Newbie Pyrocat HD & Kodak Tri-X @400 question(s)

[VesaL]

Hello!
I´ve been reading APUG forum with great enthusiasm and enjoy it wery much. But alas, lets get to the question in hand, and maybe some more experienced Pyrocat HD soupers can point me to the correct direction, for starters at least..?

I have shot a 120 roll of Kodak Tri-X 400 at box speed (400) in varying light conditions and subjects (stormy sky, seashells against black backgound, dark, moist rock with glowing white moss).

I purchased a pack of Pyrocat-HD developer mixed in Glycol, and plan to develop the film with 1:1:100 dilution.

I have old soviet -era semi soft silver gelatin paper, no fog and really well preserved. It´s matt and the blacks are like finest charcoal. I measured it´s Dmax to be around 1.35 -1.4. On 31-step stouffer scale, gradation extends to about step 20 when Dmax has been met (when base and step 2 are uniform), Agfa Neutol WA was the paper developer.

If I have done my math correct, paper should be soft, and in need of quite dense negative development. I was reading article from Unblinkingeye: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/PCat4/pcat4.html and found out that silver gelatin "optimum CI" would be in range of 0.47 to 0.52.

My question is, that given information above, i should develop my roll close to CI 0.52 to get enough contrast for such a low contrast paper ? Development time should be then about 5.2 minutes at 72 Fahrenheit.

I know that it´s hard to give exacting information as there are many variables in the chain from taking the photo to finished print, but please correct me if i´m totally missing the mark. Any suggestion from the old pro´s would be more that appreciated, and I like to thank you all in advance.

-Vesa

 

[FerruB]

I am not an old pro. I am not measuring optimum CI, Dmax or whatsoever (I barely know what they are . I judge negatives and prints with my eyes and try to adjust the process as I feel.

Anyway, I just started as well to develop using an homemade pyrocat HD that should be similar to the one you have. I tried to develop Tri-X at 7.5, 15 and 30 min here you can find the results for different EI: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

5.2 minutes 1+1+100 at 22C seems to be a bit short to me. In this conditions I am making 12 minutes and I happy with the negs and prints.
Cheers
Ferru

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm developing my Tri-X in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 at 14 minutes at 75F (but my goal is a negative that prints well in Pt/Pd, as well as silver). That combination will get you something that works very well with soft, lower-contrast emulsions (my base print is a Grade 1/2-1, sometimes a Grade 0, depending on the scene). 5 minutes is nowhere near enough.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Old pro here- as in Proletariat

My Pyrocat HD is used at 1:1:100 70F with a pre-soak (Sandy King the developer of this brew recommends that although I have not seen a difference if omitted) then continuous agitation, inversions not a cocktail shaker, for 1st min then three inversions at 4,8 and 12 mins, for 15 mins in total, this is semi-stand. The results are good with most films, I have had no failures but obviously have not tried every film, and I no longer lay awake worrying about Dmax since I sold my densitometer.
This regime is my take on the link given below.
Quote
Minimal Agitation
Pyrocat-HD gives negatives of very great acutance with minimal agitation. When using minimal agitation be sure to extend development time by about 50% over normal time for rotary processing, and agitate every two or three minutes. Minimal agitation is recommended only when the adjusted development time is about fifteen minutes or more.
UNQUOTE
I am NOT using rotary processing BTW.


These are on the Pyrocat HD and Tri-X combination as above regime.

General observations are:
You must mix then use immediately.
It is pretty temperature tolerant, I would not say panthermic but +/- 5 degrees is not a cause to change time
12-15 mins is the going rate I have no idea where you got 5mins from, that is an unreliable source
This is the resource page:
http://www.pyrocat-hd.com/
It is a great developer, very reliable and with consistent good results IMHO

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

Old pro here- as in Proletariat

I'm going to try this on a roll of 35mm Tri-X to see how minimal agitation works out, I normally just toss it all in a tube and let it spin.
I'm not set up to handle 4x5 in anything but a tube so that minimal agitation experiment will have to wait.

