Pyrocat HD and TMAX 100: Bad combo?

[Dave Krueger]

I just developed a test roll of TMAX 100 (35mm) in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 at 70F for 15 minutes with agitation every 30 seconds. The film is extremely thin. Not hint of density on frames exposed for zone I even as far down as ISO 25. Basically, only high lights came out and they are very contrasty. Not even the frame numbers are visible. Zone IX frames seem to have reasonable density (although I don't have a densitometer).

This is actually a repeat of an earlier experiment because I couldn't believe I was getting these results after gettng great results with TMAX 400.

Anyone care to share their experiences with TMAX 100 and Pyrocat?

-Dave

 

[Claire Senft]

I was delighted with my 100Tmax in pyrocat HD. Sorry and surprised am I to hear this.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I was delighted with my 100Tmax in pyrocat HD. Sorry and surprised am I to hear this.

I've also had good results developing TMax 100 in Pyrocat-HD and in Pyrocat-P as well.

Please give us the processing details, Dave.

 

[Oldtimer Jay]

Hi,

I have been very pleased with this combination, it is one of my absolute favorites. I did have one occasion in which I had an almost identical problem and it was because I used Pyrocat HD which was about 4 months old and had been stored in a .5 L bottle that was about 85% empty for much of that time.
About the only aspect of pyrocat HD I am not impressed with is its shelf life. I plan to mix up my next batch in Glycol.

Hope This Helps,

Jay L

 

[TimVermont]

Not even the frame numbers are visible.
I'd say there is a very strong possibility you either left out part B, or simply have a dead or improperly prepared part A. Shoot a few frames and re-test.

 

[colivet]

Not even the frame numbers are visible.
I'd say there is a very strong possibility you either left out part B, or simply have a dead or improperly prepared part A. Shoot a few frames and re-test.

I agree. Something is way off here. You'll have to reshoot and try again.

 

[sanking]

I just developed a test roll of TMAX 100 (35mm) in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 at 70F for 15 minutes with agitation every 30 seconds. The film is extremely thin. Not hint of density on frames exposed for zone I even as far down as ISO 25. Basically, only high lights came out and they are very contrasty. Not even the frame numbers are visible. Zone IX frames seem to have reasonable density (although I don't have a densitometer).

This is actually a repeat of an earlier experiment because I couldn't believe I was getting these results after gettng great results with TMAX 400.

Anyone care to share their experiences with TMAX 100 and Pyrocat?

-Dave

Sounds to me like the film was under-exposed. Density in Zone I is more a product of exposure than development, and the fact that you have contrasty highlights suggests that the developer is working as it should and that the working solution was mixed correctly.

Sandy

 

[dogzbum]

This is a great combination.
I rate TMX100 at 64EI and use 1+1+100 dilution for 15:30 @ 20degC.

(Actually processing temp is usually around 27degC with appropriate compensation)

 

[Scott Peters]

Perhaps the Pyro is aged, or contaminated? I once realized that my very thin negs using pyro was the result of contamination of A into bottle B reducing its strength.

 

[Dave Krueger]

Sounds to me like the film was under-exposed. Density in Zone I is more a product of exposure than development, and the fact that you have contrasty highlights suggests that the developer is working as it should and that the working solution was mixed correctly.
Sandy

These are just test exposures. Each frame is of a single tone. Several exposures at zone I for ISO 100, 80, 64, 50, 40, 32, and 25. Then several exposures at zone IX at ISO 100, 80, 64, 50, 40, 32, and 25. All the zone I exposures are blank. The zone IX exposures have reasonable density. The frame numbers and film info did not develop. I shot three rolls of TMX like this. Developed one in Xtol, with no problem and then two in Pyrocat both of which look the same (very thin). If it was under exposed, the farme numbers would still have come out. By the way, all three rolls came from the same 100 foot bulk roll with an expiration sometime next year.

Then, I developed a similar roll of Pan F+ shot the same way except at half the ISO values, also in Pyrocat. It came out fine.

Just as a sanity check, each roll has a few regular scenes taken using the built in camera meter instead of the spot meter. The scenes are also very thin. In doing the second roll, I was very careful about exposure, because I thought I must have screwed it up to make the first roll so thin.

Developer was pyrocat HD in glycol from the Formulary mixed 1:1:100 with distilled water and developed at 70F with inversion agitation at 30 second intervals. No presoak.

I have no doubt that you all have had great success with TMAX 100 and pyrocat, so I'm obviously doing something wrong. I just haven't discovered what it is. TMAX 400 and Pan F+ both came out great. I'm hoping to settle on pyrocat as my sole developer, so I would like to figure out what's going on.

