Simple Query on Safety / Ergonomics of Pyro's for fine grain + stain

[JWMster]

Some years back I tried a version of Pyro from Photo Formulary, but was put off by the toxic aspects and that was probably a good thing at the time as my chem handling and experience really needed to just nail the basics. Feel like I've got that one down largely by focusing on ID-11 and then D23... and more recently Karl's PC-512 as a sort of better keeping XTOL or HC-110 (your choice).

So now wanting to crush grain more directly without suffering a huge speed hit, I'm back looking at pyros. Feel I could do so and keep it m-a-n-a-g-a-b-l-y safe by sticking to 1) pre-mixed liquids and if possible, 2) avoiding the hyper thick syrups to enable easy measurement and dilution.

Current EXTENSIVE buzz about 510-Pyro aside, I'd read that John Finch's tends to go for the Barry Thornton vesions.... but I'm wondering whether in fact the easy-peasy, crowd favorite might instead by Sandy King's Pyrocat HD in glycol.

Am I on the right track with this line of thinking?

 

[Milpool]

Staining developers are not fine grain developers. They may or may not be slightly finer grained than non-staining, non-solvent developers due to the lower silver density required to reach equivalent optical density for printing purposes, but it is difficult to generalize.

Generally speaking, with a premixed formula there is less chance of something going wrong safety-wise than when handling dry bulk compounds. Pyrogallol is more toxic than catechol, if that helps. Nevertheless handle with care.

 

[loccdor]

Pyro developers are the only ones I've tried that burn my skin if I get them on me, so I do handle them with more care. I keep the bottle in its own ziplock bag. That being said it's no problem as long as you treat it with respect. I've only tried 510-pyro and have been impressed with the results, there is some hype but I was not disappointed.

 

[JWMster]

Thanks for the words of caution - these are much appreciated. Handling cautions are very welcome.

Additionally, I'm always pleased to hear from those suggesting the juice ain't worth the squeeze... as that thought seems under publicized for the most part. As a hybrid analog-to-scant-to-web or inkjet print, I'm after workable negs for that process. I thought I'd read the stain masks some of the grain in the highlight areas... so that while not necessarily (or exclusively) fine grain developers, the end result falls into that category. Understood Pyrocat HD to be at least as fine grained as XTOL. Am I mistaken?

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thanks for the words of caution - these are much appreciated. Handling cautions are very welcome.

Additionally, I'm always pleased to hear from those suggesting the juice ain't worth the squeeze... as that thought seems under publicized for the most part. As a hybrid analog-to-scant-to-web or inkjet print, I'm after workable negs for that process. I thought I'd read the stain masks some of the grain in the highlight areas... so that while not necessarily (or exclusively) fine grain developers, the end result falls into that category. Understood Pyrocat HD to be at least as fine grained as XTOL. Am I mistaken?

I use both XT-3 replenished (Xtol clone) and Pyrocat-HDC. I think grain is similar, but I also shoot medium format so grain usually isn't any problem anyway. I was always told that Pyro developers don't make the grain smaller, they just mask the grain with their stain. I don't know if that's true or not. That said, I really don't care one way or the other whether it's true or not. If you like your results with Pyro developers, that's all that counts. I do and will continue to use them for high contrast scenes.

 

[Milpool]

All other things being equal, Pyrocat will not be as fine grained as XTOL.

Thanks for the words of caution - these are much appreciated. Handling cautions are very welcome.

Additionally, I'm always pleased to hear from those suggesting the juice ain't worth the squeeze... as that thought seems under publicized for the most part. As a hybrid analog-to-scant-to-web or inkjet print, I'm after workable negs for that process. I thought I'd read the stain masks some of the grain in the highlight areas... so that while not necessarily (or exclusively) fine grain developers, the end result falls into that category. Understood Pyrocat HD to be at least as fine grained as XTOL. Am I mistaken?

 

[koraks]

So now wanting to crush grain more directly without suffering a huge speed hit, I'm back looking at pyros. Feel I could do so and keep it m-a-n-a-g-a-b-l-y safe by sticking to 1) pre-mixed liquids and if possible, 2) avoiding the hyper thick syrups to enable easy measurement and dilution.

