Yet again for a pyro question

Sirius Glass · Jun 16, 2014

Per Sandy King Pyrocat-HD is better than Rollo Pyro for Jobo processors.

Per Volquartz recommended that Rollo Pyro be used to develop to chemical extinction and ignore the temperatures in tanks or Jobo processors.

Presoak
5 minutes solution A
6 to 7 ½ minutes solution B
Two 30 second water rinses for stop bath
TF-4 or TF-5 for 3 minutes at 1:3
Two 30 second water rinses
2 minute solution A for staining
15 to 20 minute wash

Both recommend using the slowest speed for Jobo processors.

My questionS:

Will Per Volquartz's method work with Pyrocat-HD in a Jobo processor?
Using the 3010 Expert Drum the minimum amount of chemicals is 210ml, therefore I should use 300ml for six 4'x5" sheets and 50ml f0r 10 4'x5" sheets minimum. To be safe should I be using 400ml and 600ml respectively or more?

Gerald C Koch · Jun 16, 2014

I am not an aficionado of staining developers. Returning the negatives to bath A after fixing seems rather pointless to me as developing cannot restart at this point. The only thing you will get is an overall stain which is not useful in printing.

I agree with Michael that any agitation is not usually recommended with two bath developers. You do not want the developing agents to diffuse out of the emulsion but for them to work to completion.

I also question the need for a presoak as in two bath developers development occurs in bath B. Presoaking will only slow the entry of the developing agents into the emulsion. The result will be less development. If the temperature of bath A is adjusted to be somewhat higher than recommended it will temper the tank.

TheFlyingCamera · Jun 16, 2014

While Pyrocat HD is a two-part developer, they are not normally used separately, but in fact used in conjunction in a single bath. Used that way, temperature does play a role in the process. Actually, I don't know how you could ignore temperature - processing to chemical extinction will vary in duration based in part on temperature.

As to chemical volume, I usually use Pyrocat HD in my Jobo 3010 or 3006 drum diluted 1:1:100. I use 500ml for processing up to 5 5x7 sheets or 10 4x5 sheets. When doing 6.5x8.5, 5x12 or 8x10 in the 3005, I use 1L per 5 sheets. I use the processor at the slowest possible speed - start at F, then turn the dial back towards off until it is just still rotating. Temperature-wise, I run mine at 75F instead of 68 because that gives me the boost I want for making good pt/pd printing negatives.

Sirius Glass · Jun 16, 2014

When I went to put in an order for pyro, the cheapest shipping from Bostick & Sullivan was about half the cost of the chemicals. Are there any other sources for Rollo Pyro other than B&S?

c6h6o3 · Jun 16, 2014

Sandy used split development in Pyrocat as he was transitioning to digital negative production. He did it because it gave him incredible sharpness (I believe he used stand development in each solution) but the resulting negative was extremely flat in contrast. He would add as much contrast as he needed in the computer after scanning the negatives. I've seen some of his 16 x 20 carbon prints from enlarged negatives taken with a 6 x 7 cm camera. I can't tell the difference between them and prints made from in-camera 16 x 20 negatives. If you're not going to digitize, however, you might not want to do it that way and use Scott's method instead. Then you can control contrast in development.

john_s · Jun 16, 2014

I used to develop to developer exhaustion with PMK in an inversion tank (35mm), but I didn't know it. By 13min no time extension would make any difference. I discovered this when I wanted more contrast, but couldn't get it by extra dev time.

I prefer a developer that doesn't exhaust (so much), so I can control contrast at will.

Sirius Glass · Jun 16, 2014

Per Volquartz's approach has the emulsion absorb as much solution A as it can. Then solution B is active only as long as there is still solution A in the emulsion. That is called "processing to completion" or "processing to extinction" and provides consistent results for traditional and tabular emulsions regardless of the temperature. After fixing the film solution A is added for two minutes for staining.

Yes, I know that Sandy King does not like staining developers.
Yes, I know that most people do not process film this way, but Per got consistent results for decades doing this and it seemed to work for him.

TheFlyingCamera · Jun 16, 2014

As Jim noted, the split development technique Sandy used is for stand (NOT rotary) development. He was also using much larger volumes of chemistry when shooting sheet film - probably more on the order of 500cc's per sheet, not 500ccs total. Sandy King does like staining developers- he's the one who invented Pyrocat HD. He's not on here much if at all anymore, but I think he still participates over at LF Info - if you want advice on using Pyrocat HD, PM him directly there, or try over on Unblinking Eye.

erikg · Jun 16, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
When I went to put in an order for pyro, the cheapest shipping from Bostick & Sullivan was about half the cost of the chemicals. Are there any other sources for Rollo Pyro other than B&S?

Photographer's Formulary. Artcraft.

markbarendt · Jun 16, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
When I went to put in an order for pyro, the cheapest shipping from Bostick & Sullivan was about half the cost of the chemicals. Are there any other sources for Rollo Pyro other than B&S?

http://stores.photoformulary.com/abc-plus-pyro-film-developer/

Gerald C Koch · Jun 17, 2014

As a chemist, just a reminder to all that pyrogallol is a very toxic substance readily absorbed through the skin. The LDLo (lowest lethal dose) is 25 mg per kilogram of body weight. Always use a face shield or goggles, a dust mask (necessary for the solid) and nitrile gloves when working with it or its solutions. It is also a cumulative poison in that repeated exposure over time increases the risk. It attacks the liver and the kidneys and in addition red blood cells. While also toxic catechol is a safer alternative for a staining developer. All in all pyrogallol is very nasty stuff.

Sirius Glass · Jun 17, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
The process you are describing is simply two-bath development (process to exhaustion). The point is, it gives a different negative then single solution development. Perhaps the most important difference from a tone reproduction perspective is that it tends to "straighten" the characteristic curve. It also tends to give good film speed with a lower-than-normal contrast negative. This linear curve is something King liked for negatives destined for scanning (he wrote some articles in View Camera about that) because it would seem desirable to start off with as linear a scale as possible, which is then manipulated with software.

You don't have much to lose by trying things, so I suggest you try it a few different ways (including the one in your original post) and decide what you like and what you don't. However as I said earlier, a post-fix soak in solution A should do nothing as it is not alkaline. You can try it, but I'd suggest then doing a second test with the post-fix soak in solution B or C and comparing the results. Perhaps the instruction to soak in solution A was a typo in whatever you were reading.

Thank you that clarification helps. I just ordered some today.

Sirius Glass · Jun 17, 2014

Gerald C Koch said:
As a chemist, just a reminder to all that pyrogallol is a very toxic substance readily absorbed through the skin. The LDLo (lowest lethal dose) is 25 mg per kilogram of body weight. Always use a face shield or goggles, a dust mask (necessary for the solid) and nitrile gloves when working with it or its solutions. It is also a cumulative poison in that repeated exposure over time increases the risk. It attacks the liver and the kidneys and in addition red blood cells. While also toxic catechol is a safer alternative for a staining developer. All in all pyrogallol is very nasty stuff.

Which is why Per gave me a box of nitrile gloves during the class.

Gerald C Koch · Jun 17, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
Which is why Per gave me a box of nitrile gloves during the class.

Excellent. I always worry that someone will read a thread and rush out to try pyro and not know the proper safety precautions. I would rather repeat myself than have some one become sick or worse.

Sirius Glass · Jun 17, 2014

Gerald C Koch said:
Excellent. I always worry that someone will read a thread and rush out to try pyro and not know the proper safety precautions. I would rather repeat myself than have some one become sick or worse.

I agree!

Also people with sensitive skin or who have a concern about inadvertently transferring photographic chemicals to the food chain should also wear nitrile gloves.

c6h6o3 · Jun 17, 2014

I thought this thread was about Pyrocat HD. It uses pyrocatechin as the reducing agent. Who said anything about pyrogallol?

c6h6o3 · Jun 17, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
Per Sandy King Pyrocat-HD is better than Rollo Pyro for Jobo processors.

Per Volquartz recommended that Rollo Pyro be used to develop to chemical extinction and ignore the temperatures in tanks or Jobo processors.
Presoak
5 minutes solution A
6 to 7 ½ minutes solution B
Two 30 second water rinses for stop bath
TF-4 or TF-5 for 3 minutes at 1:3
Two 30 second water rinses
2 minute solution A for staining
15 to 20 minute wash

Both recommend using the slowest speed for Jobo processors.

My questionS:
Will Per Volquartz's method work with Pyrocat-HD in a Jobo processor?
Using the 3010 Expert Drum the minimum amount of chemicals is 210ml, therefore I should use 300ml for six 4'x5" sheets and 50ml f0r 10 4'x5" sheets minimum. To be safe should I be using 400ml and 600ml respectively or more?

As long as you're using split development, it should work with Pyrocat.

Sirius Glass · Jun 17, 2014

c6h6o3 said:
As long as you're using split development, it should work with Pyrocat.

I also talked with the people at FreeStyle and they agreed with others here that Pyrocat-HD and Rollo Pyro work well in Jobo processors. Pyrocat-HD seems to be better for tabular emulsions and Rollo Pyro seems to be better for traditional emulsions. But there is not a lot of difference between them and both are better for larger formats than many of the other developers.

I am still learning about two stage developers.

Gerald C Koch · Jun 17, 2014

c6h6o3 said:
I thought this thread was about Pyrocat HD. It uses pyrocatechin as the reducing agent. Who said anything about pyrogallol?

There are several staining developers that are popular at the current time. Some use pyrocatechin and some pyrogallol. They are all lumped under the term pyro developers. Some photographers may use developers using either chemical at different times. Both chemicals are dangerous with pyrogallol being four times more toxic. Any warning for one applies to the other. Catechol has the added danger in that it has a measureable vapor pressure at room temperature. So working with the solid poses added danger. Pyrocatechin is an older name which has been replaced by the IUPAC name catechol.

Yet again for a pyro question

Sirius Glass

Gerald C Koch

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Sirius Glass

c6h6o3

john_s

Sirius Glass

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

erikg

markbarendt

Gerald C Koch

Sirius Glass

Sirius Glass

Gerald C Koch

Sirius Glass

c6h6o3

c6h6o3

Sirius Glass

Gerald C Koch

Yet again for a pyro question

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency