Let's Talk About Pyro! :)

[jwicaksana]

Hello friends,

So the other day a friend of mine hooked me up with his home brewed Pyrocat-MC. I tend to be technical and specific when it comes to developing films, so then I proceeded to scour the interwebs for reference. Of course the top listings were original posts by Pat Gainer and Sandy King which were really informative, but not exactly what I need now. By that I mean, for the time being I did not need to know the formula or how to mix them, but rather how I develop my films with them.

The Massive Dev Chart also did not help much. On RFF there are some threads and mentions of this family of developer, if I remember correctly, Pyrocat-HD seems to be the most popular variant. Here's what I got on my first roll with Pyrocat-MC:

​

What I did:

Part A😛art B:Water = 1:5:100
We used the Natrium Carbonate Part B to make 400ml-ish solution for 1 roll of 35mm film. Film was Kodak Surveillance Hawkeye 2485, ASA 400, Expired in 2011. Developed for 26 minutes semi stand, temp was maintained as best as I can around 20 deg Celcius. Scanned with Canoscan 9000f.

Please let me know what you think, what I can improve, any tips etc. Would be really awesome if you will post your images and share how you do it. Maybe a little too optimistic for now, but hey, there's no harm in hoping that this thread will roll and become a place where we can discuss about this interesting developer. Over to you, fellas.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I've used PMK for many years. It was the first modern Pyro developer, the one that ignited the current interest in Pyro. I haven't tried Pyrocat, so I can't give you any developing times, but if you ever try PMK, I have a lot of developing times and exposure indexes for different films on my tutorial website: http://crawfordphotoschool.com/film/developing.php

There are only two problems I see with your photos. One is that the images look flat. That's not your developing, though. Its the scanning. BW film scans are always flat and need some increase in contrast in Photoshop. A lot of people don't know that, and just use what the scanner gives, but you're losing the beautiful tonality the film is capable of giving if you don't post-process the scans.

The other is that all of them have streaks of something across the photo. They look like drying marks on the film. Do you use a wetting agent as your final chemical when you develop your film? Kodak Photo-Flo is the usual choice, but Ilford makes a similar product. It makes the film dry clean without water spots or drying marks. You can soak your already developed films in it and redry them to remove the marks.

Here's some of my PMK work:

These were all shot on Ilford HP5, at EI-250. This is 120 size film, shot with a Mamiya 6.

 

[jwicaksana]

Hi Chris, thanks a lot for your insights. The three images you posted are gorgeous, especially the second one. All three shows different aspects of both your vision and technique. Those are also very contrasty while being very artsy and rich, not the kind of hurt my eyes contrasty. Back to my photos, and your observations on them:

1. Flat - I agree, and actually it is the developing. The original TIFF files are flat flat flat. The fact that it was a cloudy afternoon did not help either. But after reading your remarks and seeing your images, I tried tweaking them a little and I have some more tricks I want to do for the next roll.

2. Streaks - At first I thought it's the scanner. So I re-scanned them, re-install scanner drivers, also tried scanning documents and negatives from other rolls. Can't find the streaks on the other files so it must be the negative. Looking at them closely, I couldn't find any streaks, usually if it's water spot I can easily see that, but this is one of my cleanest neg actually. What should I do to look for the streak on the negative? Oh, and I did use one tiny drop of dishwashing liquid in final rinse.

Many thanks once again.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Pyro developers are notorious for causing image streaking and spotting if they're not given enough agitation. Pyrocat is claimed to be much less likely to do that, which is why I thought of drying marks. With PMK I have to give fairly vigorous agitation for the first minute then every 30 seconds I give two vigorous inversions of the tank, hitting the bottom of it on the palm of my hand after each inversion to dislodge air bubbles.

Original TIFFs from the scanner are normally so flat they look completely dead and gray. You might just need to do a little more contrast in editing. I have examples here: http://crawfordphotoschool.com/digital/scanning.php

 

[john_s]

.....Flat - I agree, and actually it is the developing. The original TIFF files are flat flat flat. The fact that it was a cloudy afternoon did not help either. But after reading your remarks and seeing your images, I tried tweaking them a little and I have some more tricks I want to do for the next roll.........

The negs can look flat but come up beautifully with wet printing. More so with graded paper, but even with VC paper they can surprise. Pyrocat might be a bit better for wet printing VC paper as its stain isn't as green. Having said that, my PMK negs never looked green like some people's are shown to be on some web sites.

 

[Freakscene]

2. Streaks

These look very much like scratches on the non-emulsion side of the negatives.

Take a look under angled light with magnification to find out for sure.

Marty

 

[ChrisLivsey]

Those lines look like a scanning artifact to me, they are IMHO too parallel and consistent to be mechanical, but I'm no expert on that.

I have started to experiment with Pyrocat-HD. I ran some test rolls and was impressed and I am now scanning through about 30 rolls accumulated over the school holidays from Iceland and Scotland processed in a new home brewed batch.
Borrowed from TomA I use a semi-stand approach:
1:1:100
5min pre-soak
15min total with 1st min continuous then agitation at 3,6,9,12 mins stand to 15mins. Agitation is five inversions taking about 20 sec. All 20C/70F within a degree or so. A good bash on the bench after agitation as Chris recommends above.
I did run one batch for 18mins inadvertently and found that was not as successful particularly on the slower emulsions eg FP4+.
I find sharpness, of course, tight grain and at least box speed.
I had some IXMOOs in Scotland loaded with ORWO UN74 but one turned out to be Kodak 5222, so exposed at 400iso they were fine I only saw the error when I read the edge code to file them, density was fine and I shoot that usually at 250/320 sunny 16.
Images are test so not exciting and none uploaded yet from the holiday but all those look good, technically 😀

EFKE 25 on 120

Crop from above ORWO 54 for grain and detail

ORWO UN 54

Good on "T" grain as well, Delta 100

All scans from my modest Plustek 8100, except the 120 Allium on a commercial Fuji Frontier SP3000.

