Improved pyro-ascorbic developer

Jay, I'm getting ready to mix a little of this brew. Measuring an 1/8 gram on phenidone is a bit of a bugger. I might get close on my old analog balance. Is there a better way? I know sometimes one makes a percent solution with phen and alcohol, but does bringing alcohol into the mix mess it up? Maybe a percent solution of phenidone in TEA?

Comments please.

Jdef,

Wondered why you were carrying 3 places.

1/4 gram I can measure. Appreciate the update.

Jay,
About the 1:250 dilution can you provide any starting point times for Delta 100 or Panf F.
Also what agitation protocol would you recommend? Also is there any any image enhancement with the higher dilution?
Michael

sanking said:

The B+F still seems higher than it should be. How are you measuring the potassium bromide? If you are mixing the Pyrocat-HD stock solution in small amount the accuracy of your weighing is a very important issue. It is pretty difficult to accurately measure 0.2 g for the 100ml stock.

A better way would be to mix up a stock solution of bromide, say abourt 10%, and then add the amount to the Stock A solution.

I mention this because the difference between 1.5 g and 2.5 g in a liter of Stock Solution A makes a very big difference in B+F and EFS.

Sandy

Click to expand...

I wonder if you remembered that Jay is using 35 mm HP5+ and that it has a base density higher than most sheet films that have antihalation dyes. In order to be on the same page, perhaps Jay would measure the base density of an unexposed, fixed and washed piece of the film he is testing?

jdef said:

At Pat's suggestion, I fixed and washed a strip of undeveloped 35mm HP5+ as I would in my normal processing, and when dry, the density measured .18, which seems about right. I also did some field testing of J&C Pro 100 and HP5+ and developed the films in Hypercat, 510-Pyro, Pyrocat HD, PMK, and Xtol. It is clear to me now that I was right when I stated that 510-Pyro is more active than Pyrocat HD. It is in fact the most active of the developers I tested, based on VC print contrast, and along with Hypercat, compared favorably to the other developers in every category of my tests.


Jay

Click to expand...

So why the contradiction?

Earlier you wrote.

"I did a direct comparison of Pyrocat HD 2:2:100 vs 510-Pyro 1:100, both developed for 10min/70F with continuous agitation, and it seems you're right; according to my test, Pyrocat HD 2:2:100 is MUCH more active than 510-Pyro 1:100. I'll attach both curves. I retract my statement regarding the relative levels of activity of the two developers, and apologize for any confusion it might have caused."

In the test above you state that Pyrocat is significantly more active than 510-Pyro. In fact, you repeated the test with a new solution of developer, to which you added bromide, after I pointed out to you that the B+F of the Pyrocat-HD negative was much too high. And after that second test you wrote.

“I think I must have left the potassium bromide out of the first batch. Pyrocat HD 2:2:100 is still much more active than 510-Pyro, but the fog levels are down near the other developers now.”

But now you say that is not the case!

Based on the contradictory statements one must conclude that you have made mistakes, either in testing or in reporting, and you need to straighten this out. I don’t really care which of these developers is more active, but I do care about consistency in testing, in getting the facts right, and in reporting the right facts.

Sandy

jdef said:

Sandy,

Taken together, I would conclude that there was something wrong with my direct comparison test, but I don't know what it was.

We all make mistakes, and remember, you're free to conduct tests of your own and post your findings for review, as I have done.

Jay

Click to expand...

I simply pointed out a serious contradiction of fact in your reporting of results. The lack of consistency suggests to me that you do not have good control of one or more areas of your testing procedure. And in fact, if you are unable to get consistent results in your plotting of curves, in a direct comparison test of the same film using two different developers, then something is definitely seriously wrong with these procedures.

We all make mistakes, but if I were to make a mistake of the magnitude of the one we are discussing here I would spend as much time as necessary in an effort to discover the reason and correct the situation. And attacking me won't improve your methodology one iota.


Sandy

What are we doing?

We (human beens) some times can not see the benefits of different experiences, different points of view, differents ways to see the same situation. Heisenberg in the first half of twentie century say something about the behaviour of electrons; if you want to see as a particle, his behaviour is as a particle. If you want to see as a sinusoidal energy, is what you want to see. Indetermination principle, if I remember correctly.