-Dave

[edit] The developer was 3 ml of A, 3 ml of B, and 300 ml of distilled water. And, I would agree that, if it weren't for the fact that the frame numbers didn't even develop, the symptoms are definitely underexposure.

 

[john_s]

Dave, are you sure that the pyrocat-HD was ok? I had a similar experience with the first batch that I made. I think my phenidone solution in alcohol was not good. The result was very contrasty because the lower zones almost disappeared. The film was Neopan_400. My next batch of the developer was quite different and much better. Just a thought.

 

[Dave Krueger]

Dave, are you sure that the pyrocat-HD was ok? I had a similar experience with the first batch that I made. I think my phenidone solution in alcohol was not good. The result was very contrasty because the lower zones almost disappeared. The film was Neopan_400. My next batch of the developer was quite different and much better. Just a thought.

Actually, that sounds exactly like what I'm getting, although I didn't mix it myself. I'm confused because I get good results with other film types. Maybe there's something wrong with my film, although I did get relatively good results with that film in Xtol developer.

Maybe I'll try some other TMAX 100 that is not from that bulk roll.

-Dave

 

[sanking]

Actually, that sounds exactly like what I'm getting, although I didn't mix it myself. I'm confused because I get good results with other film types. Maybe there's something wrong with my film, although I did get relatively good results with that film in Xtol developer.

Maybe I'll try some other TMAX 100 that is not from that bulk roll.

-Dave

Dave,

First, since you are getting good results with this developer with two other films I think we can rule out contamination or exhaustion of the developer as a source of the problem. And especially since you have the glycol version of Stock A, which is much more resistant to contamination than the water version. Also, since many people are getting good results with the combination of Pyrocat-HD and Tmax-100 I think you should also rule out the film as a source of the problem.

This reduces the possible sources of the problem, which IMO would be one of the following two.

1. The film was under-exposed.

2. The working solution was not mixed corrrectly.


There are other more remote possibliites, such as this master roll of Tmax-100 being bad, and other causes of contamination, but I suspect the problem lies above.

Sandy

 

[Dave Krueger]

Dave,

This reduces the possible sources of the problem, which IMO would be one of the following two.

1. The film was under-exposed.

2. The working solution was not mixed corrrectly.

I would be more inclined to think the film was underexposed if the frame numbers weren't also completely gone. Even if the film weren't exposed at all, one would expect to see the frame numbers and film type along the edges.

I have two syringes that I use to measure the concentrates. I can't see how I could be getting it wrong especially since I'm following the same steps as I did for all the films.

Speaking of other remote causes, is it possible that there is something about the glycol that doesn't agree with the UV coating in TMAX 100 film? I mean, has anyone else used the glycol version of pyrocat with TMAX 100?

-Dave

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Speaking of other remote causes, is it possible that there is something about the glycol that doesn't agree with the UV coating in TMAX 100 film? I mean, has anyone else used the glycol version of pyrocat with TMAX 100?

-Dave

Yes, I have used it with no problems.

 

[bogeyes]

Tmax 100 pyrocat hd glycol

Shot with Nikon f601m 35mm lens TMax 100 @ EI 80 Pyrocat HD Dev. 15 mins 20c small paterson tank 1:1:100 3ml A:3ml B : 300ml water Pre-soak 5mins Agitated first 90 secs then 2 inversions every 3mins. This is my first attempt with Tmax/pyrocat. The print has not been dodged or burned, printed on Ilford multigrade vc glossy at grade 21/2. I will print it again after I have stuck it on my fridge door for a couple of weeks and had a good look at it.

 

[Dave Krueger]

Shot with Nikon f601m 35mm lens TMax 100 @ EI 80 Pyrocat HD Dev. 15 mins 20c small paterson tank 1:1:100 3ml A:3ml B : 300ml water Pre-soak 5mins Agitated first 90 secs then 2 inversions every 3mins. This is my first attempt with Tmax/pyrocat. The print has not been dodged or burned, printed on Ilford multigrade vc glossy at grade 21/2. I will print it again after I have stuck it on my fridge door for a couple of weeks and had a good look at it.

Hmmm... I wonder how important the presoak is. I could certainly try it and see if that makes a difference. There's something about my particular porcess that affects TMAX 100 and does not appreciably affect the TMAX 400 or Pan F+.

Nice visual aid, by the way.

-Dave

 

[m_liddell]

From experience the first thing that seems to go when pyrocat has gone bad is all the shadow detail.

 

[Dave Krueger]

From experiance the first thing that seems to go when pyrocat has gone bad is all the shadow detail.

