Pyrocat? A good Developer to start with?

Bobby Brewster

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2024
Messages
45
Location
Kent
Format
Hybrid
Hi all,

I've not processed films for decades so returning is an adventure. I'm getting ready to develop three rolls of HP5 and wondering which developer to pick. I'm not asking which is "best" or anything but I am looking for an inexpensive, reliable one that has good shelf life and will do a pretty good job with the film I've used. I'm asking this now because I feel like I should pick one and stick with it so I get a grasp of the basics and my technique. I'm not looking to emulate Ansel and I'm not precious about microscopic differences between develpors; I just want one that fits the bill for me.

With all of this in mind I was about to go for ID11 or Ilfotec HC due to it's shelf life but then I heard about the existence of Diafine and Pyrocat, the latter apparently more readily available, which suggest economy and enormous margins for error. Would it be worth going with them? Would this give me a good basic starting point and allow me to have an inexpensive and consistently reliable results? Am I talking rubbish?

All advice welcome. Thank you
 

albireo

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,453
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
@koraks - I had read that pyrogallol is extremely toxic/environmentally problematic. Is it true?
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,715
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
albireo said:
@koraks - I had read that pyrogallol is extremely toxic/environmentally problematic. Is it true?
Click to expand...

Let's first get a detail out of the way: pyrocat is not based on pyrogallol, but on pyrocatechol. That's a different compound, and the latter is apparently less toxic in the sense that pyrocatechol lacks the suspicion of genotoxiticy that pyrogallol is associated with. Having said that, they are both toxic and potential irritants, and harmful to the environment. The same is true for other common developing agents, however, such as hydroquinone (which is chemically very similar to pyrocatechol), metol and phenidone.

It's best to reduce or avoid altogether skin contact with developing agents, including pyrocatechol and especially pyrogallol. The primary reason for this is the issue of skin-sensitization, which is a cumulative effect. Evidently, ingestion of any of these substances should be avoided. This also goes for getting the stuff in your system through other means (via mucous membranes, licking contaminated fingers etc.)

When DIY mixing developers, it's particularly important to void kicking up any dust. Pyrocatechol is generally less problematic in this sense because it usually comes in the form of flakes that don't generate appreciable amounts of dust to begin with. Pyrocatechol tends to come as a finely divided powder, and as such is more risky. For typical DIY purposes, it's perfectly feasible to work safely with the dry chemicals in small quantities (up to a few hundred grams or so) if sensible precautions are taken (ensure proper ventilation, but avoid strong airflow, clean work surfaces and utensils, don't work with this stuff where food is being prepared, wear reasonable safety gear such as nitrile gloves and possibly a face mask, etc.)

For working with ready-made developers (e.g. pyrocat bought as a liquid concentrate), no particular safety concerns exist that go beyond those that apply to working with D76, Dektol and other common developers. In all cases, avoid direct skin contact, don't get the stuff in your mouth, eyes, nose etc, don't swallow it, keep it away from kids and pets, etc.

As to environmental harm, zero exposure is again best, and again, this also goes for other developing substances. At the same time, I cannot see how discarding spent developer in typical home darkroom use quantities into a sewer that is connected to a typical Western sewage treatment plant will pose an appreciable risk to the environment. Of course, if you feel uneasy about this (which I can well imagine), collect spent developer (and especially fixer) and dispose of it at a suitable facility where it's (hopefully) dealt with responsibly. Best practice from an environmental perspective would of course to avoid chemical photography altogether, but given that our human existence in a modern world is inherently at conflict with environmental considerations, my suggestion would be to compromise in a way you can explain to yourself and others. For me, this means I have no qualms chucking a few ml. of pyrocat concentrate (it's used highly dilute, after all) down the drain once every while - just as I clean our toilets with stuff that's explicitly listed as being harmful to aquatic life.

As you can see, there's no hard & fast answer, and any attempt at such would ignore the inherent nuances, compromises etc. associated with this seemingly simple question.

If I were to be pressed to give a short answer, it would be "yes, pyro is toxic, but you can still work with it safely."
 

gary mulder

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
185
Format
4x5 Format
Some people, especially woodworkers like me, develop allergic reactions to pyrocatechol. But other people are allergic to peanuts not that they are very toxic. If you are not feeling well after contact with the stuff keep that in mind.
 

jim appleyard

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
2,413
Format
Multi Format
Pyrocat is a fine developer, but it may have a different look to it than what you did years ago; just something to get used to.

When you speak of readily available, Pyrocat is a home brew or sold by Photo Formulary. You can't just walk into any old camera shop and spot it on the shelf, but you can find ID-11 in more places; something to consider.
 

albireo

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,453
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format

Thank you for this and sorry for the confusion between Pyrogallol and Pyrocatechol.
 

