Pyrocat-hd capacity in tubes

[mwtroxell]

I'm trying to decide if minimal agitation is economical or not using a Jobo 3005 drum or BTZS 8x10 tubes. The 8x10 BTZS tubes I have use a full capacity (standing upright and completely filled) of around 1.2 liters of developer. Would I be able to reuse the pyrocat-hd in the 8x10 tubes for 2 or possibly even 3 8x10 negatives or would this result in a slight decrease in staining for each successive negative? Using over a liter of eveloper per 8x10 would get expensive.

 

[Paul Cocklin]

I re-use the same 1 L for multiple 8x10's (up to 5, at 2:2:100) but I do tray development. I can't see why you couldn't reuse the same chemistry for at least 2, but I know next to nothing about tube processing. I would think though that, especially for minimal agitation and not rotary, you should be fine.

 

[snallan]

As to capacity, this article on the Unblinking Eye website reports Sandy King's recommendation of 75 ml per 20 square inches (sheet of 4x5), so three sheets of 8x10 per litre.

As to the level of staining. The level of image stain should be the same, as there is sufficient catechin for the development of each sheet. There may be a problem with increasing general stain, though, as oxidation products build up in the developer. (Though this is supposition on my part, as I use it one-shot in a rotary processor.)

 

[edtbjon]

If you're doing minimal agitation you can probably also use a higher dilution, which could be an alternative to reusing the developer. Also, if you are after the "special properties" of minimal agitation or even stand development, the higher dilution is part of it. (... as opposed to Paul above, who is doing 2:2:100 which is quite a powerful soup.) The main concern is oxidation, which should be rather low in your case, as there is very little air involved, especially in a BTZS tube.
For stand and semi-stand development 1:1:200-400 is quite common. There are plenty of variations on what receipes to use though, a search here on the subject of stand and semi-stand will give you lots of info on the subject, including from Sandy King himself.

//Björn

 

[donbga]

If you're doing minimal agitation you can probably also use a higher dilution, which could be an alternative to reusing the developer. Also, if you are after the "special properties" of minimal agitation or even stand development, the higher dilution is part of it. (... as opposed to Paul above, who is doing 2:2:100 which is quite a powerful soup.) The main concern is oxidation, which should be rather low in your case, as there is very little air involved, especially in a BTZS tube.
For stand and semi-stand development 1:1:200-400 is quite common. There are plenty of variations on what receipes to use though, a search here on the subject of stand and semi-stand will give you lots of info on the subject, including from Sandy King himself.

//Björn

So is the dilution you use for semi-stand development with Pyrocat ?

 

[mwtroxell]

dilution

I've been using 1:1:100 for printing on Ilford Gallerie.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I'm trying to decide if minimal agitation is economical or not using a Jobo 3005 drum or BTZS 8x10 tubes. The 8x10 BTZS tubes I have use a full capacity (standing upright and completely filled) of around 1.2 liters of developer. Would I be able to reuse the pyrocat-hd in the 8x10 tubes for 2 or possibly even 3 8x10 negatives or would this result in a slight decrease in staining for each successive negative? Using over a liter of eveloper per 8x10 would get expensive.

The Pyrocat developers are very inexpensive. I always use them one-shot. I develop stand and semi-stand in filled tanks, tubes and slosher trays.

 

[juan]

I use it 1:1:150 for EMA developing. I have considered using it for more than one negative, but I'm concerned that the time involved, rather than the dilution, would exhaust the Pyrocat.
juan

 

[edtbjon]

As I kind of rose the issue of higher dilution when doing minimal agitation or stand/semistand development, I have to finish what I started.
There's a reason for doing either of these rather specialized techniques. That is to compensate for a high contrast in the scene shot to begin with. I.e. to cope with excessive contrast. When shooting normally lit scenes, normal developing in normally diluted Pyrocat will give you excellent results. In those cases there's nothing, repeat nothing, to gain doing some variation of stand development in a diluted developer. On the countrary, you are putting your results at risk because the less agitation you give the film, the greater danger of bromide drag etc. Also, the reason for the extra dilution is to get the slower action neccessary for the compensation effect to occur, i.e. to get development going in the shadows, while the development in the highlights stop because the developer isn't refreshed by agitation in those areas. (A much simplified description, but hey, that's the way I see it. )
Read all about it in another current thread on this very subject (there was a url link here which no longer exists) on compensating developers in the b/w film, developer ... department.

And when I do semi-stand I go for about 1:1:250 or so. Again, check for Sandy Kings comments when doing a search on the subject of stand- and semi-stand development. Or I could do Rodinal at 1:200, which also gives nice results. Anything more diluted is in my mind approaching the area of homeopathic doses.

//Björn

 

[mwtroxell]

"There's a reason for doing either of these rather specialized techniques. That is to compensate for a high contrast in the scene shot to begin with. I.e. to cope with excessive contrast."

True, but I am using minimal agitation to try to experiment with edge effects instead of trying for a compensating effect.