 

[Chris Livsey]

[QUOTE="Kawaiithulhu, post: 1933558, member: 65780" I normally just toss it all in a tube and let it spin.
[/QUOTE]

And this from a poster quoting paper Dmax and developing at a specific CI ?

Let us know please, as I hope you see PyrocatHD is "kind" to grain and this is on a sc****r proper printing should be even better, my enlarger is still mothballed unfortunately.

 

[nworth]

With this soft paper, you might aim for a higher negative contrast - maybe about 0.65 gamma. That was the old standard, and it should still be quite printable on other papers.

 

[VesaL]

FerruB, TheFlyingCamera, Chris & nworth, I thank you for your kind help very much !!

Apparently i did made my math incorrect indeed and your recommendations for development times and examples are excellent base & reference to start working towards the goal set (whatever that may be in my photography, dunno yet :0).

nworth, is there any chart what I could reference to have approximate developing time for 0.65 gamma? That sounds interesting as paper I have is quite soft. As I have this soviet era silver Gelatin paper in my freezer about 500 sheets, that would be inexpensive way to tinker before trying modern emulsions, mainly variable-contrast papers. I try my best to find information myself on the internet but alas, indeed charts may be correct or (wrong.)

Cheers,
Vesa

 

[nworth]

The universal answer most of the books give is "determine by experiment." Unfortunately, that is pretty much the case. Some films have a chart of gamma versus development time for various developers on the information sheet packed with the film. That would be the first place to look. A few developers list gamma versus development time for various films. The massive development chart also shows this information for a few films and developers. I looked at an old Kodak publication that listed this information, and it showed increased times between 50 and 90 percent, depending on the film, going from a gamma of 0.5 to 0.65. Note also that gamma is not the same as CI, and the difference may be significant for some films.

 

[VesaL]

Thanks! I did develop a roll of TRI-X at box speed. Unfortunately shadows were underexposed and highlights were blown. I uesd 15 minutes development time at 72 F with 3 rotations per minute . I will try to decrease developing time to about 12 minutes and agitate every two minutes.

-Vesa

 

[MattKing]

Thanks! I did develop a roll of TRI-X at box speed. Unfortunately shadows were underexposed and highlights were blown.

This tells me that the metering procedure you used resulted in under-exposure, and the developing time you used may have been too long.

I say "may", because it may be that with increased film exposure, your longer printing exposure times will bring those highlights under control.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Thanks!. I uesd 15 minutes development time at 72 F with 3 rotations per minute . I will try to decrease developing time to about 12 minutes and agitate every two minutes.

-Vesa

That is way more agitation than I use for 15mins and you are talking about increasing it, why?
The developer has not underexposed the shadows that was done at the point of exposure, what happened to expose for the shadows?
It is very hard to "blow" highlights on Tri-X unless your scenes had an extreme contrast range in which case this was the wrong developer, your explanation of the scenes you opened with would tend to confirm that, if you are testing you need to take "standard" scenes to dial in then explore the envelope when you have confidence you have a sound base. They may be boring scenes but they are necessary before you explore "seashells against black backgound, dark, moist rock with glowing white moss"

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Thanks! I did develop a roll of TRI-X at box speed. Unfortunately shadows were underexposed and highlights were blown. I uesd 15 minutes development time at 72 F with 3 rotations per minute . I will try to decrease developing time to about 12 minutes and agitate every two minutes.

-Vesa

I use the times from the Massive Development Chart (www.digitaltruth.com) which is 14 minutes. I'm using continuous agitation in my Jobo at the slowest speed setting (F). I'm running my developer at 75F. This gives me negatives that print very nicely at grade 0-1, which from the sound of the paper you're using, would be a good match for your printing process. I think one of the reasons you're having issues is that you make dramatic changes to your processing variables (from 3 revolutions per minute to every two minutes?), making it very hard to determine if the changes you're making are resolving your problems because they're so dramatic they cause new ones.

