35mm and pyro something

Thinking about trying some pyro for my 35mm, but prefer commercial products as I am not a chemist, and only raise an eyebrow at the thought. Kind of rules out 510-pyro and kicks me toward pyrocat of some variety. After consistency, and while I don't know the dig with all the variety out there, looking at photo formulary' listings, I'm tending towards HD in glycol. Thoughts, suggestions, comments? All welcome. Many thanks in advance.

JWMster said:

Thinking about trying some pyro for my 35mm, but prefer commercial products as I am not a chemist, and only raise an eyebrow at the thought. Kind of rules out 510-pyro and kicks me toward pyrocat of some variety. After consistency, and while I don't know the dig with all the variety out there, looking at photo formulary' listings, I'm tending towards HD in glycol. Thoughts, suggestions, comments? All welcome. Many thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

I make my own Pyrocat-HDC and really like it. I have used the HD version and the MC version also. I would choose the MC over the HD if I didn't already like the HDC version. Sure sounds confusing doesn't it, but truth is they are all very, very close. Some of the nicest 35mm shots I have seen developed pyro were from PMK. I have never tried PMK so I can't speak it's language, but I'm sure other folks here can.

Unless you consider developers from Photographer's Formulary as "commercial products" then they would be the only ones. Staining developers have always been a DIY item unless I am mistaken.

Pyrogallol is a very toxic and dangerous chemical particularly for someone not familiar with using it. The solid is particularly dangerous and any spills in the home would require expensive decontamination. Catechol, while still toxic, is a safer alternative. When working with solutions be sure to use nitrile gloves, lab apron and a face shield or goggles. When working with the solids add to this a dust mask.

The following link is to the MSDS for pyrogallol. Pay particular attention to Section 11 which discusses the toxicology of the chemical. Note that the LDLo, the lowest known lethal dose for humans, is 28 mg per kg of body weight.

http://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/20010.htm

BTW, I am a trained chemist and will not even consider having pyrogallol in my home.

GC
Yes, those handling bugaboos are exactly why I've shied away, and why I really wouldn't do dry versions. And yes, I do consider PF commercial because they bottle "stuff" in liquid form so I don't have to take some of those attendant risks. Questions I am not in a position to answer:

1) Are the results from Pyro that much better than pyrocat-he that much better?
2) Ditto for both relative to non-pyro and non- pyrocat developers?
3) I treat all theses - even in liquid form - as toxic, so it's the airborne and glove permeability that concerns me, but I wear safety gear pretty much all the time in developing. With the comparably tame chums I've used so far.
4) always happy to hear someone say, "nonsense... all that pyro stuff is just hype. Stick with D76...D23... HC-110, or whatever. But I don't see that. Self-selection in terms of participants on a thread could be misleading but we ain't got that much else to go on. Ditto for who writes some of the books on development.

Anyway, thanks!

I won't say pyro is better or worse, but it's certainly different. I do like the fact that it does mask grain some, is sharp(edge type sharpness) and tames highlights very well. That said, other non-pyro developers can do much the same. They might not mask the grain, but some can give finer type grain patterns and still be very sharp. I really like Xtol-R for it's speed, sharpness and control ability and it ain't pyro. Oh, it's much safer too! Still, I will use pyro developers when I feel I need or want to.

As far as staining developers are concerned they are no better nor worse than conventional developers. One often hears claims of sharpness, edge effects, etc but these can be obtained with other developers. There only claim to fame is the stain image. It should also be pointed out that the stain images are not archival and will fade with exposure to light just like those in color film.

I've basically used two staining developers in my life. Both were good enough that I didn't feel a need to try others, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't if you want to....

I used PMK from the late 90s until the mid 2000s when I became aware of Pyrocat. I've used Pyrocat (the P then the PC version, both in Glycol) ever since. Your post made me go look at my Lightroom catalog and I was surprised at what I found. I think I might like PMK more. I remember people recommending to not use it with 35mm films because of the grain, but the images I have shot with it seem to point to that not being completely true in my case. Even HP5 and Neopan 1600 looked good in it. Less grain than Rodinal but I don't mind grain. Pyrocat is a little different. Of course the stain is a different color. I won't go into that since it has been covered ad nauseum on the interwebs already. Pyrocat is a moderately fine grain developer that has good acutance. Where it really stands out in my experience is it's ability through staining to compress any issues with highlights so they don't block up so printing is pretty easy with a Pyrocat neg. PMK may do this as well, but I never noticed it that I can recall, although it has been a while.

