HP5+, Pyrocat, Extreme Minimal Agitation

Steve Sherman said:

I would imagine Rapid Exhaustion Dev. is a relative and subjective term to each of us. That said, edge effects and more importantly micro contrast manipulation / control is a direct product of developer exhaustion, reduced agitation and length of time in concert with one another.

I have used strictly FP 4 and HP 5 and Pyrocat HD for nearly 10 years with Extreme Reduced Agitation development and can speak to almost any environmental conditions which can be photographed.

I have and will continue to say, the process, as near a magic bullet as you could hope for is much more about the creative manipulation of scene contrast than any sharpness gain, perceived or otherwise.

If there is interest I can share what my HP 5 development times are.

Cheers, SS

Click to expand...

Yes please, Steve!

A point that's not being made so leading to misconceptions it the format/negative size. Stand and semi-stand development can work well with larger formats and you do get better adjacency effect which means prints appear sharper. But with smaller formats it can look awful.

I use Pyrocat HD with HP5 and at the recommended 1+1+100 dilution with inversion agitation and I get the benefits of good edge effects and micro-contrast which are inherent with this type of developer containing Pyrocatechin or Pyrogallol anyway, due to the tanning effects of the developer.

In making the choice of taking the edges effects to greater extremes has to be balance with the intended uses of the negatives, for instance a 35mm negative which is going to be enlarged will give images where the edge effects look like unwanted artefacts, there may be cases where they contribute to an overall graphic effect. When the extreme acutance developers were available (Definol, Acutol-S, Hyfin, Kodak HDD etc) there were so striking grapgic usually quite high contrast images made using 35mm films - these developers weren't as fine grained as Pyrocat either.

Where this technique comes into it's element is Large format where there's little enlargement and particularly contact prints. I'm refering to the edge effects thouh here.

Steve Sherman said:

I have used strictly FP 4 and HP 5 and Pyrocat HD for nearly 10 years with Extreme Reduced Agitation development and can speak to almost any environmental conditions which can be photographed.

I have and will continue to say, the process, as near a magic bullet as you could hope for is much more about the creative manipulation of scene contrast than any sharpness gain, perceived or otherwise.

Click to expand...

Steve I'm not sure how much of this is due to the nature of the Pyrocat HD developer itself rather than the dilution, like you I've been using Pyrocat for around 10 years with a variety of films although mainly Delta 100 & 400 and HP5 LF.

I'm assuming you mean contrast when you say environmental conditions and my experience is that Pyrocat can copes particularly well with extremes of contrast giving negatives that are remarkably eay to print. That's shooting in the extreme high contrast midday sun in Turkey &n Greece though to the dull overcast low contrast light we often endure in the UK.

Two interesting article on Pyro developers by the same author one in the late 30's and the second "Modern uses of Pyro developers" just after WWII extol the virtues of these developers which had by then largely gone out of favour, he talkings about a more modern dilute approach.

In thinking why is a staining developer like Pyrocat so valuable we need to realise the developed negative has two components a silver image and a dye stain im age. We don't develop the silver image to as a high a Dmax as with a conventional developer and the stain image is more akin to a Chromogenic film like XP2. The benefits of XP2 is a long tonal scale and the ability to shoot at various speeds with the same development time.

So when we shoot in a low contrast situation and develop im Pyrocat (or any other Pyro staing develop) we predominantly use the silver component in printing or scanning, in a high contrast situation the stained component becomes far more important in the highlights and mid-tones the staining & tanning becomes greater and the result is no blown out highlights. Of course this is going on at a local level as well.

I use Pyrocat HD and 2+2+100 and continuous agitation to process my 10x8 negatives and I still get excellent edge effects and micro contrasts so concluded some years ago it's the attributes of the developer rather than agitation or dilution.

I'm not disagreeing that you can't increase this slightly with your extreme dilution minimum agitation technique

Ian

Ian,
Thanks for your insight, I would concur with you on all points where I have experience. I must admit, when this process first made itself predictable for me I was using it strictly for ULF film, which required much a higher contrast index than that of film to be enlarged. To your point, I was very skeptical that if I were to D my 5x7 film for enlargement I was concerned that the image would look "fractured" as one prominent LF photog told me when he saw one of the first ULF images from a Semi-Stand regime.
That has not turned out to be the case, in part I believe due to the much lower contrast which I D my 5x7 film too. I shoot for a 1.10 density above film base plus fog for reasons I'll share below. In fact these lower indexed negs in some cases actually appear to have an even more subtle transition of tone than some of the ++ Developed negs which are contact printed onto Azo. I cannot speak to the edge effects which this technique would impart on 120 roll or even 35mm film, so it comes as no surprise whatsoever Ian of your observations.

