Ian,
In general I agree with your comments, however, at this point in the discussion most if not all of what is exchanged is personal opinion and therefore subjective in nature. That said, many of us have considerable experience to draw upon and that should greatly enhance one's educated guesses.
I heartily agree that pyro developers themselves are a significant upgrade from non pyro developers with regard to tanning, edge effects and general harding of the emulsion, all very positive and desirable results of pyro based developers. I further agree that there are those who discount that theory and yes they usually are the same nay sayers each time.
Thomas,
As with Ian's observations I believe yours to be on point also, albeit subjective in much the same manner. It's important to note that you say you are pleased with the results you get from your method of reducing contrast and really isn't that all that matters? Finally someone has come out and said my method is working for me and I am quite pleased with the resulting prints. It matters not how to get to the final print, only that the final print looks as you had hoped.
You can see from Thomas's method that agitation frequency plays a big part in controlling highlight contrast. I don't believe I have ever said that my way is the only way, rather I have offered the general technique and others have imparted their own variations with success.
Several years ago when this process was just making it's initial appearance on these forums there were a number of photographers I shared this technique with, some frequent these forums, many others do not. What they share in common is a fundamentally sound understanding of film, exposure and contrast control through technique and chemistry. Virtually all use a modified version, their own if you will of reduced agitation film development. Nevertheless, the fundamental aspects remain the driving force behind the technique. Developer exhaustion, (highly dilute developer) agitation regime and total time. Photographers far more creative and talented than I have continuously lauded this process as a means to new found creative possibilities.
So Thomas, it's easy for me to understand your statement that stand development is not necessary to effect the contrast reducing results you are after. I say this because it is clear you have an understanding of how sensitized film reacts to developer, dilution, agitation and time. So continue to move forward with your own methods and understand when you encounter an obstacle you'll be able to draw on your own experiences in lieu of posting a question which is sured to made confusing here on these forums .
That leads into a more general problem with these forums if you'll allow me a moment. Many threads are started about a particular subject and immediately pounced on by "what I call forum photographers" who expound any number of so called findings or results, never with any proven results. Many times they merely rehash what others have said in the past but with their own bye line, quite possibly borne out of some sense of superiority. Unfortunately, for those who don't know otherwise it must be taken for gospel. I am quite suspect of this as I myself only have a very narrow working knowledge of black and white photography.
And finally, to Jim's question of "the neg looks denser than most", that is true, what is also true is the neg is not usable because of a number of deficiencies such as increased edge density because of an agitation regime that did not work, there is bromide drag on one side. However, in the very first attempt at this technique it was abundantly clear that the results of this development process had to be explored, which I continue to do everyday. My own technique for a variety of reasons has evolved to two agitation cycles rather than one and a longer more vigorous initial agitation cycle.
Further, the reduced agitation process has allowed me to make this rather bold statement, I believe I can photograph and control virtually any lighting condition and can impart to the negative / print any adjustment / control that Photoshop can, sometimes with more difficulty and other times more easily.
Lastly, to those who ask do you have any direct comparisons if this neg was developed this way and if that neg was developed with XYZ developer what would the difference be, the answer is no. My tests come in the form of whatever I shoot becomes a new challenge as I am never satisfied with my results and would caution those who are, it must be disappointing not to be challenged in your photography.
Apologies for being longwinded!
Last edited by a moderator:
