Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,807   Posts: 1,581,429   Online: 1128
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    132
    Sandy invented the Pyrocat-HD formula because his printing times were too long with PMK. Yes, he does use Pyrocat negatives for printing carbon, as well as Vandyke and Kallitype.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    I second Ed's plug, I really like pyrocat HD and my printing times are much lower than with ABC. I am getting some unreliable results with ABC here in Mexico. My destiller broke so I am having to use tap water. For some reason the stain with ABC sometimes appears and sometimes not, same for most pyro formulas I tried. With pyrocat HD I have been getting consistent results and negatives that are much easier to print than those with pyro.

  3. #23
    fhovie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Port Hueneme, California - USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,247
    Images
    92
    Being completely sold out to PMK for 4x5, I found DiXactol to be far better for smaller formats. The confusion is which configuration to use. I measured the 2 bath use as N-2. Good for some things but not as universal as the monobath use. I mix 1.6mL A to 11.6mL of B in 500cc water at 68F for all my 6x6 use. It can do N, N+1 and N+2 just fine. Fon N- i use the 2 bath. I use Split D-23 for 35 & 16mm film. Bath A is 6.25g Metol, 85g Sodium Sulfite in 1 L water, Bath B is 24g Sodium Metaborate in 1L water. 4 minutes each bath 68 to 75F. Great results on cute little films. - Frank
    My photos are always without all that distracting color ...

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Just a comment on Ed Buffaloe's message in which he stated that the only failing (of Pyrocat-HD) is that it does not have good keeping qualities compared to PMK.

    Ed is correct but the comment must be taken in perspective. As we know, the keeping quality of PMK concentrate sotck solutions is about as good as it gets. Several years ago I mixed a working dilution of PMK from stock concentrates that were over two years old, and the results were as good as one would expect form freshly mixed stock.

    On the other hand the keeping quality of Pyrocat-HD, which is on the order of up to six months in partially full bottles, is really quite good when compared to other developers. I would never, for example, trust 6 month old D76 or Xtol but I have developed quite a lot of negatives mixed from Pyrocate-HD stock concentrates that were 4-6 months old.

    Some people have substituted metol for phenidone (at about 10X the amount of phenidone) in the Pyrocat-HD formula and in theory this should provide even greater stqbility. However, although my original Pyrocat formula contained metol rather than phenidone, I don't recommend the substitution at this time as the phenidone version gives slightly greater effective film speed and also slightly lower b+f.

    Sandy King





  5. #25
    Eric Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Calgary AB, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,276
    Images
    73
    Sandy I just got back from the darkroom and printed my first pyrocat-hd negs. They seemed thin to me when I developed them but everyone told me that was normal. Now when I print them they seem to lack contrast. Is there something special in the printing I should be doing? The exposure time was 10 sec when the negs of the same scene developed in HC110 were 30 sec. I will be out again tomorrow and will try it again. Probably screwed up something on my end. On the plus side there was virtually zero grain. I figure if I printed them at grade 3.5 they might look ok.

    Eric
    www.ericrose.com
    yourbaddog.com

    "civility is not a sign of weakness" JFK

    "The Dude abides" - the Dude

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Eric,

    Proprely exposed and developed Pyrocat-HD negatives should not look any thinner than regular negatives, and printing times should also be about the same, at least for silver printing. Your description suggests that the negatives are either underexposed or underdeveloped, or perhaps both.

    Of course, if you are mixing the developer from scratch there is the possibility of error in mixing.

    Sandy King

  7. #27
    fhovie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Port Hueneme, California - USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,247
    Images
    92
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jorge @ Jan 30 2003, 04:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Les McLean @ Jan 30 2003, 05:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    I was given a sample of Diaxtol by Barry Thornton but the results were appalling and I followed the instructions to the letter. I know of other photographers who had the same experience. However and in fairness I have spoken to photographers who swear by it.

    I&#39;m getting lots of good and encouraging replies in this forum and it seems as though PMK is coming out tops. I&#39;ll give it a try when I get the chemistry. Thanks for the tip about Ed&#39;s web site. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    Les, was this the two step or the one step procedure you tried? I have heard the two step is very unreliable and that most people just went and settled for the one step. I have not tried it, and at the prices the stuff is selling for I probably never will.

    David, There really is not much more to it, as with most developers you have to experiment a little to get the results you wish. After most of the experimenting is done I find I am back to the same original stuff I was using. One thing is for sure I never would go back to a &quot;regular&quot; developer for my films. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    I am not a big fan of grain except that grain creates greater accutance and makes a photo appear sharper - usually. So for 4x5 - I am no longer experimenting with film developer - It is PMK. Now - for 120. I am an avid DiXactol convert. The times published are rubbish - so - after I figured out the correct times for my... geographic location, I found that DiXactol has all the benefits of PMK (tanning, restraining - local contrast control, staining) and SMALLER grain. Which makes a huge difference when making an 11x14 from a 6x6cm negative. It IS more expensive and it also works great with 4x5 and IMO too grainy for 35mm. I use mostly the monobath method - It pushes and pulls very well. 1.6ml A, 11.6ml B and 488ml water at 68F. For 6x6cm film, it is the magic bullet. The two bath configuration really does work - BUT it is N-2 in my darkroom and you can really ruin a portrait - I makes an average scene very flat - But if you screw up a roll and don&#39;t know what to do - the 2 bath will give a pritable image if there is any latent image at all. I am back to Metol for 35mm now. I use a split D-23. The 2 bath gives bot a solvent action fine grain effect and also increases accutance in the very weak second bath. Kind of like having my cake and eating it too.
    My photos are always without all that distracting color ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin