Pyrocat HD and TMAX 100: Bad combo?

Claire Senft said:

If I had to make a guess I would think that you had not placed your shadows correctly but had correctly placed your high values.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, the high values aren't quite as good as I make them sound, but they are fairly dense. More so than I would expect for an overall under exposed negative. The negatives of normal scenes have very high contrast, so you're right that it sounds like underexposure and over development, except for the fact that the frame numbers are gone. Over development would not make the frame numbers go away and they have nothing to do with how I expose the film.

Here is precisely what I am doing.

I made exposures of a large plain white card a couple feet away with the camera set to infinity focus. Camera and card were both on tripods. The card completely filled the frame. The meter reading at ISO 100 was 1/500 @ f2.8 (zone V equivalent). The camera meter agreed with my Sekonic spot meter reading. The camera is a Nikon F100 with a Sigma 28-70 mm f2.8 Zoom set at 70mm.

The first six exposures are as follows:

1. Cap on (Zone 0 reference)
2. 1/500 @ f11 (Zone I for ISO 100 film)
3. 1/500 @ f10 (Zone I for ISO 80 film)
4. 1/500 @ f9 (Zone I for ISO 64 film)
5. 1/500 @ f8 (Zone I for ISO 50 film)
6. 1/500 @ f7.1 (Zone I for ISO 40 film)

Reseting the meter to 1/2 sec, the reading was now f45. Five more exposures were made.

7. 1/2 @ f11 (Zone IX for ISO 100 film)
8. 1/2 @ f10 (Zone IX for ISO 80 film)
9. 1/2 @ f9 (Zone IX for ISO 64 film)
10. 1/2 @ f8 (Zone IX for ISO 50 film)
11. 1/2 @ f7.1 (Zone IX for ISO 40 film)

Frames 12 and 13 were just of an ordinary outdoor scene (my shed) taken using the camera's built in metering.

The results for the TMX100 were that there was no hint of exposure on any of the zone I frames, slightly low density in frames 7-11, and no shadow detail on frames 12 and 13. And, of course, no frame numbers. Frames 12 and 13 were very high contrast and actually had reasonable density in the highlights, but probably not as good as it should be. I shot a second roll of TMAX 100 the next day with all new (but very similar) meter readings and got the same results.

Results with TMAX 400 and Pan F+ developed in Pyrocat HD showed detectable density in all of the zone I frames, slightly more density in the highlights, and excellent shadow detail in frames 12 and 13. Admittedly, Pan F exhibits more contrast that TMAX 400, but is still quite good. The same was true of the TMAX 100 film when developed in Xtol. 1:1 All these cases had visible frame numbers on the film. All the film is coming from bulk rolls.

I'm baffled.

I have some new sheet films to try out and plan to use the Pyrocat for those, but I will stay away from the TMAX 100/Pyrocat combination until I can get a handle on what's happening. It could be that my chemicals, tank, or containers are contaminated in some way that affects the pyrocat and TMAX 100 is just especially sensitive to it.

-Dave

Perhaps dump tmax 100 and try acros instead.

This really sounds contradictory to me as well. Since you mention that you do not have a densitometer, I wonder if your visual inspection is up to the task at hand. .10 density (above fb+fog) is not a lot of density upon initial inspection.

If you want to know for sure, I would be happy to read the transmission densities on the tests that you have done. PM me if this would be helpful.

Donald Miller said:

This really sounds contradictory to me as well. Since you mention that you do not have a densitometer, I wonder if your visual inspection is up to the task at hand. .10 density (above fb+fog) is not a lot of density upon initial inspection.

Click to expand...

I've been using the recommendations by Barry Thornton to determine the minimum density that prints just perceptably above black using a "normal" contrast gade paper. In my case that would be an Ilford 2.5 filter on their MG IV paper. Following his procedure, I can make a print that shows almost any density above the unexposed part of the negative. But, in terms of inspecting the negatives, I'd be happy to see any density at all. In other words, if there were any apparent differentiation that allowed me to identify the edge of the frame against the film base, I would count that as a step above FB+Fog. I'm not getting that on any of the zone I frames with TMAX 100 developed in pyrocat whereas I am getting it for all five frames using Xtol as well as when I use pyrocat on TMAX 400 or Pan F+.

I'm not talking about a slight difference between TMAX 100 and the other films. TMAX 100/Pyrocat is not even in the ball park whereas the others are great. But I appreciate the offer to take the time to measure the negatives.

-Dave

Perhaps your spread of exposures / test ISO's is not wide enough, it's generally accepted that Tmax 100 is best rated at at about 50 ISO in fact from its pre release testing by John Sexton and Kodak's first Technical data sheet there has been a referance to using 50 ISO as the starting point if you were looking to make images with a long tonal range.

