Prescysol and Pyrocat-HD, actually the same -- any conclusions?

[Tom Hoskinson]

I use prescysol-ef on 120. It produces negatives which I can print from, so I'm guessing it works. (There is more visible stain than prescysol too it seems to me btw)


Best,

Will

The amount of stain is difficult to evaluate without a densitometer. However, if there is more stain it can cause an apparent grain reduction effect. As Sandy King said: more stain, and thus more grain masking.

Will, have you seen any differences in image acutance, prescysol versus prescysol -ef?

 

[Will S]

Will, have you seen any differences in image acutance, prescysol versus prescysol -ef?

I couldn't really say. They look sharp to me. Sharper? I'm not sure, and I don't have the equipment to tell beyond what I can see under the enlarger.

Sorry,

Will

 

[sanking]

Lotus,

love the avatar I will be voting for the Kinkster myownself. WRT to prescysol and Prescysol-EF I cant say what the difference is. Don Miller thinks regular Prescysol uses Sodium Carbonate for part B and EF probably uses pot carbonate. I dont think it makes a dimes worth of difference what format you use with either formula. I suspect it it hype. Can't prove it but that is what I suspect.

lee\c

Lee,

So are you throwing your vote away because the othe candidates are not acceptable, or does Kinky really have a chance to win?

I have seen Kinky on several talk shows, and gotta say, if I lived in Texas I would vote for him.

Sandy

 

[lee]

Sandy,

I wish Kinky was somewhat more left leaning. He is really a Libertarian, I believe. However, as you say, maybe I am throwing away my vote (none of the regular 2 party candidates make me salivate) but maybe he does have a chance. It could certainly send a message if he commanded a decent showing. This is after all the prototypical Red State.

lee\c

 

[Dave Miller]

Is Kinky another staining developer?

 

[Lotus M50]

I've heard it said that if everyone who could vote in Texas, voted, Kinky would win. The sad part is that too many people don't vote. He's sensible and reasonable and cuts through the party ideologues. He's got personality, wit, and character, unlike the cardboard cut-out Texas has for a governor now. So if you live in Texas, get out there and vote.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program...

 

[davekarp]

Is Kinky another staining developer?

I hope not. That would be too likely to engender confrontation, controversy, and anxiety regarding key hot button issues in today's polarized society.

 

[Lotus M50]

Regarding the difference between Prescysol and Prescysol-EF, I got the following response from Peter Hogan (who created the developers):

"'EF' will give you much finer grain, at the expense of a very little stain. Everything else is as standard Prescysol. 'EF' was formulated for 35mm negs when big enlargements are to be made (16 x 12 or greater) Neither developers will streak, bearing in mind that we recommend distilled or de-ionized water because of the vagaries of tap-water. Many people now use 'EF' as their standard developer."

So contrary to speculation, the finer grain is not due to more stain masking grain, but rather comes from a change that also results in somewhat less stain.

 

[photomc]

Sandy,

I wish Kinky was somewhat more left leaning. He is really a Libertarian, I believe. However, as you say, maybe I am throwing away my vote (none of the regular 2 party candidates make me salivate) but maybe he does have a chance. It could certainly send a message if he commanded a decent showing. This is after all the prototypical Red State.

lee\c

Would agreee with that assement lee...and after all, I'm closer to a libertarian than anything else these day (at least been called one more than once). There are quite a few Repub's I know that stayed out of the primaries just so they could throw there votes behind Kinky in the general election...not a poll so to speak, but think he has as good a chance as any other candidate.

That concludes what must be the most I have ever said about politics...

 

[lee]

Regarding the difference between Prescysol and Prescysol-EF, I got the following response from Peter Hogan (who created the developers):

So contrary to speculation, the finer grain is not due to more stain masking grain, but rather comes from a change that also results in somewhat less stain.

I dont know. This may be more marketing hype than any thing. I am suspicious after seeing with my own eyes Pyrocat and Prescysol EF. In any regard if you choose to use Mr Hogans product the best of luck to you.


lee\c

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I hear you Lee, and thank you for your comments!

 

[Lotus M50]

I dont know. This may be more marketing hype than any thing. I am suspicious after seeing with my own eyes Pyrocat and Prescysol EF. In any regard if you choose to use Mr Hogans product the best of luck to you.

Well, I figure they only way to really know and cut through the hype is to try some. I've ordered some Prescysol-EF and will be comparing it to WD2D+ (since I've used it in the past) and Pyrocat-HD. It will probably take UPS a week to get it to me. I'll report back with any results and findings.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I suggest comparing Prescysol-EF against the same film, subject, lighting, etc. developed in D-76 (undiluted).

 

[sanking]

I suggest comparing Prescysol-EF against the same film, subject, lighting, etc. developed in D-76 (undiluted).

I agree with Tom. D76 is the standard to which all new developers should be compared. D76 has been around a very long time, is great general purpose developer, and has good speed and grain. The logical place to start with an unknown formula, if a comparison must be made, is to first compare to D76. This will give everyone an immediate object of reference.

Those interested might look at a few of the standards suggested by Anchell and Troop in The Film Devleoping Cookbook.

Sandy

 

[Lotus M50]

I suggest comparing Prescysol-EF against the same film, subject, lighting, etc. developed in D-76 (undiluted).

I agree with Tom. D76 is the standard to which all new developers should be compared. D76 has been around a very long time, is great general purpose developer, and has good speed and grain. The logical place to start with an unknown formula, if a comparison must be made, is to first compare to D76. This will give everyone an immediate object of reference.

Those interested might look at a few of the standards suggested by Anchell and Troop in The Film Devleoping Cookbook.

Probably so. But I don't have D-76, and don't use D-76. I agree that is might be useful for everyone to compare Prescysol-EF with D-76 as it is a well known standard. But if I will never use D-76 what good is it to me? I need to see if I prefer it to the developers that I use for the film that I use (which for me, are already superior to D-76). I'm sorry to say to prospect of going out and buying some D-76, mixing it up, processing another roll or two of film, and letting the rest of the mixed D-76 go to waste for what is little more than an academic exersize to me, is not that appealing. My impressions of this developer in comparision to the other 2 or 3 developers I might use may not be totally scientific, but it will be helpful to me to see if this new developer is, 1) something I might want to use again and instead of my current developers, and, 2) to the extent I can judge and in the narrow situations that I use it in, whether it lives up to its claims. If I find something interesting or something that might be useful to post from this less-than-scientific comparision, I will share it. I really appreciate all your input. It's been really helpful.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I only use D-76 for comparitive testing (i.e., to establish a repeatable baseline for a film). A 1 gallon size package of dry Kodak D-76 is cheap. I break up the gallon of mixed developer into fully filled 8 ounce brown glass Boston Round bottles. I then use the developer as a one-shot and dump it.

 

[sanking]

Probably so. But I don't have D-76, and don't use D-76. I agree that is might be useful for everyone to compare Prescysol-EF with D-76 as it is a well known standard.

Well, I am pretty interested in how Prescysol-EF compares to other staining developers so am going to include it in the study of pyro versus non-staining developers that I will be doning with TH and KK. And D76 will definitely be one of the non-staining comparison developers.

The tests won't telll exactly what is in the developer, but with densitometer readings in various modes, they will tell a lot.

Sandy King

 

[gainer]

Probably so. But I don't have D-76, and don't use D-76. I agree that is might be useful for everyone to compare Prescysol-EF with D-76 as it is a well known standard. But if I will never use D-76 what good is it to me? I need to see if I prefer it to the developers that I use for the film that I use (which for me, are already superior to D-76). I'm sorry to say to prospect of going out and buying some D-76, mixing it up, processing another roll or two of film, and letting the rest of the mixed D-76 go to waste for what is little more than an academic exersize to me, is not that appealing. My impressions of this developer in comparision to the other 2 or 3 developers I might use may not be totally scientific, but it will be helpful to me to see if this new developer is, 1) something I might want to use again and instead of my current developers, and, 2) to the extent I can judge and in the narrow situations that I use it in, whether it lives up to its claims. If I find something interesting or something that might be useful to post from this less-than-scientific comparision, I will share it. I really appreciate all your input. It's been really helpful.

