Pyrocat-HD & Fomapan anyone ?

[sanking]

The blue film base must be anti-halation backing that was not removed in normal processing. Soak the film in a dilute solution of sodium sulfite (1 teaspoonfull per liter of water) for about ten minutes and the blue base should go away.

Stain should not add extra printing time with silver papers unless the film was over-exposed, or developed much to much, or the film is outdated and has a lot of B+F.

Sandy

This film is quite nice, but between the blue film base and the stain from the pyrocat I have found that it gives me VERY long printing times (this is enlarged 120) so I am going to try my next couple of rolls out in HC110.

 

[Jeremy]

The blue film base must be anti-halation backing that was not removed in normal processing. Soak the film in a dilute solution of sodium sulfite (1 teaspoonfull per liter of water) for about ten minutes and the blue base should go away.

Stain should not add extra printing time with silver papers unless the film was over-exposed, or developed much to much, or the film is outdated and has a lot of B+F.

Sandy

According to Foma this film is actually made with a blue polyester base... I used a waterbath beforehand, but will try the sodium sulfite soak and see if there is any anti-halation backing still left in.

 

[SteveH]

Hrmm. The more I think about it, something must be up with your procedure. When you are done developing, can you see a 'cloudy' layer in your developer ? I do, and I am assuming that this is the anti-halation. Also, I don't have a blue tint to my film.

 

[sanking]

I sure did not know that. Assuming the information is correct, what would be the reason for using a blue base?

Let us know if the sodium sulfite soak removes the blue cast.

Sandy

According to Foma this film is actually made with a blue polyester base... I used a waterbath beforehand, but will try the sodium sulfite soak and see if there is any anti-halation backing still left in.

 

[Jeremy]

I sure did not know that. Assuming the information is correct, what would be the reason for using a blue base?

Let us know if the sodium sulfite soak removes the blue cast.

Sandy

No. The three companies have very different approaches towards base, AHU and sensitising of their emulsions.

Efke uses a clear polyester base for the rollfilm and they use the same dies Kodak, Ilford and others use plus a blue AHU laquer (which comes off in presoak or developing). Sometimes a pink cast is left after fixing and washing and this will clear with a soda bath or some hours in the sun (I hang the cut film in the sheet on the inside of a window).

IIRC Forte uses a plain triacetate base with greyish tone. Haven´t used it in a while.

Foma uses a polyester base, too. But this one has a tint that will not fade or wash out.

Let me cite the spec sheet for Fomapan 100 (from www.foma.cz):

"Base

The following bases are used for manufacturing the particular sorts of the film:
120 rollfilm - a bluish polyester base 0,1 mm thick, furnished with a matted
backing which will decolourize during processing. The backing has anti-halation and anti-curling properties and prevents the incidence of Newton rings during
enlarging.

35 mm film - a gray or gray-blue cellulose triacetate base 0,135 mm thick,"

I don´t know which brand of polyester base they are using - many western companies use DuPont´s Melinex which is totally clear by itself.

I picked this up from another thread here on Apug.

 

[SteveH]

Ok, my results for the evening

All,
I just wrapped up my developing bonanza. It seems that 64asa in 1:1:100 @20c for around 10 mins seems like the best approach. However, I honestly do not think Im getting the same shadow detail as I have before with rodinal and ID-11. Granted, I am no professor in the field, but I do know how to use the zone system, and how to meter. I can honestly say that I know that I should have gotten SOMETHING where I have NOTHING. In one two instances, I metered a shadow - not a deep shadow by any means - and placed it in zone III. Therefore, I should have texture. However, in three different photos, I have almost absolutely clear negative. This is @ 64asa mind you. In one shot, I gave it an extra stop of exposure, and I just *started* to get detail in the same spot.
Hopefully someone who really knows what they are doing will test this combo out properly and report back to correct my findings. Perhaps these two were just never meant to live together ?

Regards,

 

[sanking]

Steve,

There would appear to be several possibilities.'

1. The film/developer combination is totally incompatible. Not likely, IMO, but everything is possible.

2. Something is wrong with the developer or with the way we mixed the developer solution. More likely than No. 1, and I could not exclude this possibility without further information. Why? Because film speed, which determines shadow detail, is about 95% in the film. With rare exceptions choice of developer plays a very small role in effective film speed.

3. Unless we do side by side comparisions with the comparison developers there is the possibility that something is off with our metering technique, or with our meter. More likely than No. 1 and No. 2, IMHO.