As with any chemical, you should be careful with developers. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. I mix developers myself, but I do it outside in a utility room in a utility sink, not in the house. You can get both PMK and Pyrocat premixed from Formulary, so you shouldn't have to worry about mixing them. As long as you are clean and careful you will be fine. I would recommend Pyrocat though unless you are more experienced with darkroom work. I remember getting a drop of PMK on my arm pouring out the developer and had the taste of burnt rubber in my mouth within a very short period of time. What Gerald says should be considered.

Patrick Robert James said:

I've basically used two staining developers in my life. Both were good enough that I didn't feel a need to try others, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't if you want to....

I used PMK from the late 90s until the mid 2000s when I became aware of Pyrocat. I've used Pyrocat (the P then the PC version, both in Glycol) ever since. Your post made me go look at my Lightroom catalog and I was surprised at what I found. I think I might like PMK more. I remember people recommending to not use it with 35mm films because of the grain, but the images I have shot with it seem to point to that not being completely true in my case. Even HP5 and Neopan 1600 looked good in it. Less grain than Rodinal but I don't mind grain. Pyrocat is a little different. Of course the stain is a different color. I won't go into that since it has been covered ad nauseum on the interwebs already. Pyrocat is a moderately fine grain developer that has good acutance. Where it really stands out in my experience is it's ability through staining to compress any issues with highlights so they don't block up so printing is pretty easy with a Pyrocat neg. PMK may do this as well, but I never noticed it that I can recall, although it has been a while.

As with any chemical, you should be careful with developers. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. I mix developers myself, but I do it outside in a utility room in a utility sink, not in the house. You can get both PMK and Pyrocat premixed from Formulary, so you shouldn't have to worry about mixing them. As long as you are clean and careful you will be fine. I would recommend Pyrocat though unless you are more experienced with darkroom work. I remember getting a drop of PMK on my arm pouring out the developer and had the taste of burnt rubber in my mouth within a very short period of time. What Gerald says should be considered.

Click to expand...

Very well said Patrick! Good night to all!

My apologies for inadvertently sparking tempers. Sure didn't intend that.

Pyrocat ....yes if it is safer. PF seems to have some other things of interest in their catalog that aren't eithe cat or pyro: TFX2, Barry Thornton's Exactol Lux, and D23 to name a few. But there's not much written on thes e that I can find easily. fwiw, it would seem that on the net, pyro and cat get all the buzz.

Whether this is an internet effect or real, I have no way of knowing. Makes me wonder.

JWMster said:

My apologies for inadvertently sparking tempers. Sure didn't intend that.

Pyrocat ....yes if it is safer. PF seems to have some other things of interest in their catalog that aren't eithe cat or pyro: TFX2, Barry Thornton's Exactol Lux, and D23 to name a few. But there's not much written on thes e that I can find easily. fwiw, it would seem that on the net, pyro and cat get all the buzz.

Whether this is an internet effect or real, I have no way of knowing. Makes me wonder.

Click to expand...

PMK and Pyrocat get/got a lot of buzz because they were new developers since the internet took off, so naturally they were discussed. PMK was a new formulation, as was Pyrocat in it's various guises. It doesn't really have anything to do with superiority per se, just interest. I still remember when Pyrocat was introduced. I also remember when PMK was written about for the first time (in a magazine!). Each was supposed to improve on what had come before, although improvement is ultimately up to the user.

I thought Thornton was an interesting character. His developers were interesting too, but I don't really think he reinvented the wheel. We don't have his formulas to compare though, all we have are educated guesses. Unless you buy them, you can't use them. Personally I never saw a reason to buy them. His books are a good read though, as is his website that is still available even though he is sadly gone. I gave his two part developer a try, but it suffered from the same things every two part developer suffers from, so I quickly abandoned it.

Perhaps you should let us know what you are looking for, or why you want to try a staining developer. In reality, almost all developers are fine, it just depends on what you want from them.