On the other hand, if you do not try D-76, how will you know that you would not prefer it? I don't know if you have any bulk chemicals, but you have or can obtain a small amount of metol and hydroquinone, the borax can easily be obtained from the supermarket, and if you don't have sodium sulfite on hand, you should. My first D-76 was 1/2 tsp metol, 1 1/2 tsp hydroquinone, 4 tbs sodium sulfite and 1/2 tsp 20 Mule Team borax in a quart of water.

It sounds like your are saying "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." What would you do if you found that D-76 or Pyrocat MC or any of a number of others turned out to be the best?

In case you wonder, I am a retired AeroSpace Engineer. The experimental method is quite important to our trade.

 

[Lotus M50]

On the other hand, if you do not try D-76, how will you know that you would not prefer it? I don't know if you have any bulk chemicals

I tried D76 a while ago, so I do know that I do not prefer it compared to others. Like most others, I probably started doing B&W development with D76. I don't have bulk chemicals. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or volume of work to make them worthwhile. I'm sure they would be interesting to play, er, I mean experiment, with. ;-)

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I tried D76 a while ago, so I do know that I do not prefer it compared to others. Like most others, I probably started doing B&W development with D76. I don't have bulk chemicals. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or volume of work to make them worthwhile. I'm sure they would be interesting to play, er, I mean experiment, with. ;-)

IMHO if you desire to make a meaningful repeatable evaluation of a film's performance in a developer, you need to first establish a baseline with a well known and well tested developer that is widely available.

 

[Lotus M50]

IMHO if you desire to make a meaningful repeatable evaluation of a film's performance in a developer

That's just it, I don't and don't need to. All I need to do is compare it to what I currently use. My "baseline" is what I currently use. If I like it better or think it performs better than by baseline, then I will use it. I have already determined that for me my "baseline" is better than D76. So for my purposes, why should I even care about D76? The result of my comparision wil be meaningful enough for me and doing more runs in D76 (and all the time, effort and expense that it entails), will not change whether I find if I like Prescysol-EF better than my current developers. I do recognize, however, that might not be competely useful to anyone else.

 

[gainer]

Whatever suits you just tickles the heck out of me. Just be sure that if you recommend it to someone else be to sure to tell how thouroughly you tested it.

 

[Lotus M50]

Whatever suits you just tickles the heck out of me. Just be sure that if you recommend it to someone else be to sure to tell how thouroughly you tested it.

Hey, I'm not in recommendation game. I don't need to be and don't really want to be. At best, I'll just say what I use and what I like and why -- just my subjective preference based on what I see.

 

[Monday317]

Late to the party, but--

Hey, I'm not in recommendation game. I don't need to be and don't really want to be. At best, I'll just say what I use and what I like and why -- just my subjective preference based on what I see.

I have to stand with Lotus on this line of thought. This photographer is telling us that a baseline has been established for his/her needs and they don't pretend to be Consumer Reports, thus having no need to go to the time and expense of establishing a baseline on D-76 for everyone else.

I would imagine most experienced darkroom workers have used D-76 and have some idea of what can be expected from it already. I myself left it behind in the 1980s and can see the differences on scans here and elsewhere online. Prescysol is getting me far closer to the Josef Sudek-esque tonalities I've been seeking here of late.

Let's give ol' Lotus a pass here, at least until we see the Lotus50TestingLabs.com site pop up. Then we can grill 'im/'er!

 

[pentaxuser]

Let's give ol' Lotus a pass here, at least until we see the Lotus50TestingLabs.com site pop up. Then we can grill 'im/'er!

I think that Lotus gave APUG a pass instead. It looks like he hasn't posted since Feb 2008. Funny how threads suddenly come to an end for no obvious reason and then years later are resurrected

pentaxuser