Prescysol and the Zone System

Dave Miller said:

That's correct. I only use partial stand because I'm lazy. I have a motorbase for the orbital processor.

Click to expand...

Dave, does that mean that you haven't seen any difference in acutance using partial stand? Or perhaps high acutance is not something which you look for in your negs?

marktweedie said:

Dave, does that mean that you haven't seen any difference in acutance using partial stand? Or perhaps high acutance is not something which you look for in your negs?

Click to expand...

I think I can see an improvement in my negatives by using partial stand development, that and my stated aversion to acting like a cocktail waiter for 8 minutes encourages me towards that method of development. Another thought is that the smaller the print negative size ratio is, the less any such effects will be noticeable on the finished print.

I experimented with this when I tried my one batch of Prescysol and felt that the semi-stand method gave me the nicest results (easiest to print, too). There were noticeable edge effects and I also appreciated the ease of the method. Some of the principles aren't absolutely the same with tanning/staining developers vs non-staining but I find that after experimenting with many developers over the years, it seems that I inevitably end up at some point of moderated, gentle inversion, semi-stand scenario to get negatives that behave with my equipment and materials with less struggle. I try not to think of it as a rut I'm in but it seems I just don't have issues with uneven skies, etc after getting into this habit 20+ years back with roll films and D76 1:1 and FG7 1:15, my normal developers then.

marktweedie said:

Leon, you have nearly won me over to the idea of homebrew! When my batch of Prescysol is finished I will give it a go. I have looked at Silverprint for chemical prices but didn't manage to get to the 3p a shot figure. Where do you buy your raw materials?

Click to expand...

Hi Mark - I worked the 3p per film calculation based on silverprints raw chems prices and me using 600ml working strength developer for 2 x 120 rolls on one paterson type reel in my developing tank. I've started to only mix the part a in advance, I just add the correct amount of potasium carbonate to my working strength developer as I go - and, to get back on track for this thread, I add a little more to extend the tonal range a bit. this is all quite haphazard for me though, I'm not a densito. addict or anything.

marktweedie said:

I also notice on ebay,seller olympiceyewear has jewellers/medical weighing scales of various types available from the US for about half the cost of buying in the UK (inc P&P) . Can anyone vouch for their accuracy?

Click to expand...

There was recently a thread regarding scales for measuring chemicals and I found that the same type of scales were available in the UK at, what I thought, was a reasonable price. The scales were on the "Salter" web pages and the particular model carried the number 1250. They were diet scales and, if I remember correctly, went down to .01 of a gram and had a tare facility for zeroing the scales when adding chemicals cumulatively. I have a set of balance scales bought from Rayco some while ago but I think the digital system is much easier and quicker to use.

Leon said:

..to get back on track for this thread, I add a little more to extend the tonal range a bit. this is all quite haphazard for me though, I'm not a densito. addict or anything.

Click to expand...

Me neither! I just want good results which in my book is far more important than the science behind it all.

I have just developed my first neg with Prescysol and it has blown me away! I honestly don't think I have ever made such a gorgeous looking negative, and this was a fairly contrasty scene to boot with Christmas lights and light clothing plus some pretty deep shadow. I can't wait to print it!
The only thing which has surprised me is that the neg is not stained as much to the naked eye as I was expecting (using FP4+).

Next is to have a go at some N+ development with the altered proportions as you suggest....

marktweedie said:

Me neither! I just want good results which in my book is far more important than the science behind it all.

I have just developed my first neg with Prescysol and it has blown me away! I honestly don't think I have ever made such a gorgeous looking negative, and this was a fairly contrasty scene to boot with Christmas lights and light clothing plus some pretty deep shadow. I can't wait to print it!
The only thing which has surprised me is that the neg is not stained as much to the naked eye as I was expecting (using FP4+).

Next is to have a go at some N+ development with the altered proportions as you suggest....

Click to expand...

PRINT it, don't trust your eye (catechol) stain isn't easy to read by eye,
yet produces a great effect.

.

