Developer comparison: D-23 VS PMK

[koraks]

Moderator note: if we must kill each other, please let's try to do it with kindness. Thanks.

 

[relistan]

No?


Hey, how about you drop the slightly patronising tone a little, and the victim attitude too.


You are free to take it or drop it, but chasing around people whom you perceive are after you because you are a 'noob' is a waste of time imo and I can't see anyone doing that atm honestly.

I think most people would react negatively to being sub-quoted on another thread without specifically mentioning them, and perhaps mischaracterizing them in their perception. Your tone could also be perceived as patronizing, even insulting. Just a little perspective.

EDIT: was typing while @koraks was already responding.

 

[relistan]

Looking at the original post, I think I prefer the D-23 in all cases here, which is not what I expected! Thanks for posting that @retina_restoration

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, D23 certainly held its own against a great pyro developer for this scene. Now, if the scene were of a pretty white sailboat sailing out a channel with trees in the background and big white fluffy clouds in a bright blue sky the comparison might not be as close????? I don't do as much bouncing around with developers like I used to and have pretty much settled on what works, what I like and what I'm comfortable using. The less variables the better!

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Some years ago eminent photographer/printer Mark Citret shared his film development process with me upon my request. I was delighted by the simplicity of his process. He has a well thought-out and consistent way of exposing and developing. He employs abolutely no secret sauce (Harvey's 777) or magical ingredients (Glycin, Meritol). He uses Rodinal for most purposes and the result he gets from his process is something I find very inspiring.

Unless one is keenly interested in photochemistry/sensitometry and/or wants to have fun trying out new things, there is not much to gain by investing time and effort in testing developers with the hope that it will improve the results dramatically. Consistency in developing combined with thoughtful exposure will give the most returns. Of course none of this is new to most people here.

 

[Milpool]

Yes, D23 certainly held its own against a great pyro developer for this scene. Now, if the scene were of a pretty white sailboat sailing out a channel with trees in the background and big white fluffy clouds in a bright blue sky the comparison might not be as close????? I don't do as much bouncing around with developers like I used to and have pretty much settled on what works, what I like and what I'm comfortable using. The less variables the better!

Just musing - have any of you guys really compared a PMK cloud rendering with say any other developer or are you all just paraphrasing Hutchings - you know the part at the beginning where he goes nutso about the glorious ABC pyro clouds?

It just seems a little strange most of the stuff I read people say about pyro here comes right out of Hutchings's book, whether it's clouds, edge effects, "watercolor" effects, etc.

 

[Milpool]

Some years ago eminent photographer/printer Mark Citret shared his film development process with me upon my request. I was delighted by the simplicity of his process. He has a well thought-out and consistent way of exposing and developing. He employs abolutely no secret sauce (Harvey's 777) or magical ingredients (Glycin, Meritol). He uses Rodinal for most purposes and the result he gets from his process is something I find very inspiring.

Unless one is keenly interested in photochemistry/sensitometry and/or wants to have fun trying out new things, there is not much to gain by investing time and effort in testing developers with the hope that it will improve the results dramatically. Consistency in developing combined with thoughtful exposure will give the most returns. Of course none of this is new to most people here.

Citret is one of the very best and has always kept things simple whether it was film choice, developer (basic Rodinal) or process. The control and work is all in the printing. That is the common denominator. George Tice is another good example. TX/TXP and D-76 for everything. There are many others.

On the other hand, if someone finds enjoyment in trying different things I think this can work just as well (as long as one isn't continually bouncing all over the place). It takes relatively little time to "master", "dial-in", etc. a film/developer.

 

[retina_restoration]

there is not much to gain by investing time and effort in testing developers with the hope that it will improve the results dramatically. Consistency in developing combined with thoughtful exposure will give the most returns. Of course none of this is new to most people here.

My experience has taught me that most of what makes a photograph good happens at the point when the photographer exposes the film, not in the development tank/tray. The life of that image has largely been decided once the latent image is on film. Of course, the rest of the artistry happens when the image is processed or printed - leaning on Adams' comment about the negative being like a musical score and all that.
Your choice of developer is such a minor component in the chain of choices that get you from the image you see in your mind, to the finished piece. There are differences, certainly - but every developer can be made to work to advantage if you understand its properties and how you can apply them to your work. That was my point.

 

[GregY]

Just musing - have any of you guys really compared a PMK cloud rendering with say any other developer or are you all just paraphrasing Hutchings - you know the part at the beginning where he goes nutso about the glorious ABC pyro clouds?

It just seems a little strange most of the stuff I read people say about pyro here comes right out of Hutchings's book, whether it's clouds, edge effects, "watercolor" effects, etc.

Clouds, edge effect..... all common vocabulary. Compare? Of course....when i began using PMK it made my images better and easier to print.....which was what I was hoping to achieve. Whatever anyone else uses in this free world is their choice.
As snusm.... succinctly phrased it "Once I simplified my choices everything improved at once."
As was either said or implied in more than a few posts is that each image & lighting condition is different (maybe subtly or not) and we make adjustments to both our film development and our printing...and acceptable (read good) results are most often achieved through consistency (yes the 10,000 hr rule applies to photography).

 

[chuckroast]

Just musing - have any of you guys really compared a PMK cloud rendering with say any other developer or are you all just paraphrasing Hutchings - you know the part at the beginning where he goes nutso about the glorious ABC pyro clouds?

It just seems a little strange most of the stuff I read people say about pyro here comes right out of Hutchings's book, whether it's clouds, edge effects, "watercolor" effects, etc.

I have absolutely seen what PMK can do with cloud edges and its something spectacular. This is not to say no other developer could achieve this. Perhaps one of the usual suspects combined with EMA or something similar might get there. But at least among the developers I have tried (HC-110, D-76, D-23, DK-50, Pyrocat-HD[C]), none have achieved anything close to PMK's edge effect in "normal" development and agitation schemes.

 

[GregY]

I have absolutely seen what PMK can do with cloud edges and its something spectacular. This is not to say no other developer could achieve this. Perhaps one of the usual suspects combined with EMA or something similar might get there. But at least among the developers I have tried (HC-110, D-76, D-23, DK-50, Pyrocat-HD[C]), none have achieved anything close to PMK's edge effect in "normal" development and agitation schemes.

Yes.... I just did a check and I first started using PMK 35 yrs ago. I hadn't heard of Gordon Hutchings or yet seen the book, but my friend Dario who was working at a camera store in Calgary at the time, made the most amazing prints.....

 

[Craig]

Is that Mt Assiniboine?

 

[GregY]

Is that Mt Assiniboine?

Yes it is.

 

[John Wiegerink]

If you carefully read what GregY posted above you'll come across the key to this whole discussion. This line right here is it........"when i began using PMK it made my images better and easier to print". The word "easier" is the key! Could the picture have been made with another non-staining developer and looked just as nice? Yup, but it would have taken more manipulation in the darkroom to do it. Printing/retaining good highlight separation just seems easier for me when I use Pyrocat-HDC compared to my favorite non-staining developer XT-3R. So, when I have a choice, I almost always use Pyrocat-HDC for nice bright sunny days.

 

[retina_restoration]

If you carefully read what GregY posted above you'll come across the key to this whole discussion. This line right here is it........"when i began using PMK it made my images better and easier to print". The word "easier" is the key! Could the picture have been made with another non-staining developer and looked just as nice? Yup, but it would have taken more manipulation in the darkroom to do it. Printing/retaining good highlight separation just seems easier for me when I use Pyrocat-HDC compared to my favorite non-staining developer XT-3R. So, when I have a choice, I almost always use Pyrocat-HDC for nice bright sunny days.

I don't disagree with that. If you look closely at my example images, you can see there is some loss of fine detail in the brightest areas (upper left window corner) of the D-23 image that are preserved in the PMK negative. This is an expected result, and in spite of Hutchings gushing hyperbole (yes, I have read the book multiple times), it is an actual, measurable effect.
I did not suggest that there were no differences between the actions of these two very dissimilar developers - I only wanted to demonstrate that there was not as much of a difference as some people believe.

