Pyrocat HD Sheet Capacities

[waynecrider]

I just started using the metol version of Pyrocat with Na Carbonate, 20:100:940. Can anyone quote 4x5 sheet capacities for this or the original formula.

 

[Jorge]

I just started using the metol version of Pyrocat with Na Carbonate, 20:100:940. Can anyone quote 4x5 sheet capacities for this or the original formula.

I use 435 ml for an 8x10 sheet in the 2:3:100 concentration, so conceivably you could use 110 ml per 4x5 sheet. If I were you I would go with at least 200 ml per 4x5 sheet to avoid exhaustion and/or streaking.

 

[jmdavis]

Jorge,

Do you use the 435ml/sheet of 8x10 with tubes?

Thanks,

Mike

 

[mark]

I use 435 ml for an 8x10 sheet in the 2:3:100 concentration.

Why 2:3:100?

 

[Jorge]

Yes Jim, I use the JancC tubes, they are great and a a bargain.

Mark, I use 2:3:100 instead of 2:2:100 because I want a little bit more activity with the developer.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

At 1.5:1.5:100, 3ml each of concentrate s A and B in 200ml solution developed a 10x8 sheet quite happily. I was messing about during early tests, but all seemed well. I now use 4.5Ml each A and B in 300ml total solution for a 10x8 in a paterson orbital. This makes me feel comfortable, but I will prob go back to 200ml. I did notice that the less solution, the more oxidised the dev is on emptying - quite a bit difference. Negs were indistinguisghable tho.. In an accidentally overexposed sheet, I had loads of density so clearly no shortage of chems.

BTW I upped the 1:1:100 for silver printing as I like to work close to 20 degs C as 24 degs is to far from ambient in the UK and as orbitals use evry little dev, the solutions drops temp considerably and inconsistently depending upon ambient, so 20 ddegs seemed a better option. I am still using times of about 12-15 mins tho, so may go to 2:2:100 just to cut time down more.
Tom

 

[skahde]

It's all in the articles on unblinkingeye: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Pyrocat/pyrocat.html

At 1:1:100 75ml are needed per sheet 4x5 developing in a rotary-processor which can be considered to be the hardest condition the developer will ever encounter.

Stefan

 

[waynecrider]

I wonder if there is any difference in the amount of solution needed when developing in a deep tank as I do, compared to a rotary processor or when using tubes?

 

[colrehogan]

Reading some of these posts makes me wonder if I had enough developer in my tanks the other day. I was using 500 mL of 2:2:200 for 2 sheets of 8x10 in a Jobo. I think the negs are okay.

 

[skahde]

Diane, in a deep tank you will have much less aerial oxidation which pretty much limits the developers life in a rotary-processor. Even when considering rotary-processing 500ml at 2:2:200 equals to just 20% less stock solution than recommended in the article referenced above and shouldn't cause any trouble.

 

[colivet]

Jorge, I am amazed at how little chemistry you use. I didn't know using tubes would save so much chemistry. Me, I have never bothered with 8x10, because 1 liter is still very cheap, but I have a 12x20 on the way to me and I am preparing to minimize waste of chemistry.
I have built my own trays out of acrylic to fit the 12x20 with some room to spare for fingers. One question arises now: Do you think using tubes would allow great saving of chemistry on large negatives.
With the trays I have built I expect to use 3 liters of chemistry. As far I as know, no one makes trays for 12x20 so most people use 16x20 trays. True?
I suppose I have to balance the savings with the fact that I am used to inspection developing. I don't think tubes will allow for that. Right?

Thanks,

 

[Jorge]

Jorge, I am amazed at how little chemistry you use. I didn't know using tubes would save so much chemistry. Me, I have never bothered with 8x10, because 1 liter is still very cheap, but I have a 12x20 on the way to me and I am preparing to minimize waste of chemistry.
I have built my own trays out of acrylic to fit the 12x20 with some room to spare for fingers. One question arises now: Do you think using tubes would allow great saving of chemistry on large negatives.
With the trays I have built I expect to use 3 liters of chemistry. As far I as know, no one makes trays for 12x20 so most people use 16x20 trays. True?
I suppose I have to balance the savings with the fact that I am used to inspection developing. I don't think tubes will allow for that. Right?

Thanks,

Drop a line to Clay Harmon, he uses the Jobo drums with ULF film. He would be the best one to tell you the advantages of using tubes with the big negs. Since I do all my 12x20 developing on trays I would not know how well the tubes would work.
Having said that, I use 16x20 trays with 1.5 liters of developer with brush development.
Yep, you wont be able to do DBI with tubes, so you better brush up on your time/temp development if you plan to go the tube route...

If you are using pyrocat then the developer savings is not really a consideration, pyrocat is really, really cheap. OTOH if you are using the pre packaged developers, then it would be good to look for a way to save.

Good luck with your 12x20....