As long as you're not going to drink the stuff and you manage to keep it off of your bare skin for the most part, don't fuss too much about pyro developers. So yeah, what you said in the quoted bit is good thinking and should get you pretty far.

Having said that, I agree with the others that XTOL (or any of its variants) is a decent and even safer alternative especially if you want to optimize speed and grain. Pyro has some kind of magic attached to its reputation; the question is to what extent it really holds up in practice. I've used pyro a lot (mostly Pyrocat and 510 pyro) and while the negatives are certainly nice, I'm no longer a pyro user at the moment because it offered nothing other developers didn't do just as well, or even better. For general purpose B&W development (i.e. negatives for scanning & optical enlargement), I'd be perfectly happy if the only developer left on the planet was some form of XTOL.

Note that I'm not saying this to poop on pyro. I'm OK, you're OK, pyro's OK.

 

[John Wiegerink]

As long as you're not going to drink the stuff and you manage to keep it off of your bare skin for the most part, don't fuss too much about pyro developers. So yeah, what you said in the quoted bit is good thinking and should get you pretty far.

Having said that, I agree with the others that XTOL (or any of its variants) is a decent and even safer alternative especially if you want to optimize speed and grain. Pyro has some kind of magic attached to its reputation; the question is to what extent it really holds up in practice. I've used pyro a lot (mostly Pyrocat and 510 pyro) and while the negatives are certainly nice, I'm no longer a pyro user at the moment because it offered nothing other developers didn't do just as well, or even better. For general purpose B&W development (i.e. negatives for scanning & optical enlargement), I'd be perfectly happy if the only developer left on the planet was some form of XTOL.

Note that I'm not saying this to poop on pyro. I'm OK, you're OK, pyro's OK.

Koraks,
I pretty much agree with everything you say and could get by just fine with the Xtol clone, but I do find that I don't have to compensate as much in development times using Pyrocat in high contrast lighting. The negatives seem to wet print extremely easy with the Pyrocat negatives also. Hence, why I'm using two developers instead of just one.

 

[retina_restoration]

Pyro developers are safe* to handle once in the liquid stock solution form. Old school photographers used to use their bare hands in their developers, but we know now how unwise that is. Use gloves, and don't be sloppy. That's all you need to know, really.

About 510 Pyro: yeah, it's "The It Girl" of Pyro developers lately. But it doesn't have anything to offer that most any other pyro variant offers. (In fact, some reports Ive read suggest that it gives inferior results compared to the well documented formulas) The differences between the recipes is negligible, as far as results go. The main difference is in how easy they are to use, and how consistent the results. Prior to Hutchings' PMK formula, Pyro developers were fussy and had to be handled in very specific ways, or you would often get streaky negs with other flaws. PMK was the best option for years, in terms of performance, ease of use, and results.

I've used Pyrocat HD (sometimes) and PMK only. Both are excellent, both are easy to use. The HD variant tends to give more pronounced edge effects (that manifest as extra sharpness), but PMK is very similar in action. The problem with 510 Pyro being "The It Girl" is that some photographers want to assign it magical properties, so as results are concerned, they see what they want to see. Why do I use PMK? Because it's uniquely useful in generating negatives suitable for alt processes, like Salted Paper and Kallitype. Extended development with double strength PMK gives me perfect negatives for these processes.

Take a look at this independant review of 510 Pyro. I believe this report is accurate and offers some meaningful observations about the developer, its ease of use, and the results.


*meaning, not especially more dangerous than any other developer. You should be wearing gloves when using any developer, regardless of the recipe and it's components. In the 1970s, we all used to use our bare hands when developing with D-76 etc., and always got it on our skin. Back then, we didn't know that Hydroquinone was a carcinogen, but we know better now, don't we.

 

[koraks]

I do find that I don't have to compensate as much in development times using Pyrocat in high contrast lighting.