 

[Paul Howell]

For clarity, Kodak Alaris hasn't owned that business for some time. After a detour into ownership by the now defunct Sino Promise Holdings, the ownership of that business and manufacture of Kodak branded chemicals is now in the hands of a USA based corporation, Photo Systems (of Unicolor fame).
And by the way, they no longer call it HC-110 - they are using HC now I believe.

Does Kodak Alaris still get royalties for the name Kodak on the label?

 

[dcy]

D, the internet is a murky place.

Yeah.

"It was the insistence of this forum that made me get more stuff." (The devil made me do it ?)

Yeah. I hope that didn't come across too negatively. Point is, I was trying to not fall into the trap of "noob who won't listen to advice" while balancing that against "yeah, but I don't want to test every developer ever created".

On balance, I think I managed alright. I'm going to test some of the things that were recommended, but not every thing that was recommended.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Depends what you're after. I heard Mark Citret named. I haven't seen him for many years. He made most of his income as an architectural photographer back then. But he was known for printing his personal work rather soft on a particular paper, now long discontinued. He also preferred 4x5 format. He had just bought a new Toyo VX monorail camera when I last saw him, back when I was shooting a Sinar for similar applications and we sometimes crossed paths. Those kinds of shots were designed for commercial offset reproduction, or perhaps early web usage. But what made his softly nuanced personal prints special in terms of development technique might very well backfire with respect to someone else's vision (Robert Adams had a similar technique).

I had already switched over to PMK pyro; and it made a dramatic difference for me, especially in highlight reproduction. Those were the days of classic graded papers. Today's VC papers make life much easier in that respect; but I still mainly use PMK for the extra control it gives. It's those kinds of nuances which can often spell the difference between a good print and a great one.
The most dramatic example was back when I mainly shot 8X10 HP5. There was a "wow" factor unobtainable with any other category of developer (I used several different staining pyro tweaks).

Back then, there were numerous very promising negatives I took early on and processed in D23 (including 2-bath technique), that were simply hell to print. I gave up on them, but didn't throw them out. Only in recent years have I finally gotten what I really wanted out of some of those early 4x5's due to today's superb VC papers. Most of them involved lighting extremes up in the mountains, with glistening glaciers and high-key background clouds. "Compression" style development just squashes the life out of those kinds of scenes. PMK (plus unsharp masking) was revolutionary for me.

 

[GregY]

If you carefully read what GregY posted above you'll come across the key to this whole discussion. This line right here is it........"when i began using PMK it made my images better and easier to print". The word "easier" is the key! Could the picture have been made with another non-staining developer and looked just as nice? Yup, but it would have taken more manipulation in the darkroom to do it. Printing/retaining good highlight separation just seems easier for me when I use Pyrocat-HDC compared to my favorite non-staining developer XT-3R. So, when I have a choice, I almost always use Pyrocat-HDC for nice bright sunny days.

Fuji GW680lll / first straight print & & 4x10" straight contact print

 

[Milpool]

I once asked him for a recommendation when I was considering changing my 4x5 camera and coincidentally he had just gone back to his Norma after having used the VX for a while.

His superb prints on Polyfiber are indeed on the softer side overall. What a wonderful photographer and craftsman.

Depends what you're after. I heard Mark Citret named. I haven't seen him for many years. He made most of his income as an architectural photographer back then. But he was known for printing his personal work rather soft on a particular paper, now long discontinued. He also preferred 4x5 format. He had just bought a new Toyo VX monorail camera when I last saw him, back when I was shooting a Sinar for similar applications and we sometimes crossed paths. Those kinds of shots were designed for commercial offset reproduction, or perhaps early web usage. But what made his softly nuanced personal prints special in terms of development technique might very well backfire with respect to someone else's vision (Robert Adams had a similar technique).