Michael, when I first had success with this process I shared my technique with Sandy King as I felt somewhat indebted to Sandy for explaining the possibilities of the technique if it were ever to become predictable. Sandy subsequently did much testing and coined the terminology as follows, STAND Development is one initial agitation with no intermittent agitation before being removed to stop / fix. SEMI-STAND is considered to be only one intermittent agitation after the initial agitation. Extreme Minimal Agitation is considered to be any number of agitations of 2 or more. In my technique I use 2 intermittent agitations which read like this, 2M 12 x 3(20) Which means, 2 minute initial agitation followed by a Stand period of 12M followed by a 20 second agitation followed by a Stand period of 12 minutes followed by a 20 second agitation followed by the last 12 minute Stand before removing to stop / fix. Therefore, 12x3 = 36 + 2M initial agitation + 38 minutes total time in Developer. It is not so important you do things exactly as I do, rather you do them consistently whatever your methodology becomes. I will say this, the initial agitation is a bit more aggressive than the more gentle intermittent agitations. Also, one of the biggest mistakes I made early in the trials was to use a stirring action to agitate, this lead to increased film edge density. I now used an inversion method with no signs of increased edge density, another technique early in the trials which yielded positive results and cured many friends inconsistent results was to use a plunger type action similar to a washing machine's agitation.
Yes I do use many different dilution and agitation regimes, I do not ever change temperatures but do change many other components of the D process. My Reduced Agitation method of developing film has become very intuitive for me, it is not the greatest way to share my experiences but nevertheless very predictable for me.
I have found when bold statements are made that seems to bring out what I like to call Forum Voyeurs, I have little time or motivation to debate issues I know to be absolute. That said, I have often referred to this technique as a near Magic Bullet because, film speed is maximized, highlight contrast is compressed all the while mid tone contrast, easily the most difficult area of the negative to control is exaggerated.
As long as bold statements are being thrown around, I do believe I can make a suitable / printable negative in any lighting condition which will yield a full range of tones no matter how extreme the contrast is in either direction. That however, does not guarantee a fine print because as we all should know the single most important factor in the success of a photograph is the quality of light and how we choose to exploit it.

Generally speaking, film developed to a lower density will be sharper than film which has to be plus developed to expand contrast. I target my negs to fall on the low side of a Multi Contrast paper so that the negative mid tones fall on the straight line of the paper I use.

A topic for another discussion, the main difference for me between my ISO tested FP 4 and HP 5 is speed, 160 ISO and 400 ISO respectively. Clearly, the two films have decidedly different contrast curves, I believe those traits are diminished when developed using a Reduced Agitation form of processing.

Cheers,

Steve thanks for the more detailed reply about your technique. I think the danger is that many don't appreciate the differences a high acutance developer can make and assume what works for one will work for them regardless of the format which is why I brought format into the equation. I remember testing a number of them in the early 1970's and with 35mm films the effects were often too extreme on 120 much more interesting and on large format. Acutol-S was probably the more extreme of these High acutance developers and the edge effects more graphic than Pyrocat but this is also related to the grain size which is coarse with Acutol-S and fine with Pyrocat.

I'm not sure I'd call your method "Extreme" reduced agitation as it sits somewhere between arbitrary categories but I think you've evolved your own methodology to suit your needs.

I must try FP4 with Pyrocat, (I've not used the film since 1986) but I find the HP5 / Pyrocat HD combination quite magical and I've used it for quite a number of exhibition images so I'd expect to be equally as pleased.

Ian

Steve Sherman said:

I have and will continue to say, the process, as near a magic bullet as you could hope for is much more about the creative manipulation of scene contrast than any sharpness gain, perceived or otherwise.

Click to expand...

I'm not a believer in magic bullets, per se, but I am a believer in using processes designed to get specific results reliably.

What I'm getting at here is that you seem to expect a very specific result and expect to print in a very specific way, it would be helpful to understand that context.

