PDA

View Full Version : Prescysol


Dave miller
15th September 2008, 07:05 PM
I’ve taken legal advice over whether I should I publically make this confession.:eek:
Well here goes. I admit that I’m a “boil in the bag” sort when it comes to film developers. Two or three years ago I discovered Peter Hogan’s Prescysol and have used it ever since. Anything made from cattle bones, laced with silver, and vaguely film-like gets popped into the pot and left to simmer for 10 minutes or so, except that is my sheet film which gets special treatment. This gets sloshed around in a Paterson Orbital processer for 8 minutes before being rung out to dry. :)
Now before you throw your hands up in horror, I must add that most of my negatives treated in this brew print straight, little of the hand waving malarkey is required.:cool: Note the "most". Some may say I’m too easily pleased though?

Bill
17th September 2008, 06:31 AM
Not really that shocking as it was always recommended that you should stick to one film and one developer until you know them well. If it is giving you the negatives that suit your work and style of printing then that is to the good.

I tried Thornton's DiXactol which I got good results with and have also tried Precysol EF with not so good results. The negatives were variable sometimes being very thin. I later read that solution B can have a problem with precipitate and that you should warm it in a microwave to ensure proper mixing each time you used it. That may have been the problem.

Peter Hogan appears to have taken over where Barry Thornton left off selling the Thornton developers as well but I have not been tempted to try them again.

Bill.

Dave miller
17th September 2008, 04:26 PM
That’s right Bill the chemical in solution B can solidify if it gets cold, and I’m sure it has caught many out, me included. I found that a vigorous shaking put in back where it belonged; in solution. I use the standard Prescysol by the way as the EF is, I think, designed for small formats. I really must get down to trying different concentrations and times to see what happens.

Stoo Batchelor
18th September 2008, 12:22 PM
I tried Thornton's DiXactol which I got good results with and have also tried Precysol EF with not so good results. The negatives were variable sometimes being very thin.

Bill.

Hello Bill

I am some what surprised to find that you have had problems using Prescysol EF, even taking in to account the milkiness of the 'B' bath. I have been a long time user of the developer and have never had a bad negative, no matter what film I have thrown at it. Also, I can almost always gaurantee that my enlarger will print any negative developed in the Prescysol at about grade 2 3/4, no matter what film, apart from Fuji Acros, in which Prescysol failed to work its magic. The Fuji Acros negatives struggled at grade 4 1/2. I think that I would double the strength of the developer if I was to use this film again.

The one thing that I probably do differently compared to most darkroom users, is to use a seperate developing tank for each different developer that I use, so as to avoid contamination. This is a hangover from my Di-Xactol days, which was very, very prone to contamination from other developers.

Could contamination be a cause of the problems you had?

Just a thought

Best

Stoo

Bill
18th September 2008, 06:52 PM
Hi Stoo,

Contamination is a possibility as I tend to use one tank for all my 120 work. I do try to give it a good wash after use but no doubt some chemical contamination could exist.

The comment on Acros was a possibility as it is a film I do use regularly. Checking my records 80% of the films I processed in Precysol EF were Fuji Neopan Acros 100. Your comment there may have hit the nail on the head.

I have a couple of 120 tanks and a couple of 35 mm as well. One of each size is quite old being Paterson System 4 tanks with my usual 120 tank being a Super System 4. My other 35 mm tank is a stainless steel one that I have not used for years.

Thanks for your help

Bill

Stoo Batchelor
21st September 2008, 08:30 AM
Hi Stoo,

The comment on Acros was a possibility as it is a film I do use regularly. Checking my records 80% of the films I processed in Precysol EF were Fuji Neopan Acros 100. Your comment there may have hit the nail on the head.

Bill

Mmmm! Thats very interesting Bill. It appears that Fuji Neopan Acros 100 has a history of being a bit haphazard in staining developers, as I have had a route around and have found a letter from Barry Thornton, dated July 2003, that might be of interest to some. I had sent him some test negs and prints as I was having problems with reticulation when developing Fuji Neopan 400 in Di-Xactol. On the second line of the letter he writes:

Fuji Acros I have found has a very soft emulsion prone to damage in any tanning and staining developer, and I specifically advise not using this film with Dixactol Ultra or Exactol. I have not had any reported problems with normal Neopan before...........

Barry reiterated once again further in the letter as not to develop Fuji Acros in Di-Xactol. I can fully understand you describing your Acros negatives as thin, especially when comparing them to your Di-Xactol negatives, as a Di-Xactol negative looks bullet proof and has that lovely chocolate brown stain when compared to the weaker stain that Prescysol EF gives to a negative.