And I used W2D2 the John wimbely..formula with great success..the power of pyro..is with alternate process but I also made great negatives for that with D76.go figure!!
Now I mostly stick with Xtol 1+2 For everything

I posted a scan in another thread (in response to another post from Mr. Prime) of a negative that resulted from an interesting experiment we did in my Darkroom Group. We settled on a common 35mm film (FP4+) and each took two rolls of photos - one to be developed in a standard developer, with the other to be developed in one of the Pyrocat versions (one favoured by Gordon Hutchings, IIRC).
I used my standard replenished HC-110 dil E for the standard developer. Others developed their film in a batch mixed up for the purpose of ID-11 (again, IIRC). We then worked together to all develop our films in the pyro developer.
We then each printed from both sets of negatives.
In my case, I was able to set up two matching bodies with two similar lenses and get rolls that were almost duplicates of each other. Others simply shot their two rolls nearly at the same time, under similar conditions.
I liked working with the pyrocat negatives - they responded well to my variable contrast paper and Ilford Multigrade system, and they scanned well - but well I saw differences, I stayed with my HC-110.
I know others who do magical work with pyro developers and variable contrast.

Moersch Tanol / Finol are also commercially available Pyro developers (Catechol).

Lars

LarsAC said:

Moersch Tanol / Finol are also commercially available Pyro developers (Catechol).

Lars

Click to expand...

You are quite right. I forgot about Moersch developers. I have been mixing my own developers for many years and so do not often think of the more esoteric commercial ones. Are there any others?

Pyrogallol is used in the lab to quickly create anaerobic conditions. When mixed with a sodium hydroxide solution it quickly scavenges all the oxygen from the surrounding environment. Useful when working with substances that are very sensitive to oxidation or culturing anaerobic bacteria.

I would still try to put emphasis on one of Jerry's previous postings in this thread: Pyrogallol is very toxic, and it penetrates skin right away, so it's toxicity is not limited to dust inhalation or ingestion.

I would therefore not recommend such developers to anyone who doesn't have much experience with photo chemistry and has no plans of seriously getting into it. No result I have seen so far with Pyrogallol (or any other dev agent FWIW) based developer would justify serious poisoning or related health problems. Just because you can develop film with Mercury vapors and fix it in Potassium Cyanide doesn't mean we should recommend such procedures to newcomers, the same way nobody would recommend a Yamaha RD 350 to new motorcyclists.

To the OP: Formulary has a sizable choice of liquid Pyrocatechol based developer concentrates, these might tell you at least, whether you like the staining effect. If you decide that these are good for your type of work, then you can always improve your skills and facilities to deal with more hazardous products.

There has been a similar debate before, with a review of pyrocatechol by an EU Committee.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
If you know what you are doing , don't spill the stuff, and take precautions like mixing in a good airflow and washing hands if they come into contact , that's good enough for me as a user of Pyrocat HD.

Thanks for getting this back on track.

In terms of what I am after, I've just read Barry Thornton's piece on Exactol and would suggest I am after very much the same as he ended his piece: strong contrast and high accutance with smooth grain from 35mm (though he had thrown in the towel and been tractor beamed into MFormat by then) in a staining developer for scanning to print from there (his choice back in 2003). I am shooting mostly ilford hp5 and fp4 but throwing in some pan f and Berger 400... and if it ever makes it out into real production, maybe some Ferrania p30. I shoot still life, flowers, and landscapes - all the usual stuff, too. Don't shoot enough on a tripod, but am wirking on that. Like Barry's original motivation, I'd like to stick with 35mm.

All that said, I am fairly new to the development process in recent months, and have used a lot of Hc-110 in reg and in semi-stand (dilution H) and like (?) to use higher dilutions and longer times as simpler. I have used FA 1027 and DDX and bought some Rodinal to give stand dev a whirl... and will likely make all the same mistakes everyone else has and more, but it's all a fun challenge, and mistakes are part of the process. Love the process, and the magic, and coming back from digital, prefer a touch of grain to the lifelessly smooth images from digital monochrome. So you asked what I am after... I'm not sure this answers, but it may be a start. Thanks for asking.

Unfortunately the attitude on APUG as far as older methods and/or developers is that there is some forgotten tidbit of knowledge contained therein. That using these procedures you will be getting a leg up so to speak. Sadly this is just not true. These things were not forgotten they were consciously set aside as more modern techniques and films became available. You can do anything you want but need to understand that there is no holy grail and never was.

Concerning pyrogallol as Rudeofus points out I would like to add that the toxic effects are cumulative. There is some data that suggests that permanent neurological damage can occur unless saftely precautions are taken This chemical is absorbed through the skin so the use of nitrile gloves is extremely important. There is a famous photo of Edward Weston showing his fingernails stained black from using a pyrogallol developer. I have read several articles that postulate that the illness of his final years was not Parkinson's disease but the effects of pyrogallol poisoning. A similar condition is seen with chronic mercury poisoning.