 

[VesaL]

Hello! Thanks again for the creative suggestion you have been providing. Indeed, the exposures I have made may have been underexposed and overdevelopment has finalized the results. I am getting proper exposure meter with spot attachement in couple of days, so at least I can then consentrate on "expose for shadows, develop for highlights" fully. What questions me most is how much Pyrocat HD is agitation sensitive?. I t´s true that testing takes time, but it´s plain depressing to put all your creative input into 10 exposures on 120 film (6x7) and then make mistakes in development and all the images more or less are screwed =0) (blocked shadows, blown highlights)

4x5 sheet film would be good bet in this case to test film /dev time combination, but alas acquiring LF camera at the moment is too expensive for me. But never ever give up =0) must keep trying.

thanks once again,
Vesa

 

[bdial]

Testing will save you time, and money, in the long run. If you do a test roll made of images you are not creatively invested in, then any disappointments occurring in the processing are education, rather than a failure.

Sheet film is well suited to testing because you can do one sheet at a time, if you want, but it's not essential. If you are working with 35mm, you always have the option of opening the camera in the darkroom and cutting off the exposed portion of a roll for processing just a few frames instead of a whole roll.

 

[Chris Livsey]

On agitation I will quote Sandy King:

1. Can be used with minimal agitation when processing roll film in tanks for very pronounced adjacency effects that can result in great apparent sharpness. (which is why I use that method)
2. However, with very active agitation, as in Jobo at maximum speed, Pyrocat-HD does indeed oxidize. For this reason I recommend very slow rotation to minimize oxidation when developing film in Jobo processors.
3. Jobo — Rotation speed should be at the slowest setting available.

Not in that order in the article but highlighted- Link:
http://sandykingphotography.com/resources/technical-writing/pyro-staining-developers

I am not clear if you are using small tanks or rotary perhaps you could clarify as replies seem to assume one or the other which is leading to some confusion I think.

You should not be putting creative input into initial testing it is the route to disappointment, just sacrifice a roll or two, cut rolls in half to use different developing techniques, shooting a full roll on a standard scene with exposure brackets can be helpful.

 

[VesaL]

On agitation I will quote Sandy King:

1. Can be used with minimal agitation when processing roll film in tanks for very pronounced adjacency effects that can result in great apparent sharpness. (which is why I use that method)
2. However, with very active agitation, as in Jobo at maximum speed, Pyrocat-HD does indeed oxidize. For this reason I recommend very slow rotation to minimize oxidation when developing film in Jobo processors.
3. Jobo — Rotation speed should be at the slowest setting available.

Not in that order in the article but highlighted- Link:
http://sandykingphotography.com/resources/technical-writing/pyro-staining-developers

I am not clear if you are using small tanks or rotary perhaps you could clarify as replies seem to assume one or the other which is leading to some confusion I think.

You should not be putting creative input into initial testing it is the route to disappointment, just sacrifice a roll or two, cut rolls in half to use different developing techniques, shooting a full roll on a standard scene with exposure brackets can be helpful.

Indeed you´re right about not giving exacting development info. I´m using standard tank development for 120 roll film. 5 secs agitation every 1 minute was done making inversions by hand. I could simulate processor processing by floating the tank in water with same temperature as developer itself. Have to try this slow continous rotation, bit tedius to roll in continuosly by hand in waterbath and make sure that hands does not warm the water jacket (developer temperature) as well.

-Vesa

 

[Chris Livsey]

I´m using standard tank development for 120 roll film. 5 secs agitation every 1 minute was done making inversions by hand.
-Vesa

If you are using a tank then use the semi stand regime I outlined, greatly reduce your agitation and perhaps cut the time to 12 mins but as I say at 12/15 mins a minute or so is a small difference, which is why longer times are more forgiving of technique.

continuous agitation, inversions not a cocktail shaker, for 1st min then three inversions at 4,8 and 12 mins, for 15 mins in total, this is semi-stand.

With a "standard" exposed normal tonal range negative this will work, also bear in mind when looking at your negatives the staining means the strip does not look like a conventional developer due to the stain but will scan or print perfectly well, you can judge them by eye when you are used to them but at first it is disconcerting. How did you establish your "blown" highlights were so, by visual inspection or scan/print as that is really only the way you can come to a firm conclusion. (although I would expect with that agitation you have blown them)