I think that it is very important here to point out that Barry was wrong to say that Fuji Acros is prone to damage in any tanning/staining developer, as I know of several photographers who have great success when developing the film in Pyrocat HD, though in his defense, Pyrocat HD did not exsist at the time he wrote the letter. I am sure that I have read somewhere that the stain from Pyrocat has an hardening effect on softer emulsions, which can only be a positive thing, but I am unqualified to say this is true, so if you are reading this and know better it would be good of you to share what you know.

I hope this helps someone

Best

Stoo

Barry
21st September 2008, 08:55 AM
I had some success with Moersch Tanol with Fuji Acros. It provided a good stain and expansion in a low contrast situation.

Peter Hogan
21st September 2008, 10:00 AM
Hi everybody, interesing to read the comments about these developers. It's suprising that people don't always came back to me if they have a problem, preferring to walk away, when often there is a simple solution!
Fuji Acros is indeed a problem film when it comes to developing in most, if not all, staining developers, and I believe it to be a problem with the composition of the gelatin base; variations in the composition mean uneven tanning (hardening) of the gelatin leading to uneven absorbtion of the developer and therefore uneven development/thin negs etc. Acros is one film I steer cleer of anyway; I'm just not a lover of it. I think there are much better films available. My personal favourites are Ilford HP5 and Delta 400 - used for their different tonal ranges.
The 'B' solutions of the Prescysol family are super-saturated. The chemical process of producing them is exothermic, which means heat is produced during the reaction - quite considerable heat, too. A warmer solution is able to dissolve more of a given chemical than a colder one, so the solution at the end of the process holds more of the constituent than if it were cold. Fine, as long as the solution stays relatively warm, but if it cools too much the solution is then unable to hold all the chemicals in a dissolved state, and the excess will crystallize out. A warm water bath or a quick zap in the microwave will restore the status quo with no damage to the solution. Solution B should always be well shaken before use.
Standard Prescysol can be used for any negative size, and will produce fine, easily printable negatives. Prescysol 'EF' was formulated to give extra fine grain, at the expense of a little stain (nothing's for free!) and designed specifically for those using 35mm and wishing to make large prints (16x12 and over) although it, too, can be used with any format. It seems to have become the developer of choice for many photographers, though, and and is distributed all over the world...
Incidentally, for those who don't know, all films of different makes and different speeds can be developed together in the same tank for the same time with both Prescysols! Good or what.
I am more than happy to answer any queries, Prescysol related or not, and either privately or, preferably, through the Forum.
Peter Hogan.

Bill
21st September 2008, 06:19 PM
Thanks for the responses Stoo and Peter.

Since using Precysol I have processed Acros in Arem Pyro, now no longer available. That seemed to work OK.

I am one of those inveterate experimenters and I may not have used Precysol again just due to the fact that there are other developers I have not tried!

The other non-Acros films I processed in Precysol were fine so it does seem that Acros is the problem, not the developer, if you zap Solution B in the microwave before using.

Bill

Ag-Bromide
9th October 2008, 08:21 AM
Hi everybody, interesing to read the comments about these developers. It's suprising that people don't always came back to me if they have a problem, preferring to walk away, when often there is a simple solution!
Fuji Acros is indeed a problem film when it comes to developing in most, if not all, staining developers, and I believe it to be a problem with the composition of the gelatin base; variations in the composition mean uneven tanning (hardening) of the gelatin leading to uneven absorbtion of the developer and therefore uneven development/thin negs etc. Acros is one film I steer cleer of anyway; I'm just not a lover of it. I think there are much better films available. My personal favourites are Ilford HP5 and Delta 400 - used for their different tonal ranges.
The 'B' solutions of the Prescysol family are super-saturated. The chemical process of producing them is exothermic, which means heat is produced during the reaction - quite considerable heat, too. A warmer solution is able to dissolve more of a given chemical than a colder one, so the solution at the end of the process holds more of the constituent than if it were cold. Fine, as long as the solution stays relatively warm, but if it cools too much the solution is then unable to hold all the chemicals in a dissolved state, and the excess will crystallize out. A warm water bath or a quick zap in the microwave will restore the status quo with no damage to the solution. Solution B should always be well shaken before use.
Standard Prescysol can be used for any negative size, and will produce fine, easily printable negatives. Prescysol 'EF' was formulated to give extra fine grain, at the expense of a little stain (nothing's for free!) and designed specifically for those using 35mm and wishing to make large prints (16x12 and over) although it, too, can be used with any format. It seems to have become the developer of choice for many photographers, though, and and is distributed all over the world...
Incidentally, for those who don't know, all films of different makes and different speeds can be developed together in the same tank for the same time with both Prescysols! Good or what.
I am more than happy to answer any queries, Prescysol related or not, and either privately or, preferably, through the Forum.
Peter Hogan.
I haven`t tried Prescysol, so I can not comment. I like HP5 Plus in 35mm and 120 and also have T-Max 100 which are in 4x5 inch size Readyloads. Which of the Prescysols do you prefer?
Also, what are the processing dilutions, times, temperature and agitation recommendations for these developers and can they be used in a Jobo rotary processor for sheet-films?