I will say Pyrocat HD is a superb developer and like a great many others here would not be using it unless it gave me noticeably better results than any previous developers I've used. How much better is subjective but compared to say D76 quite noticeably better in terms of sharpness, fine grain, tonality, film speed, slightly less so than Xtol but still enough to switch entirely.

While like Gerald I have chemistry background I!ve worked with chemicals far more hazardous that Pyrogallol, I have quite a bit - probably kilos, you learn to treat things with respect and handle properly and then there aren't issues.

Many photochemicals are hazardous particularly in their raw state or in concentrated solutions, that doesn't sop us using them. Working strength modern Pyro developers like PMK are used highly dilute, a bit of common sense is all that's required when handling.

Ian

I must admit I haven't read the entire thread however some of the rubbish posted within the first half page just got my goat. I have used PyroCat for years and I treat it like any other chemical, with caution. To describe Pyro as an evil, deadly chemical only a tad safer than radioactive fallout is pure nonsense. I have been developing my own negs for over 5 decades with all kinds of developers. Hands down my pyro negs are the easiest to print, especially on VC paper. AA used pyro as well and I haven't heard that those negatives are fading. And really, who leaves their negatives out in the sunlight for days on end?

Time to put the pitchforks down and return to the village pyro nay sayers.

Thanks.

Numero uno: Everyone wants a silver bullet. Do I expect to find one? No, but between improving technique AND a developer that may facilitate sharper images, I'm game if the hazards are reasonably manageable without a certificate in chemical engineering. Pyrgallo still sounds like more risk than I am up for. But I have the impression that pyrocat formulations (especially in pre-mix) liquid form are not (or do not) involve risks on the same order of magnitude. Please correct me if I am in error on that. And thus it would suggest that pyrocat-HD is a good candidate.

Otherwise are you really suggesting PF's versions of TFX-2 and Exactol Ultra are "discards" as historic items? Exactly doesn't sound like a two bath... as PF preps it. Also curious about your comments on Xtol (and Ilford's equivalent (true?) Perceptol as the implication is almost "why bother with pyro" in any form in the first place. I am certainly not insisting on doing something I don't have to do.... I may be stupid or crazy but not usually both at the same time. And I can accept (for now at least) that just as some photographer 's think nothing of lying in front of a tiger to get the shot (and I won't do that), I also accept that some developers will accept risks with chess I don't want to either... and if the images differ... okay. And that's fine. I do this 'cause it's fun... or supposed to be.

That said, My goal is simply to have one or two developers that offer latitude in use or utilization, and consistently offer the prospect that the development produces all the detail that's actually IN the latent image. Accordingly , I've posted here because development for ink printing (hybrid) is rumored by some to merit different treatment than for wet printing, while others suggest just focusing on starting with the best image your negs can produce.... a view I favor, but with admittedly limited experience. And of course I may be wrong but it seemed worth an inquiry to see the breadth of views among those with more experience. ThNks for our replies.

Eric Rose said:

I must admit I haven't read the entire thread however some of the rubbish posted within the first half page just got my goat. I have used PyroCat for years and I treat it like any other chemical, with caution. To describe Pyro as an evil, deadly chemical only a tad safer than radioactive fallout is pure nonsense. I have been developing my own negs for over 5 decades with all kinds of developers. Hands down my pyro negs are the easiest to print, especially on VC paper. AA used pyro as well and I haven't heard that those negatives are fading. And really, who leaves their negatives out in the sunlight for days on end?

Time to put the pitchforks down and return to the village pyro nay sayers.

Click to expand...

The toxicity of pyrogallol and pyrocatechol are quite different. Catchol (the preferred name) is quite a bit less toxic.

Ian Grant said:

I will say Pyrocat HD is a superb developer and like a great many others here would not be using it unless it gave me noticeably better results than any previous developers I've used. How much better is subjective but compared to say D76 quite noticeably better in terms of sharpness, fine grain, tonality, film speed, slightly less so than Xtol but still enough to switch entirely.

While like Gerald I have chemistry background I!ve worked with chemicals far more hazardous that Pyrogallol, I have quite a bit - probably kilos, you learn to treat things with respect and handle properly and then there aren't issues.

Many photochemicals are hazardous particularly in their raw state or in concentrated solutions, that doesn't sop us using them. Working strength modern Pyro developers like PMK are used highly dilute, a bit of common sense is all that's required when handling.

Ian

Click to expand...

While I agree with Ian the conditions in a laboratory or commercial situation are quit different from those in a home. I have watched 30 ml of liquid hydrogen cyanide merrily boiling away in a fume hood. Something I would never even think of at home. I do cringe a bit when thinking about safety in my graduate school labs. There were some spectacular explosions and one near fatal poisoning. Which BTW could have been prevented if the student had used the fume hood.

As far as any perceived advantages of dilute staining developers are concerned the effect such as sharpness (acutance), edge effects, etc can be obtained from any dilute developer. They are caused by the dilution and not by the developing agent. While not as popular as it one was the Beutler formula is an excellent acutance developer.

I have recently read Michael Axel's "iridescent Light" on stand development - which might also be referred to as highly dilute development, too. The technique is a "yes" and though I haven't gone there yet, it is next on my list of inquiries. Question is which developer to use. Petraio's article seems to validate a revisit to old formulations. Some of that no doubt was the inspiration behind the revival of Pyro. Question is also what sort of grain results in Rodinal stand vs pyrocat-he in same technique, same film, same exposure. Seen some youtubes on this, but even on a large screen in high def, the visuals are hard to compare.

Gerald C Koch said:

While I agree with Ian the conditions in a laboratory or commercial situation are quit different from those in a home. I have watched 30 ml of liquid hydrogen cyanide happily boiling away in a fume hood. Something I would never even think of at home. I do cringe a bit when thinking about safety in my graduate school labs. There were some spectacular explosions and one near fatal poisoning. Which BTW could have been prevented if the student had used the fume hood.

As far as any perceived advantages of dilute staining developers are concerned the effect such as sharpness (acutance), edge effects, etc can be obtained from any dilute developer. They are caused by the dilution and not by the developing agent. While not as popular as it one was the Beutler formula is an excellent acutance developer.

Click to expand...

This is where we'll differ Gerald I dealt with Cyanides on a daily basis for a number of years, I didn't just boil the solutions I had to acidify them as well, but there are safe procedures and with certified equipment, as in fume cupboards needing regular testing.

Back in the 1970's I test a lot of of developer as part of my research, at that time the only one I found that gave significant improvements compared to D76/ID-11 was Adox Brora MQ, better film sped, sharpness, tonality perhaps not surprising as is was close to the ASA developer used for testing film speeds etc and almost identical to a similar Agfa and Agfa Ansco formula.

I tried Beutler, Windisch (the misprinted US version which swapped the Pyrocatechin & Sulphite weights around) and many of Crawleys concoctions, plus many others. I concluded long ago that there were no magic bullets and gains were slight, however ADox Borax MQ was the best all round film developer which I used replenished. To me that remained the case until Kodak released, although I preferred Rodinal for slower films but really nothing between them.

When I started using PYrocat HD instead for my LF negatives it really was a hange in gear and a noticeable difference, negatives that are so easy to print. I tried with 120 and then 35m and was astonished just how good a developer it is. I rememberchiding Sandy King for not extolling it's virtues with smaller formats, he said he hadn't tried it - he was still shooting ULF.

When you stick these devs in a spreadsheet and look at what's there at the dilutions typically used you see a different reality. It's over six years since I looked in depth although I still have all the data, but two computer failures (no lost data) and a traumatic few years (Mother with dementia & now another ongoing similar family issues) meant I never drew up my conclusions which were based on this analysis, practical experience of the developers and some interesting Ilford research on developer exhaustion.

A few years ago I posted two BJPA here articles on modern uses of Pyro developers, they'd almost totally gone out of use here in Europe, these were I think early 1940's war time articles and made a very compelling case about changing the way we used them, a modern technique, probably befrore Sandy King was born

In real terms a developer like Pyrocat isn't new, what Sandy King did was advocate a dilution which is in the realms of Beutler, Rodinal etc, and it's well balanced and just so consistent.

I'm extremely sceptical about claims for developers and didn't expect much from Pyrocat HD, the final proof is after 10+ years using it, the last 7 or 8 exclusively, negatives that are just so easy to print, wonderful tonality, sharpness, local micro contrasts _ actually all the 1940's articles said might be possible !!! But I was already a convert.

Ian