The actual film ISO that you eventually use is personal as it depends not only on the films inherant speed but also on the equipment your using, maybe your lightmeters half a stop out, or your shutter speeds are slow, all these influence your film speed tests.

Perhaps you should have put the 50 ISO exposures in the middle of your range. I've been shooting Tmax 5x4 since it was first released with great results in Rodinal, then Xtol and now Pyrocat HD, but always at 50 ISO.

Ian

I mean not to be picky. I mean to be helpful. In Mr. Grant's posting above, as far as paragraph 2 and 3 are concerned "ISO" should be replaced with "EI" since ISO is based upon pre-established and agreed to methods by manufacturers and EI is the speed assigned by the woking photographer to suit both the photographer's preferences and working method.

Dave I have just noticed that on a previous thread you were saying that with Xtol the frame numbers were very faint and now with Pyrocat they are non existent. I haven't got a solution but maybe others more knowledgeable will be able to offer other reasons based on the common areas of the two threads.

It seems to me that there has to be a linkage which may offer an explanation.

Of course the others responding may know about the similar problem with Xtol and frame numbers but I thought I'd throw it in.

There's nothing worse than not getting to the bottom of an issue. It leaves you feeling uncertain about it happening again and destroys confidence. At least it does mine whenever it has happened to me.

pentaxuser

Claire Senft said:

I mean not to be picky. I mean to be helpful. In Mr. Grant's posting above, as far as paragraph 2 and 3 are concerned "ISO" should be replaced with "EI" since ISO is based upon pre-established and agreed to methods by manufacturers and EI is the speed assigned by the woking photographer to suit both the photographer's preferences and working method.

Click to expand...

Quite right I should have said "EI" but the original poster uses ISO so I hadn't wanted to add confusion

Ian

Ian Grant said:

Quite right I should have said "EI" but the original poster uses ISO so I hadn't wanted to add confusion

Ian

Click to expand...

Indeed. And I appreciate it. I was thinking in terms of personal film speed, so I should have been referring to EI.

-Dave

pentaxuser said:

Dave I have just noticed that on a previous thread you were saying that with Xtol the frame numbers were very faint and now with Pyrocat they are non existent.

Click to expand...

True. This film testing is all one related topc for me. But in the thread you're referring to, I was developing the film for 20% less time than the manufacturer recommended which was suggested by the author (Barry Thornton) of the film testing procedure I was following.

I exposed rolls of TMAX 100, TMAX 400, and Pan F+ as described above and got results that were clearly under developed. TMAX 100 was the worst in that the 20% under development seemed to equate to about N-2 whereas the other two films seemed to be about N-1. It was, however, not as bad as I'm getting with the pyrocat and, when I used the manufacturer's developing recommendations, the TMAX 100 performed at EI 100.

Having said that, I was browsing the web and found a website that makes a comment about TMAX 100 being implicated in early complaints about the reliability of Xtol developer.

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol/ (See "Xtol's Controversial Start")

That could just be a statistical coincidence if a lot of people just happen to use TMAX 100 who also use Xtol.

-Dave

Pyrocat MC gone bad

I shot another strip of TMAX 100 to process it in Pyrocat-MC and when I started to mix the working solution I noticed that part A was pretty dark and when I mixed the two parts together in the water, it turned purple like described here:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I developed the film anyway and got results similar to what I was getting with the HD, though not quite as underexposed. I developed the film for 14 minutes instead of the 15 minute time I used with the HD. Again, I used distilled water for both.

In any case, it's clear that I have something going on here that has at least affected the MC and very probably the HD as well.

-Dave

Dave Krueger said:

Indeed. And I appreciate it. I was thinking in terms of personal film speed, so I should have been referring to EI.

-Dave

Click to expand...

In a pedantic world yes, but that doesn't address your problem with Tmax 100.

The ISO thing is historical, and combines ASA, BS, Din and possibly a few other testing methods into one International standard.

The accurate German DIN test gave APX100 an ISO of 100/21° and it was great at that speed. I very much doubt the DIN test would give Tmax 100 anything over an 18° 50 ISO rating. Instead the ASA testing method is used for the ISO speed, and its so lab based and out of touch with reality that manufacturers have had to introduce the EI recommendations.

For most of the last 20 years I've used APX100 and AP100, APX25 and AP25 at Agfa's recommended EI and not far off their dev times in Rodinal, this after testing using the Zone system.

However Kodak's Tmax100 is a great film and I guess I've used far more now since APX100 was discontinued, but its quite different, using the same tests I did with APX100 I found I needed to process for the same times in Rodinal, and later Xtol the only differance was the EI of Tmax was 50, aside from that the negatives are indistinguishable in terms of quality, gradation, sharpness etc.