Both obsevations (Sandy's Pyrocat Jay's Pyro ascorbic developer) can be a good pair of instruments in my darkroom. Why we need to see only ONE good, or may be a PERFECT developer? I'm working with Pyrocat since the first months of 2000, and tomorrow I'll try with Jay's developer. But I'm looking for good developers who help me in visual communication with my photography. I'm looking for best communication, best tonalities some times in highlights, some times in enhanced mid tones, some times good results in shadows, and sometimes all together.
Developers are no more than hardware, not a competition area...
Congratulations for you Jay and you Sandy. Your work is really good for my new knowledge. And enhance my communication posibilities.
An embrace and congratulations for both.

Claudio Szarfsztejn
Argentina
I'm sorry for my Tarzan's english.

Sandy didn't contradict himself one bit. He did see more contrast with the plate burner, because most of the UV was in the UVB range, which is will be absorbed more readily by stain.
The UV in the BLB was the same wavelength as that of the flood, just much more of it.
The only thing he did was make a prediction that did not stand up to testing. Not a big deal.

avandesande said:

Sandy didn't contradict himself one bit. He did see more contrast with the plate burner, because most of the UV was in the UVB range, which is will be absorbed more readily by stain.
The UV in the BLB was the same wavelength as that of the flood, just much more of it.
The only thing he did was make a prediction that did not stand up to testing. Not a big deal.

Click to expand...

I agree. The apparent increase in contrast, as I recall, was attributed to the very short exposure times with the 261K.

Jay, why does everything have to be interperted by you as a personal affront? You seem to be a relatively intelligent sort of fellow. I would hope that you would come to the understanding that other's are entitled to have viewpoints different from yours...and that your viewpoints are open to be questioned when you make them a matter of public record.

It seems that your attitude is one of continually trying to build yourself up and attacking others. Typically it has been discovered that these behaviors are indications of an impoverished sense of self. The unfortunate thing is that in attacking others you are in fact tearing yourself down.

jdef said:

Sometimes in the testing of complex systems anomalies occur, or we confuse correlation with causation, or just read our thermometers wrong, and no amount of testing can prove conclusively what was responsible for the errant data.

Jay

Click to expand...

Jay,

What nonsense. I observed an increase in contrast with AZO with the very short exposure of the plate burner, expressed optimism that the BLB light could be used to provide a contrast increases with AZO, did further experiments with real time exposures, and found that it did not. My initial theory was wrong, but I tested the theory and reported my final conclusion, which was that I did not find any difference in contrast between the use of the RH40 flood and the 13 watt black light tube in printing pyro stained negatives. In fact, I am actually quite proud of the work that I did in that testing as I think it produced some interesting information that was previously known by many people.

But, to be precise, I don’t have “petty criticisms of your testing procedures." From my perspective your testing does not show anomalies, it is quite simply woefully inadequate, and anyone with a decent understanding of film testing who goes back and looks at the curves you posted will immediately recognize this fact.


Sandy

jdef said:

Okay, Sandy. I guess "know for a fact that the UV light gives more contrast. ", is a theory. \

Jay

Click to expand...

Yes, that was stated as "a fact" for the conditions of my testing with the extremely short exposure times of the NuArc plate maker, and I believe I made it very clear that this finding was subject to further testing in "real time." Guess you missed that.

But would you not be better off trying to correct the deficiences in your methodology than by worming your way through past posts in an effort to discredit me?

Sandy

jdef said:

Sandy,


What I did miss was your reply to my question regarding your comparison testing of D-76 and Rollo-TEA. How is that progressing?

Jay

Click to expand...

Jay,

You wrote,

"you mistook correlation for causation in ascribing the increased contrast to the UV lightsource, but who cares?"

Who cares? You seem to care. Otherwise, why mention it?

The data for Rollo-Pyro is for publication. Wish I could share it with you but am sure you will understand why I can not.


Sandy

jdef said:

Well, not really, both formulae (D-76 and Rollo-TEA) are published, and you stated that you planned to post the information at the Azo forum, but okay. I personally think that 510-Pyro makes Rollo-TEA obsolete, being superior in every way, but that's just me. Can you tell me where you plan to publish the information so I can watch for it?

Jay

Click to expand...

Interesting. 510-Pyro, based on your own tests as reported on the AZO forum and on this site, makes all other developers obselete? D-76, Xtol, all of Crawley's formulas, etc. You have truly crossed the great divide and have become a "legend in your own mind" in the area of developer formulation.


Sandy

jdef said:

Are you sure you're not confusing me with yourself?


Jay

Click to expand...

Jay,

I pray that I never confuse myself with you.

Sandy

Gee... I show up for a cat fight and a developer discussion breaks out!

