• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Pyrocat HD Just did my batch of 8 negatives - Issues?


Sandy,

Thanks - I was thinking the same thing but I want to do this test first and then based on the results screw around with narrowing down the issue. I have some sodium carbonate I just mixed for the "other" developer. I am even using a different jug of water on this go around.

RB
 

Again - thank you for the sound advice but...

Please, please please stop making the assumption that i have not used Pyrocat before (as in for years as my standard developer). The only thing new are some test I ran on PL 100 and got results that I did not expect.

I do not know about you but I can look at my Pyrocat negatives from other films and have a good idea of how they will print after seeing many many many hundreds of them.

Second - please stop assuming I am talking about something subtle. For example say you got a negative out of your fix and put it on the light table and there was nothing on it - nothing. Would you need to print that to see if you had an issue? I hope not. I am talking about something that is dramatic NOT SUBTLE. I put it in caps so that I don't have to say it again.

RB
 
This sounds similar to a problem I had last year with efke 25 in 4x5 sheets. I bought a box of it and could not for the life of me get contrast, with either rodinal or pyrocat. I eventually returned the box and get a new one that easily built contrast. The problem was with the film, not the developer. There was a problem with the batch apparently.
 

That is something that is worth looking into for me. If this turns out to be the issue I am swearing off of everything but Kodak (or fuji, or ilford) I swear If I am going through this because of a bad film batch I am going to be really really miffed. (That is how us Kodak users and Mac users are when there are any issues, we get real upset as a matter of principle) ;-)

RB
 
yeah, it frustrated me to no end and I decided to stop using efke25 in sheets, although I love the film in 120.
 
Well,

I just got my new test negative out of the soup and have one more to go in that "other" Pyro developer. The other one is my N+ test again. I am doing single batches this time. I am not at the 100% point yet but... Just looking at the first N negative I am getting a strong suspicion that I either have a film issue or god help us...

Some sort of strange darkroom contamination issue that is not obvious. If this one turns out to be murky and muddy I am going to soup some kodak and either rule it the film or darkroom contamination either way.

RB

Ps. Does anyone know how freestyle is with dealing with this sort of thing? I have a $50 box of film that is suspect.
 
I cannot comment on film returns, but I can say that I had some lith developer that was not behaving as it should have. I emailed Freestyle asking if I could return the developer in exchange for another brand. They quickly replied that they would issue a credit for my previous purchase, and did not want the poorly performing developer back. That is good customer service in my book.
 
Just did another couple tests. With my own home brew pyro and the suspect pyrocat.

Here is what I found at first glance:

1)No matter what developer I use the pyrocat or my freshly brewed pyro special that is much more active than pyrocat I cannot get this PL to increase contrast beyond blahhh. It really looks like a solid block of gray.

2)Just souped some HP5 plus in the Pyrocat - looks great, so the Pyrocat is not bad and I do not have any strange darkroom-wide contamination issue.

3)I used times and temps on the PL 100 that are usually reserved for N+ development of TXP and still have no contrast. so....

I think my box of PL 100 is not good? Unless everyone's experience is that it takes significantly more time than TXP or HP5plus to get similar CI's. I don't see that happening for two reasons - one, it's hard to fathom, two and more importantly I see virtually no change as I increase time or even use a more active developer. Again unless it is really really slow to respond.

Thoughts?

RB
 
Eric Rose said:
dude have you read what those with experience have been saying? did you try some of the times given?
Click to expand...

"Dude" - I don't do stand development so those times do not compute and guess what else dude, If my times/temps were not so far and above ANY of the non-stand development times ANYONE listed AND so far out of any film I have ever experienced using Pyrocat AND I didn't get similar results souping the film in a MUCH MORE ACTIVE developer last night, do you think I would be asking this stuff/complaining?

Well - I wouldn't. I am not the kind of darkroom worker that soups a film one time with no process control without trying a lot of other stuff before I go crying that it doesn't work. I am now 90% sure I have a bad batch of PL 100.

RB
 
rwboyer said:
Something is very wrong - I can tell from looking at the negatives there is almost no contrast difference. I can tell from my scan that there is no contrast.

I am not even going to bother to print these on general run of the mill Ilford VC.

RB
Click to expand...

I quit using PL100 after two of my friends came back from a trip out West with only half the negatives they shot printable due to the poor quality control of Efke film. Maybe you just got a bad box.
 
Years ago, I got a bad box, too, with the banding issues that were common at one time. Maybe they have another problem. I think I'd try something simple for one final test - photograph a normal scene with a good contrast range, then develop in something like divided D23, and see if it behaves as it should. Then no one can blame problems on an uncommon developer like pyrocat.
juan
 
your probably correct in assuming your film is bad given all the testing you have done. I've probably gone through 20 boxes of the stuff and never had a problem. But then again I've had bad boxes from other more prominent manufacturers.

