 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / February 2004Reformed Pyro Workers
I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro developers. Originally I was a Tri-X, HC-110 landscape shooter, but came to feel that I was forever struggling to hold highlight/sky etc. Especially when giving alot of exposure to acheive very full shadows. So last year I did the pyro boogie, and was at first quite impressed. However now I have noticed that I've been progressively slipping into a greyness, and will have to bump the contrast up a little, to get a sense of light, and to acheive the sharp appearance and readability that contrast provides. I must admit, I'm feeling a little stupid these days still messing with developers. That's an issue that it seems to me should have been resolved long ago, but well, from reading this group, I gather it's not too uncommon. Is there a question here? I know pyro works like magic in some pretty tough lighting, but my use of it for most landscapes has been a mistake. Now if I bring up the contrast, I'll probably be back where I started with HC-110. Any thoughts from reformed pyro users? The look of my prints has so upset me lately that I swear I'm shooting more poorly than ever, making confusing and distracting images, in an mistaken attempt to show too much probably. I'm trying to do landscapes in strong light, and without traditional composition. The documentary/geological survey approach in all it's anti-scenic splendor. A sense of light/atmosphere is more the goal than an old fashioned knock your socks off graphic image with deep blacks and brilliant whites. > I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro > developers. Originally I was a Tri-X, HC-110 landscape shooter, but > came to feel that I was forever struggling to hold highlight/sky etc. And just how are you doing this? What method of exposure and development? > Especially when giving alot of exposure to acheive very full shadows. > So last year I did the pyro boogie, and was at first quite impressed. > However now I have noticed that I've been progressively slipping into > a greyness, and will have to bump the contrast up a little, to get a > sense of light, and to acheive the sharp appearance and readability > that contrast provides. I'm confused. What do you mean by "bump up the contrast"? How, exactly would you, or do you, do this? > Is there a question here? I know pyro works like magic in some pretty > tough lighting, but my use of it for most landscapes has been a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > documentary/geological survey approach in all it's anti-scenic > splendor. Pardon me if I disagree :-) Timothy O'Sullivan in particular and several other geological survey documentarians are not what I would consider "anti-scenic." They well knew how to use collodian processes and limitations to great artistic and scenic effect. > A sense of light/atmosphere is more the goal than an old > fashioned knock your socks off graphic image with deep blacks and > brilliant whites. Sounds like a issue of the subject matter and scene lighting, not of the developer. Got some examples? > > I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro > > developers. Originally I was a Tri-X, HC-110 landscape shooter, but > > came to feel that I was forever struggling to hold highlight/sky etc. > > And just how are you doing this? What method of exposure and development? Trial and error. I took Tri-X down to 160 to get into the shadows but it couldn't hold the highlights even with highly diluted developers. HP-5 it turned out handled the highlights better. It's the oldest story about film. How to compress a long range without going flat. That's why I tried pyro, and the results were good, but lacked brilliance, sometimes, not always. It's hard to call, scene to scene, and it becomes a real hit and miss developer. > > Especially when giving alot of exposure to acheive very full shadows. > > So last year I did the pyro boogie, and was at first quite impressed. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm confused. What do you mean by "bump up the contrast"? How, exactly > would you, or do you, do this? Adding B solution with pyro gives contrast. More time/temp, more agitation. Same as anything else. > > Is there a question here? I know pyro works like magic in some pretty > > tough lighting, but my use of it for most landscapes has been a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > consider "anti-scenic." They well knew how to use collodian processes > and limitations to great artistic and scenic effect. Think New Topographic response to scenic photography. Robert Adams, Joe Deal, Lweis Baltz, etc. Came out of the early 70's I think. When I say geological survey, I dont mean O'Sullivan, I mean a more deadpan pragmatic USGS work print. The look is almost classification. Scenic is sometimes unavoidable, given the beauty and grandure. But I try to keep it harder, away from the pretty. > > A sense of light/atmosphere is more the goal than an old > > fashioned knock your socks off graphic image with deep blacks and > > brilliant whites. > > Sounds like a issue of the subject matter and scene lighting, not of the > developer. Got some examples? Sorry no examples. I dont have a