PYRO developing in a Jobo ATL-1000

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

hmmrhead
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:18 pm
Location: CT

PYRO developing in a Jobo ATL-1000

Post by hmmrhead » Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:38 pm

I am interested in trying PYRO developer. I am looking for a pre-made solution, not the raw chemistry, that will work in the Jobo ATL-1000.
Anyone have any suggestions? Tips?

Thanks

Glen


Jay DeFehr
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:40 pm

Post by Jay DeFehr » Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:51 pm

Hi Glen.

510-Pyro is ideal for your application. You can find the formula and some basic information right here at Digital Truth, on the technical information page, under 510-Pyro. If you want a pre-made kit, or more information, email me

ujazz32@hotmail.com

I use 510-Pyro in my Jobo ATL 2 Plus, with great results.

Jay

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: PYRO developing in a Jobo ATL-1000

Post by Ornello » Thu Nov 09, 2006 5:38 pm

hmmrhead wrote:I am interested in trying PYRO developer.

Glen
Why?

pentaxpete
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:19 am
Location: BRENTWOOD,Essex,(UK)

Trying PYRO Dev..

Post by pentaxpete » Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:59 am

"Why"....... Well, because like me , most people have joined this Forum are interested in messing about with the chemistry of photography and are searching for that elusive ' Wonder Developer ' !!!
Got COMPUTERISED and 'slightly Digitised Pentax K10D' but FILM STILL RULES !

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Trying PYRO Dev..

Post by Ornello » Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:43 am

pentaxpete wrote:"Why"....... Well, because like me , most people have joined this Forum are interested in messing about with the chemistry of photography and are searching for that elusive ' Wonder Developer ' !!!
Pyro is an inferior developer. Its only value would be in use with sheet film on contact-type graded paper. If you are using 35mm film or VC paper, the results with pyro will be inferior.

hmmrhead
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:18 pm
Location: CT

Post by hmmrhead » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:48 pm

Rock on pentaxpete.

I knew someone who had used it. Shot weddings and processed in pyro developer and the results were outstanding. My custom printer at the time told me they were also easier to print. So i figured I'm in a position to do some experimentation now so what the hell.... Why not try different
developers, processes, films....

Jay DeFehr
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:40 pm

Post by Jay DeFehr » Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:59 pm

Orny,

I wonder if you could draw on your extensive experience with pyro developers to explain why pyro is an "inferior developer"? I'm especially interested in knowing why pyro might be good for large formats, but inferior for 35mm. You've obviously done a lot of research into the subject, and compared many pyro developers to many non-pyro developers, and I'm very interested in your conclusions, and any data you can supply to support them.

On the other hand, I suppose it's possible that you've never used a pyro developer of any kind, and are only regurgitating outdated material that has no relevance to modern film or formulae, in which case, your "insights" are of no use or interest to me, since I've personally used and tested every type of pyro and catechol developer for which I've been able to find a formula.

Incidentally, I read your processing recommendations posted in the articles section here, and despite some factual errors on your part, your argument favors the use of staining developers, although I'm certain you don't know why.

Jay

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Non-Staining versus Staining.

Post by Keith Tapscott. » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:00 pm

Hmm, an argument seems to be on going over which type of developer yields the best results. Unfortunately, the photographic press these days seem more interested in reviewing the latest D-SLR`s and ink-jet printers than they are of testing good old fashioned darkroom products and materials. I too would like to see if the so called `Magic- Bullet miracle developer really does exist or is just a mythical potion. :D
I would suggest a test using a 35mm camera loaded with a traditional ISO 400 film such as HP5 Plus or Neopan 400, shooting several rolls of the same (Still-life) subject. Develop one film in a yard-stick developer like D-76, one in an acutance developer like Acutol or FX-39, one in PMK and another in Pyrocat. Each roll should be developed to kinetically match one another in terms of contrast and gradation when printed on a fixed grade paper such as Ilfospeed. The negatives should then be sent to a professional processing lab with clear instructions to make very large sectional crops from each negative onto 8x10 inch glossy RC paper which can be scanned and uploaded to this site so that we can all clearly see the comparisons.
Suggesting a test of this sort is one thing, doing it is another and no, I don`t want to do it myself. :wink:
Perhaps Jon would like to have some input over this matter, then again, perhaps not......... :lol:

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: Non-Staining versus Staining.

Post by Keith Tapscott. » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:07 pm

Keith Tapscott. wrote:Hmm, an argument seems to be on going over which type of developer yields the best results. Unfortunately, the photographic press these days seem more interested in reviewing the latest D-SLR`s and ink-jet printers than they are of testing good old fashioned darkroom products and materials. I too would like to see if the so called `Magic- Bullet miracle developer really does exist or is just a mythical potion. :D
I would suggest a test using a 35mm camera loaded with a traditional ISO 400 film such as HP5 Plus or Neopan 400, shooting several rolls of the same (Still-life) subject. Develop one film in a yard-stick developer like D-76, one in an acutance developer like Acutol or FX-39, one in PMK and another in Pyrocat. Each roll should be developed to kinetically match one another in terms of contrast and gradation when printed on a fixed grade paper such as Ilfospeed. The negatives should then be sent to a professional processing lab with clear instructions to make very large sectional crops from each negative onto 8x10 inch glossy RC paper which can be scanned and uploaded to this site so that we can all clearly see the comparisons.
Suggesting a test of this sort is one thing, doing it is another and no, I don`t want to do it myself. :wink:
Perhaps Jon would like to have some input over this matter, then again, perhaps not......... :lol:
I should have added, just one chosen negative from each roll. A tedious chore, I`m sure.

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:32 pm

Jay DeFehr wrote:Orny,

I wonder if you could draw on your extensive experience with pyro developers to explain why pyro is an "inferior developer"? I'm especially interested in knowing why pyro might be good for large formats, but inferior for 35mm. You've obviously done a lot of research into the subject, and compared many pyro developers to many non-pyro developers, and I'm very interested in your conclusions, and any data you can supply to support them.

On the other hand, I suppose it's possible that you've never used a pyro developer of any kind, and are only regurgitating outdated material that has no relevance to modern film or formulae, in which case, your "insights" are of no use or interest to me, since I've personally used and tested every type of pyro and catechol developer for which I've been able to find a formula.

Incidentally, I read your processing recommendations posted in the articles section here, and despite some factual errors on your part, your argument favors the use of staining developers, although I'm certain you don't know why.

Jay
Pyro gives lower speed, poorer sharpness, and coarser grain. What else do you wish to know? When printed on graded paper, the stain acts as density. When printed on VC paper, the stain is invisible. Thus, the lower speed.

This has been discussed to death in other forums. Pyro is great with sheet film on Azo, but not with 35mm Tri-X on Polycontrast or Multigrade.

hmmrhead
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:18 pm
Location: CT

Post by hmmrhead » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:48 pm

"Pyro is great with sheet film on Azo, but not with 35mm Tri-X on Polycontrast or Multigrade."

I beg to differ - I've personally seen some fantastic tri-x negs developed in pyro and printed on multigrade. I'll see if I can find his web site to pass on.

Jay DeFehr
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:40 pm

Post by Jay DeFehr » Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:18 pm

Hi Keith.

I've done the kind of comparison you're suggesting, many times over. Unfortunately, there are just too many variables to control, too little resolution on a monitor, and too much subjectivity in the final anlysis to make these comparisons definitive in the way you seem to hope. Some characteristics are easily quantified, but others are not. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that 510-Pyro, or any tanning/staining developer is a "magic bullet", just that this class of developer offers some important benefits to those willing to learn to exploit them. Too many people, Mike/"Ornello" included, rely on outdated literature to form their opinions of the merits of tanning/staining developers relative to MQ/PQ developers, without considering recent innovations in staining developers, or the many outdated MQ formulae that are not optimum for use with modern emulsions. Mike/Ornello has NO practical experience with pyro developers, yet makes statements of fact that he cannot support, while ignoring the expertise of those who have done the hands-on work he's not willing or able to do. I'm sure most participants here are familiar enough with Orny to dismiss his opinions out of hand, as I do, but newcomers might mistake his arrogance for expertise, which it certainly is not.

Those who are not interested in tanning/staining developers have many, many developers available to them, both commercially made and published formulae, for every conceivable purpose. The number of tanning/staining developers available commercially is few, and among those exist very few formulated for use with modern films and processing techniques. Among even this very small number, 510-Pyro is unique, being the only single solution developer of its kind, and easily the most versatile and generally useful. 510-Pyro has produced excellent results with every imagineable film, format and processing technique. There is a current thread at photo.net in which a user developed 2-years out of date TMZ 3200 in 510-Pyro, and his posted results show very fine grain. I've seen excellent results from IR film, ortho film, fast film, slow film, medium speed film, document film, traditional K-grain films and designer grain films, 35mm films, MF films, LF films, films processed in small hand inversion tanks, large tanks with reels and baskets or hangers, trays, slot processors, rotary tube processors, with reduced agitation techniques in tubes, tanks, or trays, in ziploc baggies, etc. etc.. That doesn't make 510-Pyro a "magic bullet", just a very versatile developer. Add to the above keeping properties that verge on the supernatural, and the appeal is obvious. I understand that as the formulator of 510-Pyro, my enthusiasm for it should be viewed with some skepticism, but it should also be considered that no one has disputed or challenged any of my claims for 510-Pyro. I encourage anyone interested in trying a tanning/staining developer to consider 510-Pyro as a simple, user-friendly developer for all films, formats and development processes.

Jay

Jay DeFehr
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:40 pm

Post by Jay DeFehr » Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:32 pm

Orny posted more of his typical misinformation while I was typing my response to Keith. He's wrong, of course, and his ignorance of the principles of staining developers obvious. Pyro stain is certainly NOT invisible to VC paper. A pyro stained neg can be bleached in Farmer's Reducer to remove the silver density, and the remaining stain image printed on VC paper, which would be impossible if the stain was "invisible" to VC paper. Orny speaks as if all pyro developers are alike, which is, of course, no more true than saying all MQ or PQ developers are alike. It doesn't require a great intellect to understand this simple principle, but it's clearly beyond Orny's tenuous grasp. D-19 produces high contrast, coarse grain and poor film speed, so, by Orny's logic, MQ developers are inferior, and not suitable for 35mm films. What a moron.

Jay

Wirehead
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Wirehead » Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:28 pm

Dudes.

Pyro stain is said to be "yellowish green"

VC paper contrast is determined by the blue and green filters, so that's going to definately have the green component... and probably some amount of the yellow component too... in the paper-sensitivity range. Remember, the safelight for VC is orange, not yellow....

And I will note that in the Ansel Adams trilogy, he points out that pyro is going to act like a contrast-mask with VC paper. Which is what I am now pointing out myself.

Jay DeFehr
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:40 pm

Post by Jay DeFehr » Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm

I think there is a lot of confusion surrounding the effects of stained negs on VC papers, and a lot of it has to do with misconceptions about the way VC paper works. VC paper emulsions are made up three separate blue-sensitive emulsions, with varying sensitivities to green light. All of the layers are of equal contrast, and speed to blue light, but vary in their speed to green. This allows contrast to be controlled by the amount of green light relative to the amount of blue light that makes up the total exposure. The only question pertinent to stained negatives and VC papers is; how much printing density is added by the stain? Remember, printing density is created by the light that's blocked, and not the light that's transmitted. The yellow-green pyro stain is very effective at blocking/absorbing blue light, to which the paper is most sensitive, and thereby creates printing density. The green light that is transmitted by the stain exposes the far less sensitive, green-sensitive emulsion, reducing the net printing density created by the stain, to some extent, which is why stained negatives print with greater contrast on graded papers than on VC papers. It's that simple. Thinking of the pyro stain as a contrast filter is a misguided obfuscation. The pyro stain does not reduce contrast, not even in the highlights. The pyro stain adds printing density, which increases contrast with all papers, including VC papers. I hope this clears up some of the misconceptions regarding stained negs and VC papers propogated by some of the "experts".

Jay

Locked