Argentum
9th October 2008, 03:00 PM
I haven`t tried Prescysol, so I can not comment. I like HP5 Plus in 35mm and 120 and also have T-Max 100 which are in 4x5 inch size Readyloads. Which of the Prescysols do you prefer?
Also, what are the processing dilutions, times, temperature and agitation recommendations for these developers and can they be used in a Jobo rotary processor for sheet-films?

Welcome Keith.

I'm sure Peter will chime in but also see the following thread which I asked same question with regards to Delta 3200.

http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=149

RobC

Argentum
14th October 2008, 07:52 AM
Another one I'm about to try is Pyrocat-HD. The article below has quite a lot to say about pyro and pyrocatechin processing in rotary processors which makes good reading.

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/pcat.html

chemicals for this are all available at silverprint.

Dave miller
14th October 2008, 10:49 AM
I haven`t tried Prescysol, so I can not comment. I like HP5 Plus in 35mm and 120 and also have T-Max 100 which are in 4x5 inch size Readyloads. Which of the Prescysols do you prefer?
Also, what are the processing dilutions, times, temperature and agitation recommendations for these developers and can they be used in a Jobo rotary processor for sheet-films?

I use Prescysol for three reasons, it keeps very well, is easy to use and gives me negatives that print easily. Since I only average using about two bottles a year I don't consider the saving that may be made by mixing my own worthwhile. I previously used ID11 and Rodinal.
Prescysol and Prescysol EF have different mixing ratios, both very frugal. Peter recommends using it at 24C but I use it at ambient temperature of between 20 and 25C without noticeable difference in results, but that's untested:(. I develop 120 film in a Paterson drums (between 2 and 10 films) using a semi-stand method that involves minimum agitation for 10.5 minutes. Sheet film, 5x4 and 10x8, is developed in a tray processor useing continous agitation for 8.5 minutes. I cannot think of any reason why this developer wouldn't work in a JOBO drum. Hope that helps.

Ag-Bromide
14th October 2008, 05:49 PM
Without buying the product(s), what do the instructions say that come with the developer(s) for times, temperature and agitation?
Also, how do the negatives print on VC papers, or do graded papers provide better tonality?

Dave miller
14th October 2008, 05:57 PM
Without buying the product(s), what do the instructions say that come with the developer(s) for times, temperature and agitation?
Also, how do the negatives print on VC papers, or do graded papers provide better tonality?

This LINK (http://www.monochromephotography.com/developer.htm) may yield a little more information. Other than that I'm sure Peter will respond when he returns from his holiday.

Stoo Batchelor
14th October 2008, 08:38 PM
Without buying the product(s), what do the instructions say that come with the developer(s) for times, temperature and agitation?
Also, how do the negatives print on VC papers, or do graded papers provide better tonality?

Hi Keith.

Prescysol is one of the easiest and most forgiving developers to use. If you wish to try it before purchasing some, I have a small quantity of Prescysol EF left that was delivered to me in February(with instructions). I just opened the bottles and all looks good. You are most welcome to it if you wish to forward me your mailing address. I am not sure how much is in the bottles but at a guess I would say about 20ml, which is ample for a couple of litres of developer.

