Pyro and T-grain films

[David A. Goldfarb]

If the discussion sticks to issues of empirical testing there will be nothing to delete, but since we've all seen this movie before, please keep discussions regarding past submissions to VC, who is a better photographer, my friends, your friends, etc. out of the public forum.

 

[Donald Miller]

As I have said several times I periodically recheck my ei and dev times. I do this with current papers and current films. When tri-X changed about 2 years ago I rechecked and found it had a higher ei and also required a longer dev time for zone 8. The empirical tests I do always agree with the densitometer checks I make. You can get to the same place either way. There should not be this disagreement.

steve simmons

Steve,

I have noticed that you have failed to respond to my direct questions to you a number of times. I wonder what your reasons are for doing so. I can think of several reasons. The first may be that you don't know how to do valid testing. The second is that you believe that we should take your opinions, without sensitometric testing, as being valid.

To reitterate, you are using methodology that by your own admission relies on visual appraisal of tonal representations on paper. The only testing that you mention relies on outdated and outmoded methods. You make no valid references to the exposure scale of the paper as determned by sensitiometric testing. I repeat, have you measured the exposure scale of the papers? If so what method have you used to do this? Have you measured the dmax and dmin of the papers to determine if your visual appraisal of tonal values is valid?

Can you visually differentiate between a .17 ref dens and a .25 ref dens? How about the other end of the scale, can you visually distinguish between a 1.95 ref dens and a 1.75 ref dens? Can you do it repeatedly and have your appraisals been verified in any meaningful way?

Your methodology appears to be flawed and for that reason, any thing that you represent appears to "arm waving" the matter.

You say that there should not be disagreement. It is for the reason that you don't back up claims that you make with any valid verifiable reference that questions about your claims arise. It is for this reason that there is disagreement...you make claims that just do not hold up under examination.

 

[sanking]

Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

Does any of this apply to the present situation? I refer both to the proposed new testing and to the attempt by some to teach Steve Simmons new tricks.

So exactly what is the point of a new set of PMK versus Pyrocat-HD tests. Does Steve expect different results with the same person following the same methodology? If not, is it not logical to assume that he *expects* the same results?

And if so, what really is the purpose of the tests? And why now?

Sandy

 

[Jorge]

If the discussion sticks to issues of empirical testing there will be nothing to delete, but since we've all seen this movie before, please keep discussions regarding past submissions to VC, who is a better photographer, my friends, your friends, etc. out of the public forum.

This is the reason why there are controls as the "ignore thread", "ignore user" so those who do not wish to see the movie again can ignore it at will. That should be a personal choice and not one made by the moderators as long as the discussion is kept level headed. What you consider boring might not be to others, you have no right to make the choice for them just because you are the moderator and feel this way.

But then it seems to be the way APUG is going........

 

[Jorge]

As I have said several times I periodically recheck my ei and dev times. I do this with current papers and current films. When tri-X changed about 2 years ago I rechecked and found it had a higher ei and also required a longer dev time for zone 8. The empirical tests I do always agree with the densitometer checks I make. You can get to the same place either way. There should not be this disagreement.

steve simmons

You are incorrect, you dont get to the same place either way. This was clearly demonstrated when you made tests a year ago and you rated Pyrocat as giving half the speed with your chosen film when anybody that has used it KNOWS that Pyrocat yields full rated speed. As always you are blind to those arguments presented to you and continue to insists on a methodology that is clearly substandard for the purpose of testing.

King has it right, it is insane to do the same thing ad naseum and expect a different result. I am sure your new test will show PMK superior, as it did last time, simply because you do not understand the controls necessary to do it right.

 

[steve simmons]

You have to get enough density in the low values to get the shadow detail. In my tests the HD required my exposure to do this. If I had not done this testing I would have had empty shadows. I prefer good detail and texture down into zone 3. I used the same paper for both films and film developers.

The purpose of an article is to look at how films stain, how that stain affects the image quality, and is a staining developer any better (does it offer any advantages) over a non staining developer. I thought this was the broad issue.

As for my ability to see the difference in the high numbers (1.95 and 1.75)- no and i would not look. They are off the scale and I would not develop a negative to that density to make a silver print

Whatever testing you do the final result in black and white is an expressive print. Jorge presented the results of his methodology to View Camera and six additional reviewers. His paper was badly done, at times incoherent, and the prints were atrocious. He has no leg to stand on when it comes to showing the results of his testing and the being critical of others.

