Pyrogallol, catechin and sharpness

Jarin Blaschke · Jan 20, 2018

Hi:

In people's experience, is pyrogallol a much sharper developer than catechin? I just printed some tests of the same image in a few different developers (all with regular agitation), and the Pyrocat HD neg was not visibly sharper than the D-96 negative and had similar grain. However, the pyrocat neg had much better tonality by a long shot. The Rodinal and FX2 negs were much sharper and grainier, but had less local separation like the D96.

Would one expect a Pyro-Metol negative be the meeting place of great separation/tonality and sharpness? I presume that a Pyrocat negative would gain sharpness by reduced agitation, but then would tonality suffer for a regular contrast cene?

Jarin

Andrew O'Neill · Jan 20, 2018

Negatives do gain sharpness with reduced agitation when developing with Pyrocat-HD. Tonality does not suffer at all for a regular contrast scene. Just develop for a bit longer. What do you mean when you say reduced agitation? Semi-stand? That will give you even more sharpness and still very nice tones. Full on stand is a different baby, and can do strange things to tones. I prefer not to go there for most images, but for some, it works beautifully. I've been using this developer for 16 years, and really appreciate what it can do. Hopefully Sandy King will comment.

Lachlan Young · Jan 21, 2018

Jarin Blaschke said:
Hi:

In people's experience, is pyrogallol a much sharper developer than catechin? I just printed some tests of the same image in a few different developers (all with regular agitation), and the Pyrocat HD neg was not visibly sharper than the D-96 negative and had similar grain. However, the pyrocat neg had much better tonality by a long shot. The Rodinal and FX2 negs were much sharper and grainier, but had less local separation like the D96.

Would one expect a Pyro-Metol negative be the meeting place of great separation/tonality and sharpness? I presume that a Pyrocat negative would gain sharpness by reduced agitation, but then would tonality suffer for a regular contrast cene?

Jarin

From anecdotal evidence (and that's all we have as no one has done the microdensitometric tests necessary to define the effects of pyrogallol/ catechol on 'sharpness' etc) there doesn't seem to be much difference between the two pyros, other than catechol's ability to exploit reduced agitation regimes which may 'improve' perceived 'sharpness'. The other key factor which might be helping the tonality of the Pyrocat negs is that the aim CI (for silver gelatin printing) from Sandy King's data seems to be around 0.5, whereas the D-96 'normal' is much higher - have you tried taking 20% or more off the D-96 time & seeing if that improves the highlights? I take it that this is with 5222?

Before I forget again, something else that I vaguely recall is that some of the metaborate developers like DK-50 can be used in a replenished system at 1+1 dilution, which might be getting into the zone of FX-2 or Rodinal in terms of low solvent behaviour - and more importantly, if you start buffering Rodinal with borax (which makes metaborate thanks to the hydroxide that Rodinal uses as its main alkali) you might well end up with a close cousin of a metol only version of DK-50.

Alan9940 · Jan 21, 2018

I've never done any side-by-side testing, but I doubt if there is any pure sharpness difference between the two base pyros. Where catechol comes into its own IMO is when using EMA (extreme minimal agitation), semi-stand, or other reduced agitation techniques. It holds up very well and produces beautiful consistent negatives.

Gerald C Koch · Jan 21, 2018

Most staining developers have a low concentration of sulfite and are used at a high dilution. Sound familiar it is the combination for an acutance developer. That staining developers provide good sharpness is accidental and has nothing to do with the developing agent used.

Jarin Blaschke · Jan 23, 2018

Gerald C Koch said:
Most staining developers have a low concentration of sulfite and are used at a high dilution. Sound familiar it is the combination for an acutance developer. That staining developers provide good sharpness is accidental and has nothing to do with the developing agent used.

Well, pyrogallol has a reputation as being one of the sharpest developing agents out there, and you have to agitate it almost continuously, or at least 50% of the total time. I will be very curious to compare those results to the rest.

I gave Rodinal and FX2 the same agitation scheme as Pyrocat HD, which is 5 seconds every 30 seconds, and the former two were much sharper (and much grainier.) All three have low sulfite and high dilution.

J

Kawaiithulhu · Jan 23, 2018

This is going to come down to how you define what is Sharp.

Jarin Blaschke · Jan 23, 2018

Kawaiithulhu said:
This is going to come down to how you define what is Sharp.

Well, if you compare them against each other, you can certainly objectively say that one is sharper than the other. It is then up to the individual to create their personal opinion on where on the spectrum they consider something "sharp."