Stoo

Peter Hogan
20th October 2008, 09:22 AM
First, apologies for late replies and posts; I've been in Scotland for a week (photographing, but also organizing workshops that I'm running next year).
Standard Prescysol is pretty unbeatable for any format; smooth tones, very sharp, and the mid to high tones develop beautifully. Films of different makes and different speeds can be developed together in the same tank for the same time. Prescysol 'EF' was formulated to give extra fine grain (at the expense of a little stain - nothings for free!) for those wishing to make large prints from smaller negatives. Works perfectly with any format, though. They both come in two solutions - A and B. Dilutions for Standard Prescysol are 1:5:100, and EF 1:1:100. Temp for both 24 degrees. Standard agitation (continous for the first minute, ten seconds every minute thereafter for 8 minutes) is fine, but for maximum accutance I recommend the Partial Stand technique - continous agitation for the first minute, then let it stand for 3 minuts, ten to fifteen seconds [I]thorough[I]agitation, stand for another 3 minutes, another 10 to 15 secs agitation then let it stand for the rest of the time - 10.5 minutes in all. No stop needed - just a quick rinse in water to remove the excess dev, then fix, and I definately recommend an alakli fixer - it enhances the stain, which is an integral part of the development. Acid fixers will reduce the stain.
If you [I]must[I] use a Jobo, it must be of the variable speed variety and set to the slowest speed. Because the extra agitation will exacerbate the oxidation, add 30% more solution 'A' to the mix. Should probably add 50% more total solution as well. Be aware that excessive agitation with this type of developer can increase general B+F stain - can usually be printed through, not sure about scanning.
If you are scanning your negs, scan in RGB and convert later in Photoshop.
Hope that's helpful.
Peter

Mike Meal
29th December 2008, 01:54 PM
I've been testing Prescysol with 5x4 sheet film and so far I've had some disappointing results so if Peter or anyone else can offer some advice then please do.
I'm using a Paterson Orbital Processor with 200ml of chemicals with the developer 1+5+100 at 24 degrees (warming solution B in a warm water bath and shaking before use).
I've tested HP5+, Foma 100 and my last few sheets of Delta 100 and all the films show a 50% loss in film speed with developing times around 11 mins.

I've followed all the Prescysol instructions exactly but I'm still getting poor film speed and long development times. I dont want to give up on this developer but I dont want to keep wasting film in constant testing!

Dave miller
29th December 2008, 02:03 PM
Mike, are you using continuous or intermittent agitation?

Argentum
29th December 2008, 02:11 PM
If thats a continuous agitation processor then possibly some of the advice in the following is applicable.

http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=889&postcount=2

Mike Meal
29th December 2008, 02:32 PM
I'm using continuous agitation, I'm not sure how the Orbital would perform with intermittent agitation as you would have to use over 350ml of chemicals to cover the film and even then I wouldnt be confident that the film was getting enough coverage.
Rob I did see that old post and tried adding an extra .75ml of solution A but it had no real effect to density.

Peter Hogan
29th December 2008, 07:22 PM
Mike, none of these type of developers (tanning/staining) give their best when used in a rotary processor. The constant agitation will soon oxidise the 'A' part of the dev and the accutance benefits of the semi-stand, or even normal agitation methods are negated. If you must use a rotary processor add at least 30% more solution A and run at the slowest speed possible. Ideally though, you should use a tank, even in preference to a tray, particularly if using the partial stand method. The amount of agitation recommended using this method is the MINIMAL amount needed, and it is important that the mixture is mixed thoroughly, and that means by inverting the tank. If you are using a tray, best to lift the neg from the liquid then mix well using a paddle or gloved fingers before re-immersing the neg and swirling for 15 secs or so. Given a fair water quality (and even then Prescysol is very forgiving) almost all problems can be brought down to agitation techniques.

Peter Hogan
29th December 2008, 07:25 PM
Forgot to mention Mike, but if you have any doubts about the dev please return it and I'll be glad to replace. Have to say that I get very very few complaints, though, and none at all from that particular batch!

Mike Meal
29th December 2008, 08:28 PM
Thanks for getting back to me Peter.
I've got some Combi tanks that I usually use with Rodinal for dip and dunk so I'II try the remaining Prescysol in those. The only problem with using the Combi tanks is that they use 1000ml of chemicals.

Steve Smith
16th February 2009, 09:24 AM
Sorry to revive an old thread but I have a Prescysol query:

As I couldn't get any Ilford DD-X at my local Jessops (first time they were ever out of stock) I started to look on Silverprint's website. I came across Prescysol and remembered that I was going to try it but never did.

There are two versions available. The original and the EF version.

I understand from above posts that the EF is an extra fine version for smaller formats and the standard was intended for larger formats and that the EF trades off some staining in exchange for increased sharpness.

I use mainly an equal mix of 35mm and 120 with just occasional use of 5x4. With that in mind, which version would be better for me to buy? I am thinking EF as I don't do a lot of 5x4.

I can't even choose the cheapest option as they are both the same price!

