Pyrocat - Which No-Pyro DIY Dev. - Dev. Method is Head to Head?

I want to import Pyrocat HD but import rules becomes so tougher , its nearly impossible.

I am claiming highest , which non pyro diy developer is better or compares head to head with Pyrocat HD ?

All developers are different, and yet, they are all somewhat similar as well.

One of the notable characteristics of pyrocat HD is that it's a staining and tanning developer. I.e. it hardens the gelatin selectively where development takes place, and it not only develops a metallic silver image, but also deposits an orange-colored dye where image development has taken place. The result is a warm-toned image that blocks certain wavelengths (blue and UV light) more so than others (green light). This is often exploited by people printing with alternative processes like Van Dyke Brown or Salted Paper because these processes work well with negatives with a long tonal scale. The dye stain adds to the overall density range and is therefore welcome in that case.

Is it important for your work that the developer is a staining one, like Pyrocat HD? If this is the case, can you obtain where you live either of these chemicals: pyrocatechol (CAS #120-80-9), pyrogallol (CAS #87-66-1) or hydroquinone (CAS #123-31-9)?

Or, to ask the question in a broader way: which characteristics of Pyrocat HD are you interested in? Based on that, it would be possible to suggest alternatives.

For instance, if you're appealed in Pyrocat HD by its relatively fine-grained outcomes and full emulsion speed, you might find XTOL or one of its home-made variants attractive. There's for instance home-made 'Instant Mytol', which behaves the same as official XTOL, and it's made with relatively easy to obtain ingredients: phenidone, vitamin C, sodium sulfite, borax and sodium carbonate.

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:

I want to import Pyrocat HD but import rules becomes so tougher , its nearly impossible.

I am claiming highest , which non pyro diy developer is better or compares head to head with Pyrocat HD ?

Click to expand...

Interestingly the presenter John Finch of Pictorial Planet YouTube fame showed several videos where FX55 came close in his opinion to matching Pyrocat HD His site is worth a look

pentaxuser

If I were unable to get either pyrogallol or pyrocatechol, I think I would resort to one of the ascorbate developers. These days my choice is FX-55 not only because of the excellent results, but because it’s possible to store all but the sodium ascorbate as stock solutions (the phenidone is a 1%solution in glycol).

I have never tried FX-55, but did watch Finch's video with interest. It sounds like a very good developer with good keeping qualities. I'm mainly a Pyrocat-HDC/510-pyro user, but also use Adox XT-3 replenished. If I couldn't get or make a staining developer I could and would get by just fine with Xtol or XT-3. I'm wondering what FX-55 offers that XT-3 or Xtol doesn't, other than being homemade?

John Wiegerink said:

I'm wondering what FX-55 offers that XT-3 or Xtol doesn't, other than being homemade?

Click to expand...

Probably nothing. One thing I really appreciate about FX-55 is that Part A doesn't contain any developing agents which allows it to last pretty much indefinitely. I use it regularly and it's a fine developer, but there are other fine developers other there, too.

I will say, though, that I've had a few occasions with different film stocks whereby the development times posted on the MDC produced fairly weak negatives. I realize that these times simply represent a starting point, but, based on my experience, some are way off.

John Wiegerink said:

I have never tried FX-55, but did watch Finch's video with interest. It sounds like a very good developer with good keeping qualities. I'm mainly a Pyrocat-HDC/510-pyro user, but also use Adox XT-3 replenished. If I couldn't get or make a staining developer I could and would get by just fine with Xtol or XT-3. I'm wondering what FX-55 offers that XT-3 or Xtol doesn't, other than being homemade?

Click to expand...

It is my impression that John Finch is a capable technician, but he also exaggerates in order to emphasize what he's selling. He is, after all, monetizing what he knows. A pinch of cynicism is often warranted when looking at content you're presented with on YouTube.

That said, the ascorbate developers are all pretty much in the same vein as Xtol, so if you like what Xtol offers, then you are likely going to appreciate what the other ascorbate developers do as well. I have observed no appreciable difference in the results I get from Xtol VS Mytol VS FX-55 — they all act virtually identically. I have settled on FX-55 because I can store the stock solutions indefinitely and assembling the working solution when you need it is easy, fast and makes for a completely reliable, consistent experience. My only gripe with Xtol (and Mytol) is that it cannot be trusted to last more than a few months once mixed as a stock solution. FX-55 gets around that problem effortlessly.

Alan9940 said:

Probably nothing. One thing I really appreciate about FX-55 is that Part A doesn't contain any developing agents which allows it to last pretty much indefinitely. I use it regularly and it's a fine developer, but there are other fine developers other there, too.

