Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,809   Posts: 1,581,539   Online: 935
      
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Jasper, Tennessee
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    73

    Pyrocat-hd capacity in tubes

    I'm trying to decide if minimal agitation is economical or not using a Jobo 3005 drum or BTZS 8x10 tubes. The 8x10 BTZS tubes I have use a full capacity (standing upright and completely filled) of around 1.2 liters of developer. Would I be able to reuse the pyrocat-hd in the 8x10 tubes for 2 or possibly even 3 8x10 negatives or would this result in a slight decrease in staining for each successive negative? Using over a liter of eveloper per 8x10 would get expensive.

  2. #2
    Paul Cocklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Roseville, CA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    454
    Images
    24
    I re-use the same 1 L for multiple 8x10's (up to 5, at 2:2:100) but I do tray development. I can't see why you couldn't reuse the same chemistry for at least 2, but I know next to nothing about tube processing. I would think though that, especially for minimal agitation and not rotary, you should be fine.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    524
    Images
    8
    As to capacity, this article on the Unblinking Eye website reports Sandy King's recommendation of 75 ml per 20 square inches (sheet of 4x5), so three sheets of 8x10 per litre.

    As to the level of staining. The level of image stain should be the same, as there is sufficient catechin for the development of each sheet. There may be a problem with increasing general stain, though, as oxidation products build up in the developer. (Though this is supposition on my part, as I use it one-shot in a rotary processor.)
    Steve

    "You don't need eyes to see, you need vision" - Maxi Jazz

    Website

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    396
    If you're doing minimal agitation you can probably also use a higher dilution, which could be an alternative to reusing the developer. Also, if you are after the "special properties" of minimal agitation or even stand development, the higher dilution is part of it. (... as opposed to Paul above, who is doing 2:2:100 which is quite a powerful soup.) The main concern is oxidation, which should be rather low in your case, as there is very little air involved, especially in a BTZS tube.
    For stand and semi-stand development 1:1:200-400 is quite common. There are plenty of variations on what receipes to use though, a search here on the subject of stand and semi-stand will give you lots of info on the subject, including from Sandy King himself.

    //Björn

  5. #5
    donbga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by edtbjon View Post
    If you're doing minimal agitation you can probably also use a higher dilution, which could be an alternative to reusing the developer. Also, if you are after the "special properties" of minimal agitation or even stand development, the higher dilution is part of it. (... as opposed to Paul above, who is doing 2:2:100 which is quite a powerful soup.) The main concern is oxidation, which should be rather low in your case, as there is very little air involved, especially in a BTZS tube.
    For stand and semi-stand development 1:1:200-400 is quite common. There are plenty of variations on what receipes to use though, a search here on the subject of stand and semi-stand will give you lots of info on the subject, including from Sandy King himself.

    //Björn
    So is the dilution you use for semi-stand development with Pyrocat ?
    Don Bryant

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Jasper, Tennessee
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    73

    dilution

    I've been using 1:1:100 for printing on Ilford Gallerie.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by mwtroxell View Post
    I'm trying to decide if minimal agitation is economical or not using a Jobo 3005 drum or BTZS 8x10 tubes. The 8x10 BTZS tubes I have use a full capacity (standing upright and completely filled) of around 1.2 liters of developer. Would I be able to reuse the pyrocat-hd in the 8x10 tubes for 2 or possibly even 3 8x10 negatives or would this result in a slight decrease in staining for each successive negative? Using over a liter of eveloper per 8x10 would get expensive.
    The Pyrocat developers are very inexpensive. I always use them one-shot. I develop stand and semi-stand in filled tanks, tubes and slosher trays.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  8. #8
    juan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    St. Simons Island, Georgia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,646
    Images
    4
    I use it 1:1:150 for EMA developing. I have considered using it for more than one negative, but I'm concerned that the time involved, rather than the dilution, would exhaust the Pyrocat.
    juan

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    396
    As I kind of rose the issue of higher dilution when doing minimal agitation or stand/semistand development, I have to finish what I started.
    There's a reason for doing either of these rather specialized techniques. That is to compensate for a high contrast in the scene shot to begin with. I.e. to cope with excessive contrast. When shooting normally lit scenes, normal developing in normally diluted Pyrocat will give you excellent results. In those cases there's nothing, repeat nothing, to gain doing some variation of stand development in a diluted developer. On the countrary, you are putting your results at risk because the less agitation you give the film, the greater danger of bromide drag etc. Also, the reason for the extra dilution is to get the slower action neccessary for the compensation effect to occur, i.e. to get development going in the shadows, while the development in the highlights stop because the developer isn't refreshed by agitation in those areas. (A much simplified description, but hey, that's the way I see it. )
    Read all about it in another current thread on this very subject here on compensating developers in the b/w film, developer ... department.

    And when I do semi-stand I go for about 1:1:250 or so. Again, check for Sandy Kings comments when doing a search on the subject of stand- and semi-stand development. Or I could do Rodinal at 1:200, which also gives nice results. Anything more diluted is in my mind approaching the area of homeopathic doses.

    //Björn
    Last edited by edtbjon; 07-03-2008 at 06:54 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Jasper, Tennessee
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    73
    "There's a reason for doing either of these rather specialized techniques. That is to compensate for a high contrast in the scene shot to begin with. I.e. to cope with excessive contrast."

    True, but I am using minimal agitation to try to experiment with edge effects instead of trying for a compensating effect.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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