scanner. The zone system punch vs. a more subtle almost ordinary looking print is what I meant to express. I'm for the ordinary. I've done the punchy stuff, and it's exciting, and convincing, but too "classic". The best thing I've seen in a long time is the tonal control of William Wylie's book, Riverwalk. Long range but good contrast, and a upbeat sense of light from the print, not just the scene. When I do it, my prints look like they are going down, his, the light comes up and at you. If I add contrast, then my darks engulf again. It's a pretty thin line, but Wylie did it exquisetly. Ken Smith Wyoming > > > I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro > > > developers. Originally I was a Tri-X, HC-110 landscape shooter, but [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > sometimes, not always. It's hard to call, scene to scene, and it becomes > a real hit and miss developer. You seem to know the issues involved with using it, so with Gregory all I can say is I've made satisfying images with any number of developers, though pyro isn't a favorite. Still I don't find I've had a problem holding highlights with any film. A current film/developer of choice is Tmax100 in rodinal. With tmax I get subtle highlight separations. Being you're in WY (which I know) scene luminance ranges can exceed 12-13 stops on a sunny summer day, plus there's a lot of UV. I find Tmax records long tonal ranges pretty well and contracted or compensating development is usually adequate. > > > Especially when giving alot of exposure to acheive very full shadows. > > > So last year I did the pyro boogie, and was at first quite impressed. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > classification. Scenic is sometimes unavoidable, given the beauty > and grandure. But I try to keep it harder, away from the pretty. Certainly Robert Adams seems to have succeeded there. Interesting fellow. Quite shy about his work. In any case, it still doesn't sound to me like a developer issue. > > > A sense of light/atmosphere is more the goal than an old > > > fashioned knock your socks off graphic image with deep blacks and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > and at you. If I add contrast, then my darks engulf again. It's > a pretty thin line, but Wylie did it exquisetly. Haven't seen Riverwalk, but I think you're somewhat miscategorizing Zone System in a rather narrow vein. Zone system is not a straightjacketed method, or even an Ansel Adams method, to get "punch" in your contrast, but quite flexable. It's simply basic sensitometry applied. You have to remember that you're the one doing the applying, not the "system" or how someone else has used it. It's an artistic concept, not so much an issue of the developer but rather the method as applied. Adams effectively used zone system with various development techniques (not necessarily developer specific) to create photographs that expressed his perceived "impressions of light" with long tonal range and subtle contrast. I know it's not much help but it sounds as if you're expecting to produce artistic vision through the developer, rather than the method and controls as applied. FWIW in response to Gregory you noted Weston used pyro. So did Adams, frequently (Aspens New Mexico was developed in ABC.) But if you examine prints of the same scene both photographed (sometimes on the same day) you'll see a remarkable difference in style, shadow and highlight contrast, and artistry. Anyway good luck. > I know it's not much help but it sounds as if you're expecting to > produce artistic vision through the developer, rather than the method [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Anyway good luck. I will add that I personally dislike ABC pyro immensely , mainly because I project my negatives though perhaps suitable for older non T grained films where one is contact printing I find ABC is most problematic. Because I am limiting the overall negatives density because I project the image (I typically shoot to make 16x20's) I find that ABC stains too irradically for my lower density negatives. I have also seen the very large negatives of others that use ABC and contact, the problems are there too however the contacting and printing a featureless sky tends to mask the artfacts somewhat. Hum T Max and Rodinol? I should try that. Regards Greg  SignatureLF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro > developers. Originally I was a Tri-X, HC-110 landscape shooter, but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sense of light, and to acheive the sharp appearance and readability > that contrast provides. HC 110 in dilute form is a fabulous developer in and of itself, the key is not misunderstanding that any developer can produce gorgeous results, I have many great images produced from a miriad of developers. Its fun to test all them or at least as many as one wishes. Gaining fluency with one developer film combo, though is a major benefit. The type of Pyro I state very infatically, will produce better or worse results. PMK is a good choice but requires added exposure "in general" to produce optimal results, there are many tricks to using it effectively and some films work better. Considerations: One prewet film,...the developer will take quicker. IMOP Two break the developer total quantity into two parts and change it mid way through process insuring fresh chemistry. Three do not mix the developer an extended period before hand. Four no acid stop use water. Five maybe restain. Six you can boost the contrast by adding more part B than the formula calls for. Gordon H told me this one time in a conversation as I thought about and he confirmed I was thinking correctly. Seven consider using Rollo PMK if you process in a Jobo much better Eight lastly using Amidol will greatly improve standard PMK just a pinch but try two identical negatives and see if not true. SignatureLF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > In article <eb5d68c1.0402031516.e95a25c@posting.google.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > choice but requires added exposure "in general" to produce optimal > results, there are many tricks to using it effectively and some films work better. Thanks Greg. I think the developer and time is the key to everything. Right now I'm doing wonders holding a huge range of tones, but the highlights with go dull if I print dark enough to get a decent black for contrast. I'm going to have to get the highlights denser in the neg to allow for a longer printing time, but alas, that can put me right back were I started with a too strong contrast. It's somewhere in between the in between, or so it seems. Good grief, I sound like Louis Carrol. > Considerations: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Eight lastly using Amidol will greatly improve standard PMK just a pinch > but try two identical negatives and see if not true. I switched to pyrocat. I prewet two-three min. 1:1/2:100- 1:1:100, 8-10 min 70 degrees regular agitation in tray leafing style. Great stuff sometimes, other times it's weird how greyish things get. But I can always selenium the negs. There's printing possibilities still. I just want to get some standardization going.I'm going to do another freakin test, and put pyrocat back up against D-76, HC-110, and ABC. Different scenes etc. This pyro stuff might just have to be more of an extreme contrast, ice, snow, developer. Normal scenes are looking like my paper fogged, which is why many people rejected it, I gather. I concure, because if I bring the contrast up with B, I "might" be back where I started with good ol' D-76. Egad, what a long and winding road this has been. Ed Weston used ABC, and made very strong contrast images, with great depth, but I'm not sure that kind of imagery requires pyro anyway. Ken Smith Wyoming > > In article <eb5d68c1.0402031516.e95a25c@posting.google.com>, [snip] > Thanks Greg. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > strong contrast. It's somewhere in between the in between, or so it seems. > Good grief, I sound like Louis Carrol. [snip] > Ken Smith > Wyoming Ken, Have you considered a different paper with a different curve (longer shoulder)? May be your negatives are fine, but need something more compatible on the printing side... Jim let me paraphrase an old saying <no insult intended> It's The Light, Stupid! First hour and last hour of the day... In between is for meals, car washing, girl watching, etc... I gotta tell ya that I have pored over the details of many pictures in geology and hydrology text books taken at high noon and as a record of the evolution of the land they are fascinating, but they are b o r i n g as photographs... You wanted to be a boring photographer? I doubt it... Go way back and start over... Tri-X in D76, early and late in the day, and start your evolution as a landscape photographer all over... Somewhere you made a wrong turn... With the best of intentions ... denny > I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro > developers. > let me paraphrase an old saying <no insult intended> > It's The Light, Stupid! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > With the best of intentions ... denny There are no wrong hours of the day to photograph, only wrong subjects for that hour. SignatureLF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > > let me paraphrase an old saying <no insult intended> > > It's The Light, Stupid! [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > There are no wrong hours of the day to photograph, only wrong subjects > for that hour. Sorry Dennis, I agree with Gregory. It's not just the light; it's what you do with it. Sunrise/Sunset landscape photography is an amateur fallacy, usually espoused at "formula" workshops by self taught (i.e., know nothing) landscape artists who are merely repeating someone else's formula. Another word for it is rut photography. For a serious landscape photographer, ruts are major boring stuff. In reality, it does depend entirely on the subject and artistic intention. > > There are no wrong hours of the day to photograph, only wrong subjects > > for that hour. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > photographer, ruts are major boring stuff. In reality, it does depend > entirely on the subject and artistic intention. Nicely put. Now, in the spirit of thoroughness, I must confess a mistake. A few days ago I contact printed 20 8x10's that made my heart sink, and caused this and the "Seeks a Master Printer" query. I was convinced that I just didn't have it, and would remain forever a hit and miss booby. Turns out, I am only a boob. I cut full sized PC filters to fit my cold light diffusor, to keep the filters high and away from the lens. I forgot to remove it when contact printing. I went through several filters on the lens while projecting the contact light to a MC RC, and the results were very icky. Surprisingly not a combined contrast effect, but rather a , greyish, , dead highlight, and an overall odd looking lack of contrast. I thought the pyrocat was pooping out, unreliable, or I was just destined to never make good images. Well, I printed them today with no filters at all, and it turns out I'm just as good a photographer as there ever was. Joy to the world. So, ah, er....nevermind. Ken Smith Wyoming Great story, Ken... If only I had never done anything like that so I could laugh at you - instead of laughing with you as I am...... No, I am not a "formula photographer"... What I was urging was to go back to the beginning with a traditional film and developer, and traditional lighting, and quickly rerun through the evolutionary steps that had led to ramming 14 stops of landscape onto 8 stops of paper <or attempting to>, resulting in so much compression and sideways mushing of tones that you end up with mud... denny > > > There are no wrong hours of the day to photograph, only wrong subjects > > > for that hour. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Ken Smith > Wyoming > let me paraphrase an old saying <no insult intended> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro > > developers. I like a guy who's not afraid to say what he thinks. It's the handling of the light. Weston is a perfect example. He shot in all kinds, and made screaming beauties out of them all. The early light, late light thing, come on, contemporary photographers, especially in color have purposely avoided the rich (and complimentary to film latitude) light, and have made marvelous images. Richard Misrach out in the bright desert, made fascinating pastel prints. Black and white is the same. Joe Deal shooting in mid-day California. It's how you handle your tones. Good forms, long tones, good contrast, avoid the busy, etc. Your geological textbooks have the shots, but not the artistic handling of the materials. The turn I'm making is away from the "classic" everybody does ala zone system, with punch and pow, and towards an attempt at making an image that seems ordinary, but creeps up on you to demonstrate its mystery, right there in hard objective broad daylight. Perhaps you might like to broaden your definitions of landscape. And I hate to add this, cause I don't really give a hang about the artworld, but relevance, if you are interested, does have something to do with furthering styles, and understanding their message to the world. Classic landscape is right up there with the watercolor barns, much as I likeum too. OK Ken... Nope, I'm not into either the salon or the arty stuff... As far as your vision of the landscape, I would love to see some of your work... But, your wonderings about whether you have gone too far with tone compression with the pyro is likely correct, since you felt compelled to voice it... I look at staining developers and I see a Band-Aid, not a solution... What you are attempting to do is compress more stops of exposure onto a negative with fewer stops of range - we all are attempting this, it is the photographers eternal struggle... One way is to expose heavily for the shadows and develop only enough to keep the highlights from blowing out... If you manage to nail it you get the classic 9 or 10 stops on the paper... If either your exposure or your development is off you have a pathetic negative in your enlarger, with which you will waste endless sheets of paper trying to coax a useable print.. Another way is the staining developer... If you stand back and look at this objectively, what you are doing is layering a masking density over the entire negative... Now, the percentage of change > i.e., delta = mask density + negative density divided by negative density> is greater when the mask overlays a thin area of the negative <shadow> than when it lays over a dense area <highlight>... So, what it effectively does is add a greater percentage of density to a shadow than a highlight, and therefore moves/compresses the shadows towards the highlights, compressing the tonal range and contrast on the negative and yielding a more easily printed negative.. - pyro moves the shadows not the highlights - The problem with pyro is that there are only a finite number of tones that can be discerned on the negative as distinct, complete with edge effects, etc... When you take adjacent tones that were just enough apart in density to be distinctly visible and lay a masking density over top of them you move the two tones closer together... The greater the masking density the greater the compression and eventually there comes a point where the two tones have moved close enough in value that they are no longer distinct and lose your edge effects... Pyro is that it is at it's best when dealing with high contrast scenes that have large steps between adjacent tones... When you have a negative that already has a full range of tones close together in value the mask further compresses tonal areas into each other - and carried to extremes you lose your edges and have mud... denny "Ken Smith" <aldenphoto@aol.com> wrote in message And I hate to add this, cause I don't really > give a hang about the artworld, but relevance, if you are interested, > does have something to do with furthering styles, and understanding > their message to the world. Classic landscape is right up there with > the watercolor barns, much as I likeum too. > OK Ken... Nope, I'm not into either the salon or the arty stuff Not to be a wise a.s, but why do Landscape if your not trying to do Art? I can see enviromental documentation but thats a little different and you probably could use a digital camera for that. > If you manage to nail it you get the > classic 9 or 10 stops on the paper. You or anyone else will just get a representation of 10 stops on paper. Ten stops defined by the film will require much burning and dodging in relation to an average papers range of available stops, for any given contrast grade. Take care regards Gb. SignatureLF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > let me paraphrase an old saying <no insult intended> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro > > developers. Dennis, this is so true it's scary. I hardly use the camera other than early or late. I like long, creeping shadows. > > let me paraphrase an old saying <no insult intended> > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Dennis, this is so true it's scary. I hardly use the camera other than > early or late. I like long, creeping shadows. Dennis, Where do you find a paper that has a reflection density range greater than 2.1? Cramming a 10 stop scene range into a 7 or even 8 stop paper range has to lose one end or the other or to cause overall drabness. Most natural scenes that have such brightness range are double scenes, like windows where you want to show interior and exterior detail as the eye sees it. Painters do that. Photographers have to realize that they must do that in the darkroom by dodging, burning, bleaching and any other trick they can muster. It is not likely that a straight print of a wide range scene will have the "life" you yearn for. Your eye adapts when it looks at one place or another in the scene. Unless you want to design and use one of those unmentionable dxxxxal cameras to do such scanning, expect to spend hours on one print. "Patrick Gainer" <pgainer@rtol.net> wrote in message > Dennis, > Where do you find a paper that has a reflection density range greater > than 2.1? Cramming a 10 stop scene range into a 7 or even 8 stop paper > range has to lose one end or the other or to cause overall drabness. Yup, gawd's truth... I did carelessly use the term '10 stops' on the print when I mean't zones/steps... My bad... <there I said the z word, may lightning strike me down> Now, tell me something I don't know; like how to get more stops on the paper while retaining an adequate density difference between the steps to avoid mud... > Most natural scenes that have such brightness range are double scenes, > like windows where you want to show interior and exterior detail as the > eye sees it. Painters do that. Photographers have to realize that they > must do that in the darkroom by dodging, burning, bleaching and any > other trick they can muster. It is not likely that a straight print of a > wide range scene will have the "life" you yearn for. Exactly the lament of our recently reformed pyro worker in his original post... I was merely trying to point a way out of the wilderness.. denny > "Patrick Gainer" <pgainer@rtol.net> wrote in message > Dennis, > > Where do you find a paper that has a reflection density range greater [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > while retaining an adequate density difference between the steps to avoid > mud... Nuetral Density grad filters or fill flash, or a combination of the two. Have to do this as I, like Patrick states shoot transparencies for interiors Check www.baltimoremagazine.com the Hippodrome article this months issue. I used 4 minute exposures on Provia, counting the seconds outloud, for the feature spread. SignatureLF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank See VC & Camera Arts Magazines for outstanding imagery at www.viewcamera.com or www.cameraarts.com Grad filters will help, though a bit difficult with windowed interiors... Fill flash is problematic with the Sierras, Grand Canyon, etc... The Baltimore mag link is broken... denny > > "Patrick Gainer" <pgainer@rtol.net> wrote in message > Dennis, > > > Where do you find a paper that has a reflection density range greater [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > issue. I used 4 minute exposures on Provia, counting the seconds outloud, > for the feature spread. This works: http://www.baltimoremagazine.net/monthly/default.htm denny "Gregory W Blank" <gblank@despamit.net> wrote in > Check www.baltimoremagazine.com > the Hippodrome article this months > issue. I used 4 minute exposures on Provia, counting the seconds outloud, > for the feature spread. I assume you shot LF then scanned the transparencies? denny "Gregory W Blank" <gblank@despamit.net> wrote in > I assume you shot LF then scanned the transparencies? > denny > > "Gregory W Blank" <gblank@despamit.net> wrote in I just shoot, they scan on a high end machine. SignatureLF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > "Patrick Gainer" <pgainer@rtol.net> wrote in message > Dennis, > > Where do you find a paper that has a reflection density range greater [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > post... I was merely trying to point a way out of the wilderness.. > denny The ten zones as seen by the originators of the Zone System ARE 10 f-stops of scene brightness range. You cannot get those ten zones on paper without compressing them into 7 or at most 8. When you do, the print looks lifeless. My biggest complaint about your analysis of the effect of pyro, which I did not mention before, is that it is wrong, if I read it correctly. The stain image is not a contrast reducing mask, even on VC paper, although it increases contrast less there than on graded paper. If you bleach the silver image out of a pyro negative, you are left with a negative stain image which will print on VC paper without a filter as a weak positive. If you use a blue color separation filter, a pretty good print may result, depending somewhat on the film's staining ability. The image you see when you print a pyro negative on VC paper without a filter is the sum of the silver image and the sytain image. A different experiment is to develop a negative to low contrast, print it, then bleach it in sepia toner bleach and redevelop it in a staining developer. All you need for this redeveloper is 1/4 teaspoon of hydroquinone and 1 teaspoon of sodium carbonate in a pint of water. Develop to completion in room light. This will add a yellow-ish stain to the silver image. Now print this negative under the same conditions as before and you will see that the contrast has been increased whether you use graded or VC paper. Yes, hydroquinone is a staining developing agent. Hmmm, that's new information to me, though I have to admit I am not much into alchemy and do not avidly follow alternative processes... denny "Patrick Gainer" <pgainer@rtol.net> wrote in message > > A different experiment is to develop a negative to low contrast, print > it, then bleach it in sepia toner bleach and redevelop it in a staining [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yes, hydroquinone is a staining developing agent. Patrick Gainer <pgainer@rtol.net> wrote in message > My biggest complaint about your analysis of the effect of pyro, which I > did not mention before, is that it is wrong, if I read it correctly. The > stain image is not a contrast reducing mask, even on VC paper, Oh, it figures, now I'm wrong about this too. Is there nothing I can know technically about my own craft!!! I'm just going to shut up and make my friggin pictures from now on. I promise. Farewell cruel newsgroup. Ken Smith Still in Wyoming > Exactly the lament of our recently reformed pyro worker in his original > post... I was merely trying to point a way out of the wilderness.. > denny Denny Sorry not to get back sooner. I was busy tearing my hair out over some PMK's that decided to go contrastier than hell. Your description of pyro is pretty much why I like the stuff. Prints appear more atmospheric when the tones are closer together, although yes, it's walking a thin wire and easy to fall into mud. The PMK's I can't explain. I must have doubled the B solution or some such. I posted that my initial problem however was resolved by finding that I doubled up my printing filters by mistake. Freud said it was an unresolved security issue, in another newsgroup. Its a few posts back, maybe out of sequence.Those 8x10's are very smooth in some strong light, and have as nice a contrast/clarity level as I could hope for. I think D-76 would have made them too hard. And a heavily diluted HC-110 would have left them much duller than this pyrocat stuff. I nominate Sandy King for Sainthood. Moving the shadows is true. And also true is that the revival of pyro was due to the reaction of variable contrast papers to the colored stain acting as a contrast filter to those pesky highlights. I'm not shooting double scenes. Just trying to get a zone 3 shadow and some density in the sky, instead of a white out. It's also nice when the snow and ice doesn't fly off into a dozen different densities and require impossible burning to get the lumpishness smoothed out and looking natural again. As I said, I prefer an atmospheric look to a graphic one. The trick is to get it while retaining enough local contrast for good readability. Details in paticular, but also that overall upbeat brightness that gives the feeling that the light is coming from the print, instead of sucking it in. . I would guess that's why some folks are even resorting to stand dev., as they want both the longest tones, but need the tonal seperation of edge effects. And the main reason, I think, why some people don't like the pyro is because they simply dig the brilliant whites that standard developers deliver. Sound right? I think that the best compromise, so far, is finely tuned pyro, not only for VC, but also the Azo. I was hoping to hear more about why aesthetically some people turned away from pyro with this thread, without the step tablet explainations...not that theres anything wrong with that. But it's always fun to hear what others like in their work. The pyrocat I'm using these days has done great gobs of good work, and there really are only a few occasions where I wish I had another sheet of the scene to dip into D-76. Thanks for your time Ken Smith ( just me and my cat ) Wyoming OK Ken... Glad to hear the problems are solved... In the interim, Patrick pointed out <gently> that I went off into the weeds and had my foot firmly wedged in my mouth during my soliloquy on pyro and band aids... {denny, oh denny, wherefore art thou?} {{over here in the weeds picking grit from between my teeth, juliet!}} Well, I hate being wrong, and besides physics is physics so he can't be right... so, I went and did some actual reading on pyro <doh>... As usual, he is right and I was wrong, physics or no physics... The pyro stain is not bound to the gelatin, as I reasoned, so my reasoning went off into the weeds... And the density is variably proportional to the density of silver, thus mimicking color coupled dye films... Plus the stains act like paper grade filters... jeezzzz Actually, the pyro looks interesting... Durn it, there you go again Patrick, leading me astray, beckoning me to muck about with bottles and trays of elusive, intangible and unclassifiable noxious chemicals... And you bear some responsibility here too, Ken, so wipe that smirk off... cheers denny - worthless lab rat who used to be a gawd like PHOTOGRAPHER! "Ken Smith" <aldenphoto@aol.com> wrote in message > The pyrocat I'm using these days has done great > gobs of good work, and there really are only a few occasions where I > wish I had [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ken Smith ( just me and my cat ) > Wyoming > OK Ken... Glad to hear the problems are solved... In the interim, Patrick > pointed out <gently> that I went off into the weeds and had my foot firmly [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > cheers > denny - worthless lab rat who used to be a gawd like PHOTOGRAPHER! Mr Gainer has alot of respect from my corner I guess becuase at one point I wanted to be a chemist. Without reading that before hand I would have stated the same regarding the stain becauzzzze if you run a sheet of film without exposure and process it in pyro there is still stain,...even though the "emulsion is long since soaked away. SignatureLF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank "Gregory W Blank" <gblank@despamit.net> wrote in becauzzzze if you run a sheet > of film without exposure and process it in pyro there is still stain,... Yeah, I noticed that, but I didn't want to pen another off the wall technical treatise... Pyro is interesting in that you can fix and/or wash part <or maybe all> of the stain away by extending times.. It raises the question of what the stain molecule is actually bound to... At first blush it does not appear that it reacts with the reduced silver as an oxide, for if it were I would not expect that extended washing would have any major effect on stain density... It appears to me that the staining/binding is gelatin bound and is promoted in the areas where more silver bromide is being reduced, and there is a higher concentration of byproducts of that reaction... What is the mordant? Lots of interesting questions... Has anyone done an NMR on the stain to see what it's chemical structure is? Next order to PF I will get a bottle of pyro and soup a few 4x5 just to say I have done it once, and to have something to look at and ponder.. I'm leaning towards the W2D2+... Comments from the group? denny > "Gregory W Blank" <gblank@despamit.net> wrote in becauzzzze if you run a > sheet [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > leaning towards the W2D2+... Comments from the group? > denny I can tell you that the simplest pyro developer I have made is 7 to 10 grams of pyro dissolved in 100 ml of triethanolamine. This single solution lasts and lasts. The TEA is an organic base that is not active until you add water. Dilute the Pyro-TEA 1+50 and it develops film in 10 to 14 minutes. You can get both ingredients at Photographer's Formulary. You must heat the TEA in order to dissolve the pyro before the end of the century, but it does not precipitate when it cools. If anyone wants to know, my email is pgainer@rtol.net > "Gregory W Blank" <gblank@despamit.net> wrote in becauzzzze if you run a > sheet [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > leaning towards the W2D2+... Comments from the group? > denny I started the whole thing last year. Got incredible test shots with PMK, then went out and shot real scenes and got contrast up the ying yang. I never understood why. PMK requires considerable agitation to avoid streaking and I may have made my martini's a little too hard. In the interum I tried W2D2, and was taken aback by an even softer look than the PMK. I added B, and was pretty much back at the first PMK's, which satisfied my taste for long tones, atmosphereic, but vital scene contrast. That said for some reason, I did some Pyrocat too, and have stuck with that instead. Probably because it sounds cooler. So sue me. I use half the B solution giving me a 1:1/2:100 mix @ 70 degrees for 8 min. Works extremely well for me, but my times are always