Blighty said:

I've seen Pete Hogans Prescysol developers and was quite interested in them. I've only ever used Barry Thornton's Dixactol and Exactol Lux developers. How do the Prescysol devs compare to these? My experience of Dixactol showed it to be very forgiving in terms of exposure (errors?) with very high acutance and useful edge effects. This was (IMO) at the expense of grain, which at 35mm was quite obtrusive, obviously less so in 120 format. One 'problem' I found with Dixactol was it produced a very long tonal scale and I needed to print hard to get a reasonable amount of 'snap' into my photo. This produced an unwelcome increase in apparent grain in the print. Anyway, to get back to my original point; how do they compare?

Click to expand...

Hi.

Firstly, being a user of Di-Xactol, you will Know that your development routine had to be an exact science. The developer was so open to contamination, it was unbelievable. New reel, syringes, measuring Jugs, tank etc,etc. I find that this is not the case with Prescysol and Prescysol EF. That's it's first plus point.
When I compare a Di-X neg to a Prescysol neg, I can see that the Di-X stains better, a lovely chocolate brown, but I would have to say that the Prescysol negs look far sharper, crisper being a better word, so I would have thought that it would give me a sharper print, but this was not the case. The Di-X neg prints, at least to the eye, a fantastically sharp photograph and although the Prescysol will also do the same, it comes a very, very close 2nd, but still superb. Now I'm crap with memory, but have read Barry's book, Edge of Darkness, and this leads on to your question about edge effects and grain. I'm no scientist and I do find it tough to get my head around the science of photography, but My understanding is that sharpness and grain go hand in hand. Again refering to Barry's book, he tests Kodak T-Max 3200,@ EI800 and develops it in the high acutance developer, Rodinal, Known for its sharp crisp, course grain. Though this produced a rather flat neg, mainly down to the content of the photograph, the sharp edge of the grain gave the brain something to focus on (his words), resulting in a sharp, even though grainy, photograph. This is probably why Prescysol falls just short of the sharpness (to the eye) of the Di-X. Because at the size that I print, 11 X 8 1/4, It is Grainless. I struggle to focus the neg sometimes, likening it to a C41 processed neg ( sorry the name escapes me and I can't be bothered to look it up)
The edge definition, in my opinion, isn't as predominant in the Prescysol photographs, but I think this is no bad thing as some times it was a bit too much with Di-X, causing a slight seperation between the edges that my eye seemed to go straight to. This wasn't always the case, only when the Di-X wanted to play games. When Di X was good, it was very, very good, but when it was bad, boy oh boy was it bad. I could never understand why it behaved badly sometimes, it just did.
And also one of the final good things about Prescysol, You don,t have to print that hard to get the 'Snap' as you called it. My negs print nicely @ grade 2 1/2 to grade 3. I usually start with my test strip/print at 3 and it usually stays there. And when you do go harder, in my experience, the grain seems to stay controlled and vertually non existant, if that makes sence (probably not).

One thing I should mention for users of Di-X. I had problems with reticulation on more than one occasion with 35mm Fuji Neopan 400. In a letter Barry described it as a flook of a combination of circumstances, or some accidental but unremarked-at-the-time processing glitch. Saying that these puzzles do happen from time to time. But about four times, Umm! Not sure about that one. He went on to advise me not to use Di-X on a 400 speed film in 35mm. Exactol Lux is the right developer to use for 35mm.
To sum up. I am a user of Peter's Prescysol EF because it gives me the fine grained, outstandingly sharp, easily printable negative that I desire. I arrive at this negative with confidence each and every time I develop and I can develop 99% of the film I use in it and end up with consistant results and compairable negatives when they beam down on to my masking frame, making my life easier. And that will do for me mate. Let someone else do the testing and at what I believe a small price, I can get on and do the using.

Just for info, I am using 120 Ilford Delta 100 and 400 and the odd roll of HP5 plus in Prescysol EF. Delta 400 in 35mm. I used to use the same films and developed in the Di-Xactol Ultra version. Both showing slightly finer grain than their predecessors. And I hasten to add that all of the above is from my own experience. As I said, I'm no scientist but am very meticulous with my developing procedure, which is forever improving. Purified water has always been used for development.
I hope this helps.

