Sandy Kings p-Aminophenol version of Pyrocat - My initial Beta Testing Results

Tom Hoskinson · Mar 22, 2006

I just processed 4 types of film with Sandy King's p-Aminophenol version of Pyrocat. Pyrocat (p-aminophenol) I chose film types that I have previously developed Semi-Stand in the "Classic" (Phenidone) version of Pyrocat-HD.

I exposed all the evaluation film in a camera, most photos were of pictorial subjects (With a variety of Scene Brightness Ratios) - most subjects contained fine detail. I also included some gray card photos on each roll of film.

I used the fiollowing films and development conditions:

1. 2 rolls of Efke 100 Rated at EI 100 and developed Semi-Stand in 1:1:100 Pyrocat (p-aminophenol) for 18 min at 71F

2. 2 rolls of Efke 25 Efke 100 Rated at EI 25 and developed Semi-Stand in 1:1:100 Pyrocat (p-aminophenol) for 14 min at 71F

3. 2 rolls of Kodak TMAX 400 EI 400 Rated at EI 400 and developed Semi-Stand in 2:2:100 Pyrocat (p-aminophenol) for 16 min at 71F

4.1 roll of Kodak TMAX 100 Rated at EI 100 and developed Semi-Stand in 1:1:100 Pyrocat (p-aminophenol) for 16 min at 71F

The film I developed in Pyrocat (p-aminophenol) showed sharp, tight grain and high image acutance. Image stain and tonality were virtually identical to films of the same type that I had previously exposed to the same subjects and developed in "Classic" Pyrocat-HD.

Kudos to Sandy for adding another valuable tool to our developer kits!

Tom Hoskinson · Mar 22, 2006

jdef said:
Tom,

did you see any improvement over the original formula?

Jay

With semi-stand agitation, my results appeared to be the same with both developers i.e., excellent. My next step is to contact print some of the 6x7 negatives that I made during this evaluation (I used my 2x3 Crown Graphic with a 150mm Docter Optics Apo Germinar W and a Mamiya RB S rollfilm back).

I also need to some do additional testing with continuous agitation development. I will use the same films and compare with the semi-stand agitation results for any differences in acutance and/or microcontrast.

Jay, I am also souping some TMAX 400 and TMAX 100 in your 510-Pyro with semi-stand agitation using the 1:100 and 1:500 dilutions I will post the results.

Tom Hoskinson · Mar 22, 2006

Thanks, Jay. I forgot to mention that I attended the Smith/Chamlee Sedona workshop in January of 2006 and that really awakened my interest in Development By Inspection (DBI).

The developers used at the workshop were ABC-Pyro and Pyrocat-HD.

As a consequence, I am looking at developers with DBI performance factors in mind. Their potential for producing uniform development together with high acutance under tray agitation (thus DBI suitability) makes Catechol/p-aminophenol developers particularily interesting to me.

john_s · Mar 22, 2006

I'm interested in buying some p-aminophenol. Does anyone know if it also goes by the name of 4-aminophenol or 4-Hydroxyaniline (CAS 123-30-8)

Chemical formula 4-(NH2)C6H4OH

If it's the same thing, its price is not as steep as some developing agents.

avandesande · Mar 22, 2006

Its the same thing. If you run the CAS through google you can find an MSDS and they will have all the different names.

Tom Hoskinson · Mar 22, 2006

Yes John, (CAS 123-30-8) is it. See http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/AM/4-aminophenol.html

Michael Kadillak · Mar 22, 2006

I had the opportunity to test Sandy's new version of the p-aminophenol Pyrocat as well. I tray developed identical 5x7 negatives in the original formulation and the p-aminophenol formulation and am printing the results this evening. The pyrocat stain was clearly there but a but more of a neutral grey color as opposed to the classic Pyrocat HD brown, but it is not that big a deal. I would also comment a bit of improvement on the sharpness component but I will be sending Sandy the results to inspect under magnification if he choses. All in all I continue to be very impressed with Sandy's commitment to the analytical process and the results that can be obtained with that singular objective in mind. We are fortunate to be able to call him one of us.

The thousands of Pyrocat users out there owe a significant debt of gratitude to Sandy and his willingness to share his extensive knowledge base and hard work with us.

