jdef said:Donald,
Sandy's curves don't show the differences in midtones that you describe between PMK and Pcat, and suggest PMK might offer better highlight separation, depending on the subject. How have you measured these differences between pyro and catechol based developers, or between staining and non-staining developers?
Jay
jdef said:Donald,
Sandy's curves don't show the differences in midtones that you describe between PMK and Pcat, and suggest PMK might offer better highlight separation, depending on the subject.
Jay
jdef said:Thank you, Sandy. That's how I understood your post as well. Donald claims that staining developers give better midtone separation than non-staining developers, and that Pcat gives better midtone separation than PMK, neither of which I understood from your data, or my own experience.
Jay
jdef said:Donald,
If you don't consider zones 4,5,and 6 to be midtones, in a scale that covers 9 meaningful zones, then I suppose that's your prerogative, but these are important midtones to me. Jay
jdef said:Donald,
I do have an agenda; to understand how these staining developers differ from one another, and how they collectively differ from non-staining developers, when used with either VC papers, or graded papers. Sandy has adressed that very question, excepting the comparison of staining, and non-staining developers, right here in this thread, with the "sensitometric data based on hard densitometric analysis" that you require. of your own.
Jay
jdef said:Hi Sandy,
I
When you developed your negs to a CI of .7 to match the .52 negative printed on graded paper, did you measure the contrast of the .7 neg with the V filter of your densitometer? If so, do you remember what it was?
For that reason, I would not consider a staining developer a good, general purpose developer, for printing on VC papers. I know from experience that general purpose, non-staining developers like D-76, Rodinal, Xtol, and PC-TEA can handle very high contrast scenes with proper dilution, but it will be interesting to see your curves and compare them to Pat's. Maybe Pat will post his as well.
Jay
AlanC said:Sandy,
You say that for subjects of reduced tonal range your clear preference would be for a traditional non compensating developer.
It would be interesting if you would care to name which one.
Alan Clark
jdef said:Hi Sandy.
I didn't mean to seem authoritative, I simply stated a hypothesis. Isn't that how we refine our testing? I'll restate my hypothesis more clearly:
If a stained negative must be developed to a higher VCI than a non-stained negative to achieve a given print contrast on VC paper, then a staining developer would not be as effective as a non-staining developer, as a general purpose developer for printing on VC paper.
Jay
jdef said:Pat,
if what you say is true, how do we account for Sandy's example of a negative with a VCI of .6+ printing on G2 VC paper, when a non-stained negative with a CI of .52 would print on the same grade?
Jay
aldevo said:So if the image stain does add appreciable density for VC printing - what role does the color of the stain play?
For example, is it true that a brown-staining developer (e.g. DiXactol or Pyrocat-HD) would add more printing contrast to a VC paper than a green-staining developer, such as PMK?
At first guess I would think so since the greenish stain might allow more greenish light to strike the green-sensitive, lower-contrast emulsion of the paper than a brownish stain.
sanking said:What we need to find, it seems to me, is a color filter that could be used to more closely approximate the actual printing density of a stained negative on VC papers. I gather that such a filter would pass a high percentage of Visual light in the Green but also a fair amount of Blue, perhaps weighted about 60%-80% toward the Green. Sandy
Kirk Keyes said:Oh, I forgot to mention - none of the filters I suggested above will account for the fact that the ratio of blue and green light in some stained negs is changing with density...
Jon said:re: filters and pyro
I have a neg that printed with most contrast with a #3.5 ilford filter. 4, 4.5, 5 were all less contrasty (or close to same) prints! HP5+ in WD2D+, condenser light, Ilford MGIV paper.
Jon
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?