now convinced that wetting agent is the root of the problem?
 
Why not go the whole hog and simply add parts A and B to the detergent dispenser?
 
David M said:
Why not go the whole hog and simply add parts A and B to the detergent dispenser?
Click to expand...
Nah, a divorce would be more expensive than using trays ;)

Thanks for all the suggestions........i'm not convinced myself that the build up of wetting agent is the problem, but after a number of successes and failures with no common traits, i'm struggling to get consistency with the tanks.

I use the same tanks (different reels obviously) for the 120 and sheet film. Problems only occur on the sheet films in tanks. Not only that, but if i shoot 12 sheets in a day, the first 4 i put in the first tank come out fine, the second 4 that i put into my second tank come out fine, but the 3rd batch of 4 which has to go into a washed and dried first tank, fail miserably, resulting in very faint images and usually, a frothy dispatch of the developer bath. I always pre-wash for 5 minutes in plain water. The faint images are what make me wonder if oxidation is the problem. I should add this is all at the slowest speed i can squeeze out of the Jobo.

One thing i did notice was that if i use the lift on the Jobo (ie pouring the water/chems in the lift) i get more failures. If i remove the tank and manually add the water/chems, then my success rate rises, but not to the point where i can blame contamination in the lift.

Right now, trays are the only way i can get consistently good negs.

Ian - I would make my own Pyro too, if i could find a source of the raw materials, but this appears to be more and more difficult to achieve. Eg, i approached one large chemical supplier only to be told that they do not supply to individuals, only companies, schools and universities.

It also looks like a number of existing providers are finding it more and more difficult to secure stocks of raw chemicals. I recently bought a couple of PF Pyro-HD powder kits from a fellow in North Wales, so i'm set for now, but i think we all need to consider the long-term viability of our developer suppliers.

Thanks again,
Mike
 
Perhaps a silly question. Fresh dev each time?
Residual fix would seem more likely, but that doesn't explain the One, Two, Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear sequence.
An imperfectly glued component in a tank, lid or spiral, retaining some solution in a narrow crack? The spirals are the major difference between the formats.
If the trays work it does seem sensible to stick with them, but frustrating not to nail a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top