I will say, though, that I've had a few occasions with different film stocks whereby the development times posted on the MDC produced fairly weak negatives. I realize that these times simply represent a starting point, but, based on my experience, some are way off.

Click to expand...

The MDC should be viewed with some skepticism unless it is quoting manufacturer's recommended times. There's a lot of questionable data presented in the MDC when you are looking for non-standard times and developers. Test for yourself, always.

Nothing, really, but based on the formula and working solution FX-55 seems intended to be a non-solvent developer (coarser grain, higher sharpness) so a more appropriate comparison would be to XTOL / XT-3 used more dilute. FX-55 isn’t going to do anything substantially different than XTOL say 1+3, that sort of thing. Nothing novel.

John Wiegerink said:

I have never tried FX-55, but did watch Finch's video with interest. It sounds like a very good developer with good keeping qualities. I'm mainly a Pyrocat-HDC/510-pyro user, but also use Adox XT-3 replenished. If I couldn't get or make a staining developer I could and would get by just fine with Xtol or XT-3. I'm wondering what FX-55 offers that XT-3 or Xtol doesn't, other than being homemade?

Click to expand...

retina_restoration said:

The MDC should be viewed with some skepticism unless it is quoting manufacturer's recommended times. There's a lot of questionable data presented in the MDC when you are looking for non-standard times and developers. Test for yourself, always.

Click to expand...

I've always used the times on the MDC as a jumping off point, then do my own testing to lock down my personal development times. That said, in all my years of testing various film stocks I've never seen a time on the MDC that's off by more than 25% either direction. When I first used FX-55 on Acros, starting with the MDC time, it was significantly off.

retina_restoration said:

It is my impression that John Finch is a capable technician, but he also exaggerates in order to emphasize what he's selling. He is, after all, monetizing what he knows. A pinch of cynicism is often warranted when looking at content you're presented with on YouTube.

That said, the ascorbate developers are all pretty much in the same vein as Xtol, so if you like what Xtol offers, then you are likely going to appreciate what the other ascorbate developers do as well. I have observed no appreciable difference in the results I get from Xtol VS Mytol VS FX-55 — they all act virtually identically. I have settled on FX-55 because I can store the stock solutions indefinitely and assembling the working solution when you need it is easy, fast and makes for a completely reliable, consistent experience. My only gripe with Xtol (and Mytol) is that it cannot be trusted to last more than a few months once mixed as a stock solution. FX-55 gets around that problem effortlessly.

Click to expand...

It is impossible to compare Xtol with FX55 based on John Finch's video as he makes no attempt to do a "compare and contrast" of the two but I think you may be largely correct in your conclusion as you are in stating the benefits of its longevity which you go on to mention

Given what appears to be the potential difficulties of supply that Mustafa experiences the added longevity quality of FX55 and its relative ease of making FX55 does appear to have what he needs

pentaxuser

retina_restoration said:

It is my impression that John Finch is a capable technician, but he also exaggerates in order to emphasize what he's selling. He is, after all, monetizing what he knows. A pinch of cynicism is often warranted when looking at content you're presented with on YouTube.

That said, the ascorbate developers are all pretty much in the same vein as Xtol, so if you like what Xtol offers, then you are likely going to appreciate what the other ascorbate developers do as well. I have observed no appreciable difference in the results I get from Xtol VS Mytol VS FX-55 — they all act virtually identically. I have settled on FX-55 because I can store the stock solutions indefinitely and assembling the working solution when you need it is easy, fast and makes for a completely reliable, consistent experience. My only gripe with Xtol (and Mytol) is that it cannot be trusted to last more than a few months once mixed as a stock solution. FX-55 gets around that problem effortlessly.

Click to expand...

Yes, I watch his videos and glean what I need and discard any hype. Just as I did Fred Pickard years ago. I liked Fred, but he seemed to always have a little sales pitch going.
If I couldn't use Xtol/XT-3 replenished I would certainly be trying FX-55 for self life alone. With replenished Xtol/XT-3 I have no shelf life problem and the results it/they give are to my liking. I think the OP should look in the direction of FX-55 or something like Mytol. He should be able to get what chemicals are need for those two developers in Turkey.

PC-312 is worth a look too.

I've not tried it, but I notice that at working strength FX-55 has a huge amount of the two developing agents compared to PC-312.

I'm not a fan of pyro. I used it a while ago and followed Sandy Kings reccomended times and the negatives were very flat. I needed to print on grade 4-4.5 to get anything looking like a normal tonal range.

