Developer for FP4+, HP5+ and Tri-X

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It makes sense! What was missing with HP5 was contrast! By exposing less and developing longer, I can see how this can "correct" the 'lackluster' look I was getting. I also tried Tri-X with PMK Pyro and liked it but felt something was "missing". I was agitating every 30 seconds. I may try developing a roll using agitation every 15 seconds and using more than the 500ml of developer (amount I used for my tests).

Question: have you had any experience with Pyrocat HD? If so, what are your impressions and how do you think Pyrocat HD compares against PMK Pyro for TRi-X or HP5 (or both)?

Thanks again for sharing your insight.

I have experience with Pyrocat HD/MC, but only with Tri-X. I find the negatives to be too dark tone heavy due to the developer's pretty extreme compensating effect, and I like my prints to be brighter. It's hard for me, on variable contrast paper, to use either Pyrocat or PMK, because I can't seem to get the kind of contrast in my prints that I desire. With graded paper it's a different story.
I find that PMK has slightly coarser grain, a bit less film speed (need more exposure for similar shadow detail), and a bit more intense highlights than Pyrocat, which I like. But I have not printed with graded papers for quite some time, so there's little to no point for me to use either developer.

I think of Pyrocat musically kind of like a double bass, which sets the mood beautifully, but provides only a little melodic content. PMK is a little bit brighter, and has some oboe or cellos type of feel, while my developers of choice, D76 and Harvey's 777 Panthermic, are more mid-tone oriented like a viola or a flugelhorn. I also love Edwal 12, which has a strong highlight focus, and I sometimes liken it to a piccolo flute, but because it's so highlight and high mid tone focused, the tonality reminds a bit of slide film, with deep lucious shadows, so there's a bit of bass in it too. I don't know if this makes sense or not, with musical references. Xtol has very light bass, because it has so much shadow detail, but also kind of muted highlights. It's a great developer for when sunlight hits the subject directly, but may otherwise fell kind of muted, as if the film is not allowed to sing its full repertoire in some circumstances. That changes a bit when you use it replenished, though.

 

[JackRosa]

Thanks Again Thomas

I have experience with Pyrocat HD/MC, but only with Tri-X. I find the negatives to be too dark tone heavy due to the developer's pretty extreme compensating effect, and I like my prints to be brighter. It's hard for me, on variable contrast paper, to use either Pyrocat or PMK, because I can't seem to get the kind of contrast in my prints that I desire. With graded paper it's a different story.
I find that PMK has slightly coarser grain, a bit less film speed (need more exposure for similar shadow detail), and a bit more intense highlights than Pyrocat, which I like. But I have not printed with graded papers for quite some time, so there's little to no point for me to use either developer.

I think of Pyrocat musically kind of like a double bass, which sets the mood beautifully, but provides only a little melodic content. PMK is a little bit brighter, and has some oboe or cellos type of feel, while my developers of choice, D76 and Harvey's 777 Panthermic, are more mid-tone oriented like a viola or a flugelhorn. I also love Edwal 12, which has a strong highlight focus, and I sometimes liken it to a piccolo flute, but because it's so highlight and high mid tone focused, the tonality reminds a bit of slide film, with deep lucious shadows, so there's a bit of bass in it too. I don't know if this makes sense or not, with musical references. Xtol has very light bass, because it has so much shadow detail, but also kind of muted highlights. It's a great developer for when sunlight hits the subject directly, but may otherwise fell kind of muted, as if the film is not allowed to sing its full repertoire in some circumstances. That changes a bit when you use it replenished, though.

Thanks again Thomas for your clever an comprehensive explanation. The musical reference is most helpful - I have always found analogies to add tremendous value and yours bring (for me anyway) the topic into clear perspective.

 

[baachitraka]

Any chance to see prints from HP5+ and Tri-X negatives developed in 777, @Thomas? I'm getting interest to try Glycine based developers in 120 but Glycine prices are way too high.

 

[Allan B]

For Mr. Bertilsson,

I am using HP5 4x5 and finding most of my results too flat. I want to try Edwal 12 (from photographers formulary).
Any hints, times, exposure index you recommend, etc. Also is the developing agent (PPD) more dangerous to work
with than Pyrocat HD, for example. I would, of course, wear gloves and use reasonable care.

I scan negatives (unfortunately cannot set up a darkroom for printing in my current living situation)
and mostly photograph portraits under controlled lighting in the studio. For my shooting
conditions I need EI 200-400. I have used 4x5 Tmax 400, but since Kodak raised the price,
I switched to HP5.

Thank you for your assistance,

Allan

I have experience with Pyrocat HD/MC, but only with Tri-X. I find the negatives to be too dark tone heavy due to the developer's pretty extreme compensating effect, and I like my prints to be brighter. It's hard for me, on variable contrast paper, to use either Pyrocat or PMK, because I can't seem to get the kind of contrast in my prints that I desire. With graded paper it's a different story.
I find that PMK has slightly coarser grain, a bit less film speed (need more exposure for similar shadow detail), and a bit more intense highlights than Pyrocat, which I like. But I have not printed with graded papers for quite some time, so there's little to no point for me to use either developer.