I think your initial tests were not wide enough in terms of effective EI, and just bordered on the films true speed.

Try again Tmax 100 is a great film easy to use and great in many developers PyrocatHD included.

Ian

Dave,

Are you doing all of the tests with the same camera? If so, check all of the setting to make sure you don't have some feature turned on that would decrease the exposure from the meter reading. Or, better, change cameras.

Also, I woud suggest that you temporarily shelve the Thortnon speed test and just expose a roll in the sun using the sunny and f16 rule. And use another camera for this test. If this roll turns out very thin you will at least have learned that the problem is not exposure so you can look elsewhere for the problem.

Sandy

Ian Grant said:

However Kodak's Tmax100 is a great film and I guess I've used far more now since APX100 was discontinued, but its quite different, using the same tests I did with APX100 I found I needed to process for the same times in Rodinal, and later Xtol the only differance was the EI of Tmax was 50, aside from that the negatives are indistinguishable in terms of quality, gradation, sharpness etc.

I think your initial tests were not wide enough in terms of effective EI, and just bordered on the films true speed.

Try again Tmax 100 is a great film easy to use and great in many developers PyrocatHD included.

Ian

Click to expand...

I've been using TMAX 100 for many years, but always using it with TMax or TMax RS developer. Always shot it at box speed, although I don't know if I would have been savvy enough to know if I was under exposing it. I was happy with what I was getting.

The only reason I decided to test new films and developers is because I see old mainstream films disappearing and new films showing up that I've never heard of.

To be honest, I've been using up so much of the TMAX 100 that I am almost through with the 100 foot roll. It was probably more than half gone before I started testing other developers with it, though. Who knows, I may just give some other film a try. The Pan F gave a good showing in both pyrocat and Xtol and with pretty good speed as well.

In any case, I really like the idea of a one shot developer, so I think my TMax RS days are over.

-Dave

sanking said:

Dave,

Are you doing all of the tests with the same camera? If so, check all of the setting to make sure you don't have some feature turned on that would decrease the exposure from the meter reading. Or, better, change cameras.

Also, I woud suggest that you temporarily shelve the Thortnon speed test and just expose a roll in the sun using the sunny and f16 rule. And use another camera for this test. If this roll turns out very thin you will at least have learned that the problem is not exposure so you can look elsewhere for the problem.

Sandy

Click to expand...

Same camera for all pictures including the duplicate rolls I developed in Xtol. After the first roll of TMAX 100 with pyrpcat, I was pretty careful to review all the settings both before and after the shots. I also wrote everything down. I'm pretty sure everything was correct on subsequent rolls. Also, I did take a general scene picture on each of the rolls. It's just a picture of the shed in my back yard, but it has a range of shadow and highlight detail that make it pretty good for comparisons between the films. Believe me, the performance of the TMAX 100 in pyrocat was is not a matter of under exposure by a stop. There's something serious at work that causing a major problem.

I think I'm going to shelve the TMAX 100 issue for a while at least. Today I tried some Adox and some Forte sheet films. A whole new bag of worms.

I'll probably revisit the pyrocat and TMAX100 again down the road.

-Dave

Hi Dave, I been using Tmax 100 in a lot of diffrent pyro developers, nower days Pyrocat HD. I have allways pree washed my films, can this affect Tmax 100? if you do another test try pree wash for 5 minutes.

nalle52 said:

Hi Dave, I been using Tmax 100 in a lot of diffrent pyro developers, nower days Pyrocat HD. I have allways pree washed my films, can this affect Tmax 100? if you do another test try pree wash for 5 minutes.

Click to expand...

That's a good point. I wasn't doing a presoak on any of the 35mm stuff although I do presoak sheet films. It would be a simple matter to run a test with a presoak and see if there's any difference.

Is presoaking 35mm and rolls with pyrocat a pretty standard practice?

-Dave

Mr. King has an article on Pyrocat HD at theunblinkingeye. The article is as good as the developer. Print it out and , save it for reference. Read it. When you have finished reading it, go back to the beginning and reread twice more. It will be time well spent.

What Mr King has to say is quite complete indeed.

I don't pre-soak film in my Jobo, including TMX 100 and Pyrocat HD in glycol, and I've not had any problems.

Dave Krueger said:

That's a good point. I wasn't doing a presoak on any of the 35mm stuff although I do presoak sheet films. It would be a simple matter to run a test with a presoak and see if there's any difference.

Is presoaking 35mm and rolls with pyrocat a pretty standard practice?

-Dave

Click to expand...