 

[jwicaksana]

With PMK I have to give fairly vigorous agitation for the first minute then every 30 seconds I give two vigorous inversions of the tank, hitting the bottom of it on the palm of my hand after each inversion to dislodge air bubbles.

Original TIFFs from the scanner are normally so flat they look completely dead and gray. You might just need to do a little more contrast in editing. I have examples here: http://crawfordphotoschool.com/digital/scanning.php

Thanks Chris, definitely will give stronger agitation for the next developing session. Also have read and applied your tutorial there and will try to train myself more on digital post processing.

The negs can look flat but come up beautifully with wet printing. More so with graded paper, but even with VC paper they can surprise. Pyrocat might be a bit better for wet printing VC paper as its stain isn't as green. Having said that, my PMK negs never looked green like some people's are shown to be on some web sites.

Thank you Sir, will remember that when I learn printing. 🙂

These look very much like scratches on the non-emulsion side of the negatives.

Take a look under angled light with magnification to find out for sure.

Marty

Hi Marty, done with with a loupe and I can't see any scratch honestly. Will run a second developing session with different film, after all I am just learning about Pyro developers.

Those lines look like a scanning artifact to me, they are IMHO too parallel and consistent to be mechanical, but I'm no expert on that.

I have started to experiment with Pyrocat-HD. I ran some test rolls and was impressed and I am now scanning through about 30 rolls accumulated over the school holidays from Iceland and Scotland processed in a new home brewed batch.
Borrowed from TomA I use a semi-stand approach:
1:1:100
5min pre-soak
15min total with 1st min continuous then agitation at 3,6,9,12 mins stand to 15mins. Agitation is five inversions taking about 20 sec. All 20C/70F within a degree or so. A good bash on the bench after agitation as Chris recommends above.
I did run one batch for 18mins inadvertently and found that was not as successful particularly on the slower emulsions eg FP4+.
I find sharpness, of course, tight grain and at least box speed.
I had some IXMOOs in Scotland loaded with ORWO UN74 but one turned out to be Kodak 5222, so exposed at 400iso they were fine I only saw the error when I read the edge code to file them, density was fine and I shoot that usually at 250/320 sunny 16.
Images are test so not exciting and none uploaded yet from the holiday but all those look good, technically 😀

EFKE 25 on 120

Crop from above ORWO 54 for grain and detail

ORWO UN 54

Good on "T" grain as well, Delta 100

All scans from my modest Plustek 8100, except the 120 Allium on a commercial Fuji Frontier SP3000.

Dear Chris, thanks for being so kind and sharing your development times and samples. Re: the scratches, the film is bought in bulk, maybe it being respooled created micro scratches, I don't know. What I can tell is that the scanner should function just fine, as I ran other negatives on it which came along alright.

More on development time, is that like a 'one size fits most', a universal formula like Rodinal 1:100 for 60 minutes? Does anybody have tried developing Polypan F 50 in Pyrocat-MC?

 

[ChrisLivsey]

More on development time, is that like a 'one size fits most', a universal formula like Rodinal 1:100 for 60 minutes? Does anybody have tried developing Polypan F 50 in Pyrocat-MC?

Yes semi stand as I quote is "universal time" I ran 5 rolls last time all different emulsions all fine.
Never shot PolypanF, sorry.

 

[jwicaksana]

Yes semi stand as I quote is "universal time" I ran 5 rolls last time all different emulsions all fine.
Never shot PolypanF, sorry.

I did mine, 24 minutes, full agitation in the first minute, then gentle swirls at the 8th, 16th, 22nd minute. Not satisfied yet with the results with Polypan F. I've got this bulk roll of Ultrafine 100, will learn to standardize my regime around this film/developer combo with your method. Thanks again!

 

[jwicaksana]

Pyrocat-MC with Polypan F
​

 

[jwicaksana]

Ultrafine Xtreme 100 in Pyrocat-MC, box speed, automatic metering with my F4s.

Has anyone find Pyrocat to be excellent pushing developer? Am looking to push Tri-X 400 to 1600, what do you think? Thanks 😉

 

[froyd]

I've used PMK for many years. It was the first modern Pyro developer, the one that ignited the current interest in Pyro. I haven't tried Pyrocat, so I can't give you any developing times, but if you ever try PMK, I have a lot of developing times and exposure indexes for different films on my tutorial website: http://crawfordphotoschool.com/film/developing.php

There are only two problems I see with your photos. One is that the images look flat. That's not your developing, though. Its the scanning. BW film scans are always flat and need some increase in contrast in Photoshop. A lot of people don't know that, and just use what the scanner gives, but you're losing the beautiful tonality the film is capable of giving if you don't post-process the scans.

The other is that all of them have streaks of something across the photo. They look like drying marks on the film. Do you use a wetting agent as your final chemical when you develop your film? Kodak Photo-Flo is the usual choice, but Ilford makes a similar product. It makes the film dry clean without water spots or drying marks. You can soak your already developed films in it and redry them to remove the marks.

Here's some of my PMK work:

These were all shot on Ilford HP5, at EI-250. This is 120 size film, shot with a Mamiya 6.

Late reply to an old post, but I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy the FP-4 and PMK examples on your website. Really inspiring results that make me want to get my hands dirty with this stuff!