Cheers!

DeanC · Mar 22, 2006

Michael Kadillak said:
The pyrocat stain was clearly there but a but more of a neutral grey color as opposed to the classic Pyrocat HD brown, but it is not that big a deal.

I'll be curious to see what the impact of that is on printing with VC papers...

Tom Hoskinson · Mar 22, 2006

DeanC said:
I'll be curious to see what the impact of that is on printing with VC papers...

I performed blue channel and visual channel densitometry on the TMAX 400 and the Efke 100 and 25 negs. There is a significant stain induced density difference between the blue channel and the visual channel that is proportional to the exposure (as expected) so these negatives should contact print well on Azo. Regarding printing on VC papers, that will require some additional testing.

gainer · Mar 22, 2006

john_s said:
I'm interested in buying some p-aminophenol. Does anyone know if it also goes by the name of 4-aminophenol or 4-Hydroxyaniline (CAS 123-30-8)

Chemical formula 4-(NH2)C6H4OH

If it's the same thing, its price is not as steep as some developing agents.

I get mine at Photographers' Formulary for about $35 a pound + shipping. Be sure to ask for the base, not the hydrochloride.

pauldc · Mar 23, 2006

Tom Hoskinson said:
2 rolls of Efke 100 Rated at EI 100 and developed Semi-Stand in 1:1:100 Pyrocat (p-aminophenol) for 18 min at 71F

Tom, could you define what your semi-stand agitation cycle is. Your times are really interesting but as I am new to semi-stand development and there seem to be many different variations I just wanted to clarify the precise method before I try to duplicate it.

Many thanks!

gainer · Mar 23, 2006

Tom Hoskinson said:
I performed blue channel and visual channel densitometry on the TMAX 400 and the Efke 100 and 25 negs. There is a significant stain induced density difference between the blue channel and the visual channel that is proportional to the exposure (as expected) so these negatives should contact print well on Azo. Regarding printing on VC papers, that will require some additional testing.

I have been able to print stain-only negatives on VC paper with maximum blue filtration, so you should have no trouble printing these. By stain-only I mean with silver bleached out by Farmer's reducer. I am presently waiting shipment of some catechol, but have tried the Pyrocat P and M with hydroquinone, which also stains well in them.
Tom, I believe it was you who once mentioned working on a TEA-sulfite complex that would be easily soluble in glycol or TEA. The sulfite content of the Pyrocat family is very important. Too little slows development and too much prevents stain. All other essential parts of these developers are soluble in glycol if you use the p-aminophenol base or the metol base or phenidone. If I had my druthers, I would leave out the bisulfite in the glycol solution. It isn't needed for protection. If it proved necessary, I would add it to the working solution, but it would be nice to have a way to do it like HC110 does.

Tom Hoskinson · Mar 23, 2006

Jay, please PM me your email address. I have the data and plots in a microsoft Excel file and I'll send it to you. If you don't have Excel, let me know and I'll convert it to a PDF file.

Tom Hoskinson · Mar 23, 2006

pauldc said:
Tom, could you define what your semi-stand agitation cycle is. Your times are really interesting but as I am new to semi-stand development and there seem to be many different variations I just wanted to clarify the precise method before I try to duplicate it.

Many thanks!

Paul, I use deionized water for my film presoak, developer mixing and film washing. My darkroom (and processing solution) temperature is a stable 71 degrees F.

My version of the Semi-Stand process:

1. I presoak the film for 2 to 5 minutes in deionized water

2. I dump the presoak water, fill the tank (or tube) with developer and start the timer

3. I agitate via gentle torus inversion for 30 seconds, then stand the developing tank or tube in the vertical position.

4. I allow the tank to stand with quietly for half of the total developing time, then do 10 seconds of gentle torus inversion followed by return of the developing tank or tube to the vertical standing position for the remainder of the developing time.

5. When the total developing time is up, I dump the developer and then rinse the film in deionized water for 2-3 minutes, then dump the rinse water.

6. Then I fix the film. I currently use Ryuji's Ammonium Thiosulfate (pus sodium bisulfite and sodium sulfite) Fixer (see the APUG Chemical Recipes). Ole's Fixer works fine too, as does TF-4.