 

[sanking]

Jorge, I am amazed at how little chemistry you use. I didn't know using tubes would save so much chemistry. Me, I have never bothered with 8x10, because 1 liter is still very cheap, but I have a 12x20 on the way to me and I am preparing to minimize waste of chemistry.
I have built my own trays out of acrylic to fit the 12x20 with some room to spare for fingers. One question arises now: Do you think using tubes would allow great saving of chemistry on large negatives.
With the trays I have built I expect to use 3 liters of chemistry. As far I as know, no one makes trays for 12x20 so most people use 16x20 trays. True?
I suppose I have to balance the savings with the fact that I am used to inspection developing. I don't think tubes will allow for that. Right?

Thanks,

First, developing film in trays that just fit the film size is a recipe for uneven development. What happens is that as you agitate by rocking the tray, the developer hits the side of the trays, and rebounds at a faster speed, which gives uneven, i.e. higher density, on the edges of the film. This is a very common artifact of this kind of development. If you plan to use trays for 12X20 film, you will get more even development by oversize trays, say 20X24. Don't even consider developing your film in trays that just barely accommodate the film.

For rotary processing , you will need about 1000 ml per sheet of 12X20 film if you develop in tubes or drums. I have developed a lot of 12X20 film in Beseler 12X20 drums (of the type used for making color prints), with very even development.

What I now recommend, thanks to the experimental work and information from folks like Clay Harmon and Michael Mutmansky, is that you use a slightly higher ratio of Stock A solution to Stock B solution for rotary processing. Say, instead of 1:1:100 use 1.5:1:100 or instead of 2:2:100 try 3:2:100. The greater amount of Stock A will minimize the development of general stain, or B+F.

Sandy

 

[colivet]

First, developing film in trays that just fit the film size is a recipe for uneven development. What happens is that as you agitate by rocking the tray, the developer hits the side of the trays, and rebounds at a faster speed, which gives uneven, i.e. higher density, on the edges of the film. This is a very common artifact of this kind of development. If you plan to use trays for 12X20 film, you will get more even development by oversize trays, say 20X24. Don't even consider developing your film in trays that just barely accommodate the film.

For rotary processing , you will need about 1000 ml per sheet of 12X20 film if you develop in tubes or drums. I have developed a lot of 12X20 film in Beseler 12X20 drums (of the type used for making color prints), with very even development.

What I now recommend, thanks to the experimental work and information from folks like Clay Harmon and Michael Mutmansky, is that you use a slightly higher ratio of Stock A solution to Stock B solution for rotary processing. Say, instead of 1:1:100 use 1.5:1:100 or instead of 2:2:100 try 3:2:100. The greater amount of Stock A will minimize the development of general stain, or B+F.

Sandy

Sandy, what you say makes a lot of sense but I have already 2 trays that I have made to 14"x24". I thought that would be enough space around the negs to avoid weird behaviors. From what you say it is not.

I really want to keep things simple and the idea of brush developing mentioned by Jorge appeals to me. I heard that brush development is the best way to go for even negatives (without resorting to motorized processing) and I would think that using a brush with the already made trays would be fine but if need be, I will buy trays or make them myself out of fiberglass.

 

[waynecrider]

When I develop 8x10 negs in 8x10 trays, I use brush development and have never had a problem with uneven development or added edge density. To know for sure, you'll have to sacrifice a sheet of film, flash it to an average density, and develop by whatever method you want to test. If your process causes uneven development, it will show up in your test neg and save you from ruining an important one. I know the idea of sacrificing a 12x20 negative might be hard to swallow, but the idea of losing a 12x20 image to a flawed process is a nightmare. Best wishes and enjoy your big negatives.

Jay

Can you clue me in on this. What type of brush and quanity of developer for 8x10's do you use.

 

[sanking]

Sandy, what you say makes a lot of sense but I have already 2 trays that I have made to 14"x24". I thought that would be enough space around the negs to avoid weird behaviors. From what you say it is not.

I really want to keep things simple and the idea of brush developing mentioned by Jorge appeals to me. I heard that brush development is the best way to go for even negatives (without resorting to motorized processing) and I would think that using a brush with the already made trays would be fine but if need be, I will buy trays or make them myself out of fiberglass.

I definitely don't recommend development of 12X20" film in trays this small as you are very likely to get extra density on the edges of the film. The use of brush development in trays this size would probably give better results, based on comments by others, though I have personally never used it. You could also use development by inspection with brush development, though I assume you would be limited to one sheet at a time.


Sandy

 

[waynecrider]

Thanks Jay; I'm limited on surface area when I cool my solutions with a tray in a tray setup. I'll be developing orthochromatic film with a safelight on so this will work out pretty well as i can watch it come in.

Have you ever had a problem with the foam touching the film? I hear tell that some emulsions can be pretty soft. I thought I read that you had to be careful with Efke?