I'm very intrigued with having a super stable concentrate available that can be produced from easily obtained materials. My darkroom work seems to go in streaks because of job committments that take me away on projects for periods of time and I'd like to have a proven developer to fall back on and trust. I'd have on my wish list (realistic or not!):

-Decent emulsion speed and short toe for good shadow separation.

-Highlight control, which seems to come easiest from staining developers.

-Good acutance and at least some subtle edge effect, again likely from staining-type developers.

-Minimal grain exaggeration but able to hold a non-mushy edge transition.

-Stable, predictable storage behavior and ease of a quick mix when needing to get something done quickly without a full formula mix delay.

-Affordable with non-exotic, easily stored components.

-Good behavior with VC materials. This points me toward catechol based concoctions but that's mainly my instinct and I haven't really proven that to myself.

-Low base fog for ease of use with some darkroom equipment I own that functions best this way.

Anyway.... Don't lose your energy on this project Jay! Sandy and you (can't forget Mr Gainer and Mr Koch, too) have invested countless hours and we truly appreciate your doggedness. I'm finding it's relatively doable to get to 90% of where I want on these developers and you fight for each increment beyond that. I hope we can stay focused on the goals and carry this through to some benefit for everyone who is interested and wanting these things. There are fewer of us dinosaurs left each year. Maybe it's our passion for this that energizes us as the world seems to shift more to pixelated imaging. -Some- passion is a good thing!

craigclu said:

Gee... I show up for a cat fight and a developer discussion breaks out!

Click to expand...

Seems more like a Pyrocat fight...

(I couldn't pass by the opportunity to make a really bad pun. Sorry about it being in poor taste.)

Kirk Keyes said:

Seems more like a Pyrocat fight...

(I couldn't pass by the opportunity to make a really bad pun. Sorry about it being in poor taste.)

Click to expand...

It is regretful that anyone sees this as a fight about developers, cats or pyros, because it is not, at last not from my side. It is about basic competency, i.e. the ability to expose and develop film, measure densities, and plot curves in a consistent and reliable manner. If one does not have sufficient control of their testing procedures to assure a high level of consistency in the results, it is a disservice to the community, IMHO, to post the data and conclusions.

I have said this in the past and still believe it. Developer formulas are easy to come up with, and they are all about 95-97% alike. If one is to take advantage of the last 3-5% it is necessary to, 1) establish the objective, and 2) test carefully to assure that th objective is being achieved. To do otherwise is to fart in the wind.

Sandy

jdef said:

Sandy, I think you place too high a premium on your own testing. The scientific/academic community of which you claim membership requires verification by a disinterested third party for these kinds of comparisons. Maybe someone will offer to test Rollo-TEA and 510-Pyro, and post their findings. I for one would welcome such an objective comparison.

Jay

Click to expand...

Jay,

The key is consistency. We may get different results because of different chemistry, etc. but if you or I test a particular film/developer combination today, we should be able to get very similar results tomorrow. I know for a fact that in my own work I can repeat results with any film/develper combination to about log 0.02 with this type of testing.

But I do not possess any magical qualities. I simply have the equipment and know how to test in a manner that will give consisistent results to this level of precision. That is what you should shoot for, i. e. consistency in your own work.

I stated the same thing some time back on the AZO forum. People who are set up to do BTZS type testing are able to replicate the results of others, where ever they are located, so long as the same conditions of exposoure and development are met.

However, in addition to the standards that most BTZS folks use, I have also incorporated a number of other refinements to assure even greater consistency, not the least of which is the use of a light integration system.

It is a pity that you don't understand the level of precision that is possible with careful attention to testing procedures. But, I have told this to you in the past and you ignored the information, so I doubt that you will pay any attention to it here.

Sandy

jdef said:

Sandy, I think you place too high a premium on your own testing. The scientific/academic community of which you claim membership requires verification by a disinterested third party for these kinds of comparisons.

Jay

Click to expand...

Jay, just for the record, I don't *claim* membership in a scientific/academic community. I *am* an academic, with many peer reviewed publications, including two books on photographic aesthetics and history published in Spain, in multi-lingual editions (English/Spanish, Galician/English), by important cultural organizations. To say nothing of numerous articles published in the academic and popular press.

You are completely free to set your own standards, but I have already set mine, and understand them well.

Sandy

I, for one, have been trying to test both pyrocat hd and 510 pyro. Before I go farther, I should say I'm getting pretty tired of the pissing contest that is going on here. This is a discussion group and if you have some ax to grind, do it somewhere else. There are a few thousand others listening that are trying to wade through all the crap and make decent negs. Be nice.

That said, I have been using PMK for some years, over 15, with HP5+ and I have had my problems, but with testing and help from Gordon, I've worked out the bugs and it works for me. It doesn't come for free and this is why I'm looking for something better if it is there to be had. There are some chemists here. I cannot keep up with them. I did well in college chemistry, but most of this stuff is beyond me. And I don't know what BTZS is either. I know the intials, but I don't go to their church. This doesn't make me a bad photog, IMO. I can make a pretty dam good neg and print. I can do it consistantly. I do know about and use light integration and pray there regularly. I don't think any of this is necessary to being a good photog. I will speak for the masses now, we just want a developer that works for us with as little thought as possible.

In my as yet very brief exposure to pyrocat and 510, I have discovered the following with regard to HP5+ in a Jobo 3xxx drum and a rotary base.

Pyrocat.
Pyrocat is a well documented recipe and seems to have many users.
It is not as energetic as I thought it would be.
It has almost no stain that I can see with my eye or read with my blue filter.
Metol cannot be substituted for phenidone at the given ratio with only speed loss. Metol seems to make the developer exit the drum looking like ink.
Sodium carbonate and potassium carbonate are not interchangeable with invariant results. The pot carb did not give as much density.
FBF = 0.15

510

The developer leaves the drum not clear, but either inky or with lots of color.
My fix turns orange.
This is independent of presoak.
The color in the develper is still apparent if the film is developed in a nitrogen atmosphere. This means to me that the developer is not turning color from oxidizing as is the case of PMK.
Stain is good, but not as high as PMK. (I have never thought my PMK stain to be green. It is more the color of amber and spectal analysis shows it to be relatively flat in the blue-green and uv specta.)
FBF is about 0.27 (fbf for PMK is 0.24)
Images with 510 look okay, although I have not printed them.

As mentioned in another post, I have questioned the age of my chemicals, but I believe they are okay. They seem to be the same colors as others here and they seem to work in other formulas that I'm using with the consistancy they have always had. I am willing to continue to work on these developers to adjust them to my work as they show some promise. I feel I need to settle on one recipe for pyrocat and I need a little more energy from pyrocat, too. I'd like to here from some of the average users like myself. Please contribute some info to the database that is building here, because it is by no means complete. I'd like to know if anyone has had similar experiences to mine.

YMMV

Loose Gravel said:

I, for one, have been trying to test both pyrocat hd and 510 pyro. Before I go farther, I should say I'm getting pretty tired of the pissing contest that is going on here.
YMMV

Click to expand...

Hi Loose Gravel,

If you don't like the tone of the thread just turn it off and go elsewhere. No one is forcing you to read the messages.

This is not a pissing contest. Jay and I both know what we are talking about and are trying to discuss the issues in a civilized manner. But even if our discourse is not very civil, and it is obviously not at times, no one forces you to participate.

Best,

Sandy

That was helpful.

Hasta luego cocodrillo.

sanking said:

The key is consistency.[...] I simply have the equipment and know how to test in a manner that will give consisistent results to this level of precision. That is what you should shoot for, i. e. consistency in your own work. [...]
However, in addition to the standards that most BTZS folks use, I have also incorporated a number of other refinements to assure even greater consistency, not the least of which is the use of a light integration system.

Click to expand...

Sandy - you know I'm very interested in improving testing methods, and I'm sure many othere here are as well. Could you take this opportunity to expound on this subject some more - what other types of improvements have you made? I'm sure if more of us were using the same, if not at least similar, testing methods, we would have fewer of these issues.

So could you share some more ideas that you have to help improve film/paper testing?

(PS - I suspect the light integrator you are talking about is one of those exposure timers that has a light sensor built into it, and not some sort of diffusion panel to better disperse the light that you are using to make the test exposure with, right?)

Loose Gravel said:

Pyrocat. [...]It has almost no stain that I can see with my eye or read with my blue filter.

Click to expand...

Loose - this is really interesting. So you are saying you get no difference between the visual or green channel when compared to the blue channel with the Pyrocat?

Kirk Keyes said:

Loose - this is really interesting. So you are saying you get no difference between the visual or green channel when compared to the blue channel with the Pyrocat?

Click to expand...

Yes indeed Loose - very interesting. Based on my experience with Pyrocat-HD you should be seeing a distinct increase in the blue channel densities over the visual channel densities.

I belive you are mixing your own Pyrocat-HD. What is the formulation you are using? What is your developing procedure?