Dave,

I generally recommend a pre-soak, especially when minimal or semi-stand type agitation is involved. However, the pre-soak is not essential to get full developer action so don't believe testing this variable will lead anywhere.

Sandy

sanking said:

I generally recommend a pre-soak, especially when minimal or semi-stand type agitation is involved. However, the pre-soak is not essential to get full developer action so don't believe testing this variable will lead anywhere.

Click to expand...

I just stumbled on this thread (18 years old!) and wanted to reply because I think I might be able to add a useful data point and possibly bring a little closure to this mystery.

I went through an identical bout of troubleshooting the use of Pyrocat-HD with Tmax 100 (4x5) during some Zone System-style film testing a while back. My objective was to determine an EI and development regime for this combination, so I was exposing 4x5 sheets through a Stouffer step wedge and measuring densities with an X-rite 811. For the record, I was developing at 20 deg. C in an SP-445 tank using a Pyrocat-HD dilution of 1+1:100 for various times between 13-18 minutes.

I normally don't employ a pre-wash unless I determine it's beneficial. What I observed on three separate occasions was that, without a pre-wash, the Tmax 100 sheets came out essentially blank (i.e., only the faintest hint of density in the highlights). At first, I assumed operator error, but then became suspicious of the developer. Using the same batch of roughly 6-month-old Parts A and B (glycol-based) from Photographer's Formulary, I was able to successfully develop Delta 100 and FP4+ sheets via the same method (tank, dilution, no pre-wash, etc.), so I know the developer was still within spec. I've done prior testing on these films and have confidence in their appropriate development times in Pyrocat-HD.

On a hunch, I resumed testing with the Tmax 100 by adding a 90-second pre-wash -- just enough to rinse the surface of the film without completely saturating and swelling it in water. After that, the Tmax 100 sheets developed normally and I was able to nail down an EI and development time. For the record, I've only observed this problem in the 4x5 version of Tmax 100; the roll film versions haven't exhibited any problem when developed without a pre-wash in Pyrocat-HD. I've not tested it with 8x10 sheets but I'm assuming the same problem would occur, given that the various sheet sizes are generally manufactured the same way.

My guess is that, as has been hypothesized previously in this thread, sheet sizes of Tmax 100 contain an additional component (e.g., dye) that inadvertently neutralizes one or more of the active ingredients in Parts A and/or B. A short pre-wash of the film appears to remove this component, so it's presumably water-soluble. Although I haven't specifically tested it, it's possible that one could use a higher concentration of Parts A or B (e.g., 2+2:100) in the working solution to overwhelm the neutralizing agent, thereby allowing one to get away without a pre-wash, but I've just stuck with the pre-wash.

I've used TMX and the various Pyrocats for more than 20-years without issue. I always pre wash for at least a couple of minutes. Maybe that's why I have no trouble.

Scott J. said:

a 90-second pre-wash -- just enough to rinse the surface of the film without completely saturating and swelling it in water.

Click to expand...

I'm very skeptical about this qualification. 90 seconds is more than enough (probably about 6x times!) to completely saturate the emulsion with water.

Scott J. said:

My guess is that, as has been hypothesized previously in this thread, sheet sizes of Tmax 100 contain an additional component (e.g., dye) that inadvertently neutralizes one or more of the active ingredients in Parts A and/or B.

Click to expand...

You'd almost think so, but I find it very hard to figure out how this could be true.

To 'neutralize' part B, the compound would have to be so acidic that merely handling the unprocessed film with bare hands would be dangerous. Moreover, it would also create problems with developers like D23 with very limited buffering ability. So it sounds unlikely. Focusing on part A, if a very strong oxidizer is present in the emulsion, you'd like wise expect other developers involving hydroquinone and/or phenidone to become inactive. No reports of this have ever surfaced to the best of my knowledge.

That's the theoretical part; from a practical perspective, I dug into my archive and unearthed some 4x5" TMX sheets that I developed in Pyrocat HD as well as Pyrocat MC and they all looked just fine. I also never noticed anything odd when developing them; they produced perfectly normal/expected densities. I didn't use a prewash for those sheets; they were developed in a Paterson tank with Mod54 reel as I recall.

Whatever problem there may be, I've always been blissfully unaware of it.

The only issue I had with Tmax 100 (sheet film), was the weak stain from Pyrocat-HD 1+1+100. Changing to a 1+1+50, and development time adjustment, fixed that. EI 80. That was years ago, though... back when I could afford it!
I've had no issues with TMY-2 at 1+1+100.

I used Tmax100 with Pyrocat HD for about 4 years, 35mm, 120, & 5x4. I think the issue is with some films is the staining is less noticeable because the colour of the stain seems to vary depending on the film stock.

The only time I use a pre-soak is for C41 or E6 processing.

Ian