Neopan Acros: Pyrocat HD.... instead of TFX-2?

I know a few people out there have mentioned liking Pyrocat HD with Neopan Acros, but I wonder if any of you have also tried Acros with FX-2, or TFX-2?

I've had some extremely promising results from TFX-2,but have also had some odd problems that I won't go into, as well as availability issues. So, I'm wondering if Pyrocat HD might be a good alternative? TFX-2 with stand development has given me the sharpest looking negs I've ever seen, as well as bold yet open highlights. P.Cat to offer similar?? How is it for stand processing with Acros?

I've used both TFX-2 and Pyrocat HD with Acros, with good results from both. I stopped using TFX-2 because it doesn't keep as well as Pyrocat HD in glycol. I process film in batches and sometimes don't get into the darkroom more than once every couple of months, so keeping properties are important for me.

I would be hard pressed to tell you which one I liked better. I used the TFX-2 semi-stand, and it produced amazingly sharp negatives with nice open highlights, just as you describe. I get pretty much the same results from Pyrocat-HD. I typically use Pyrocat-HD as a divided developer with 120 Acros, and it allows me to compress an incredible tonal range down to a printable negative.

Buy some of both and run some tests. I think it's really the only way to see which developer suits your needs. They're both excellent. Pyrocat-HD may be more economical in the long run both because it is cheaper to make and because it lasts longer on the darkroom shelf. TFX-2 has a shelf life of only about six months, although I've stretched it to about 9 months before its color started to change more than I wanted to trust.

Peter Gomena

That's helpful, thanks for your insights. It sounds like your choice was largely a practical rather a strong preference to either. Shelf life with TFX-2 and lack of availability is somewhat of a problem. Did you ever considered, as I am, going with plain old FX-2 that is available in kit form? I like the idea of mixing it up when I need to.

MM:
Yes, practicality weighs heavily in my choice, as does price. Pyrocat-HD is more economical for me because I use it for both sheet and roll film, and the quantities of stock solution go farther than TFX-2.

TFX-2 is good stuff, but it also tends to make a gritty-looking image with medium and high-speed films. Sharp as all getout, but not without some grit. The highlights do hang on forever. I'm finding Pyrocat-HD gives me smoother images with plenty of sharpness but none of the grit, and it's tough to get highlights to block up, even with N+2 development.

Also, TFX-2 using reduced agitation with Ilford PanF+ gave me excessive edge effects - very noticeable lines at dark/light transitions that were very apparent upon modest enlargement. With APX100, I got amazing sharpness and local contrast with a once-per-3 minutes agitation scheme. My experiments all were with 120 roll film.

As to the difference between TFX-2 and FX-2, I can't say. I share a friend's darkroom and mixing powders from scratch is not practical for me right now. Don't get me wrong, I like TFX-2. I might use it more if I took the time to thoroughly test it. I'm finding my results with Pyrocat-HD give me results that both are a little more predictable right off the bat and more pleasing to my eye. It's also more economical when it comes to processing sheet film in trays.

If you haven't tried TFX-2, it's worth a shot. There's been a lot written about it in this part of the forum. Look up D.F. Cardwell's posts on it.

Peter Gomena

Peter Gomena

I share your affection for Pyrocat HD. TFX-2 is definitely shows more grain, but as you say, it is sharp, sharp, sharp! I quite like it with tri-x though; it renders that film like a more sterile version of Rodinal: All the tonality and grain, but sharper. Using it with Acros really got me hooked though.

Personally, I shoot 99% 35mm. Because of this, I have shied away from Pyrocat HD. The grain masking is fantastic, but if grain is visible, then the masking makes it indistinct, and I would prefer to either see the grain plainly, or not at all. Plus, am I the only one who thinks Pyrocat HD smells a little like chicken? ;-)

Yeah, D.F. Cardwell's advice has been instrumental - for better or worse - in some of my decision making. I really took to his 20 minute XTOL 1:2 semi-stand regiment for Neopan 1600. Beautiful combination if you don't mind grain and high but printable contrast.

Staining developers and 35mm have not been my favorite combination for some of the reasons you state. Delta 100 in PMK, though, does good things. I'd imagine Acros behaves similarly. Acros is just good film period!

Peter Gomena

pgomena said:

Acros is just good film period!

Peter Gomena

Click to expand...

It's true!

I used to be such a snob about "tabular" grain films, but now that APX 25, APX 400, and Neopan 1600 are gone, I find that Fuji Acros and Kodak TMZ are my favorite films! [there are still plenty of bad tab. films though ]

Tri-x is the odd man out now in my film lineup.

I tried a few different combinations for Across, mostly used Rodinal 1:50, but I have come around to Pyrocat HD. This works really well with Across, great sharpness with nice tones, and the stuff just keeps on keeping on!
I really like staining developers, and Pyrocat is just so user friendly.

I agree, we really owe a debt of gratitude to Sandy King for creating the formula.

I've been shooting Acros100(120) and souping it in Pyrocat-HD exclusivly for the last year. It is definitly my favorite combo.