From: Linas Kudzma (lkudzma@earthlink.net)
Date: 12/31/01-11:47:08 AM Z
Clay,
I need to get more experience with BPF now that I found that Pyrocat makes
it more usable for my purposes. My recent foray into ULF with my homebrew
8x20 makes the Bergger film especially important, because I understand that
big BPF is readily available. Currently, I am using the mystery Pan125 film
from Photo Warehouse that Carl recommended. It does indeed behave like FP4+.
I use the metol version of Pyrocat only because when I first mixed it up I
only had metol on hand. I liked the results with FP4+ so much that I just
kept using this formula and felt no need to try the updated phenidone
formula. If a 1/4 stop of speed is the only advantage as Sandy says (and
who would know better than him!) I see no need to change.
Linas
> [Original Message]
> From: clay <wcharmon@wt.net>
> To: <lkudzma@earthlink.net>
> Date: 12/31/2001 9:03:45 AM
> Subject: Re: Stain Redux - Pyrocat HD and Tri-X: was Double Dipping
>
> Linas:
>
> I've tried the BPF200 in the smaller (5x7) sizes and found that it is okay
> in Pyrocat as well. My only beef was that when I tested the stuff, I could
> never get the contrast to increase for development times over about 8
> minutes. It seemed to reach gamma infinity very quickly. But as long as
> you're shooting subjects with SBR over about 7-8, it works fine. Low
> contrast subjects may present a problem. My information, BTW, is from
using
> the phenidone formula found on unblinkingeye.com, not the metol formula
you
> apparently are using. Is this the formula originally published in
> Post-Factory?
>
> Clay
> ----------
> >From: Linas Kudzma <lkudzma@earthlink.net>
> >To: alt-photo-process-l <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
> >Subject: Re: Stain Redux - Pyrocat HD and Tri-X: was Double Dipping
> >Date: Mon, Dec 31, 2001, 12:04 AM
> >
>
> >Clay,
> >I really can't answer your question about Tri-X and Pyrocat-HD, however I
> >can share some very recent results with Pyrocat.
> >
> >I first tried Bergger's BPF 200 with PMK pyro (trays) and was
underwhelmed
> >to say the least. Such a high overall "fog stain" that contrast for Pd/Pt
> >printing was terrible. Rollo Pyro was better, but I still was not
terribly
> >pleased with these negatives. In my hands, Rollo Pyro/BPF negatives just
> >did not have the contrast of Rollo/FP4+ or Rollo/Tri-X.
> >
> >This weekend I developed a few 8x10 sheets of BPF 200 negs (rated at 100)
> >in Pyrocat-HD, using the older metol formula, rotary agitation (8 min)
and
> >the 1:2:100 dilution. The result was excellent negatives for Pd/Pt! These
> >negatives were FAR superior for Pd/Pt to the previous BPF200 pyro negs
and
> >I now consider this film useable. Before, I honestly could not understand
> >how anyone liked BPF for Pd/Pt. I need to try Pyrocat with Tri-X,
because
> >I absolutely love Pyrocat results with FP4+ and now BPF 200.
> >
> >Linas
> >
> >> [Original Message]
> >> From: clay <wcharmon@wt.net>
> >> To: <lkudzma@earthlink.net>
> > > Date: 12/29/2001 8:05:00 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Stain Redux - Pyrocat HD and Tri-X: was Double Dipping
> >>
> >> Anybody on the list had problems using TriX and Pyrocat HD? Pyrocat has
> >
> >> turned out to be the easiest developer for me to use for getting a nice
> >
> >> proportional actinic filtering stain on my normal films: TMax 400,
FP-4,
> >and
> >
> >> HP-5.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Today I was out shooting 7x17 with Tri-X, and was shocked to see a lot
of
> >
> >> fog+stain even in the border areas of the negative. I seem to remember
> >Sandy
> >
> >> saying something about a foggy result when he tested the developer on
> >Tri-X
> >
> >> as well. Anybody else had experience, good or bad, with this film and
> >
> >> developer combination?
> >
> >>
> >
> >> As an aside, I am really sold on Pyrocat as an inexpensive easy-to-use
> >
> >> alternative to Rollo. On the first three films I mentioned, I get
really
> >
> >> great results without a lot of fussing. It really tames the hair
trigger
> >
> >> response of TMax 400 nicely. Seems like 10-11 minutes at 75 degrees
with
> >
> >> that film will almost always give me a palladium ready negative.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Any input would be enlightening.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Clay
> >
> >
> >
Linas Kudzma
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/02/02-04:47:33 PM Z CST