I think Xtol or ID-11 do a much better job.

john_s said:

PC-312 is worth a look too.

I've not tried it, but I notice that at working strength FX-55 has a huge amount of the two developing agents compared to PC-312.

Click to expand...

A one liter working solution of FX-55 contains 1.3g of sodium ascorbate and 0.1 g of phenidone. That doesn't seem like "a huge amount" of the developing agents to me. Consider that D-76 contains 2.0g of Metol and 5.0g of Hydroiquinone per liter of stock solution.
I have no idea what PC-312 is, never heard of it.

retina_restoration said:

A one liter working solution of FX-55 contains 1.3g of sodium ascorbate and 0.1 g of phenidone. That doesn't seem like "a huge amount" of the developing agents to me. Consider that D-76 contains 2.0g of Metol and 5.0g of Hydroiquinone per liter of stock solution.
I have no idea what PC-312 is, never heard of it.

Click to expand...

Paul,
I think John_s is referring to Karl's developer PC-512. I wondered the same thing???? I don't consider 1.3g and .1g of developing agents in FX-55 to be a huge amount.

I don’t really understand all the messing around and probably compromising, just for a possibly long shelf life. Is it that big a deal to have a stock solution / concentrate last for years, in particular if you’re scratch mixing anyway?

Milpool said:

I don’t really understand all the messing around and probably compromising, just for a possibly long shelf life. Is it that big a deal to have a stock solution / concentrate last for years, in particular if you’re scratch mixing anyway?

Click to expand...

It's unclear which aspect of this conversation you're referring to.

John Wiegerink said:

Paul,
I think John_s is referring to Karl's developer PC-512. I wondered the same thing???? I don't consider 1.3g and .1g of developing agents in FX-55 to be a huge amount.

Click to expand...

I see. I took what he said literally, since he repeated "PC-312" twice in the same post, making me think it was not an error, but some recipe I was unfamiliar with.
And no, the amount of developing agents in FX-55 is not "a huge amount" by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps he's misinterpreted something he read about the recipe?

retina_restoration said:

I see. I took what he said literally, since he repeated "PC-312" twice in the same post, making me think it was not an error, but some recipe I was unfamiliar with.
And no, the amount of developing agents in FX-55 is not "a huge amount" by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps he's misinterpreted something he read about the recipe?

Click to expand...

Yes, he might be confusing some other developer recipe, with huge amounts of developing agents, for FX-55.

John Wiegerink said:

Yes, he might be confusing some other developer recipe, with huge amounts of developing agents, for FX-55.

Click to expand...

I used the expression "compared to" and it was worth mentioning, i think, because PC-312 has received a lot of positive comments here at APUG.

john_s said:

I used the expression "compared to" and it was worth mentioning, i think, because PC-312 has received a lot of positive comments here at APUG.

Click to expand...

I think you are confusing Karl's PC-512 with whatever PC-312 is. I've never seen anyone talk about PC-312 here. Maybe e they have, but I can't remember it?

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:

I want to import Pyrocat HD but import rules becomes so tougher , its nearly impossible.

I am claiming highest , which non pyro diy developer is better or compares head to head with Pyrocat HD ?

Click to expand...

As others have pointed out, replicating the staining effects without some kind of Pyro in the mix is unlikely.

Absent Pyro, my go to would be D-23 1+9 + 0.5g/l sodium hydroxide (lye), developing the film semistand. While semistand is fiddly to master at first, the results of that particular combination - especially for sharpness, and decent grain - are just spectacular in my experience.

D-23 is generally one of the most flexible developers around. It is very cheap to make and works well in conventional development, semistand, EMA, and across a big range of dilutions.
There is always some D-23 stock next to my Pyrocat-HDC and PMK in the darkroom.

You can see an example here:

Are you in a position to buy locally or import developing agents like Catechol, Metol, Hydroquinone, Phenidone, Pyrogallol, p-Aminophenol, etc? If yes then you have many options before you including making Pyrocat HD yourself. Otoh if you are in a situation where you're unable to buy/import any of the commonly used developing agents, then your best bet is Parodinal which can be made from paracetamol tablets.

John Wiegerink said:

I think you are confusing Karl's PC-512 with whatever PC-312 is. I've never seen anyone talk about PC-312 here. Maybe e they have, but I can't remember it?

Click to expand...

I stand corrected. I was referring to PC-512. My comments about the relative amounts of developing agents remains (comparing FX-55 to it).