I'm wondering for example, given that you are manipulating the shape of the curve (bending the shoulder to manage the highlights), it seems to me that to use your system and get both shadows and highlights to fall properly on paper (as a straight print), would require a camera exposure within a pretty tight window. Not that that is a problem, but it's not every bodies style of shooting either.

What are the limits, what constraints were necessary to make it reliable for you?

markbarendt said:

I'm not a believer in magic bullets, per se, but I am a believer in using processes designed to get specific results reliably.

What I'm getting at here is that you seem to expect a very specific result and expect to print in a very specific way, it would be helpful to understand that context.

I'm wondering for example, given that you are manipulating the shape of the curve (bending the shoulder to manage the highlights), it seems to me that to use your system and get both shadows and highlights to fall properly on paper (as a straight print), would require a camera exposure within a pretty tight window. Not that that is a problem, but it's not every bodies style of shooting either.

Click to expand...

Mark, I think you have many of the basic concepts contained in your post but may not understand why or how they are linked with respect to this process and the silver gelatin end result.

I have attached two 7x17 pix which were early results of the Semi-Stand process, much has evolved from that time but the basic principles prevail.
The darker shot was exposed @ the Eastern State Penitentiary detail from Zone 2 all the way through Zone 15 which were measured prior to exposure. The second, a higher key image was metered with no more than 3 zones of tonality difference. This neg was developed for one hour and prints with relative ease on a normal grade of enlarging paper.

I chuckle when I hear others say "your just pushing tones around", well of course I am! A good friend said just that to me 10 years ago when I shared this technique with him. He a huge George Tice fan, in fact the producer of the current Tice documentary. Another friend, my own mentor, a Tice workshop attendee back in the early 80's told of Tice's method, "if the negative prints too harsh (without highlight detail) on grade 3 then switch to grade 2" rather than using any printing tricks to allow the use of grade 3 for the final print.

Back in 2004 when I shared this Semi-Stand technique with the Tice friend ("your just pushing tones around") I said to him, do all of your negatives print on grade 2? or do you use grade 3 / 4 sometimes? "no I have three grades of paper I use" to which I said "well your just pushing tones around". To this day I'm sure he doesn't embrace this type of contrast control, his prints are beautiful, so are mine, the difference and it is a huge difference to me, my process allows total contrast control in lighting situations most photogs would be hopelessly at a lost to make a suitable negative.

Thank you for that soap box time, I usually choose not to go this in depth with my process as their are so many doubters out there who I choose not to expend precious time explaining myself, I don't get that vibe from those in this discussion.

First, while I am not that knowledgeable in many of the other processes almost all of which demand a negative of considerable higher contrast index, leaving the Silver Gelatin print by itself if you will, that is to say the S Gelatin process demands a very unique negative and is integral to the need for this specialized technique of Reduced Agitation Film Development. Right there may provide some insight as to why this technique receives the detractors it does, once again, THE SILVER GELATIN NEGATIVE IS DECIDEDLY DIFFERENT THAN ALMOST ALL OTHER PROCESSES!!!!! to produce high quality results.

Let's break the whole photography "capture" into constants which are NOT in our control. Let's not consider filtration, film characteristics, lighting conditions and adjustable paper contrast, while they do offer some flexibility when talking in the context I'm talking about they are very small contributors. That said, my whole methodology in general is based on adding many small gains to become a significant directional technique.

Let me say from the start, the single most difficult component of any photograph to control is MICRO CONTRAST, or the contrast as grey tones transition from light to dark or vice versa with ONE ANOTHER!

SCENE CONTRAST... and one's decision with how to portray it, creative or otherwise will begin the process on how to capture the in camera negative.
Contained within SCENE CONTRAST is the darkest value and lightest value, both our decisions where we put them, if you use that as an argument against the process then I'll not win you over.

FINAL POSITIVE PROCESS... in this case Silver Gelatin, comparatively speaking with other processes requiring a much softer negative, to a large degree Final process dictates Film Development

THE ABOVE are products of our likes and tendencies, I am suggesting with this process one's personal likes can be expanded to possibilities heretofore not possible if not for this technique. (RADevelopment)

BELOW ARE parameters which do enjoy some flexibility predicated on one's choices, again, with the Reduced Agitation Technique, these parameters can be significantly expanded, again heretofore not possible if not for RAD.

FILM SPEED... dictated by the film one chooses, to a large degree dictates, aperture / shutter speed

MICRO CONTRAST... dictated by the particular scene itself and final paper contrast, NOTHING ELSE! Save for bleaching or masking!

NEGATIVE HIGHLIGHT DENSITY... dictated by in large by the final process one uses, in my case Silver Gelatin

With regard to a "magic bullet" of course there is no such thing, however, when you examine how Reduced Agitation Film Development impacts the unique set of challenges that I choose, i.e. extremes of contrast rendered on the least forgiving final process, consider this:

Most Large Format photographers, all things constant would opt for a higher Film Speed than 100 - 200 ISO
RAD maximizes Film Speed, most cases Box Speed, FP 4 for 160 ISO, HP 5 @ 400 ISO in my case.

Highlight Density, (remember, using the Silver Gelatin process scene contrast and highlight retention is almost always out of synch.

Micro Contrast, the most elusive of parameters to control is the one which is impacted to the greatest degree with RAD. To be sure, there is testing and trial and error, at least in my case, however far out weighed by the final control realized.

So Mark, to your point, I am designing my negatives so that as much of the negative's tonalities print on the straight line of the paper is a fairly succinct way of describing what the process does for me.

Certainly, the process is not for everyone, it does however provide the most control for negative / contrast control in the wet process that I can imagine and does not in any way deserve the generalized comment of "Your just pushing tones around"! I like to think of it as being Creative!

Cheers!

One only has to see Steve's prints in person to know he has figured out his personal mojo to printmaking.

Nice posts Steve. I think I may consider asking you to Toronto to give a workshop or two.

Thanks for taking the time to share this information, Steve. I'm going to be reading it several times over.

Thank you Steve.

BTW, I very much see your process as creative.

Pre-visualization and depicting a scene as you choose to is all about "pushing tones around." I can't imagine how this is even remotely pejorative.

Push 'em around, folks!

I have always said printing is about putting tones where you think they need to be placed.

the hard part is figuring out how to do it.

Bob Carnie said:

I have always said printing is about putting tones where you think they need to be placed.

the hard part is figuring out how to do it.

Click to expand...

And can be done in so many different ways!

I will never stop learning, I hope. Thanks to Steve for the elaborate responses. Must have taken quite a bit of time.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

And can be done in so many different ways!

I will never stop learning, I hope. Thanks to Steve for the elaborate responses. Must have taken quite a bit of time.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Thanks for the kind words everyone, as I reread the post to make sure it all made sense, I couldn't help but notice, no where did I use the word / term "sharpness or acutance"
Because it doesn't pertain to my interest and use of the technique, truth told I believe those two terms would be a function of Resolving power of both the lens and the film.

Bob, looking forward to 2014 in Toronto, you take me on the greatest Taxi rides!

Cheers!

Steve Sherman said:

Thanks for the kind words everyone, as I reread the post to make sure it all made sense, I couldn't help but notice, no where did I use the word / term "sharpness or acutance"
Because it doesn't pertain to my interest and use of the technique, truth told I believe those two terms would be a function of Resolving power of both the lens and the film.

Bob, looking forward to 2014 in Toronto, you take me on the greatest Taxi rides!

Cheers!

Click to expand...

No but you did mention manipulating micro-contrast

This was Geoffrey Crawley's offering on the terminology back in 1960/61 in his series of articles on Developers in the British Journal of Photography:

" Sharpness " -the overall impression of a print or projected image, measured scientifically as "acutance ", seen from normal viewing distance.

" Definition " -the extent to which fine detail is recognisably rendered in a print, etc. When acutance of fine detail is good, then definition is good.

" Acutance " -the contrast at the edge of significant detail, a scientific measurement of the density gradient at that point.

" Resolving Power " -the scientific measurement of the actual fineness of detail recordable by a lens, film, or developer, or any combination of these three.

Missing from that list is tonality as it's quite different, but essentially controlling development to get the best possible negatives with the tonal range you require to print from helps to improve or prevent the loss of fine detail which is controlled by localised micro-contrast, and in theory that fine detail can be described in the above terms.

However I fully understand that your own technique is about controlling the tonal range rather than improving sharpness & acutance, that comes as a naturarl consequence.

Ian

Wow, what a great read. Thanks Steve, Ian, and those who have contributed!

