HP5+ & Pyrocat Compatibility

[Josef Guay]

A few weeks ago there was a thread about pinholes on HP5+ film using Pyrocat-HD. I recently started using Pyrocat-MC and found what appear to be pinholes. I don't think that it is the film since I have had no problems developing rolls from the same batch with PMK. I am out of 400 speed film in 35 mm, I can switch to Delta 400 or Tri-X if needed. Any input would be appreciated.

 

[ann]

Have used a lot of Hd with hp5+ with no issues, other than users error

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I've reecently shot a lot of Kodak TMAX, Efke 100, Efke 25 and Ilford Delta100 and Ilford FP4. All were developed in Pyrocat-MC. I've had no issues at all with any of these films.

Have you looked at your HP5 defects with a microscope? If so, do you have any pictures you can post?

Did you presoak the film in water before developing in the Pyrocat-MC?

What development agitation method did you use?

 

[MWGraves]

I just souped 22 sheets of 5x7 HP5 in pyrocat with no problems at all. You aren't using an acid stop are you? That's a no-no.

 

[erikg]

I was one of the folks who reported an issue in the previous threads. Sandy King has kindly offered to take a look into it, he has some test film that I processed and sent to him. In brief, I have seen the problem with 35mm and 120 HP-5+, but not with 4x5 and 8x10 sheets. It has occurred with and without presoaking, with and without acid stop baths, with and without distilled water, in small tanks and in a Jobo ATL processor. The previous threads cover a lot of the details and there is a scan as well. It seems to me to be an issue with some, maybe one batch? of recent HP-5+ and Pyrocat. Why? I hope we can find out.

 

[donbga]

I just souped 22 sheets of 5x7 HP5 in pyrocat with no problems at all. You aren't using an acid stop are you? That's a no-no.

Actually you can use acid stop just fine with pyro developers. I've been doing it for years with no problems.

 

[sanking]

I was one of the folks who reported an issue in the previous threads. Sandy King has kindly offered to take a look into it, he has some test film that I processed and sent to him. In brief, I have seen the problem with 35mm and 120 HP-5+, but not with 4x5 and 8x10 sheets. It has occurred with and without presoaking, with and without acid stop baths, with and without distilled water, in small tanks and in a Jobo ATL processor. The previous threads cover a lot of the details and there is a scan as well. It seems to me to be an issue with some, maybe one batch? of recent HP-5+ and Pyrocat. Why? I hope we can find out.

I have looked carefully at the sample Erik sent me and the problem doesn ot appear to be pinholes. I am personally convinced that there is an emulsion defect of some kind in the film, because what you see is a very small light spot on the fim with a dark spot in the center, usually slightly oblong, in the center. Kind of like an inverse donut with an oblong rather than round hole. It is quite different from the shape you would expect from a pinhole caused by an eruption of the emulsion and not a phenomenon that could be explained by the developer. IMHO.


Sandy

 

[schambuk]

Sorry to reactivate an old thread but I have just returned from Scotland with HP5+ developed in Pyrocat MC exhibiting multiple pinholes. This is roll film 120 format and 5x4 (batch exp date 9/08 and 5/08 resp). There has been no change in my processing (semi stand). FP4 5x4 taken and processed by the same workflow is perfect.

I am grateful to previous contributions to this thread in highlighting a potential problem with HP5. I am very reluctant to change my materials and wondered if anybody has resolved this enigma over the past 6 months.

Steve Chambers

 

[Brad Dow]

I have looked carefully at the sample Erik sent me and the problem doesn ot appear to be pinholes. I am personally convinced that there is an emulsion defect of some kind in the film, because what you see is a very small light spot on the fim with a dark spot in the center, usually slightly oblong, in the center. Kind of like an inverse donut with an oblong rather than round hole. It is quite different from the shape you would expect from a pinhole caused by an eruption of the emulsion and not a phenomenon that could be explained by the developer. IMHO.


Sandy

I started that thread, and it seems the question remains open. Using same-batch HP5+, the result for me was exactly as Sandy describes it, and it appears independent of stop (acid or plain water) and presoak (none or 5 minutes). It's also independent of base (I tried the sodium carbonate variant, as well). It is not, however, independent of developer type. My tests with same-batch HP5+ in D76 produced no evidence of the problem. If it is due to an emulsion defect, it's a defect that is sensitive to PHD but not D76. I was very, very pleased with the results I was getting with this combination (HP5+ and PHD), and was sad to abandon it due these show stopping artifacts.