shorter than anyone else's. I give my HP-5 a 160 rating. The stuff is economical, doesn't have the agitation fuss of PMK, and like I said sounds cool. As for the washing discussion, I am not swearing by it, but have read, here, by many people, that washing increases the stain. Never use a hardening fixer, and some people even skip a hypo clear, and wash twenty min. in the belief that that also maintains the stain...in the rain Ken Smith Whereoming > I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro developers. Originally I > was a Tri-X, HC-110 landscape shooter, but came to feel that I was forever struggling to > hold highlight/sky etc. <snip> > The documentary/geological survey approach in all it's anti-scenic splendor. A sense of > light/atmosphere is more the goal than an old fashioned knock your socks off graphic > image with deep blacks and brilliant whites. Ken, First, what you are describing is the struggle to control Tri-X and HC-110's characteristic curve. This combination results in a "rising" curve (toe without shoulder),where highlights become ever more contrasty. This results in a really nice look, but is a pain to control, because you walk on the knife edge of blown highlights. One way to "solve" this problem, is to use a film/developer combination that results in more of a shoulder. One of the classic ways to do this is to use stand development with an acutance developer to create compensation. You can learn more about this from the recent classic "The Film Developing Cookbook" by Anchell and Troop. Another way to handle this, is to do something that is anathema to most everyone in this group. That is, print digitally. This can completely change the way you develop your negatives. Basically, instead of "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" you "expose for the shadows and scan for the highlights." In zone system parlance, you only use N development. You can drop all N- and N+ development, because you no longer have to shoehorn 10 or 11 stops of image brightness into eight zones. This works because the scanner is an intermediate step in the process. Your negative density is unlikely to be more than any modern scanner can handle. The scanner will take whatever the density range is on the negative and spread it uniformly out over a range of numbers (if you are scanning in 8 bit mode, that range is 0-255). Bottom line is no more blown out highlights. This isn't theory. I've been doing this with 4x5 Tri-X, XTOL 1:3, scanning, and printing with Epson printers using selenium tone Piezotone inks on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag for quite a while now. The prints show more shadow detail *and* more highlight detail than I ever got during 30 some years of dark room prints, and I'm not a bad darkroom printer. These inkjet prints are beautiful. Whether or not this is the right thing for you, only you can decide, YMMV, etc. However, it *can* end your problems with brightly lit scenes and blown out highlights. > > I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro developers. Originally I > > was a Tri-X, HC-110 landscape shooter, but came to feel that I was forever struggling to [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Whether or not this is the right thing for you, only you can decide, YMMV, etc. However, > it *can* end your problems with brightly lit scenes and blown out highlights. Thanks, I'd love to go full on scan,shop,inkjet, but I don't have the coin. I took a terrible career path money wise.Photography and painting! Art and time wise, I'm better off than millionairs. My pyro negs are looking good, and HP-5 has a better shoulder than the old Tri-x, don't know about the new. Other than that, given the cost of 8x10, I loaded holders with some RC paper the other day, and poped out one of the sweetest prints I've done if a long time. I couldn't believe it, tones and sharpness were all there, for 30 cents a negative. I'll have to go that direction for now. Find out what it can and can't handle, but wowie, what a feeling of liberation to shoot without cringing. > The prints show more shadow detail *and* more highlight detail than I ever got > during 30 some years of dark room prints, and I'm not a bad darkroom printer. These inkjet > prints are beautiful. The real concern, though, is how they will look in ten years. And twenty. And fifty. Well-processed black and white prints have an estimated life of centuries (as long as 500 years by some estimates). Some inkjet companies claim a century or more, but there are no century-old inkjet prints yet, and very few inkjet printers have that kind of capability. This needn't be a fatal flaw, but it is a major one. Jim > "hogarth" <hogarth@**notspam***snappydsl.net> wrote > > The [ink jet] prints show more shadow detail *and* more > > highlight detail than I ever got during 30 some years [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And fifty. Well-processed black and white prints have an estimated life of > centuries ... No problem: Make archival copy negatives from the ink-jet print. I think the solution is a dodge & burn program on PhotoShop that spits out a mask that is placed above the negative for contrast & tone correction. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.