Maybe my pyrocat is going bad and TMAX 100 is just more sensitive to than other films. Maybe the answer is just to pitch the developer and get another batch and start over.

 

[lee]

Dave said this, "And, I would agree that, if it weren't for the fact that the frame numbers didn't even develop"

Doesn't it indicate if the frame numbers don't develop mean the developer is suspect?

lee\c

 

[sanking]

Maybe my pyrocat is going bad and TMAX 100 is just more sensitive to than other films. Maybe the answer is just to pitch the developer and get another batch and start over.

Dave,

Logic would tell you that if you are getting good results with two different films in the same developer there is nothing wrong with the developer, especially when there is no known incompatibility between the film and the developer. To the contrary, it is a very good combination. I just completed a bunch of tests involving TMAX-100 in both sheet and roll film formats and everything came out perfect. And this was with Pyrocat-HD in glycol from the Formulary. If the stuff was mixed correctly it should not go bad for years, and if it was not mixed correctly it would not have worked from the get go. Certain there is no logic in the fact that it would work with two different films and not a third? That defies common sense.

Since I don't know your procedures I can not explain the reason for the failure, but I would bet that it is not the film, and not the developer, and not a lack of compatibility between the two. Meanwhile, until you find the reason for the problem you might stick with Xtol for the TMAX-100.

Sandy

 

[Dave Krueger]

Dave,

Logic would tell you that if you are getting good results with two different films in the same developer there is nothing wrong with the developer, especially when there is no known incompatibility between the film and the developer. To the contrary, it is a very good combination. I just completed a bunch of tests involving TMAX-100 in both sheet and roll film formats and everything came out perfect. And this was with Pyrocat-HD in glycol from the Formulary. If the stuff was mixed correctly it should not go bad for years, and if it was not mixed correctly it would not have worked from the get go. Certain there is no logic in the fact that it would work with two different films and not a third? That defies common sense.

Since I don't know your procedures I can not explain the reason for the failure, but I would bet that it is not the film, and not the developer, and not a lack of compatibility between the two. Meanwhile, until you find the reason for the problem you might stick with Xtol for the TMAX-100.

Sandy

Yeah, everyone is offering good suggestions and I'm denying all of them and then continuing to complain.

I'm the kind of guy who will be driven nuts by something like this and probably won't be satisfied until I have an explanation and a solution. I don't want to be known as "the guy who couldn't make pyrocat work." LOL!

But, I will probably stick with Xtol for the TMAX 100 in the interim...

-Dave

 

[Donald Miller]

I just developed a test roll of TMAX 100 (35mm) in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 at 70F for 15 minutes with agitation every 30 seconds. The film is extremely thin. Not hint of density on frames exposed for zone I even as far down as ISO 25. Basically, only high lights came out and they are very contrasty. Not even the frame numbers are visible. Zone IX frames seem to have reasonable density (although I don't have a densitometer).

This is actually a repeat of an earlier experiment because I couldn't believe I was getting these results after gettng great results with TMAX 400.

Anyone care to share their experiences with TMAX 100 and Pyrocat?

-Dave

While I normally use another film, I have shot some TMax 100 4X5 recently and found rating it at 100 and developing it for 8 minutes (75 degrees -- BTZS tubes) for normal luminance scenes gave me nice negatives. This is Pyrocat HD at 1-1-100

 

[George Collier]

I was doing some testing a few months ago and had the identical thing happen (nothing but the brightest highlights, and they were weak). In fact, it was a roll shot of all one image, cut the roll in half and developed the other half in Rodinal, which came out as it should. I'm sorry I didn't save it so I can't tell you about the frame numbers.
I only have so much time for testing, so I abandoned the combination (don't have a bulk roll either!). I repeated the test with FP4 and got great results with both developers. Go figure.

 

[Claire Senft]

Although I can sympathsize with your problem I find the circustamces interesting and contradictory to me..depending upon how I interpret what you have written.

If your test that showed reasonable values for the placement given(high values) and they were on the test strip with the speed test, I almost think that you had both under-exposure and over-development..because if the film was so under-exposed as to lose your shadows entirely but your high value test turned out as desired, I beleive it would take a lot of extra development to get the high values to where they belong.

If the PanF+ was given development that was appropriate for 100 Tmax I would expect to get very contrasty negatives and I find myself wondering "was the PanF+ given the same amout of development as was given for the Tmax 100?". However, If the 100 Tmax was over-developed then the Panf+ Negatives should be Kevlar like...fairly bullet-proof. However, they were "fine"

So, it seems to me that you should do over the 100 Tmax test both for speed and development.

While it would be good to be certain that you understood what caused your problem, settling for something that works in the future would be a nice improvement.

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.