 

[sanking]

I started that thread, and it seems the question remains open. Using same-batch HP5+, the result for me was exactly as Sandy describes it, and it appears independent of stop (acid or plain water) and presoak (none or 5 minutes). It's also independent of base (I tried the sodium carbonate variant, as well). It is not, however, independent of developer type. My tests with same-batch HP5+ in D76 produced no evidence of the problem. If it is due to an emulsion defect, it's a defect that is sensitive to PHD but not D76. I was very, very pleased with the results I was getting with this combination (HP5+ and PHD), and was sad to abandon it due these show stopping artifacts.

I have no idea why the pinholes. I looked at the samples that were sent me and they looked very much like separation of emulsion from the base, resulting in a kind of horseshoe look, varying slightly in size. I have actually seen this kind of look in my carbon printing when, during development the emulsion lifts from the support and breaks, falling back on itself. I suspect, but can not be sure, is that the cause in this case is the same.

When I repeated the tests with the film that Eric and Brad sent me I did not get any pinholes.

My suspicion is that the emulsion itself is releasing some gases, that in combination with the specific conditions of development, cause bubbles which then break. I looked on the Ilford forum and saw several other related reports of this problem with other Ilford films and another developer.

Since this problem is clearly very rare, and is not limited to the specific combination of HP5+ and one of the Pyrocats, I don't look for an early solution. I think Brad concluded, based on the fact that he had the problem with HP5+ and Pyrocat, and not with D76, that the problem was developer related. That could be the case, but based on the fact that there is a large base of HP5+ and Pyrocat users who are not experiencing the problem, it seems to me more of a specific condition issue than an issue of film/developer.


Sandy

 

[Scott Peters]

I tray develop hp5 in pyrocat MC with no problems yet! puzzling and frustrating for sure...perhaps if you are getting good results with other developers and no pinholes, just stick with that. I do like my hp 5 and pyro however...

 

[Brad Dow]

I have no idea why the pinholes. I looked at the samples that were sent me and they looked very much like separation of emulsion from the base, resulting in a kind of horseshoe look, varying slightly in size. I have actually seen this kind of look in my carbon printing when, during development the emulsion lifts from the support and breaks, falling back on itself. I suspect, but can not be sure, is that the cause in this case is the same.

When I repeated the tests with the film that Eric and Brad sent me I did not get any pinholes.

My suspicion is that the emulsion itself is releasing some gases, that in combination with the specific conditions of development, cause bubbles which then break. I looked on the Ilford forum and saw several other related reports of this problem with other Ilford films and another developer.

Since this problem is clearly very rare, and is not limited to the specific combination of HP5+ and one of the Pyrocats, I don't look for an early solution. I think Brad concluded, based on the fact that he had the problem with HP5+ and Pyrocat, and not with D76, that the problem was developer related. That could be the case, but based on the fact that there is a large base of HP5+ and Pyrocat users who are not experiencing the problem, it seems to me more of a specific condition issue than an issue of film/developer.


Sandy

I wouldn't say very rare, since several folks on this forum have experienced it. Also, the problem I have with a "rare" problem is it invariably seems to bite precisely when you care the most, spoiling impossible-to-repeat negatives. And this defect is impossible to correct in a 35mm negative printed traditionally. The blemish is way too small to spot on the negative, and I know of no really satisfactory way to remove the resulting black spot from a traditional print. (I've had good luck removing clear dust-related spots on 4x5 negatives with black latex paint, but tried and gave up on using a similar approach with 35.)

I've never this effect seen it with any other developer, and I've tried quite a few (too many!). In any event, it doesn't seem like a physical disruption in the emulsion. It's rather too regular for that, and I don't see any evidence of discontinuity on the emulsion surface. It looks like an adhering bubble that has captured a bit of developer in its interior but excluded it from the point of contact with the emulsion, but I would expect a bubble to be circular, rather than elongated. If I believed the bubble theory, I might suspect that high pH of PHD. I hate to give up PHD, but I'm afraid I'm a little paranoid to use it for HP5+ based work I really care about.

 

[sanking]

I wouldn't say very rare, since several folks on this forum have experienced it. Also, the problem I have with a "rare" problem is it invariably seems to bite precisely when you care the most, spoiling impossible-to-repeat negatives. And this defect is impossible to correct in a 35mm negative printed traditionally. The blemish is way too small to spot on the negative, and I know of no really satisfactory way to remove the resulting black spot from a traditional print. (I've had good luck removing clear dust-related spots on 4x5 negatives with black latex paint, but tried and gave up on using a similar approach with 35.)