I think of Pyrocat musically kind of like a double bass, which sets the mood beautifully, but provides only a little melodic content. PMK is a little bit brighter, and has some oboe or cellos type of feel, while my developers of choice, D76 and Harvey's 777 Panthermic, are more mid-tone oriented like a viola or a flugelhorn. I also love Edwal 12, which has a strong highlight focus, and I sometimes liken it to a piccolo flute, but because it's so highlight and high mid tone focused, the tonality reminds a bit of slide film, with deep lucious shadows, so there's a bit of bass in it too. I don't know if this makes sense or not, with musical references. Xtol has very light bass, because it has so much shadow detail, but also kind of muted highlights. It's a great developer for when sunlight hits the subject directly, but may otherwise fell kind of muted, as if the film is not allowed to sing its full repertoire in some circumstances. That changes a bit when you use it replenished, though.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

For Mr. Bertilsson,

I am using HP5 4x5 and finding most of my results too flat. I want to try Edwal 12 (from photographers formulary).
Any hints, times, exposure index you recommend, etc. Also is the developing agent (PPD) more dangerous to work
with than Pyrocat HD, for example. I would, of course, wear gloves and use reasonable care.

I scan negatives (unfortunately cannot set up a darkroom for printing in my current living situation)
and mostly photograph portraits under controlled lighting in the studio. For my shooting
conditions I need EI 200-400. I have used 4x5 Tmax 400, but since Kodak raised the price,
I switched to HP5.

Thank you for your assistance,

Allan

Hello Allan,

Edwal 12 will give you tones that are very different from Pyrocat. Dr. Lowe formulated the developer for flat Midwestern light, and was meant to increase contrast and yield brilliant negatives. Pyrocat is completely different.

You may benefit more from experimenting with your lighting, since this is under your control. Or experiment with agitating your film differently, as well as developing time. What is it about your film that you are not happy about?

I forget what starting times I used with Edwal 12. I used it as a replenished solution, using its own developer to replenish. Over the years I've gone through about ten 2 liter kits, and my replenishment rate was about 80ml per roll. I would do a film speed test every time I start a new film/developer combination, to set a standard for exposure, development time, and agitation, before doing any important work.

I hope that helps.

- Thomas

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Any chance to see prints from HP5+ and Tri-X negatives developed in 777, @Thomas? I'm getting interest to try Glycine based developers in 120 but Glycine prices are way too high.

I will do my best. I'm not in a good place to scan print at this time. But I will bookmark this thread and come back to it when I have more time, and better access to a scanner.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

For Mr. Bertilsson,

I am using HP5 4x5 and finding most of my results too flat. I want to try Edwal 12 (from photographers formulary).
Any hints, times, exposure index you recommend, etc. Also is the developing agent (PPD) more dangerous to work
with than Pyrocat HD, for example. I would, of course, wear gloves and use reasonable care.

I scan negatives (unfortunately cannot set up a darkroom for printing in my current living situation)
and mostly photograph portraits under controlled lighting in the studio. For my shooting
conditions I need EI 200-400. I have used 4x5 Tmax 400, but since Kodak raised the price,
I switched to HP5.

Thank you for your assistance,

Allan

I forgot to comment about PPD. It is pretty nasty stuff, for sure. You should wear a mask, apron, gloves, and protective glasses when you mix it. You do not want to breathe the dust. It's what they use for women's red hair coloring, and it stains everything. Once it's in solution you don't have to worry so much, but if you spill it on a surface you care about, make sure to wipe it up immediately.

So it is a bit of a pain to use from a practical standpoint, but the PPD is what increases the activity of the glycin and what makes the developer work to its specific characteristics.

I hope this helps.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I will do my best. I'm not in a good place to scan print at this time. But I will bookmark this thread and come back to it when I have more time, and better access to a scanner.

Test print on Ilford MGIV from a really bright sunny day. I love how 777 handles highlights and gives great separation to the mid tones. This is about 4PM in August in Midwestern USA. Tri-X @ EI 200. 11 minutes in 777 at 75*F, agitating every 30s. Grade 2.5 print.

I haven't printed anything from HP5+ negatives yet.

 

[baachitraka]

Sparkling highlights and lovely indeed. It may be one of the best developer for snow covered landscapes.

 

[eli griggs]

If I recall correctly, I believe you posted a pic of that can sitting on a windowsill, where it was found when you moved in.

That also brings out what should be an important point about glycin, which is simply, what preservative was in that GAF 130, that it should keep so long in a can in the worse possible conditions, other than on a windowsill in the tropics?

I do no want to pull out my Morgan and Morgan tonight, but my own experience with Photographers Formulary glycin, is quite good, and I have pulled several gallons over the years out of a single bottle I kept in the freezer, in the original Brown jar, which itself is kept in a plastic peanut butter jar.

It keeps so well, that I have yet to open the packaging on a pack I bought several years ago, stored the same way as my first and following glycin, though the last batch they sent me was a light brown, no the pure white I expected.

I will mix to last of that soon and let you know how it kept.

Has anyone here tried to add a "pinch" of Amidol to a mic of Ansco-130, for film, no for prints?I'd sure like to read about that and see some examples!

Ansco-130 is wonderful to work with, though I do suggest that you adjust your enlarging time to allow for a full four minutes in the tray, before moving to a waterbath or stop.

 

[removed account4]

hi eli
i wish i had a photograph of that can !
but instead its just a memory ..
john