I see what you mean and that can be considered a strength or a weakness, depending on how you look at it. For my own carbon printing, it's one of the reasons I've moved away from Pyrocat and prefer something that creates a more linear or even upswept curve. It's a matter of taste and subject matter also comes into play, of course.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I see what you mean and that can be considered a strength or a weakness, depending on how you look at it. For my own carbon printing, it's one of the reasons I've moved away from Pyrocat and prefer something that creates a more linear or even upswept curve. It's a matter of taste and subject matter also comes into play, of course.

Koraks,
For you and carbon printing, I understand your motives for a non-pyro developer. I only straight wet print, so both work fine, but in different ways for me. Truth is, I could get by fine with just one if I had to.

 

[MattKing]

I'm not a "pyro-maniac", but I know some who are.
Pyro developers are a bit different, and the difference may, or may not, suit different needs and preferences.
If you get a chance to try some, you may find you like the results - either generally, or in some circumstances.

 

[MattKing]

One question to the OP - plus one follow-up - and this is merely curiosity.
"Why did you choose to label your query as a "Simple" question?
And after you have read the responses, do you still think it a "Simple" question?

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've standardized on PMK pyro for decades for numerous kinds of film without incident. It's not the only developer I use, but is the primary one. I buy it in premixed A&B concentrates, and then mix just enough of the two together for each application. It's a very cost-effective developer which keeps well in concentrate; and in many cases, there are real visual benefits of staining pyro formulas as well, especially in terms of highlight control. That was especially evident back in the days of graded paper. Pyrocat is similar in effect, but based on a different kind of "pyro".

Safety-wise, always wear rubber gloves, regardless of the developer. Not all are potentially toxic like pyro, but might cause allergic skin rashes over time, etc. Disposable nitrile gloves are so cheap and ubiquitous these days that there's no excuse to not use them. Also protect your eyes from any splash. Pyro has been suspected in relation to Parkinson's disease in certain famous photographers of former generations; but they worked with it with bare hands over many years.

 

[JWMster]

John: Thanks for piping up. I haven't given the Adox XT-3 a try but it's on the list. I've used Karl's PC512 meanwhile as a substitute / approximation. I'm shooting mostly MF but also 4X5. And yes... but the grain still matters (to me).

 

[JWMster]

Drew: Yeah, thanks for this, too. One of the things that pulled me toward "mix / kit" usage as opposed to big packages lay in the ability to mix-for-use-and-dispose (aka one shot) as a control and simplification. Eliminated head scratching sorts of errors. But it'd be sweet to mask the grain. Much as I'm working with a couple of rolls of Adox CHS II which isn't a low grain film per se.... but has pretty grain... I'd save a fair amount of time if I felt I were able to better control the grain I'm seeing. Some of this may be due to my agitation tech, and so I'm paying attention to that as well. But to the extent stain pushes it into a less noticable character, it seems worth a shot.

And yes, I ALWAYS use those nitrite gloves. That's a start. And my dad had Parkinson's.... not a fun thing at all. So.... no desire to go there. I thought Weston suffered from the Pyro? Will have to look up the Parkinson's link as my dad NEVER messed around in a darkroom and there is some thought that this can be genetic.

 

[pentaxuser]

One question to the OP - plus one follow-up - and this is merely curiosity.
"Why did you choose to label your query as a "Simple" question?
And after you have read the responses, do you still think it a "Simple" question?

Yes simple is a word fraught with danger on Photrio. There are some simple questions on Photrio but there are almost never simple answers

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Different pyro formulations tend to give somewhat different grain and edge effects, depending on the specific film itself too. You'd need to experiment in that respect. There are times pyro can enhance edge acutance and therefore perceived sharpness, yet suppress "graininess" at the same time. With other films or formulas, you might get more graininess.

Parkinson's seems to be more a category of disease with similar symptoms rather than a single disease, and is potentially due to a number of factors. Sorry your dad had to experience it. Pyrogallol has long been a suspected culprit, especially since it had industrial and not just photographic uses.

 

[JWMster]

Matt: I labeled my query "Simple Question" because these discussions tend to run on, but few spend much time discussing the ergonomics of working with the developer - their pros and cons, the handling tips, the everyday mixing, the "living with X" issues. Analog Andy does in his videos by showing you how he mixes some of these, but not a whole lot more. And I guess I didn't think of these issues as subjective as what you might expect in terms of asking for recommendations of a developer for XYZ uses. Having recently put together an RB67 kit, I'm doing those walk-and-shoot things practicing to get comfortable with the camera and the film-to-soup-to-flickr thing, dropping from 400 to 100 ISO films to see what runs through. Hand held RB is kind of limiting. Better with a monopod. BEST with a tripod. Just like music, practice and finding target-rich locations nearby is half the fun... and if it isn't, then what am I doing? So in trying not to get snookered into the try everything rabbit hole - which I did years ago as a newby, I'm curious to see whether there's a livable pyro or not before giving it a whirl.

 

[Alan Johnson]

High accutance developers and resolution...

Sandy, I guess it must be hard to see much difference as I thought the Xtol gave slightly higher resolution! I wonder if any comparisons have been done for Pyro type developers.

www.photrio.com

Sandy King reported the results of his tests with Pyrocat and PMK Pyro.

 

[JWMster]

Drew: Thanks! Yes, I suspect Parkinson's will eventually yield into a series of different things. For now, if we can't figure it out.... it's what you've got. It's a tough one. My dad was convinced he had something else.... and possibly did. Once we age to a certain point.... something comes our way.... maybe two or three things. Tackling them one-at-a-time tends to let something slide. He lived to 82 which was a full life. He and I worked together for 22 years... and I miss the guy... even those times when he'd ride me like I was still a moping, ornery teenager. Had a couple of those once... maybe WAS one, too. Life like everything else is a hard teacher. Learning and Unlearning...and Relearning.... when's it stop?

Thanks for your note.

 

[MattKing]

Matt: I labeled my query "Simple Question" because these discussions tend to run on, but few spend much time discussing the ergonomics of working with the developer - their pros and cons, the handling tips, the everyday mixing, the "living with X" issues. Analog Andy does in his videos by showing you how he mixes some of these, but not a whole lot more. And I guess I didn't think of these issues as subjective as what you might expect in terms of asking for recommendations of a developer for XYZ uses. Having recently put together an RB67 kit, I'm doing those walk-and-shoot things practicing to get comfortable with the camera and the film-to-soup-to-flickr thing, dropping from 400 to 100 ISO films to see what runs through. Hand held RB is kind of limiting. Better with a monopod. BEST with a tripod. Just like music, practice and finding target-rich locations nearby is half the fun... and if it isn't, then what am I doing? So in trying not to get snookered into the try everything rabbit hole - which I did years ago as a newby, I'm curious to see whether there's a livable pyro or not before giving it a whirl.

Understood.
I always like it when people are optimistic about whether adding something like the word "Simple" could have any effect on the complexity of the answers whatsoever!

 

[JWMster]

So this morning I wrote to John Finch who'd published that his now 3 favorite developers are Barry Thornton's Dixactol Ultra and Prescysol (and EF version) to aksk why not the ubiquitous Pyrocat-HD or alternatively the version he raved about in his book: 510-Pyro. He may or may not respond. If so, and he allows, I may follow up. As Anday Warhol famously put it, these three seem to have had their 15 minutes of fame and seen the world move on. And of course that sparks my curiosity. Formulary carries just about every version of pyro BUT 510-Pyro (which Bostwick + Sullivan carry).

 

[pentaxuser]

Understood.
I always like it when people are optimistic about whether adding something like the word "Simple" could have any effect on the complexity of the answers whatsoever!

Not often we are in the same camp Matt but in this case that makes two of us

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

So this morning I wrote to John Finch who'd published that his now 3 favorite developers are Barry Thornton's Dixactol Ultra and Prescysol (and EF version) .

I hadn't seen this. Can I ask when he published this and how I find it? If you have a link to it that would be great. I am a little surprised that if these three "commercial" developers which he used to sell from his online "shop",are his favourite that he hasn't done a video on them to compare the results with his previous "best" which as I understood it from his comparison videos was Pyrocat HD by a very short head

Thanks

pentaxuser