Since this topic came up in another thread and I just happened to have completed some testing recently with this developer and WD2D, I thought I'd start a new thread and pass on my findings...
Specifically, I will direct my comments to the appearance of adjacency effects and the "look" of the negatives. Each subject was shot in the same light, using the same exposure, etc, on tested Fomapan 100. I developed one sheet in an SP-445 tank using WD2D following the agitation method as documented in the instructions for this developer. I chose WD2D because it was the first pyro developer I used, I used it for many years (though many, many years ago), and I was quite fond of it at the time. I developed the other sheet in my homemade tubes using Pyrocat-HD and Steve Sherman's EMA technique.
When the negatives were dry, the first thing I did was hold each pair side-by-side, emulsion side up, at an oblique angle to a light source and it was clear to see that the Pyrocat-HD negative looked etched, whereas the WD2D negative did not. Next, I tossed a pair on the light box and it was immediately apparent that the Pyrocat negative appeared to have a distinct level of micro-contrast throughout, whereas the WD2D negative did not. I really don't know how to describe it in words, but the Pyrocat negative just seemed to "jump" out at ya! Next, I viewed many different areas of each negative with a 4x loupe and the Pyrocat negative was clearly sharper. Not saying the WD2D negative was unsharp...far from it...but, the edges of high contrast lines and small details just seemed to have a softness to them that wasn't in the Pyrocat negative. The stain color looks very similar which really surprised me given that one is a catechin based formula while the other is a pyrogallol based formula.
Anyway, the more I use Pyrocat-HD and Steve's EMA technique it is quickly becoming the only way I plan to develop both 5x4 and 10x8 film. OK, one exception...I can't leave behind Delta 100 developed in F-76+...there is just something special about that combo, too!
Hope someone finds this interesting and worthwhile.
Specifically, I will direct my comments to the appearance of adjacency effects and the "look" of the negatives. Each subject was shot in the same light, using the same exposure, etc, on tested Fomapan 100. I developed one sheet in an SP-445 tank using WD2D following the agitation method as documented in the instructions for this developer. I chose WD2D because it was the first pyro developer I used, I used it for many years (though many, many years ago), and I was quite fond of it at the time. I developed the other sheet in my homemade tubes using Pyrocat-HD and Steve Sherman's EMA technique.
When the negatives were dry, the first thing I did was hold each pair side-by-side, emulsion side up, at an oblique angle to a light source and it was clear to see that the Pyrocat-HD negative looked etched, whereas the WD2D negative did not. Next, I tossed a pair on the light box and it was immediately apparent that the Pyrocat negative appeared to have a distinct level of micro-contrast throughout, whereas the WD2D negative did not. I really don't know how to describe it in words, but the Pyrocat negative just seemed to "jump" out at ya! Next, I viewed many different areas of each negative with a 4x loupe and the Pyrocat negative was clearly sharper. Not saying the WD2D negative was unsharp...far from it...but, the edges of high contrast lines and small details just seemed to have a softness to them that wasn't in the Pyrocat negative. The stain color looks very similar which really surprised me given that one is a catechin based formula while the other is a pyrogallol based formula.
Anyway, the more I use Pyrocat-HD and Steve's EMA technique it is quickly becoming the only way I plan to develop both 5x4 and 10x8 film. OK, one exception...I can't leave behind Delta 100 developed in F-76+...there is just something special about that combo, too!
Hope someone finds this interesting and worthwhile.