7. Then I wash the film (I use the fill, soak and dump method)

pauldc · Mar 23, 2006

Thanks Tom, that is really helpful.

gainer · Mar 23, 2006

jdef said:
Hi Pat.

Have you tried King's catechol-pap formula? I made some up as soon as he posted it, and have never seen it produce any significant staining. I'm using the pap base, for use with glycol, but wouldn't the hydrochloride be more suitable for an aqueous solution? I could only get even the very small amount of pap he calls for into solution by significant heating. King doesn't specify which form of pap he uses in his formula.

Regarding the sodium metabisulfite, it's true that we could leave it out of a glycol solution, but that would leave nothing to prevent the rapid oxidation of the working solution, which might have a real impact when using dilute solutions and extended development. How well would a small amount of sodium sulfite keep in a concentrated alkali solution? My own approach is to use a very small amount of ascorbic acid to preserve the working solution during development, at a ratio of 1:20 to the catechol. In my formula, the ascorbic acts as a secondary reducer, and a preservative of the working solution, simplifying the formula and making it compatible with glycol. The only advantage I can see in using an aqueous stock solution is that it's cheaper than glycol, which seems a false economy, given the shelf lives of the respective solutions, and we all have you to thank for that revelation.

Jay

The Handbook says the base is very soluble in hot water, but only slightly in cold. If you are preventing rapid oxidation in the working solution, you are not getting much stain, but you already know that. Too much sulfite will do that. I think you should try one batch mixed in glycol without sulfite. Add tiny increments of sulfite to the working solution to find the optimum trade between stain and activity. With most staining developers the stain is caused by oxidation products. Also you must remember that Sandy is searching for stain density in the UV region. A stain that is very dense in the visible blue may be transparent in the UV and vice versa.

clay · Mar 23, 2006

I have some of Sandy's beta version, and while the stain is a different color, my X-rite UV densitometer shows that the new formula still has a very pronounced actinic filtering effect. IOW, I am getting quite a bit of added UV stain density with the new formula, possibly even more than the original formula. The eyes are very unreliable tools for judging the effectiveness of stain.

sanking · Mar 23, 2006

gainer said:
Tom, I believe it was you who once mentioned working on a TEA-sulfite complex that would be easily soluble in glycol or TEA. The sulfite content of the Pyrocat family is very important. Too little slows development and too much prevents stain. All other essential parts of these developers are soluble in glycol if you use the p-aminophenol base or the metol base or phenidone. If I had my druthers, I would leave out the bisulfite in the glycol solution. It isn't needed for protection. If it proved necessary, I would add it to the working solution, but it would be nice to have a way to do it like HC110 does.

Pat,

It is true that if the only issue were preservation you could leave the sulfite out of Pyrocat if you mix Stock A in glycol. However, the small amount that is there increases developer energy significantly. So if you leave it out completely, development times will be longer. One could add the sulfite to the working solution, but why do that since sulfite mixes nicely with the glycol if you first dissolve it in a small amount of hot water. It will also dissovle in glycol at about 150º F if you give it enough time.

With regard to the stain, with 10 minutes of rotary development I am getting similar densities, measured in Visual, Blue and UV, with Pyrocat-HD, -M and -P. Stain density in UV is at least as great as with Pyrocat-HD. I recommend a water stop bath with the -P variant rather than an acid bath if the goal is to maximize stain. Also, and I have stated this before, if the objective is to maximize energy and stain whle keeping B+F low the exact ratio of the primary to secondary reducer requuires precise measurments. In every case if you add too much of the secondary reducer you kill the stain, while too little leads to excessive B+F. Sloppy measuring techniques, or ones that lack sufficient controls for accuracy and/or consistency, will of course void all warranties, stated or implied.

Sandy

clay · Mar 23, 2006

Here are some sample measurements of Pcat-P with 400TX 1:1:100 12 min 69deg:

Vis 1.74
Ortho 1.88
UV 2.83

As you can see, this stuff has one of the strongest actinic staining responses I have ever observed.