Regards

Stoo

P.S I had, and still have a huge respect for Barry Thornton, as I do for anyone who devotes their life to their art, and shares it like he did. Any problems and he was always there on the end of the line for you. He is sadly missed in our world.

Stoo, do you use partial stand or regular agitation? The former is supposed to give enhanced acutance. Also, have you have you seen much difference between regular Prescysol and EF?

Regards,

Mark

marktweedie said:

Stoo, do you use partial stand or regular agitation? The former is supposed to give enhanced acutance. Also, have you have you seen much difference between regular Prescysol and EF?

Regards,

Mark

Click to expand...

Mark, I always use the Partial stand method, with both the Di-X and the Prescysol. Apart from the enhanced acutance that it gives, though I'm not qualified to say that it actually offers this as I havn't used the normal agitation method, I like the standing time between agitations to keep an eye on temperatures, getting water ready etc. I find it a very relaxed way of working. The Prescysol EF is definately, in my opinion, doing what it says on the box, as they say. Giving 'Extra Fine' grain compared to its older brother, noticable mainly in skys, without loss of sharpness in the final print. In fact, I would say a sharper print, how that works, I don't Know but I'm sure someone else, Perhaps even Peter will tell you. The only thing that has changed since my Di-X days and now is my choice of paper, which is now Fibre, and that I no longer use an Alkali Fix as I find that the Ilford Rapid Fix that I use doesn't seem to strip the stain from the film like it did to the Di-X negs.

Regards

Stoo

Mark, the stain is not as evident as with some of the other staining developers. As df cardwell says the best test is to print it.
Stoo, thanks for two informative posts; adds a lot to the debate.

He went on to advise me not to use Di-X on a 400 speed film in 35mm. Exactol Lux is the right developer to use for 35mm.

Click to expand...

Stoo, thanks for your answer. Can't disagree with the above statement. Many thanks, Taxor

Prescysol Fix

I have also just started using Prescysol (semi stand as per instructions) and am very happy with the negs (printed a few of them on G2.5 with my condenser enlarger).
I have used the Alkali fix after spending some time reading the info on Peter's web site (and Edge of Darkness).

I was very interested to see that Stoo got good results with Prescysol and Ilford Rapid (acidic?) fixer. I've read the thread on fixers but would be interested in what what are others doing taht are also using Prescysol?

And while I am at it, are there alternative sources in the UK (apart from Retro - who's Alkali fix also seems quite expensive)?

I have used both Alkali and acid fixers with Prescysol, and have been unable to detect any difference in results, however, and in my case it’s a big however; I do judge results from a print rather than any scientific testing. Since the man recommends it, I use it. I have bought my alkali fixer from both monochromephotography.com and Retrophotographic. I haven’t seen anyone else advertising it. Since I generally only use it with film I don’t find the cost excessive.

Precysol

This all sounds too good to be true. Here's the question: how does it perform with VC papers? I have read and experienced that staining developers have problems with VC papers getting enough contrast. I have been using rodinal with stunning results.

Apart from a couple of recent prints that I have made on AGFA graded RC paper, all my work has been on variable contrast paper.

ronlamarsh said:

This all sounds too good to be true. Here's the question: how does it perform with VC papers? I have read and experienced that staining developers have problems with VC papers getting enough contrast. I have been using rodinal with stunning results.

Click to expand...

I Have no problems printing my pyrocat negs on VC papers at all - all my prints are made on VC papers and most settle on around g 2 1/2 to 3 - about right I reckon.

Regarding alkaline stop and fix - I have used this and notice no difference in my negs to acid fix - I use ilford rapid fix or Fotospeed odourless fixer becuase they are so much cheaper. Alkaline fix may make an actuall difference, but it's certainly not great enough to affect the outcome of my negs and prints.

Erwin said:

I was very interested to see that Stoo got good results with Prescysol and Ilford Rapid (acidic?) fixer.

Click to expand...

Erwin

I returned to the use of an acidic fixer purely by chance. Like many people who develop their own film, I like to get things right. The negative being the most important part of the process. Get that right and the rest is a breeze (yeh right)

When using Barry's Di-Xactol I always used his Archifix. Mainly for the same reason as you and Dave, because the maker recommended it. My negatives were spot on. Perfectly developed and spotlessly clean. Very rarely did I have to spot a print made from a Di-X neg. Then I started using Prescysol along with Peters Alkali-Fix. For the life of me I couldn't get a clean neg. Crud all over the place in huge lumps on the negs, Hours of spotting. So a process of elimination followed to find the cause of this. I ordered some Tabular Grain fix from the Photographers Formulary in the U.S. Yeh, youve guessed it, still the crud. Returned to normal fix, still the crud.

Any way, the reason I am boring you with this is, the one thing that came out of it is that I could see no difference in the Negs fixed in alkali than the ones fixed in Acid. And as Dave pointed out, its the final print that counts, and I can see no degradation in the highlight areas of the print, or for that matter, loss of detail in the shadow areas.

Interestingly, Barry and Peter Used/use an Alkali fix for the same reason but list the importance of use the other way round.

Barry first sings its praises for archival reasons, being that an alkali fix washes away far quicker than an acid fix therefore reducing wash times and eliminating the need of hypoclear. He then goes on to say, and I quote ' An Alkaline fix is believed by Some photographers to be less prone than Acid fixers to dissolve away image -bearing silver. Thus critical areas, such as the deepest shadow details in negatives and the most delicate highlights in prints are preserved' To me, the important three words in that quote is 'SOME PHOTOGRAPHERS BELIEVE'

Peter however, in his article in B&W magazine titled The importance of stop, fix, and wash' talks about the use of an Alkali fix mainly for the preservation of the loss of highlight detail, and then goes on to talk about the shorter wash times and the removal of the use of hypoclear.

I, like most, want my negs to last forever. I like most, want to make fine prints from my negatives. The most important thing to me is that I enjoy myself doing it along the way. The problem with me is that I read too much, and by doing that my head begins to spin.'Whats right, Whats wrong, he said this, yet he said that' And by doing this I tend to forget the important bit, and Dave has already mentioned it, the Final Print. As long as at the end of a printing session I end up with a print that shows good detail in the darkest shadow areas, and delicate detail in the highlights, then I'e got to be doing something right!

AND I'M HAVING FUN!............(I need to get out more)

Regards

Stoo

Stoo.I read and re-read your reply and want to be sure I have got things straight. In summary you had no problems with Di-Xactol and B Thornton's Archifix. Result was very clean negs. Then you went on to Prescysol and alkali fix and had problems with neg crud which continued when using Tabular grain fix( is this acid or alkali?) and when returning to normal fix( what's normal in terms of "makes" and is this acid or alkali?).

You go on to say that you could see no difference in negs using alkali or acid fix but you had just mentioned crud on the negs and spotting required?

Presumably you've gone back to acid fixer and all problems have disappeared?

I apologise if I have missed something which means that what you are saying to resolve the problems of crud is obvious but I am genuinely confused as to what the final solution to the problem is.

Is it simply that acid fixer with Prescysol gives clear, easy to work with negs and alkali fixer didn't?

I had given some thoughts to buying Prescysol based on yours and Dave Miller's replies but I am unsure as to how the is crud on negs problem was resolved. I use Ilford Rapid Fix at the moment.

I appreciate that the way I have written this begs the question of why I am not asking why make the change to Prescysol or at least not revert back to Di-Xactol but I did note that there were other reasons for the change to Prescysol and these made complete sense to me.
Thanks

Pentaxuser

Pentaxuser

My appologies to you or anyone else who I confused with my last post. I do go about things the long way round. I was trying to explain how I came back to using acid fix and why I have decided to continue with the use of it instead of alkali fixer. I'll put this in short paragraphs so, hopefully, it reads better.

I was a user of Di-Xactol Ultra, a developer made by the late Barry Thornton. Barry recommended the use of an Alkali fixer. So I used it. Everything was good!

Barry passed away so I was left without Di-Xactol and his Archifix, his own alkali fixer.

My Photography stood still for a while, and I didn't develop any negs. Mainly because Barrys web site said there would be a return of Di-Xactol, so I thought I would wait.