You say you "don't do stand development". Well maybe you should give it a try. It seems to work for the rest of us. I never did as well until I started using PL100.

 

I might give it a try just not with this sample of film. It refuses to build density beyond a certain point. I guess that would be like a paper with low dmax. The issue is that maximum density point is really really low.

One question on the stand dev thing - My cursory understanding is that it is used to compensate for the highlights while building contrast in the lows and mids?

For some things this might be good but I have been doing a lot of high key scenes lately where I am trying to get separation in the highs which I think is the opposite effect that I will get with stand? Am I thinking about this the right way or am I not understanding the goals of stand development?

I get plenty of edge effects with just about all the films and Pyro devs I am using - maybe too much.

RB
 
rwboyer said:
One question on the stand dev thing - My cursory understanding is that it is used to compensate for the highlights while building contrast in the lows and mids?
Click to expand...

It can also be used to expand. I have some truly unbelievably contrasty negatives developed semi-stand in Pyrocat HD, diluted 1.5:1:175.

It's most notable (and to me the most useful) feature, however, is as you say: building local contrast in the midtones. For that the technique is unparalleled.
 
I use "semi-stand" development. This reduces the chance of getting streaking. To begin with I do a prepsoak of two minutes in water, then transfer to developer. Here I agitate for 40 sec's and then let it sit until the half way point in the development time. Once this is reached I agitate for 20 sec's and then let the film sit until the end of development. Naturally I am using hangers in tanks.
 
I can only echo mentioned bad experiences with EFKE PL100 (AKA MACO UP100) 4*5 film, no matter what I tried I could not build up satisfying density and nice mid ton separation, even stand development in PyrocatMC for 2 hours did not help..I have to conclude I have one of these infamous batches (they were given to me for free by said firm, I now wonder why..;-)..)

Did you try Ilford or Kodak film in your Pyrocat brew?

best,

Cor
 

Yes - I was thinking that my Pyrocat went south. I used my home brew with the same results on the PL100 then I used a known good film in both the pyrocat and my home brew just in case I had some kind of global contamination. the known good film was fine in both.

The issue I am having that I am convinced is a bad box of PL100 is that it gets to a certain density level let's call it mid-tone level and that is it no matter what you do it stays about there so there is NO density in the highlights it almost like a severe N- exposure/development where you expose the film like crazy and then under develop like crazy - except I didn't and sheets of know good film taken at the same time are fine.

The dev times I use to try to correct this were stratospheric. The difference between negatives based on dev time is not much. As I have said more than once the effect is not subtle.

RB
 
Ok, so you nailed it than..

My batch was not that bad, best described as "flat" no matter what development regime..oh well they were almost near their expiry date, 8 years ago, I did freeze them right away, although they were free, I still spend time on it (shot nothing valuable with it, I mean not without shooting the same scene on a trusty film next too it)..I'll call it a learning experience..;-)..

Best,

Cor
 

Is there any possibility the film has been fogged? This might explain the problem.

Sandy King
 
I can't say for every batch of Efke PL100, but I've been able to get plenty of contrast for albumen prints from PL100 with ABC pyro, and albumen prints require significantly more density range than silver gelatin prints. Here's an example in the APUG gallery--

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
 
Here is how I would evaluate the film: run a few tests through DK-50 either straight or 1:1. If these come out flat you definitely have bad film. The result for either dilution @ 5mins should be a nice 'punchy' negative.
 
mts said:
Here is how I would evaluate the film: run a few tests through DK-50 either straight or 1:1. If these come out flat you definitely have bad film. The result for either dilution @ 5mins should be a nice 'punchy' negative.
Click to expand...

Let's close this down. I have evaluated the film - it is a bad batch.

I knew the results look suspect after my first test run. After my second test run I knew something was very very wrong. Hence...

The question about the film to other Pyrocat users. Answer = Expansions with PL100 should not be an issue. Okay. Retest in TWO different devs one Pyrocat one a very very active developer both for stratospheric dev times compared to the hardest film I have ever used in terms of expansion - guess what.

Same results in both devs - THIS BATCH OF PL100 DOES NOT BUILD DENSITY BEYOND A CERTAIN LOW POINT NO MATTER WHAT.

Did another different film at the same time in the same chemistry for less time (TXP) that usually takes a long time to build density. Worked fine.

Issue closed. and one more time for old time's sake - this is not a subtle issue that is open to subjective interpretation. It is a massive, blatant, obvious, issue that anyone that has ever developed a negative could know that there was something amiss at first glance.

RB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register