I don't know for sure what is going on with your tests, but I have compared many, many films in D76 1:1 (same as ID-11) and Pyrocat-HD 1:1, and in every case Pyrocat-HD delivered at least as much film speed, and in most cases slightly more.

When I am confused by the results of comparision testing, either Zone or BTZS, I resort to the old F/16 rule and just forget about Zone and BTZS. To do this, I just expose several negatives identically, on a sunny day, with the sun to the side or behind you, using the f/16 and shutter speed same as film ASA. And I make sure that the scene includes both hiighlights, midtones and shadow. Then develop the negatives in each of the comparison developers for the time that is considered normal. When dry, a comparison of the shadow detail in the negatives will tell us for sure if there is really a difference in effective film speed. The beauty of this type of testing is its simplicity, in that it eliminates from the equation any questions about metering. All films get the same exposure, period. So when you develop the films in different developers, if one of the negatives has more *shadow* detail (and assuming the negatives are developed to about the same approximate CI), then we can be sure that this particular film/developer combinations produced more film speed.

Sandy

All,
I just wrapped up my developing bonanza. It seems that 64asa in 1:1:100 @20c for around 10 mins seems like the best approach. However, I honestly do not think Im getting the same shadow detail as I have before with rodinal and ID-11. Granted, I am no professor in the field, but I do know how to use the zone system, and how to meter. I can honestly say that I know that I should have gotten SOMETHING where I have NOTHING. In one two instances, I metered a shadow - not a deep shadow by any means - and placed it in zone III. Therefore, I should have texture. However, in three different photos, I have almost absolutely clear negative. This is @ 64asa mind you. In one shot, I gave it an extra stop of exposure, and I just *started* to get detail in the same spot.
Hopefully someone who really knows what they are doing will test this combo out properly and report back to correct my findings. Perhaps these two were just never meant to live together ?

Regards,

 

[SteveH]

Sandy,
Thanks again for your help. I really don't think anything is wrong with the developer...Its most likely an issue with THE developer (me !). However, one thing that I did notice...Solution 'A' is VERY statically charged. Is this normal ?
I haven't given up on the testing yet. Today Im going to give the sunny/16 a shot, and this evening develop the same shots, 1 in pyrocat-hd, 1 in ID11. Granted, this may not be such a grand test, as I know the exact time needed for ID11. I guess I still am unsure was to what would be considered 'normal' for pyrocat-hd ? Perhaps I'll revert back to the 100asa @ 13min time, as those negs still slightly had better tones. The 64asa highlights I think started to get abit hot.

Thanks again,
Steve

PS - Perhaps it really is time for me to get a JOBO ?

 

[m_liddell]

Shot one roll of this in very low contrast conditions. I shot it at 50 to be sure of shadow detail and dev'ed in XTOL 1:1. The dev time was really short, 6mins or something (got the time from foma I think) a little too short possibly. VERY blue base but think that is normal reading stuff from places on the net.

Re: the loss of shadow detail. I think your pyrocat is dying. How old is it? I had this happen, loss of shadow detail with everything else OK, a week later it was totally dead.

 

[SteveH]

Re: Base Color
I have never found this to be an issue wtih printing using regular developers. Honestly don't see much issue wtih printing a pyrocat developed neg either.

Re: Solutions
I cannot comment on this, as I ordered my solutions in liquid form from Photo Formulary. I ordered it about a month ago. Judging by the reputation that the formulary has, I find it very unlikely that my pyro arrived DOA. Like I said earlier, the only thing that I have noticed as an abnormality is that one of the solutions is very statically charged. When I go to pour it into my graduated cylinder, a small drop or two will jump across the mouth of the cylinder.

Re: Issues
The only thing that I can think of in my mind at this point is that my agitation is incorrect for this type of developer. So far in my short-lived sheet film life, I have used Fomapan 100, HP5, FP4, and Efke 25. I have developed these in Rodinal, HC110 solutions b and e, and ID-11/D-76. I have never gotten any scratching, uneven development, or other 'artifacts'. Also, after a test or two, I have always been happy with the shadow detail/contrast that I was able to achieve.
I develop my sheet films in trays. I have made plexi-glass crosses which lay in my trays to separate the films (I use 8x10 trays, so I can develop 4 sheets at a time). My trays have ridges in the bottom, and the plexi dividers do NOT lie in these grooves, so that the chemicals can agitate through the whole tray. The agitation motion that I use is simular to that of the motion used when processing a print. I do this for 5 seconds every 30 seconds for the whole time of development. However, every 3mins, I lift the films out of the tray and place them back in, just to be assured that no air bubbles have accumulated. I always place the sheets in emulsion up. I use a plain water stop bath, and a non-hardening fixer.
I am going to shoot some HP5 today (if the weather clears), and develop in the pyrocat. I believe that if I have shadow detail as I feel I should, then this would elimate the possibility that my soup is bad.
If the weather does not clear, then I will print some of these negs to see how they look. If so, I will supply some scans later this evening.