Patrick Robert James · Jan 23, 2018

Jarin, I used PMK for years, and have used two P-Aminophenol (Pyrocat P and PC) versions of Pyrocat for years too. By years I mean over a decade each. I don't have any experience with Pyrocat-HD, but Pyrocat-P is plenty sharp, slightly more so than the PC version. PMK is also sharp, but a little different tonality wise. It depends on how you are going to print the negs. Scanning it won't matter. I would say that PMK and Pyrocat P are roughly the same. The benefit of the staining developers really is in the masking effects of the grain in the high values. You end up with the roughly comparable acutance of a Rodinal/Beutler's but the appearance of grain is minimized somewhat, but the highlight values are different.

The comment you made above that Pyrogallol needs constant agitation is errant. Not sure where you read that, but be careful with "experts" on the interwebs. That includes me too of course, but I never qualify myself as an expert.

You should probably tell us what your exact application is. It is hard to give general advice.

Hope that helps you. Be happy to send you images if you want.

Jarin Blaschke · Jan 24, 2018

Patrick Robert James said:
Jarin, I used PMK for years, and have used two P-Aminophenol (Pyrocat P and PC) versions of Pyrocat for years too. By years I mean over a decade each. I don't have any experience with Pyrocat-HD, but Pyrocat-P is plenty sharp, slightly more so than the PC version. PMK is also sharp, but a little different tonality wise. It depends on how you are going to print the negs. Scanning it won't matter. I would say that PMK and Pyrocat P are roughly the same. The benefit of the staining developers really is in the masking effects of the grain in the high values. You end up with the roughly comparable acutance of a Rodinal/Beutler's but the appearance of grain is minimized somewhat, but the highlight values are different.

The comment you made above that Pyrogallol needs constant agitation is errant. Not sure where you read that, but be careful with "experts" on the interwebs. That includes me too of course, but I never qualify myself as an expert.

You should probably tell us what your exact application is. It is hard to give general advice.

Hope that helps you. Be happy to send you images if you want.

Patrick:

I use WD2D+, and for sheet film, Wimberley advises constant agitation with his developer. For hand tanks, he advises 15 seconds every 30 seconds, although I really agitate for 10 seconds in that cycle. I am now starting in on Pyrocat variations, because I am trying to find a suitable staining developer for use in a constant-agitation motion picture machine that pulls a 2000' strand through all the solutions. With replenishment, the solution needs to last 4-6 hours to ensure a day's work (up to 12,000 feet) can be processed. That seems to preclude the use of Pyrogallol. Thus, I am seeking a catechin developer that can create a sharper image than D96, but can do so while in constant motion.

J

John Wiegerink · Jan 24, 2018

Jarin Blaschke said:
Patrick:

I use WD2D+, and for sheet film, Wimberley advises constant agitation with his developer. For hand tanks, he advises 15 seconds every 30 seconds, although I really agitate for 10 seconds in that cycle. I am now starting in on Pyrocat variations, because I am trying to find a suitable staining developer for use in a constant-agitation motion picture machine that pulls a 2000' strand through all the solutions. With replenishment, the solution needs to last 4-6 hours to ensure a day's work (up to 12,000 feet) can be processed. That seems to preclude the use of Pyrogallol. Thus, I am seeking a catechin developer that can create a sharper image than D96, but can do so while in constant motion.

J

Do a search for Rollo Pyro for a constant agitation pyro developer.

Jarin Blaschke · Jan 24, 2018

John Wiegerink said:
Do a search for Rollo Pyro for a constant agitation pyro developer.

Thanks. Not a bad idea, but presumably it is a one-shot developer that can't be replenished. Perhaps too many oxidation products variables for consistent results?

John Wiegerink · Jan 24, 2018

Jarin Blaschke said:
Thanks. Not a bad idea, but presumably it is a one-shot developer that can't be replenished. Perhaps too many oxidation products variables for consistent results?

Hmm! I guess I'm missing something, but I never replenish my pyro developers. I switched from Wimberely's WD2H+ to PyrocatHD, then Pyrocat-MC and now to Pyrocat-HDC and never replenish since it's fairly cheap as it goes a long, long ways and will probably last into the next ice age. All that said, my mainly used developer is Xtol replenished for almost everything. JohnW

Jarin Blaschke · Jan 24, 2018

John Wiegerink said:
Hmm! I guess I'm missing something, but I never replenish my pyro developers. I switched from Wimberely's WD2H+ to PyrocatHD, then Pyrocat-MC and now to Pyrocat-HDC and never replenish since it's fairly cheap as it goes a long, long ways and will probably last into the next ice age. All that said, my mainly used developer is Xtol replenished for almost everything. JohnW

I need replenishment because I’m trying to use or build a staining developer for motion picture machine use. See above. A pyrocat variant has great potential, but it’s not significantly sharp with the requisite continuous agitation.

J

Alan Johnson · Jan 24, 2018

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/PCat2/pcat2.html
Sandy King wrote to the effect that pyrogalloll is more susceptible to aerial oxidation.

John Wiegerink · Jan 24, 2018

Alan Johnson said:
https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/PCat2/pcat2.html
Sandy King wrote to the effect that pyrogalloll is more susceptible to aerial oxidation.

Yes, in fact one well know member of this forum uses a Jobo processer with Pyro and half way through the development time adds fresh pyro just for that very reason, Aerial oxidation takes it's toll fast with a big Jobo tank and a small amount of developer. My experience is that pyro developers are hard enough to work with without adding to the problem. One shot for me is the way to go for pyro. Not so with other developers, but pyro is different. JohnW

DREW WILEY · Jan 24, 2018

Apparent acutance is also related to the tanning and staining effect on specific films. No one answer. I've experimented with various pyro formulas, but still prefer PMK to Pyrocat due to nicer grain structure on my favorite films.

DREW WILEY · Jan 24, 2018

There are special pyro formulas for rotary processing. Or you can displace some of the air in the tank with argon gas. But frankly, Jobo processors are revved up way too fast, even at lower settings.

Ian Grant · Jan 25, 2018

Jarin Blaschke said:
Well, pyrogallol has a reputation as being one of the sharpest developing agents out there, and you have to agitate it almost continuously, or at least 50% of the total time. I will be very curious to compare those results to the rest.

I gave Rodinal and FX2 the same agitation scheme as Pyrocat HD, which is 5 seconds every 30 seconds, and the former two were much sharper (and much grainier.) All three have low sulfite and high dilution.

J

I used Rodinal for many years it always gave me exceptionally fine grain and excellent sharpness, I get the same sharpness and fine grain with Pyrocat HD. A lot depends on the film/developer combination, Rodinal gave it's best results with Agfa AP and APX100, and of course AP and APX25, and also Tmax 100.

Pyrocat HD works well with T grain and similar, as well as conventional films including faster emulsions were Rodinal is poor.

Ian

john_s · Jan 25, 2018

Jarin Blaschke said:
Patrick:

I use WD2D+, and for sheet film, Wimberley advises constant agitation with his developer. For hand tanks, he advises 15 seconds every 30 seconds, although I really agitate for 10 seconds in that cycle. I am now starting in on Pyrocat variations, because I am trying to find a suitable staining developer for use in a constant-agitation motion picture machine that pulls a 2000' strand through all the solutions. With replenishment, the solution needs to last 4-6 hours to ensure a day's work (up to 12,000 feet) can be processed. That seems to preclude the use of Pyrogallol. Thus, I am seeking a catechin developer that can create a sharper image than D96, but can do so while in constant motion.

J

Are you doing reversal processing of the motion picture film? If so, the silver image would be bleached by the bleaching step but the stain would remain as far as I know. That could lead to some odd artifacts as the stain would be negative and the main image positive.
If you're not doing reversal, no problem.

Eric Rose · Jan 25, 2018

I've been using PyroCat-HD for many years and have used it extensively in minimal agitation applications. I have found no difference in sharpness between the semi-stand and normal agitation regimes. Ultra sharpness has never been a major goal for me. I'm more concerned with tonality and PyroCat gives me what I need. I cut my teeth on D76 and Rodinal but since starting to use PyroCat I haven't used either in years.

I have to agree with Ian G with respect to Rodinal and APX films. Zeiss glass, APX100 and Rodinal were a combination made in heaven

Jarin Blaschke · Jan 25, 2018

We are developing as a negative only.

In my limited tests so far, pyrocat has the best tonality of the bunch (save for a pyrogallol brew which is ruled out for MP). Tonality is the primary consideration. I just want to eat my cake too and wish it was a little sharper as well. Matching D96 in that department is not an impressive feat. But again, for tonality reasons alone it is worth exploring.

Gerald C Koch · Jan 26, 2018

Jarin Blaschke said:
Well, pyrogallol has a reputation as being one of the sharpest developing agents out there, and you have to agitate it almost continuously, or at least 50% of the total time. I will be very curious to compare those results to the rest.

I gave Rodinal and FX2 the same agitation scheme as Pyrocat HD, which is 5 seconds every 30 seconds, and the former two were much sharper (and much grainier.) All three have low sulfite and high dilution.

J

By increasing the concentration of pyrogallol it will behave like most any other developing agent, metol for example. My point is that there nothing intrinsicly different about it. It is the dilution that causes the change in sharpness Metol behaves similarly. Use D-72 diluted 1+2 and you will get grain and poor sharpness. Dilute it 1+9 and it beomse a good acutance developer. Exchange the metol in D-76 with pyrogallol and you get a general purpose developer without any special sharpness characteristics.

Pyrogallol, catechin and sharpness

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency