PDA

View Full Version : Any proof that pyrocat is better?


Brock
10th October 2016, 09:21 AM
I'm wide open to persuasion on this topic. Does pyrocat make a noticeable difference or is it a difference that is almost implied? I don't think I've ever seen a comparison between pyrocat or similar and an "ordinary" developer. I know there are photographers who swear by it but there are others who see no difference or so little difference that it makes no difference, if you know what I mean. Does anyone have any comparison prints of the same subject they could show or does pyrocat fall into the "Leica glow" category, i.e. only visible to those with uniquely cultured eyes?


www.theonlinedarkroom.com

Lostlabours
10th October 2016, 11:05 AM
Staining developers produce a dye (stain) image as well as a silver image, the combination means negative highlights tends to not block up like a negtaive processed in a conventional developer.

Another way of thinking about it is comparing chromogenic films like XP2 with a conventional film, a staining developer is producing negatives somewhere between the two. A benefit is it's less important to adjust development times to cope with different contrasts. It's as if the developer/negative combination is self-masking, which to a slight extent it is because of the tanning effect of the Pyro (either Pyrogallol or Pyrocatechin) which hardens the emulsion slowing development locally in proportion to the develping silver density.

I've used 3 developers over the last 30 years Rodinal and Xtol (replenished) and now Pyrocat HD. In terms of individual exhibition prints it would be near impossible to tell which developer was used and that's why some see little or no difference.

Overall the Pyrocat negatives are much easier to print, I'm mainly an LF shooter but usually carry a TLR as well and I guess have processed a few hundred 120 films in Pyrocat. It's twelve years since I switched to it from Rodinal and I've been very happy with the results.

I particulary like 5x4 HP5 in Pyrocat and often shoot hand held while in Turkey/Greece 1/200 at f22 and the combination is excellent in the constant harsh lighting, while being equally as good in themore gentle or overcast lighting here in the UK.

Ian

Alan Clark
10th October 2016, 04:02 PM
A few years ago I put my OM1 on a tripod, aimed it at a typical subject for me -a shed- and in constant sunlight exposed several rolls of FP4. I then was able to cut short bits off these films and develop them in a variety of developers. These included Pyrocat HD in various dilutions, Rodinal in various dilutions, ID 11 at 1+1 and 1+3, and Perceptol at 1+3.
Then I made some prints.
The first thing that was obvious was that all the negatives developed in Rodinal produced prints that were much more grainy than prints from the other developers.
The second thing was that sharpness was difficult to judge in the rodinal prints, because of the grain, but all the other developers seemed to produce prints that were as sharp or sharper than the Rodinal prints.
The third thing I noticed was that the Rodinal prints seemed duller than all the others. This was because the mid-tones printed darker. They also had less shadow detail; i.e. there was a loss of film speed. I was surprised at this because Rodinal has the reputation of being a good compensating developer; i.e. it allows the shadows and mid-tones to build up whilst curtailing the highlight densities - when used in a certain way. Some of the Rodinal negatives were developed semi-stand to facilitate this, but prints from these negatives had less shadow detail and darker mid-tones than prints from Pyrocat, Perceptol and ID11 negatives.
In short, Rodinal came out quite poorly in comparison to the other developers. I am surprised that Ian says he can see no difference between Rodinal and Ptyrocat HD. There was a big difference in my test prints, but they were from 35mm negatives. Ian prints from 5x4.

Now to Brock's question as to whether Pyrocat makes a noticable difference compared to "normal" developers. In my test Pyrocat produced prints with lovely bright upper mid-tones This made the prints come alive. But prints from ID11 at 1+3, and Perceptol at 1+3 looked almost identical. So Pyrocat really gave nothing that you can't get from ID11 and Perceptol.
Another area where Ian and I will have to disagree is when he says Pyrocat negatives are easier to print. I used Pyrocat for at least five years, and never found Pyrocat negatives easy to print. The stain made something about them counter-intuitive. On the other hand negatives developed in dilute Perceptol or dilute ID11 print very easily (usually!) for me.
Finally, does the staining control the density of negative highlights? Yes, I am sure it does, but these are just as easily controlled with the right amount of development in ID11 or Perceptol at 1+3 or 1+2

After this test I stopped using Rodinal and Pyrocat, and have been quite happy sticking with with ID11 and Perceptol .

Alan

Brock
10th October 2016, 04:16 PM
Thanks Ian and Alan. Very interesting stuff indeed. My inclination is towards Perceptol 1+2 but Phil Rogers (of this parish) is a recent convert to pyrocat and has been enthusing about it lately on his blog: http://fogblog-hermansheephouse.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/4k-burning-moggie.html.

