 |
 | 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 / September 2003PMK Recommendations
I'm getting ready to jump on the Pyro bandwagon and need some guidance. I would like to use the Photographer Formulary PMK and Plus-X Pro (120 format, because I have it on hand). However, I have not been able to find much about this combination. Am I taking the wrong path? If I'm not going astray, what would be a good starting point (I will still do my own testing, but any help on narrowing down the EI/time/temp would be very appreciated). Thanks so much. Jim > I'm getting ready to jump on the Pyro bandwagon and need some guidance. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Thanks so much. > Jim Couple of questions: 1) Are you hand processing the film or using a Jobo? 2) With roll film 120 is some trade off of slight grain increase acceptable in exchange for softer tonality? It will be fairly slight with Plus X. 3) Which Formulary PMK? 4) Is there any reason you would not be willing to formulate your own? Barring any strange answers to the above you might try an EI of 100 possibly 80. Develop in standard 1+2+100 diluted PMK for 7. minutes 30 seconds @ 70 degrees F.  Signaturewebsite: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank Greg, Thanks for the response. I answered below your questions. > 1) Are you hand processing the film or using a Jobo? Hand in S/S. I don't use the Jobo for B&W at all (in the _M.S. Falsehoods_ post I said you can, not that I did). > 2) With roll film 120 is some trade off of slight grain increase acceptable in exchange for > softer tonality? It will be fairly slight with Plus X. I expect that. With MF sizes, it won't be noticable unless I go to and above 16"x20". I'm looking to gain the tonality increase. However, will the tonality gains be enough? I am not going to look for LF tonality from a MF negative. Just something better than PXP in D-76, Rodinal or HC-110B. > 3) Which Formulary PMK? The "Gordon Hutchings" Liquid. > 4) Is there any reason you would not be willing to formulate your own? Maybe later. Some may call me a chicken, but I'd rather have an idea on expectations and the process without including an unknown on the chemistry front. I only recently picked up Steve Anchell and Bill Troops books. That's been the catalyst to get me into pyro. I need to get a few things first as well (i.e. a good scale, unless I can use my hand loaders scale;-). The price of Pyrogallol here in Germany is crazy (40 grams will cost you $30.00, Formulary can't ship via USPS to an APO address)! I'll be in the N.Y./N.E. area in a few days and a trip to B&H is on my got to do list (isn't every time I get back to CT:~). They have the liquid kit in stock, so I'll pick it up and bring it back. 50 Liters of working solutions should hold me for a while. > Barring any strange answers to the above you might try > an EI of 100 possibly 80. Develop in standard 1+2+100 diluted > PMK for 7. minutes 30 seconds @ 70 degrees F. > > -- Thanks for the help. Jim > Greg, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hand in S/S. I don't use the Jobo for B&W at all (in the _M.S. Falsehoods_ > post I said you can, not that I did). Agitate 5to7 seconds every half minute. > > 2) With roll film 120 is some trade off of slight grain increase > acceptable in exchange for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the tonality gains be enough? I am not going to look for LF tonality from a > MF negative. Just something better than PXP in D-76, Rodinal or HC-110B. You should be able to get Rodinal tonality without as much grain. > > 3) Which Formulary PMK? > > The "Gordon Hutchings" Liquid. Have not used liquid, but making the metaborate seperate has some advantages you can keep it fresher by doing so, IMOP thats important, over say a 6 to8 week period I would advise to mix a fresh batch of the metaborate. > > 4) Is there any reason you would not be willing to formulate your own? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > so I'll pick it up and bring it back. 50 Liters of working solutions should > hold me for a while. You might try to get ahold of some amidol, ala the Darkroom Cookbook the addition of the pinch of amidol will once again IMOP increase your film speed a bit. Signaturewebsite: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > > Greg, > > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > website: > http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank Again, Thanks... IF B&H has the Amidol, I'll grab it... > I would like to use the Photographer Formulary PMK and Plus-X Pro (120 > format, because I have it on hand). However, I have not been able to find > much about this combination. Am I taking the wrong path? I'm not sure if Plus-X Pro is different from Plus-X, as Tri-X Pro (TXP) is different from Tri-X (TX), but I've had great success with the pre-2002 Plus-X emulsion in PMK. I shoot at EI 80 and develop for Gordon Hutchings' recommended time (I want to say 10:00 but I can look it up if you like), at 21 degrees. Agitation every 15 seconds, three violent inversions. Lots of stain, maybe a bit too much but very printable. Jim [SNIP] > I'm not sure if Plus-X Pro is different from Plus-X, as Tri-X Pro (TXP) > is different from Tri-X (TX), but I've had great success with the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jim Jim, Thanks for the reassurance. Kodak list the Plus-X Pro (film code PXP) differently than regular Plus-X. There are some different times for development (developer dependent), so there must be something. I plan on picking up Gordon Hutching's book at the same time. I understand it's 'required reading'. I'll be using the same emulsion (pre-2002) so I can hope for good result. Again, Thanks. Jim I am just beginning this journey, too. My first attempts have been with Barry Thornton's Exactol Lux. My films have been HP5+ and FP4+, mainly in 6X7 and 645 but also a few rolls of 35. I couldn't be more pleased with the results (especially the medium format). Very simple procedure with a 2 part 1:1:100 mix, water rinse, quick alkaline fix, return used developer for added staining, six water soak cycles for washing and very consistent results. My initial feeling was that the negatives looked a bit flat, but they printed beautifully. I've got some of his diLuxol Vitesse for my next experiments (added emulsion speed) and was considering some WD2D+ as another option. I should also get some PMK, so that I can use that for a baseline comparison as it seems to be the primary pyro favorite. I wish I had ventured into the tanning world sooner as I think back to high contrast situations that could have been made so much easier! >I'm getting ready to jump on the Pyro bandwagon and need some guidance. > >I would like to use the Photographer Formulary PMK and Plus-X Pro (120 >format, because I have it on hand). However, I have not been able to find >much about this combination. Am I taking the wrong path? > I am just beginning this journey, too. My first attempts have been > with Barry Thornton's Exactol Lux. My films have been HP5+ and FP4+, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I wish I had ventured into the tanning world sooner as I think back to > high contrast situations that could have been made so much easier! Craig, Thanks for your comments. I've seen prints from pyro developed negatives but have never printed it myself. I'm kinda looking forward to long, cold nights this winter, spent in the darkroom (unless my wife has a fire burning in the Living Room ;-). > I am just beginning this journey, too. My first attempts have been > with Barry Thornton's Exactol Lux. My films have been HP5+ and FP4+, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >format, because I have it on hand). However, I have not been able to find > >much about this combination. Am I taking the wrong path? PMK negatives will look flat to the eye because of the yellow stain. Contrary to many explanations, the only part of that stain that acts as a filter is that which is due to chemical fog. It is an informative excercise to bleach out the silver part of the image of a PMK negative with Farmer's reducer and to print it on VC paper. Don't do this on a precious negative, of course. >Patrick Gainer pgainer@rtol.net >Contrary >to many explanations, the only part of that stain that acts as a filter is >that >which is due to chemical fog. Why doesn't the image stain that is proportional to density also act as a filter for VC papers? Doesn't it add a color change to the light hitting the paper with more color in the highlight areas? Chuck > >Patrick Gainer pgainer@rtol.net > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > paper with more color in the highlight areas? > Chuck Maybe so, but when you print only the yellow stain image, the blue sensitive emulsion sees it as gray. Whatever the green sensitive emulsion sees of it will not subtract density from the printed image. What happens is that the green sensitive emulsion is more densitive to the yellow image, so printing exposure must be reduced to keep densities from being too high. All the yellow image needs to make a good print is blue filtration to keep the green sensitive emulsion from seeing too much of the yellow image. When you are printing the PMK negative, the slver part may contribute less to the image than the stain. The eye sees the silver image better than the yellow, and so the contrast looks lower than it will print on either VC or graded paper. The contrast will be higher on graded paper because it has no green sensitive emulsion. I know it sounds backward, but you may solve more printing problems by thinking of it this way rather than as a variable filter. There are no rules for dealing with a variable filter that I know of.. |
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.