Total failure with Rollei Infrared and Pyrocat PC

[Tumbles]

I've been trying to figure out how I want to develop Rollei Infrared, and I've tried out a few developers with varying dilutions and times. Most of my initial results aren't that great. Only the Rodinal results look to be reasonably usable. The times I was finding for Rodinal varied wildly, with anything from 5:00 to 22:00 for a 1:50 dilution. I think the longer times will work better for how I'm shooting it. I like the tonality in the examples I've seen with Rodinal. My end goal is to have a lot of range in the highlights.

The results from Pyrocat PC are particularly weird. From the looks of it, it doesn't look like this film is even compatible with Pyrocat. Although, I can find examples where people have used this combination with perfectly good results. The whole base is totally fogged and covered with clear speckles. Any ideas on what could be going on? I suspect something might be going on with this batch of Pyrocat PC. The only p-aminophenol I could find was black, and it might not be optimal. I tried it out with TMax 400, and I found that it was giving some similar heavy duty stain/basefog. The next batch of TMAX 400 was processed with Pyrocat MC, and the basefog was greatly reduced, and the frames seem to have more contrast. Strangely, I tested my Pyrocat PC with Efke IR820 the same day, and the basefog and overall results look totally normal.

All of these examples were shot with a Cokin 007 (R720 equivalent) filter, at ISO 25. A water stop bath was used, and the fixer was TF-4.

1. Rodinal 1:100 1 hour stand processing 20C, 2 min initial agitation (frame spacing problems)
2. Rodinal 1:50 12:30 min. 20C, 1 min initial agitation, 4 inversions every min.
3. FA-1027 1:15 10:30 min. 20C, 1 min initial agitation, 4 inversions every min.
4. FA-1027 1:9 7:30 min. 20C, 1 min initial agitation, 4 inversions every min.
5. Pyrocat PC 1:1:100 19:30 min. 20C, 2 min initial agitation, 4 inversions every 3 min., 5 minute water bath before development

Tests


Pyrocat MC top, Pyrocat PC bottom


Scanned Pyrocat PC shot

 

[koraks]

That developer looks pretty much dead.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I get good results with Pyrocat-HD (I've never used those versions of Pyrocat). I always shoot Rollei IR at EI 3 or 6 with a 720 filter, regardless of developer. If I shot at EI 25, and used Pyrocat-HD, the negatives would be very thin.

 

[Mark J]

Pyrocat PC is a new one to me.
However I've shot quite a few rolls of Rollei IR and Superpan 200 with excellent results in PMK . With Superpan 200 ( supposedly the same ) I was getting between EI 6 and EI 12 using a Hoya R72 filter.
There's a lot of base fog on the Pyrocat PC ones, doesn't look too promising.

 

[lamerko]

It is too optimistic to shoot this film on the EI25 with a 720nm filter.
For the shot with Pyrocat - there is a clear solarization. I wonder how you achieved it - maybe light penetration while the film is still developing?

 

[destroya]

i used to develop this film all the time with pyro-m. with a 720 filter, I meter for 12 to 6 depending on the shadows, then 1+1+100 for 14 min 72 degrees. 1 min initial agitation, then 10 seconds every 3 min to help lower the contrast. worked pretty well till I started using Alan Johnsons MeCD4 and have not used anything else since for it as well as RR80, tech pan and CMS20.

john

 

[Tumbles]

I've always shot Rollei IR at ISO 25 with Rodinal stand processing. The negatives I get have always had good density. I use it at either 1:100 or 1:75 (I think, it's been awhile). I guess I might find it's the only good way to shoot it at that speed.

The one thing that's throwing me through a loop is that I'm getting good results with other film. The Efke IR820 test shot was processed the same day as the Rollei IR. The HP5+ sheets were processed like a week before.

I wondering if it's the case that with certain films, this developer just goes haywire while being fine with others. I found that the acutance goes pretty wild with the 35mm Adox CHS II, while being rather normal with the 4x5 version. Or course Adox says that the 35mm CHS II isn't suited for pyrocat, so I had to try it out anyway.

Maybe it's started to reach the end of it's life, and it shows more with some films. That would give it around a 6 month shelf life.

I think it's best if I set the PC batch aside for now, and go with the MC version. If I can ever turn up some fresh, white, sparkling p-aminophenol, I'll mix up some more and test it again.

Efke IR820 + Pyrocat PC


HP5 + Pyrocat PC


CHS II + Pyrocat PC

 

[john_s]

Is there enough difference between the various Pyrocat- variants to make much difference? (I have to add that I haven't used that particular film)

 

[Mark J]

There's more fog than there should be on those - particularly the HP5+ ones.

 

[Ian Grant]

That developer looks pretty much dead.

Or contaminated.

Ian

 

[Tumbles]

Looking over my results from months ago, the results from MC, PC, and HDC are mostly indistinguishable. This is soon after everything was mixed. If I compare the base of the HP5+ to the TMAX 400 + MC results, they are about the same. The whole roll of Efke IR820 is fogged. I fumbled the 120 roll when I was trying to load it, and it unraveled. This is literally the only time I've done this. So, I sacrificed it to testing. The end of the roll was somewhat usable.

Right now I've been experimenting with a range of pyro developers to see which combinations I like best. I've seen some talk of MC being better than the HD/HDC versions. There have been some mentions of Pyrocat PC + Acros being the greatest combination ever, and one of my most frequently used combinations has been Pyrocat HDC + Acros. I browse Flickr a lot when I look up film and developer combinations. When I see images that jump out at me as looking particularly spectacular, they have strong tendency to be some obscure pyro developer.

My conclusion is that it's gone bad, and my p-aminophenol is of terrible quality.

 

[john_s]

.........

My conclusion is that it's gone bad, and my p-aminophenol is of terrible quality.

I tried Pyrocat-P (I think it was called). I found some fresh p-aminophenol (from Merck, Melbourne: I don't know if they supply such chemicals these days). Last year I found that it had gone soggy and brown, so I discarded it. It seems to be second only to glycin in poor keeping characteristics. Anyway, I tried various Pyrocats and I'm happy with standard Pyrocat-HD. I think for alternative processes where fog levels have to be absolutely minimized that some variants are preferred (MC if I remember correctly).

 

[Tumbles]

Yeah, p-aminophenol really doesn't keep well at all. I wonder how it manages to last forever with Rodinal. One option I've tried is cleaning it up with activated charcoal, but the not so great water solubility makes it not the most practical thing to do. It does seem to work pretty well, however.

I do everything 100% with scanning. I have my hands full enough with just shooting and processing. Adding darkroom printing is beyond what I have the room and budget for. I've always found it a bit disconcerting how thin pyro negatives can get compared to other developers. I've had some frames where I can barely see anything on the negative at all, but somehow the scanner pulls a totally normal looking image out of it.

 

[koraks]

I've had some frames where I can barely see anything on the negative at all, but somehow the scanner pulls a totally normal looking image out of it.

This is a recommendation for scanners and digital post processing, more so than for pyro developers. My pyro developed negatives look normal, but rather brown in tint when directly compared to non-pyro negatives. If yours look very thin, something's very wrong.