I'm trying to decide on a developer for 35mm and 120 Tmax 400. I'd been happily using Firstcall's own (repackaged Rollei RHS) but my stock is probably past it and I see the price has doubled since my last order making it around the same price as several other developers. I might just mix up some D76 if I can find my raw chemicals after a house move. Pyrocat does have me wondering, though...


www.theonlinedarkroom.com

Alan Clark
10th October 2016, 04:26 PM
Brock, don't let me put you off Pyrocat. It really does give nice results, and is very economical and lasts for ages. And the printing problems I always seem to have with it were no doubt a result of my own shortcomings; others clearly get on wonderfully with it.

Alan

Lostlabours
10th October 2016, 04:35 PM
In short, Rodinal came out quite poorly in comparison to the other developers. I am surprised that Ian says he can see no difference between Rodinal and Ptyrocat HD. There was a big difference in my test prints, but they were from 35mm negatives. Ian prints from 5x4.

Alan, I said it's near impossible to see the differences between prints I've made where the negatives were processed in Rodinal or Pyrocat. That's 35mm and up to LF negatives. That doesn't mean there aren't differences in negatives rather that my controls in printing mean I can match visually.

A lot depends on the choice of film and testing for personal EI and optimising development and I found Rodinal exceptially good with APX100 & Tmax 100 extremely fine grain, with wonderful tonality and sharpness with 35mm to the extent that many thought the prints were from MF. To me Pyrocat is like Rodinal on steroids and the negative really are so easy to print (or sacn). Using ID-11/D76, Perceptol at 1+3 doesn't work for me I don't like the bland tonality that results.

Ian

Alan Clark
10th October 2016, 05:02 PM
Hello Ian,
Years ago, in the 1980s, I used Rodinal a lot with the old Agfapan 100, in 35mm. To my eye it was a wonderful combination; sharp, gritty, lovely tones. I was doing pictorial atmospheric landscape stuff back then. Now my approach is more semi-documentary I find ID11/D76 suits me much better.
Is it bland? This may depend on how you choose to print the negative. I believe Irving Penn used D76 to develop his Worlds In A Small Room negatives. The resultant prints are far from bland. As you know, Blakemore used ID1/?D76. His prints aren't bland.
If we ever meet up again we could no doubt have a useful discussion about this!

Alan

Lostlabours
10th October 2016, 05:17 PM
Alan, I don't think ID-11 is bland at all I used it for a number of years replenished in deep tanks, I just find the 1+3 dilution bland. 1+2 is a far better option I used it first in the lateb 1970's at a freinds request to process some 35mm FP4 he'd shot with an Exacta VX100 and 3 CZJ lenses and the results were amongst the best I've seen with 35mm. Relpenished ID-11 gives similar results.

I have a friend (Bill Spears) who uses Perceptol 1+2 and gets excellent results, It's not economic though for LF, plus I don't want the drop in film speed.

Ian

Alan Clark
10th October 2016, 05:23 PM
Ian, I'm with you now.
I initially found the D76 1+3 dilution good for high contrast, but eventually switched to 1+2 and have used this dilution for a number of years now.
How is Bill Spears? He used to be on here, but don't think he has posted for a while. I really liked his prints. Didn't he use 6x7 Pan f developed in Perceptol 1+2?

Alan

Mike O'Pray
10th October 2016, 06:17 PM
In terms of printing more easily, the thing that might attract me to a staining developer would be negs that print more easily i.e. defined as those that either print without any dodging and burning or with much less or at least less complicated D&B.

There may not be enough of us who have switched from conventional( for want of a better word) developers to staining developers for spectators like me to draw meaningful conclusions.

If say 20 have made the switch and 15 or more say that printing is easier then it begins to mean something. Even if 5 have made the switch and all 5 say that printing is easier then that might be significant also but as things stand we have two relatively opposing views.

To be fair I have read a lot on staining developers on APUG over the years and I am still left with the conclusion that the "jury is still out" compared to say my conclusion on Rodinal and graininess where on balance I'd conclude that it is grainier.

Mike

Mike

Tony Marlow
10th October 2016, 09:04 PM
Just a non technical view I have used Prescysol for several years and my feeling was I needed to dodge and burn less than other developers, Rodinal, ID11 etc, and the negs seemed to print easier.

Tony

Mike O'Pray
10th October 2016, 09:33 PM
Thanks, Tony. It seems to me that the more "switchers" who express an opinion the better it will be for those of us who might consider the switch

Mike