Pyro Stain bane

[sanking]

Thanks for this. This is consistent with my experience as I've noticed that the more careful I've been in thoroughly washing the base side down, the more consistent my overall stain. I've worked with the EDTA but did not like the results as much as straight pmk - reduced edge effects and a slightly more compressed neg. to my eyes. If flow over the base side of the neg. with staining developers is this critical why recommend using a jobo at all? The easiest path to clean pyro negatives for me has always been inversion with a full-to-the-brim combi-plan or patterson tank.

That is an interesting comment about adding EDTA to PMK. I would have assumed some difference in result but would not have anticipated reduced edge effects.

Good question about why Jobo at all, but not one I can address because I have never owned a Jobo. I personally prefer development methods that allow the use of minimal agitation because this seems to favor greater acutance.

Sandy King

 

[Tom Kershaw]

That is an interesting comment about adding EDTA to PMK. I would have assumed some difference in result but would not have anticipated reduced edge effects.

Good question about why Jobo at all, but not one I can address because I have never owned a Jobo. I personally prefer development methods that allow the use of minimal agitation because this seems to favor greater acutance.

Sandy King

Sandy,

I had thought you were an advocate of rotary processing?

Tom

 

[sanking]

Sandy,

I had thought you were an advocate of rotary processing?

Tom

Tom,

There are many good things about rotary processing in tubes or drums. It is economical (not much developer is needed), consistent, and gives very even development over the entire film. I use rotary processing (in BTZS type tubes) for film testing because it gives such even results, and I use rotary processing for developing ULF sheet film for convenience reasons (takes up much less space than tray processing).

That said, development procedures that use minimal agitation schemes (stand, semi-stand, agitation every two or three minutes) will often give more acutance than rotary processing. So in most cases I develop medium format and LF up to 5X7 in tanks or full tubes with minimal agitation.

Sandy King

 

[frotog]

Yes, the benefits of stand and semi-stand are good reasons not to use the jobo but beyond acutance it should be reiterated that the biggest problem with rotary processing is and always will be increased oxidation. Sure, there are all sorts of ways to deal with this, many of which have been touched on in this thread and I suppose they are "good enough". But the only way to totally eliminate the problems associated with the higher levels of oxidation is with a nitrogen gas blanket. Now that I use this technique with both staining developers and c41 I've come to regard the nitrogen tank and regulator as the component of rotary processing that Jobo forgot to include in their kit. In fact, nitrogen gas is a necessary component to bring the c41 development process in control to Kodak professional specs. Anyone who tells you otherwise has not done the control strips and the sensitometry.

 

[Jarvman]

Out of curiosity is it possible to eliminate pyro stain following processing/drying with a bath of sulfite?

 

[Jim Graves]

Bob ... thanks for the link ... great website.

This forum is insufficient to cover all of the aspects of the various pyro formulas. However, you may be interested in visiting the “Writings” page of my web site – www.bobherbst.com. Since the 2nd edition of Dick Arentz’s book, Platinum & Palladium Printing, is now out of print, I have posted the appendix on pyro developers which I wrote for the book. Little has changed since it was published. You will also find the formula for a modified version of John Wimberley’s original WD2D pyro formula which I have used for 22 years with great success. John’s new formula, WD2D+ is an update to his original formula, and John recently published the formula in an article in View Camera magazine.

Good Luck!

Bob Herbst

 

[guerillary]

I've been processing 120 rolls of T-Max and Acros 100 (rated at 50asa) in my Jobo on a weekly basis for nearly a year with consistent results. Light orange-tan stain, even development (tested on my uv x-rite); with more latitude, acutance and less apparent grain than TMax and T-MaxRS. I'm even getting anticipated results when pushing up to two stops on both stocks.

The key to WD2D+ and Jobo is you must use the CPP2 model - so you can set the rotation speed to the slowest "F" position and maintain accurate temperature; which you can't on the CPA models. You also need to add about 20% more volume than what Jobo reccommends for the tank, use distilled water and never load more than one roll per reel.

This advice will guarantee you tack sharp, wide-latitude and even WD2D+ T-Max & Acros 120 processes. I'm guessing all those frustrated rotary pyro roll developers out there are such because they're using too-little fluid, too fast a rotation, non-distilled water, that crap CPA thermo or all the above. How do I know? Been there, done that ;-).

Specifically, my whole process is: shoot 6x7 120 Acros or T-Max 100 (rated 50), process Jobo CPP2 at "F" position with about 20% more than reccommended volume with only one roll per reel (2min water wash, 9min base dev time at 20C, 30s odorless stop, 5min non-hardening odorless fix, 5 wash cycles over 10min and 1min Photo Flo. I use the mftg recco working solutions and distilled water throughout. I've done this many times at normal, n+1, n+1.5 and n+2.

Once processed; I scan 4000 dpi on Nikon 9000ED fluid mount via VueScan, edit Photoshop and print Epson 3800 to Harman FBAI Gloss Warmtone or Matte. I'm now switching my print process over to enlarged acetate negatives from the Epson 3800 for platinum contact prints via plate burner.