I say rare because none of the defects reported have been the same. Some were donut shaped, with a kind of clear area on the negative surrounded by a surrounding circle of slightly greater density. Other defects were irregular in, some rather like a horseshoe in shape. The size described has also varied a lot.

If I were convinced that the culprit was the developer I would probably do the same as you, and avoid the devleoper. Or I would avoid the film if I though it was the problem. All I can say is that over the past 8-10 years I have developed some 150-200 rolls of HP5+ in 120 size, and several hundred sheets of LF and ULF fillm, and I have personally never seen either donut or horseshoe shapes. I don't have a lot of experience with 35mm film.

Sandy King

 

[noseoil]

Was this a batch related problem with HP5? Did anyone keep track of lot or batch numbers and dates to see if there is an emulsion issue involved, which can be related to a specific run of film? tim

 

[erikg]

Hey, it's me again, the other guy who reported this problem. Brad's description of the issue seems exactly right to me, I have run the same tests versus D-76 and have seen the same results as Brad reports. I have seen this with 35mm, 120, 4x5 and 8x10 HP5+ and I have gotten pretty good with the spot removal pen, I must say. However, I have also run these same types of films and have not seen any defects, and when so many people chime in to say that they have run so many hundreds of rolls and sheets with no issues I am encouraged that there must be a solution to this. On the other hand, I have also seen some of these guys with 35mm Delta 100, developed semi-stand (followed the req. on Unblinking Eye). This makes me very sad as I really have been loving these negs otherwise. I continue to look at my process in the hopes of coming up with an answer, and I hope that others do as well. I continue to be extremely happy with PHD outside of this issue, in fact many times I have considered starting a "in praise of pyrocat" thread, I like it so much. So, to me it is worth the effort.

 

[sanking]

Was this a batch related problem with HP5? Did anyone keep track of lot or batch numbers and dates to see if there is an emulsion issue involved, which can be related to a specific run of film? tim

I still have the samples that Eric and Brad sent me. The problem, as i indicated, is that if I were to send this to Ilford I really would not know how to describe the problem because the defects they observe are entirely different in nature. The sample that Eric sent me has some anomalies of the type seen in the attached scan. They vary in size, from the one seen, which is very large, but all have a common feature in that there is a dark area in the center surrounded by a clear area.

The anomalies in Brad's film which he describes as pinholes are of an entirely different nature, being solid in structure. Some of the frames have one or two, others none. There are other anomalies on Brad's negatives, including some irregular dark spots

Neither anomaly is a pinhole in that sense that I understand pinholes, and if either is a developer caused problem I fail to undestand the relationship.

I personally don't suspect any of the usual culprits, i.e. water bath or lack of it, acid stop bath or lack of it, etc. I do suspect some kind of water problem that is reacting with the film at some point in processing. And if they are caused by the developer the reasons would appear to be of an entirely different nature. My only advice would be to make sure that you use clean distilled water at every stage of the process, for mixing the stock solution, for mixing the working solution, and in the stop bath and fixer.

To repeat what I said earlier, I processed 35mm HP5+ from the same batches that Erick and Brad sent me and found none of these anomalies.

The attached scans were made at 2400 dpi and correspond to an area on the film of 0.225" X 0.225".

Sandy

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Actually you can use acid stop just fine with pyro developers. I've been doing it for years with no problems.

Same here...you might not get max stain (some argue you just get less general stain). Never experienced pin holes only ultra soft emulsion with Efke PL100.

 

[couldabin]

This is really interesting. I just processed some FP4 in Pyrocat HD and was startled to see an eruption in the emulsion. I'll scan it and post a thumbnail.

 

[erikg]

Thanks, Sandy for posting the scans and your efforts looking in to this. I have some new info to pass along. I am in the midst of project that I am shooting on 4x5 HP-5, so far I have processed about 125 sheets. Last night I just reviewed every sheet, and I could not find a single defect of this type. This film was all processed in the same manner as before (the same as the sample sent to Sandy, except for format, done in a Jobo ATL1000) with just two exceptions: different emulsion batch, and the developer was pyrocat HD in glycol (photo formulary). It was the non glycol version before. All else the same. So how about that? I'm going to do some 35mm tests and we'll see what happens there.