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

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

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 ?

 

[koraks]

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

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 ?

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

 

[retina_restoration]

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).

 

[John Wiegerink]

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?

 

[Alan9940]

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

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.

 

[retina_restoration]

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?

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.

 

[retina_restoration]

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.

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.

 

[Milpool]

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.

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?