As a side note, I've been using Acros 100 and Neopan 400 for about 7-8 years exclusively with Pyrocat, but whence I switched to 4x5 recently I decided to give FP4 and HP5 a try. The tonality of my prints jump off the page...what a difference! This is with semi-stand development of the two, at box speed, for 13 min.

Might have to give this method a try. Thanks again!

We are bringing Steve Sherman back to Toronto again next year. May 1st weekend... He sold out fast last year and the workers all appreciated Steve's common sense teaching style and his genuine concern for each students needs is humbling for me, he is very patient with each student. Already we have a printmaking worker from Seattle Washington planning to come..
The Contact Photo Festival is opened the weekend we bring Steve in. This year we also are bringing Paul Paletti at the same time as Steve to talk about collecting photography. If you have ever the chance to go to his gallery in Louisville, well be prepared to be amazed and pleased. He has a fantastic collection.

Ian Grant said:

No but you did mention manipulating micro-contrast

This was Geoffrey Crawley's offering on the terminology back in 1960/61 in his series of articles on Developers in the British Journal of Photography:

" Sharpness " -the overall impression of a print or projected image, measured scientifically as "acutance ", seen from normal viewing distance.

" Definition " -the extent to which fine detail is recognisably rendered in a print, etc. When acutance of fine detail is good, then definition is good.

" Acutance " -the contrast at the edge of significant detail, a scientific measurement of the density gradient at that point.

" Resolving Power " -the scientific measurement of the actual fineness of detail recordable by a lens, film, or developer, or any combination of these three.

Missing from that list is tonality as it's quite different, but essentially controlling development to get the best possible negatives with the tonal range you require to print from helps to improve or prevent the loss of fine detail which is controlled by localised micro-contrast, and in theory that fine detail can be described in the above terms.

However I fully understand that your own technique is about controlling the tonal range rather than improving sharpness & acutance, that comes as a naturarl consequence.

Ian

Click to expand...

Thanks Ian for sharing Crawley's terminology from some years ago, as I know the negative and image which I posted with this response I believe 3 of the 4 terms contained in Crawley's observations are present. What struck me most when I first saw this negative was the taller buildings far off in the background, the detail and Micro Contrast around the small windows and also the Verizon logo was something which I had never seen from a conventionally processed negative.

"Resolving Power" from Crawley's terminology, from my logic is not so much about the Process of Development as it is a product of a Pyro base developer, the tanning effects and hardening of the gelatin very early in the development progression. These are all characteristics of a Pyro based developer and regardless of Dilution or Agitation will always produce negatives of higher acutance. As I stated in an earlier post, it is the combination of several small gains or traits when joined together yield a significant result in the Process. Hence the off hand comment of Magic Bullet, there are so many factors at work here all impacting the only real interest I have, to control and manipulate Micro Contrast.

The image is a raw scan from 2005 when I first gave a workshop on this process down in the Washington DC area.

Please see this link for a lengthy discussion on the image and the process.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Ian Grant said:

A point that's not being made so leading to misconceptions it the format/negative size. Stand and semi-stand development can work well with larger formats and you do get better adjacency effect which means prints appear sharper. But with smaller formats it can look awful.

I use Pyrocat HD with HP5 and at the recommended 1+1+100 dilution with inversion agitation and I get the benefits of good edge effects and micro-contrast which are inherent with this type of developer containing Pyrocatechin or Pyrogallol anyway, due to the tanning effects of the developer.

In making the choice of taking the edges effects to greater extremes has to be balance with the intended uses of the negatives, for instance a 35mm negative which is going to be enlarged will give images where the edge effects look like unwanted artefacts, there may be cases where they contribute to an overall graphic effect. When the extreme acutance developers were available (Definol, Acutol-S, Hyfin, Kodak HDD etc) there were so striking grapgic usually quite high contrast images made using 35mm films - these developers weren't as fine grained as Pyrocat either.

Where this technique comes into it's element is Large format where there's little enlargement and particularly contact prints. I'm refering to the edge effects thouh here.

Click to expand...

Semi-stand is great for enlargements, too. It's the only way I develop roll film now. The attached image is from a 6x6 cm 400 TMax negative developed semi-stand in Harvey's 777. There's no visible stain with this developer, but I believe there's significant UV stain. In any case, semi-stand gives me printable negatives on the same roll even with markedly different lighting conditions between the frames. The process is very forgiving as long as you don't overdevelop.

c6h6o3 said:

In any case, semi-stand gives me printable negatives on the same roll even with markedly different lighting conditions between the frames. The process is very forgiving as long as you don't overdevelop.