GregY

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
3,520
Location
Alberta
Format
Large Format

Though the 50 litre kit from the Formulary comes in two small bottles and lasts the average user a year or more. It's not a big deal to order more when you feel the bottles getting lighter.
 

GregY

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
3,520
Location
Alberta
Format
Large Format

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,126
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser
Advertiser
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
4,252
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
Format
Multi Format
I'll make a dissenting recommendation for your initial choice of Ilford ID-11 (AKA Kodak D-76).

If you are just (re)starting out it is best to keep things as simple as possible. D-76 style developers are probably the most reliable developers around. I use it 1:1 and discard after use. You can buy the developer at any high street photography shop. Follow the Kodak or Ilford instructions and whatever goes on with your negatives won't be due to the developer; that's sort of nice to know.

Many swear by pyro developers, many swear at pyro developers. They tend to be finicky and results aren't always repeatable. That said, if you had to pick one, pyrocat is probably the best choice.
 
Last edited:

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,133
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
I concur with Nicholas on this.
 

GregY

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
3,520
Location
Alberta
Format
Large Format

Having used PMK and now Pyrocat for decades with no issues whatsoever from 35mm to 8x10 and on Agfapan 25, FP4+ TMY2 and others....I suggest that Pyrocat is economical (1:1:100), and reliable. As far as buying at any "high street" photoshop, developer isn't something that you suddenly run out of.....like milk or bread.
Bobby B, If you're interested...give it a try......you may find you like how easy the highlights are to print.....
 
Last edited:

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,283
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
Andrew O'Neill said:
Really?? I get a bit over a year. How are you storing it?
Click to expand...

I didn't deliberately try to make it last 4 years, but while I was living abroad my bottle in the UK had little use on trips home. I store in old plastic Rodinal or Ilford developer bottles, and these were not full, as I was using developer. When we came back to the UK to look after my mother, it was the same with the Pyrocat HD I had left in Turkey.

The key is the Metabisulphite needs to be reasonably fresh. I noticed this 12 years ago, I began using Pyrocat HD 2004. As long as there's enough free SO2 in solution, the Pyrocatechin won't oxidise. These days I always add 50% extra Metabisulphite when mixing, this has zero effect on activity but ensures greater longevity.

Ian
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,283
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
Nicholas Lindan said:
I'll make a dissenting recommendation for your initial choice of Ilford ID-11 (AKA Kodak D-76).
Click to expand...

D76/ID-11 was made by many other companies for around 30 years, along with replenishers. These days I would recommend Xtol replenished over ID-11/D76, I used it commercially and for some of my personal work for quite a few years.

Ian
 

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser
Advertiser
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
4,252
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
Format
Multi Format
Ian Grant said:
... These days I would recommend Xtol replenished ...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I got burned by Xtol's "sudden death" syndrome. The claim is that this has been fixed, but once burned ...

I don't know that I would recommend replenishment for someone starting out. There is not enough advantage for the average amateur unless they are going through a lot of film.

D-76 doesn't seem to care about water quality. Foetid swamp water would likely work fine (though I confess I haven't tried this).

I use D-76 1:1 one-shot. I just don't do enough volume to justify any other way. I found pouring used developer back into the stock bottle speeds up the aging of the stock. I sometimes pause for a month or more and so having fresh stock is nice. I also mix from scratch, making only 1l at a time - but that's enough for 8 rolls.

Different strokes for different folks. I can only recommend what has been successful for me. I often project my use patterns on other folks, so there is that.
 

chuckroast

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
2,497
Location
All Over The Place
Format
Multi Format

I routinely use Pyrocat-HD, D-23, D-76, and HC-110. I also occasionally use DK-50 and PMK Pyro.

If you're shooting 35mm, I don't think you can beat D-76 1:1 for everyday use.

That said, Pyrocat-HD also works well for some films. For example, Tri-X likes it but Double X seems to hate it.

For larger formats, any of the above will work fine, with D-23 helpful especially when you need to compensate highlights.

If I had to pick one to jump back into the film processing world, it would be D-76/ID-11 1:1. This is a proven, fine grained developer that delivers predictable and sharp negatives.

As noted upthread, all developers have the potential to cause skin irritation or outright allergies. When mixing, ether from scratch or manufacturer prepackaging, take care to have breathing protection, positive ventilation, and nitrile gloves, and pour the chemistry very close to the water so it has minimal opportunity to dust up.

I also recommend mixing with distilled water and storing stock developer in smaller glass bottles. For example, if I mix 1 gal of D-76, it goes into 4 separate 1 litre bottles for storage. This helps preserve the developer in ways most plastic will not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…