Regards,

Shot one roll of this in very low contrast conditions. I shot it at 50 to be sure of shadow detail and dev'ed in XTOL 1:1. The dev time was really short, 6mins or something (got the time from foma I think) a little too short possibly. VERY blue base but think that is normal reading stuff from places on the net.

Re: the loss of shadow detail. I think your pyrocat is dying. How old is it? I had this happen, loss of shadow detail with everything else OK, a week later it was totally dead.

 

[photo8x10]

I would like to put here my Fomapan 100 test.
Developer : Pyrocat HD 2:2:100 @ 72°f
developed in tube continuous agitation
Paper ES 1.6
read density in blue channel

I attached a pdf file with my test, I hope, I wrote in the best way these my dates.
I did a photograph using date of my test and It's a good negative.
The next week I'm going to take photoghraphs near Siena, and I'll use this film, so I can write more opinion about this film.
If someone want the winplotter's file send me an e-mail and I'll send you it.

Best
Stefano

 

[SteveH]

Interesting. I suppose you rated the film @ 100asa.

Being as it seems everyone chooses a roller type of agitation, I am going to be putting my tests on hold (as I have already gone through a lot of film trying to get it right !) until I am able to afford a drum. I have the unicolor base, so Im just awaiting a drum to come along on ebay.

Thanks for the test results. I really appreciate all of your help.

 

[sanking]

Steve,

Just to clarify, I do film testing in tubes, individually on a motor base, or when testing four or five sheets, in a water bath with manual agitation. It is the only way, IMO, to guarantee the kind of consistency needed to accurately test films.

On the other hand, for my personal work I prefer minimal and extreme minimal agitation and develop this way whenever practical. I emphasize *whenever practical* because I have not yet found a practical way to develop multiple sheets of very large film, say 12X20, with minimal or extreme minimal agitation.

Sandy

Interesting. I suppose you rated the film @ 100asa.

Being as it seems everyone chooses a roller type of agitation, I am going to be putting my tests on hold (as I have already gone through a lot of film trying to get it right !) until I am able to afford a drum. I have the unicolor base, so Im just awaiting a drum to come along on ebay.

Thanks for the test results. I really appreciate all of your help.

 

[SteveH]

Sandy,
Isn't that what your bath tub is for .
On a serious note, there is a drum on ebay that looks promising. Hopefully it will become mine and I can get back up to speed with you guys by the end of next week.

 

[photo8x10]

Interesting. I suppose you rated the film @ 100asa.

Hi Steve,
Yes I rated the film @100 iso, and I tested the film with Phillips David's method and I did curves with winplotter program.
I probably will develope two sheet films tomorrow night, I took a picture of a old petrol pump, so when I did it I'll give my impression and I'll try to attach a copy of the negative and maybe a contact print of it.

Best

Stefano

 

[SteveH]

That would be great. Thanks Stefano.

 

[photo8x10]

Hi jdef,
you are right! I'm very surprised when winplotter gave me the result with the densities I read, I thought higher iso for my paper es, I read the density twice and I re-calibrated my densitometer, and always that results.
I'm plaining to do more test, maybe with new developer, my pyrocatHD is old, but it works well with all my films.(ps my first negative with my test iso is good).
I'm plaining to do this test(when my free time will be more) in pyrocatHD in tube, with pyro ABC in tray, and pyro hutchings formula in tray, I do all this test because I've spoken with an Italian photographer that is enthusiastic of this film.

Best
Stefano

 

[photo8x10]

I would know a little thingh about winplotter, I use a default option, my speed point is 2.45 and my paper es 1.6 with flare 0.02, and I use approx CI.
I would like to set up it in the better way possible, and I was doing some experiment changing parameters and I saw a little different with approx CI and 0.1 over BF. Wich parameters do you think is better? approx CI or 0.1 over BF.
I changed it in my fomapan test and it's changed a bit(but not deeply).
thanks Jdef for your advices.