Click to expand...

And I get those same benefits with DD-X and normal development. And we are both right. And Steve and Ian are right too.

My point is that our personal best practices (aka our own personal magic bullets) won't necessarily translate into good and reliable results for others.

Our expectations for our work always differs, and there is more than one way to skin a cat.

With respect Mark

Pyro is considered by many to have had its day, but in respect of modern sensitive materials it is suggested that its wonderful versatility is awaiting rediscovery. Let us hope that the younger generation will not be content with anything that falls short of that standard of perfection “pyro quality.” (quote from 1941)

Steve Sherman said:

"Resolving Power" from Crawley's terminology, from my logic is not so much about the Process of Development as it is a product of a Pyro base developer, the tanning effects and hardening of the gelatin very early in the development progression. These are all characteristics of a Pyro based developer and regardless of Dilution or Agitation will always produce negatives of higher acutance. As I stated in an earlier post, it is the combination of several small gains or traits when joined together yield a significant result in the Process. Hence the off hand comment of Magic Bullet, there are so many factors at work here all impacting the only real interest I have, to control and manipulate Micro Contrast

Click to expand...

Steve, I see the "Resolving Power" as the result of the combination of the film, developer and technique. In this respect I'd put Xtol and Rodinal on a par with Pyrocat out of the developers I've used, yes there are developers and techniques which might give more apparent sharpness usually with increased grain which reduces "definition" of fine detail, or compromises the tonal range.

There's unique characteristics of Pyro developers that are harder to define but it's the good acutance and micro contrast along with the ability to hold a good shadow detail and delicate highlights. As you say “it is the combination of several small gains or traits when joined together yield a significant result in the Process.” I've said many times that Pyrocat HD is like Rodinal on Steroids it's a remarkably good developer.

This is what's known as “pyro quality.”

This quality is by no means imaginary, and may be attributed partly to the faint warmth of even a non-staining pyro image, and largely to the fact that pyro reduces with perfect proportionality,that is to say, it produces a characteristic curve which is straighter, and less liable to distortion than any other reducer,in spite of varying conditions of use. (quote from 1941)

Ian

With respect Ian, is that quote supposed to be some kind of objective proof?

markbarendt said:

And I get those same benefits with DD-X and normal development. And we are both right. And Steve and Ian are right too.

My point is that our personal best practices (aka our own personal magic bullets) won't necessarily translate into good and reliable results for others.

Our expectations for our work always differs, and there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Click to expand...

I have no magic bullets. I use minimal agitation development with large format negatives when it's appropriate to the image. When it's not I use traditional tray development. I use it for roll film out of convenience. And no matter which method I use I might use a staining developer or a non-staining one, again depending on the image. Different strokes for different pictures.

markbarendt said:

With respect Ian, is that quote supposed to be some kind of objective proof?

Click to expand...

No, not at all but I suggest having an open mind when it comes to Pyro developers, I was highly sceptical until I tried Pyrocat. A friend had tried to persuade me to try a Pyrogallol based developer about 10 years earlier but I was very happy with my developers. In hindsight I wish I'd tried Pyro devs earlier.

I wouldn't be using Pyrocat if I didn't think it had benefits over my previous developers.

Ian

Michael R 1974 said:

Ian - just out of curiosity why did you choose Pyrocat vs a Pyrogallol or a Pyrogallol-Metol developer such as WD2D/(H) or PMK? As you know Phenidone-Catechol is a somewhat different animal.

Click to expand...

I think it was because of very good reports about Pyrocat on this forum (not long after I joined) and the level headed way that Sandy King writes about it. I did consider PMK but I had everything I needed on the shelf for Pyrocat. Sodium Metaborate has never been as widely available here in the UK compared to the US although Kodak Ltd used to sell it, I always made my own from Borax and Sodium Hydroxide.

In addition I was already using a Pyrocatechin re-developing toner (Ilford IT-8) so was aware of the staining effects, and I'd also used the Windisch Compensating developer and the US version of the same Windisch developer (which was a mistake where the weights of Sulphite and Pyrocatechin were transposed).

Another reason for choosing Pyrocat was that Pyrocatechin is itself a fine grain developing agent on it's own or in combination with Metol, Phenidone, paraphenylene diame etc.

Ian