EDIT: One further question: Do I need an alkali fix with this developer?




Steve.

Peter Hogan
16th February 2009, 11:49 AM
Steve, the EF will do fine. An alkaline environment helps the staining process, which is an integral part of a stained neg!. An acid stop/fixer will reduce the stain. You don't need a stop anyway, with these devs, just a quick water rinse. A lot of people do use an acid fix, and keep using it, (including Mr. Maclean) so presumably they are happy with what they get. Just don't mix the fixer too strong or over-fix.

Steve Smith
16th February 2009, 12:24 PM
Thanks for the reply. I will order some EF today. I think I will get the alkaline fix as well - more for a practical reason.

My darkroom is in my roof space and I process films in the kitchen. If I am in the darkroom, my fixer is in the kitchen and if I am in the kitchen, the fixer is in the darkroom.

If I keep a bottle of each in the right place it should halve the time I spend climbing up and down the loft ladder!



Steve.

Les McLean
16th February 2009, 02:49 PM
Steve, the EF will do fine. An alkaline environment helps the staining process, which is an integral part of a stained neg!. An acid stop/fixer will reduce the stain. You don't need a stop anyway, with these devs, just a quick water rinse. A lot of people do use an acid fix, and keep using it, (including Mr. Maclean) so presumably they are happy with what they get. Just don't mix the fixer too strong or over-fix.

Mr Hogan, the correct spelling of my name is McLean and yes, I'm perfectly happy with the results I get from both Prescysol and EF. Can you quantify the degree of reduction one is likely to experience when using the alkaline fixer rather than the acid version? :):D

Dave miller
16th February 2009, 05:14 PM
Mr Hogan, the correct spelling of my name is McLean and yes, I'm perfectly happy with the results I get from both Prescysol and EF. Can you quantify the degree of reduction one is likely to experience when using the alkaline fixer rather than the acid version? :):D

Hey you two! If you want to have a punch-up over the merits or otherwise of fixers and spelling; then do it in public where we can all watch. :eek:

Peter Hogan
16th February 2009, 05:22 PM
Punch up? I LOVE Les.

Bob
16th February 2009, 10:42 PM
Ask Silverprint if they will ship you a 5l bottle of Agfa FX Universal fixer when you buy the developer (they do with some other 5l bottles now but the web site still says it can't be shipped). It is neutral pH so I'm guessing less likely to reduce the stain than an acid fixer and is pretty low odour and is very economical.

Steve Smith
19th February 2009, 08:57 AM
Thanks for the reply. I will order some EF today.

Well, despite my best intentions, I clicked on the wrong box and ordered original Prescysol.

I tried it out last night and there appears to be a huge amount of detail in a roll of 35mm FP4+. I have not printed any yet (perhaps this afternoon) but even putting them on a lightbox makes them look great. Also, the clear areas of the film look clearer than I am used to. I don't know if that's a function of the film or the alkaline fix but it is definitely different.

Speaking of fix, last night I was thinking to myself that the fixer was a bit expensive and that I may have to consider going back to normal fix when this runs out. I woke up this morning to the realisation that I didn't dilute it with four parts of water but just used some of the one litre of stock I made up!

That's o.k. then, it's a fifth of the cost I thought it was last night.


Steve.

Steve Smith
20th February 2009, 10:17 AM
Me again.

I made some 10" x 8" prints from my Prescysol developed 35mm negatives last night and was pleasantly surprised.

Along with a great tonality and smoothness of tones (or is that the same thing?) there was also a lot more detail and clarity than I am used to from 35mm. These prints rival some of my medium format efforts.

Now I need to try it on medium format film!



Steve.

Ian David
22nd February 2009, 09:49 PM
Very interesting.... I have been meaning to try this stuff for some time. Peter, can you advise who (if anyone) currently distributes Prescysol in Australia? I suspect I won't find it anywhere in Brisbane, but imagine that there might be a few suppliers in Sydney and Melbourne.
Many thanks for any info you can give me.
Ian

Ian David
22nd February 2009, 10:09 PM
Me again - I don't know much about staining/tanning developers, and was wondering whether there is any question of the stain component of the processed negative being less (or somehow differently) archival than the silver? If I come to reprint my Prescysol negatives in 20 years, will I get the same results?
Ian

Mike O'Pray
22nd February 2009, 11:02 PM
Me again.

I made some 10" x 8" prints from my Prescysol developed 35mm negatives last night and was pleasantly surprised.

Along with a great tonality and smoothness of tones (or is that the same thing?) there was also a lot more detail and clarity than I am used to from 35mm. These prints rival some of my medium format efforts.

Now I need to try it on medium format film!



Steve.

Yet another great endorsement Steve and I am coming to the end of my DDX. Looks like Prescysol EF is definitely worth a go

Mike

Peter Hogan
23rd February 2009, 08:33 AM
Me again - I don't know much about staining/tanning developers, and was wondering whether there is any question of the stain component of the processed negative being less (or somehow differently) archival than the silver? If I come to reprint my Prescysol negatives in 20 years, will I get the same results?
Ian

Prescysol isn't 20 years old Ian, but I do have 10 year old negatives that don't appear to have changed at all. I must say that the stain is pretty tough stuff; you can't shift it from, example, a worktop. Best not to spill it!

Steve Smith
23rd February 2009, 08:54 AM
On the subject of stain, I have to say that I don't see any!

My negatives don't look much different to my DD-X developed negatives with respect to colour.

Am I missing something? Or is it very subtle?


Steve.

Ian David
23rd February 2009, 09:04 AM
Prescysol isn't 20 years old Ian, but I do have 10 year old negatives that don't appear to have changed at all. I must say that the stain is pretty tough stuff; you can't shift it from, example, a worktop. Best not to spill it!

Goodo - I am convinced I need to give Prescysol a go. I will order some from you shortly, Peter.

Peter Hogan
23rd February 2009, 12:20 PM
On the subject of stain, I have to say that I don't see any!

My negatives don't look much different to my DD-X developed negatives with respect to colour.

Am I missing something? Or is it very subtle?


Steve.

It is subtle, Steve, and doesn't look obvious to the eye. In printing tems, though, it is pretty significant, as you've seen!

Peter Hogan
23rd February 2009, 12:24 PM
Should have said; I mentioned in another thread that the 'same' emulsion on different formats can behave differently. 35mm seems to hold less stain than the larger formats. You won't have any difficulty seeing it on 120 film...

GoodOldNorm
29th August 2012, 07:28 PM
Hello to all prescysol and prescysol ef enthusiast, now that you have had a few years to play with prescysol can you tell me how to use it to its full potential?

Steve Smith
29th August 2012, 07:50 PM
Just use it as per the instructions.


Steve.

GoodOldNorm
29th August 2012, 10:03 PM
Just use it as per the instructions.


Steve. No gliches then?

Paul Mitchell
30th August 2012, 07:53 AM
Agree with Steve.

I find that the partial stand development gives me the results I'm looking for.

Peter is still around to ask if you have any queries.

Paul

Jon Butler
30th August 2012, 08:01 AM
Norman,
Start with the recommend time for partial-stand development but you will end up altering that time to your personal development time. This is because we all meter the in different ways and how dense you like negatives.
When I use Prescysol it's the EF version at 24c for 8.5m P-Stand = agitate
every 2.5m, I get fine negatives.
J.

Steve Smith
30th August 2012, 08:57 AM
but you will end up altering that time to your personal development time.

I have found that altering the time makes no difference. I once tool a phone call whilst developing and left it to stand for at least twice as long as it should have and it did not appear to have affected it.


Steve.

IanNN
30th August 2012, 09:04 PM
Hi

I found prescysol EF fairly hard to get wrong, but it does need a bit of a tweek depending on the film you use. I overexpose by 1/3 of a stop for FP4 and TMY2 but this was not necessary for delta 400.

I mostly used FP4 and TMY2, which came out a bit flat. I took the advice that dev time does not increase contrast and increased the concentration to 1.5+1.5+100. Very nice. TMY prints at grade 3.5, FP4 more like 3 (diffuser head).

I've stopped using it for the time being as it doesn't really work with my Analyser Pro.

Mike O'Pray
27th August 2015, 10:57 PM
Hi

I've stopped using it for the time being as it doesn't really work with my Analyser Pro.

Reviving a very old thread as a result of a thread today from a new FADUer asking about Prescysol. The "it " in question in the above quote is Prescysol which as everyone will know is a staining developer but there are two versions Prescysol and Prescysol EF which is finer grained at the expense of stain and designed for 35mm negs, especially those used for big enlargements

I must admit that I have often wondered about how well the Analyser Pro manages stained negs

It appears that no-one asked IanNN to expand on his statement and I haven't checked if he is still active but can anyone say what their experience has been with Prescysol and the Analyser Pro or indeed the Analyser Pro and any staining developer?

Mike