I used a water stop and TF-4 fixer followed by hypoclear, wash and clear. I'm a buyer on this stuff. I like the grain pattern on Tri-X better than the original pyrocat-HD as well.

sanking · Mar 23, 2006

Those measurments are virtually identical to my own with rotary development for V, Ortho and UV, 20 minutes at 72 degrees F, 1:1:100 dilution of Pyrocat-P.

Stop bath was plain water, for one minute with three changes of water, followed by a four minute fix in TF-3.

Sandy

clay said:
Here are some sample measurements of Pcat-P with 400TX 1:1:100 12 min 69deg:

Vis 1.74
Ortho 1.88
UV 2.83

As you can see, this stuff has one of the strongest actinic staining responses I have ever observed.

I used a water stop and TF-4 fixer followed by hypoclear, wash and clear. I'm a buyer on this stuff. I like the grain pattern on Tri-X better than the original pyrocat-HD as well.

sanking · Mar 23, 2006

jdef said:
I am certainly not getting the same density in Visual and Blue with Pyrocat-P as I do with Pyrocat-HD, and the differences between Vis. and UV you've posted for Pyrocat-P are dramatically different than what King has posted for Pyrocat-HD. Something seems amiss. Ah, the wonders and mysteries of staining developers.

Jay

There is no discrepancy at all between the results I have reported for Pyrocat-HD and Pyrocat-P. Measurements in V, B, and UV are virtually identical at the primary to secondary ratio, and I am confident that subsequent experimentation by others will confirm this fact. Difference between V and B are greater than between V and Ortho, but that is a subject for other discussion.

Perhpas the thing that is amiss will be found in your procedures or measuring equipment, if you bother to look for it.

Sandy

avandesande · Mar 23, 2006

Well it seems that this is what beta testing is all about. It would be nice to work this one out amicably : )

sanking · Mar 23, 2006

Jay,

I do not want to discuss this with you. However, when you constantly misrepresent the truth I must respond.

With regard to your assertion, "the differences between Vis. and UV readings you've posted for Pyrocat HD at densities similar to the ones Clay posted for Pyrocat-P are dramatically different," this is complete BS. In fact, I have never posted anywhere data regarding the differences between V and UV readings for Pyrocat-HD or Pyrocat-P. Or for that matter, even for just Pyrocat-HD for the film type, time, type of agitiation, and dilution noted.

It is not just that your procedures and equipment do not allow you to accurately make accurate measurments in three modes (V, B and UV), or four if we thrown in Ortho. However, you are also pulling information out of the air, since I have *never* posted the kind of data you cite.

Sandy

jdef said:
Sandy!

And I thought you didn't want to discuss this with me. If the problem was in my measuring equipment, it seems the same errors would apply equally to all developers tested, right? Incidentally, my measurements of Pyrocat HD are very much in line with your own, except that you report a little less fog than I see with that developer. The differences between Vis. and UV readings you've posted for Pyrocat HD at densities similar to the ones Clay posted for Pyrocat-P are dramatically different, and this takes me and my equipment/procedures completely out of the equation. It seems that something is still amiss.

Jay

sanking · Mar 23, 2006

Why don't you just deal with the facts?

I responded to your prevoius post very directly. I stated.

"With regard to your assertion, "the differences between Vis. and UV readings you've posted for Pyrocat HD at densities similar to the ones Clay posted for Pyrocat-P are dramatically different," this is complete BS. In fact, I have never posted anywhere data regarding the differences between V and UV readings for Pyrocat-HD or Pyrocat-P. Or for that matter, even for just Pyrocat-HD for the film type, time, type of agitiation, and dilution noted."

Since you obviously are not able to produce any data posted by me that supports your earlier assertion, why not just leave my ego out of it and apologize to the forum for posting untruths and misrepresentations?

Sandy

jdef said:
Sandy,

what do you know about my equipment and procedures? Very little, I think. Cast this issue in any light you like, and use any excuses that suit your fragile ego, but I know how to use a densitometer, and I know what I'm seeing.

Jay

sanking · Mar 24, 2006

Jay,

Obviously no point in wasting any more brain power on the likes of you.

Sandy

Sandy Kings p-Aminophenol version of Pyrocat - My initial Beta Testing Results

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency