It's water, or propylene glycol and it's up to you to decide. If you plan to make a rather large quantity that will not be used within 1 year for example, then a glycol based version is a good idea. Otherwise, a water based solution is fine. By the way, it's the part A that we're talking about. Part B has indefinite shelf life and water is fine. The only thing that you might want to change is the concentration of part B. The normal concentration is rather marginal and some carbonate might precipitate, especially at lower temperatures. Halving the concentration takes care of that, but you need to double the amount used, ie 1+2+100 instead of 1+1+100.So if you do this pyrocat-HD, do you do it with glycol, or not? Thanks!
Depends on how fast you use it. If you get a big batch you might want to go the glycol route as it will keep for almost ever. Still, Pyrocat-HD in water keeps extremely well also and is a little easier to work with due to less viscosity.So if you do this pyrocat-HD, do you do it with glycol, or not? Thanks!
Won't know 'til i get sime, but thought you made it up like you do in a typical one shot of HC-110 ...it's for immediate use. Yes? If not, if yo don't just pour out what you need now... then glycol add- in is probably the right way to go.
My impression is that Pyrocat HD (and variants) is one of the few published developer formulas using Phenidone as primary development agent, this alone may well explain its reported superiority over D-76 or Adox Borax MQ. This does not, however, make it particularly unique compared to e.g. Ryuji Suzuki's or Mark Overton's Phenidone+Ascorbate formulas.
Pyrocat-HD has two stock solutions, A (contains catechol, etc), and B (potassium carbonate). You mix (usually) equal parts of A and B into water to make a one shot working solution. In my case, to develop two sheets of 8x10 film, I mix 10 ml of part A and 10ml part B into 500ml water.
HC-110 does not use Glycol, but Triethanolamine as liquid solvent. The assumption is, that oxidation takes place at a much smaller rate in organic solvents than in aqueous solution. So the trick is not adding Glycol/TEA to an aqueous stock solutiuon, but dissolving all the ingredients in Glycol/TEA from the onset. This severely limits the list of feasible ingredients in such developers and forces some formulas to start with two concentrates, but the extra longevity of the concentrate(s) may make it worth the effort.
About staining developers: if they are dilute and also tanning developers, they will likely increase sharpness, because tanned gelatin hinders diffusion, which leads to local developer exhaustion and the resulting Mackie lines. This effect has nothing to do with limited movement of silver ions or other explanations I have read here. Given that most explanations for the alleged small grain of staining developers are also questionable at best, I wonder whether there are solid and reliable measurements to back up these claims. It should raise eyebrows, that neither of the big, established photographic companies pursued this venue in the last 50 years.
Agreed in principle, but the the deep pocket theory of litigation and liability with a hazardous chemical and small market may have also limited the reward to an extent that things of this nature are simply left to the boutique end of the market. Now if the hazardous nature were solved.... then the iPso facto might have more legs.
So if you do this pyrocat-HD, do you do it with glycol, or not? Thanks!
I believe, that JWMster referred to toxicity of Pyrogallol, not so much that of PG or TEA. Yes, Pyrogallol is plenty toxic, but Catechol would also work and is a lot less problematic. Kodak also appears not particularly afraid of selling toxic stuff to amateurs, if you look at KRST or their early color developers.The problem with this theory is that neither propylene glycol nor triethanolamine are particular toxic. Propylene glycol is used in various liquid medicines as a solvent and TEA as an ingredient in hand lotions.
TEA is a ternary ammine and as such not a silver solvent. AFAIK the main silver solvent in HC-110 is Ethylenediamine. The biggest advantage of TEA over Glycol is the fact, that TEA binds with SO2 and Br-, and thereby provides a convenient way to get Sulfite into a developer based on a non-aqueous concentrate. Glycol won't do that, as exemplified by PC-Glycol, and a Hydroquinone based developer won't work without sulfite ion.The HC-110 patent gives a formula that contains both ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol. The formula also contains DEA and TEA that serve a double role providing alkalinity and also additional solvency.
Most photographic development agents are active mostly in their ionized form. This shows up as steady gain in developer activity as pH rises, and activity flattens out once a pH is reached where most developer molecules are fully ionized. Since there is minimal ionization of Hydroquinone and Phenidone in TEA, oxidation doesn't happen quickly. The same salting-out effect you mentioned with Rodinal may also help here.Kodak R&D took advantage of this fact to compound a developer concentrate very resistant to oxidation by merely avoiding water in the recipe.
Once the Metabisulfite turns into Sulfite, pH must have risen beyond 7 or 8, and at that pH most photographic developers will become very active reducers. If Sulfite would be more active at low pH, acidic fixers would have very long shelf life - they don't, to the contrary, neutral or alkaline fixers last much, much longer. Since Sulfite is used even in extremely alkaline developers like E6 CD, and it's used in E6 CD for no other purpose than to protect the CD-3 from oxidation, I would assume that it is active at all pH.The free SO2 from the Metabisulphite prevents the Pyrocatechin from oxidisinig, once the metabisulphite has broken down to form Sulphite the developer collapes and oxidises rapidly.
Even with Catechol in HC-110, it was never a staining developer, thanks to the copious amounts of TEA-SO2 in the concentrate.Interestingly the formula for HC-110 has varied over the years, for a time it included Pyrocatech according to older Kodak MSDS.
I think you mean the iminodiethanol-sulfur dioxide addition product?AFAIK the main silver solvent in HC-110 is Ethylenediamine.
My impression is that Pyrocat HD (and variants) is one of the few published developer formulas using Phenidone as primary development agent, this alone may well explain its reported superiority over D-76 or Adox Borax MQ. This does not, however, make it particularly unique compared to e.g. Ryuji Suzuki's or Mark Overton's Phenidone+Ascorbate formulas.
I must have mixed this up with something else. If I look at the current SDS, then I would consider the Ethanolamine as the most active solvent.I think you mean the iminodiethanol-sulfur dioxide addition product?
Yes, there are some published formulas, but on an absolutely minuscule scale compared to the spring flood of Metol based developer formulas. If you have access to underlying data of digitaltruth data, you will see the difference. In this regard, Pyrocat HD with Phenidone is more the exception than the rule, and the Phenidone may well explain why people coming from Metol based developers suddenly noticed an improvement with Pyrocat HD. Add the extra sharpness from high dilution and tanning, and I can understand that large format folks went all enthusiastic.Ilford published a few formula with Phenidone as the primary developing agent, Autophen and Microphen (ID-68) are the fine grain PQ developers, I'm not sure that it's the Phenidone that makes Pyrocat HD superior as it's the Pyrocatechin which is also a fine grain developing agent on its own that really gives it most of its benefits, the slight tanning and more importantly the staining.
Many Phenidone Ascorbate developers were published before Riuji Sezuki, and Mark Overton's developers, they are in various patents. Xtol was only released after one Patent (non Kodak) expired.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?