Thanks

Stefano

 

[sanking]

Stefano,

As you know, I have never used the Foma film. However, I had a message today from someone who knows this film very well, and the film business as well, and he tells me that there are some really serious quality control problems with Foma films. Based on what he told me I personally am not going to waste any of my time testing the ASA 100 Foma film. I mean, what is the point since we already have so many excellent ASA 100 films.

As for the developer issue, if you are getting good results with your other films using Pyrocat-HD I think it is safe to conclude that the problem is the film, not the developer. And fortunately, if your Pyrocat-HD solution is bad you would know it because the color of Solution A would turn brown. If Solution A is clear, or a slight amber or pinkish color, and if the color of the working solution no more than a medium colored amber, it should give good results. On the other hand, a comparison in which you develop two or three identically exposed sheets of film in different developers should be instructive, so long as you know more or less the time of development needed with each developer.


Sandy

Hi jdef,
you are right! I'm very surprised when winplotter gave me the result with the densities I read, I thought higher iso for my paper es, I read the density twice and I re-calibrated my densitometer, and always that results.
I'm plaining to do more test, maybe with new developer, my pyrocatHD is old, but it works well with all my films.(ps my first negative with my test iso is good).
I'm plaining to do this test(when my free time will be more) in pyrocatHD in tube, with pyro ABC in tray, and pyro hutchings formula in tray, I do all this test because I've spoken with an Italian photographer that is enthusiastic of this film.

Best
Stefano

 

[sanking]

Stefano,

Oh, and one other thing. I believe you mentioned that you were using the default speed point of the plotter program. You really need to establish your own personal speed point because the speeds indicated by the program are basically meaningless until you calibrate them to your work. If you go to www.btzs.org and look under articles you will find an article by Davis that explains how to do this. He recommends, and I do as well, the use of a developer such as D76 as a standard. However, before you bother to establish your personal speed point make sure that you have worked all of the kinds out of your exposing method since you must be able to continue to make consistent and accurate exposures for the pesonal speed point to have any meaning.

Sandy

 

[photo8x10]

Thanks Sandy,

I controlled my A solution and the colour, now, I'm not sure that is good, a very dark pink, so I'm plaining to do another tests this night with new A and B Solutions. I'll post my new results here next days.

I surfed in BTZS and I found very good advices.

Best

Stefano

 

[photo8x10]

Hi everyone,
I promised that I did another test to fomapan 100, and I did it yesterday night. I did it with new A and B pyrocatHD solutions and the results are a bit different. I attached a PDF with my new test.
Bye
Stefano

 

[SteveH]

All,
Well I tried to print today. The results were not very good. It seems that I have some major contrast issues. Perhaps it is the development process that I chose (trays), as opposed to everyone using a roller ? Then again, Sandy has recipies for minimal agitation...So perhaps not.
There are two scans of my work today in the standard gallery. To reiterate my findings abit, I made my initial test print with a #2.5 filter. This gave me the equivilant contrast of what a #1 filter would normally look like, from a negative of normal contrast. I bumped the filtration up to #3.5, and this seemed almost too much, but it was clear that #3 was still too muddy. I know that people will tell me that split filtration is the key, etc., but I did not attempt this today, as I wanted to test out as many different negs as possible to homogenize my results.
At this point, there are too many variables to guess anymore. I am going to take a break, as this has drained my film stocks, and it gets somewhat dishardning to ruin a shot time after time. I need to crawl back into my comfort zone of developers for abit.
Perhaps in a couple of weeks I will be able to get a drum and give it a shot all over again wtih a fresh slate. Or, hopefully by that point Stefano will have it all worked out .

 

[photo8x10]

Hi, during this week(here rained cats and dogs) I tried to do an experiment with fomapan 100 in pyrocat-HD with semi-stand agitation in 1:1:175 Paper ES 1.60 diluition,after I read the density and this my result:

SBR 7 EFS 90 developed 75.30 minutes NORMAL

SBR 5.95 EFS 100 developed 90.00 minutes N+0.60

SBR 8.70 EFS 95 developed 52.00 minutes N-1

SBR 10.54 EFS 80 Developed 30.00 Minutes N-2

I hope this date are for you useful, and I'LL try it on the field when the weather will be better...

Bye
Stefano


I attached pictures of my winplotter curves.

 

[eddie gunks]

anyone else using foma 100 and pyrocat hd? i do not have any quality issues with my foma film. i use tanks development with hc110 at 20 degrees. dil h for 9 min (dil G (119:1) for 18min) very very successfully.

i would like to try some pyrocat hd. i am finding it difficult to find a starting point.

i do not understand "SBR or EFS"

thanks for the help.

eddie