While waiting and watching Peter Hogans web site (the named future supplier of Di-X) I read about his developer, Prescysol. So I thought I would give it a go.

I used it at first with Ilford's rapid Fixer and got good clean Negs, no problems.

Peter then released his own Alkali fixer and I ordered some, even though the Ilford fix was giving me no cause for concern.

Now came the problem with the crud, for which I presumed WRONGLY was caused by Peters alkali fixer. At the time there was nothing else to blame.

I'll change fixer!

I was adamant that I would continue the use of an alkali fixer, for all the so called benefits that went with it, so I ordered the Tabular grain fixer that had a similar PH value to the alkali fixer I had used.

But it didnt solve the problem of the crud on the negs!

Why the crud? Why?

So now I was in a position where I didn't know what the cause of the crud was, because both of the fixers were resulting in crud on my negs.

Still WRONGLY blaming Alkali fixers, I reverted back to the old faithfull, Ilfords Rapid Fix, WRONLY thinking it would solve my problem of crud.

It didn't.

Then the reason dawned on me.

'DOH' I had changed my development routine!!!

I had started to store water in containers in my airing cupboard as this kept at 24 degrees, saving the problem of bringing water up to temperature.

Only, as I live in a hard water area, limescale built up in the containers and I was dumping it all over my Newly developed Negs!

The good thing that came out of it all was that now I had three sets of negatives developed in Prescysol and fixed in three different fixers, all of which I decided to print the odd frame from.

All the negatives look identical and all the prints looked good.

More importantly, I couldn't honestly point out any difference in the prints from all three sets of negs. Good shadow detail in the deepest shadow and no loss of detail in the most delicate highlight, on all of them.

So, I think to myself, why bother returning to an Alkali film fixer when the Ilfords Rapid fix does the job. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! And you can get Ilfords products of most photographic retailers shelves.(most)

I hope this is a little bit clearer for you now.

No tap water go's near my negs now!

If I'm still not making sense please let me know.

Regards

Stoo

P.S

I have two packets of Tabular Grain fixer, each making four litres of fix, going for free, if anyone of you guys is willing to pay the postage (first come first serve) 706 grams each.

Stoo

For about 18 months I've been using Prescysol fixed in bog standard Ilford Hypam and have had no problems at all. I wash using the 6 changes of water dump method as I have done for the past 20 years. Some years ago I had serious problems with crud and drying marks on my negatives and they disappeared when I started to put a splash of Isypropal (sp) Alchahol with fotoflo in my rinse water.

Stoo. Thanks for prompt reply. I would have sent this quicker but Match of The Day intervened. So, the stored tap water did it as they say in the Agatha Christie novels.

I live in a hard water area where limescale builds up on the outside of taps quite quickly and the cold tap is on a rising main even in my darkroom which is a converted bedroom. Any hot water mixed-in is from a tank in the loft which can be softened by a water softener bag hung in the tank.Mind you Dave Miller also lives in the same hard water area being only about 18 miles to the East as the crow flies and is supplied by the same water company, Anglian Water. The whole of Northamptonshire has a limescale problem as far as I am aware.

I take it that the key to your problem was "stored" water. As I have access to fresh running tap water in my darkroom, I presume that your problem would not arise.

As a matter of fact what do you use now to get over the issue as you have no access to running tap water?

Pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

As a matter of fact what do you use now to get over the issue as you have no access to running tap water?

Pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I'm using reverse osmosis water from my local Tropical fish center. He sells it at 15p a litre and I use about 10 ltrs a development session. its as good as purified.

I'm saving up now to get a unit fitted under the sink. About £290 fitted. It will pay for itself in about a year (Britta filters,bottled water etc)

Stoo

Pentaxuser, Northamptonshire water hard? I thought it quite soft, but then I moved here from south of the Thames where they don’t have to put cement in the water to build houses. In the summer I collect water from my darkroom a/c and use that after filtering. Recently I have brought some by adding it to paper/chemical orders from Retrophotographic. I think I’ve said before that I only use distilled for mixing stock solutions, and the final film rinse, so a little goes a long way.