I had already switched over to PMK pyro; and it made a dramatic difference for me, especially in highlight reproduction. Those were the days of classic graded papers. Today's VC papers make life much easier in that respect; but I still mainly use PMK for the extra control it gives. It's those kinds of nuances which can often spell the difference between a good print and a great one.
The most dramatic example was back when I mainly shot 8X10 HP5. There was a "wow" factor unobtainable with any other category of developer (I used several different staining pyro tweaks).

Back then, there were numerous very promising negatives I took early on and processed in D23 (including 2-bath technique), that were simply hell to print. I gave up on them, but didn't throw them out. Only in recent years have I finally gotten what I really wanted out of some of those early 4x5's due to today's superb VC papers.

 

[dcy]

My wife, who has a counselling background, tells me that "should" is a cognitive distortion ....
I've never really come to a definitive answer in my mind as to what that exactly means, but I can tell you that when you participate in fora like the one offered on Photrio, it becomes important to differentiate between recommendations that are enthusiastically offered, and definitive statements to the effect of "there is but one true answer".
If you were to add four words to that quoted phrase, so that it comes to something like "you should consider the advantages of using something else", you will find Photrio to be far more useful - at least when considering the question of general purpose film developers.

Yeah. From my point of view, it can be difficult to distinguish the two versions of "should". To follow the car analogy, I don't always know if I am hearing

• "I recommend Ford over Chevy" or
• "I recommend changing the oil from time to time"

I think I was so worried about not being the pigheaded newbie who won't listen to advice from experienced people that I overcompensated and treated every recommendation as something important that I should consider very seriously.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I don't disagree with that. If you look closely at my example images, you can see there is some loss of fine detail in the brightest areas (upper left window corner) of the D-23 image that are preserved in the PMK negative. This is an expected result, and in spite of Hutchings gushing hyperbole (yes, I have read the book multiple times), it is an actual, measurable effect.
I did not suggest that there were no differences between the actions of these two very dissimilar developers - I only wanted to demonstrate that there was not as much of a difference as some people believe.

I understand completely and agree completely. Like GregY says above, with his picture of heavy clouds,(Fuji GW680III straight print) that it is a straight print. Using something like Rodinal or D76 might take a some "burning in" in the highlights, which means it's not as "easy" as a straight print.

 

[dcy]

Hey, how about you drop the slightly patronising tone a little, and the victim attitude too.

Let's try to lower the temperature here.

It was not trying to be patronizing and if what I wrote came across that way, then I apologize for that. Please remember that text communication cannot convey tone of voice or body language.

I am equally bewildered by the comment about a victim attitude. My message was that I did not ask for developer recommendations. --- I just went back and re-read my comment. Looking back, I guess the last sentence of my comment to you could be interpreted as a victim attitude. If that is issue, then allow me to rephrase: Every purchase that I made was in response to prompting by this forum. --- I hope that phrasing comes across better than my first version.

Can we agree to shake virtual hands?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Milpool - it's really hard to get those softer yet delicately nuanced images with current papers. Citret's and Robert A's prints on Polymax had a distinct delicate "silvery" look (at least in person; it's hard to reproduce in book fashion). I could get similar results by "snatch" processing certain classic graded papers like Brilliant Bromide or Oriental Seagull G. But try that with current papers and they simply go blaaah.

I was mostly shooting various configurations of Sinar F at the time. The VX had an oversized board, and was certainly not as versatile a system as Sinar, which would accept even special Horseman bellows. Although I still have a quantity of F and P components, my favorite version of Sinar in the long run has been the Norma. But alas, now on the downhill side of my 70's, I'm resorting more often to my little Ebony 4X5 folder for hiking purposes.

 

[Milpool]

Milpool - it's really hard to get those softer yet delicately nuanced images with current papers. Citret's and Robert A's prints on Polymax had a distinct look (at least in person; it's hard to reproduce in book fashion). I could get similar results by "snatch" processing certain classic graded papers like Brilliant Bromide or Oriental Seagull G. But try that with current papers and they simply go blaaah.

We certainly don’t have a whole lot of choice these days, do we. I’m lucky enough to have a few of Mark Citret’s prints on Polyfiber A (which he often referred to as vellum prints). I wonder if he is still using that old stash.