I would like to see the work of such people as Noseoil, Donald Miller, David Goldfarb and have them show everyone how their methods result in a superior print. Not references to a web page where the backlighting of the monitor illuminates the image but prints on a table that have to show with front lighting.

steve simmons

 

[Jorge]

You have to get enough density in the low values to get the shadow detail. In my tests the HD required my exposure to do this. If I had not done this tesing I would have had empty shadows. I prefer dood detail and texture down into zone 3. I used the same paper for both films and film developers.

How you build that density in relation to development is the important thing. In your tests, general staining contribuites to "building" your low values. When you are confronted with a developer that has little general stain your only recurse is to expose more due to your flawed testing. This is not necessary if you understand the principles of sensitometry. But then, I have said this before and you (like always) ignored it without having any proper explanations other than "this is what I have done for 30 years".

As you said, in your testing this is what you needed to do, anybody else who is using proper testing procedures disagrees with you....why is that? Are you telling me we are all wrong and you are right? .....I dont think so...

BTW, I see you conveniently once more ignored the fact that you "dont get there" either way.

 

[steve simmons]

For many years the best reference on zone system material we had was Ansel's thin series of books that were difficult for many people to put into practical use. When Fred Picker wrote The Zone VI Workshop and put forth the min time for max black testing procedure it made life so much simpler. This was an easy and straight forward way to quickly match the densities on the neg - and to determine what they need to be - for the paper you were using. Your film, film developer, priting paper, and to some extent the print developer, are a team that have to be calibrated. If you do not get the right densities in the negative the print will not show the desired or possible tonal separation. This simple procedure does that. Now, after doing this test I have gone back and tested to see what the zone 1 density is and it has always been between .1 and .14 above base plus fog. I have consistently been able to print delicate detail up to a density of 1.3 or so. I have used both graded and variable contrast papers and found this to be true with PMK. When I test another developer I am looking for the same or better abilities in terms of film speed, high value separation, etc. If I can find one I will use it. My only allegiance is to find a film and developer combinatioln that gives me the tones I desire.

This test does match the densities in the film (which you can adjust with exposure and development) to those of the paper you are using. It also results in film densities that are very close to what Ansel and Minor suggested many years ago.

steve simmons

 

[Donald Miller]

You have to get enough density in the low values to get the shadow detail. In my tests the HD required my exposure to do this. If I had not done this tesing I would have had empty shadows. I prefer dood detail and texture down into zone 3. I used the same paper for both films and film developers.

This seems to indicate to me, once again, the lack of controls in your testing process. So you overexpose film by two stops...is that any different then altering the film's EI?

The purpose of an article is to look at how films stain, how that stain affects the image quality, and is a staining developer any better (does it offer any advantages) over a non staining developer. I thought this was the broad issue.

With your present basis of knowledge and your seeming inability to recognize the fallability of your testing process, I say go for it...it will probably show what you found last time...and it will show it again the time thereafter...will it be valid? Nope, not ever.

As for my ability to see the difference in the high numbers (1.95 and 1.75)- no and i would not look. They are off the scale and I would not develop a negative to that density to make a silver print

Steve, this just shows that you really don't have a grasp of testing process. I was not speaking of negative transmission density. I was addressing print tonal densities. I was addressing the fallacy of your visual print tonality evaluation process.

Whatever testing you do the final result in black and white is an expressive print. Jorge presented the results of his methodology to View Camera and six additional reviewers. His paper was badly done, at times incoherent, and the prints were atrocious. He has no leg to stand on when it comes to showing the results of his testing and the being critical of others.

This is an inflamatory remark and it has no place in this discussion. Agreed?

I would like to see the work of such people as Noseoil, Donald Miller, David Goldfarb and have them show everyone how their methods result in a superior print. Not references to a web page where the backlighting of the monitor illuminates the image but prints on a table that have to show with front lighting.

No problem with that for me...how do you propose that this be done? And who would be the judge? Would that be you? What parameters would the evaluation be based upon?

steve simmons

Steve, I agree with what Sandy King and Jorge have said. To attempt to communicate with you is an exercise in futility. It serves no good purpose. I say that you should do as you wish. Just don't expect too many who know what valid testing is about to accept your reported findings. Good luck to you.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Steve, if you would like to join the APUG Traveling Portfolio, the various print exchanges on APUG, or even the APUG Postcard Exchange, where we're all exchanging and looking at each other's prints, I'm sure that you would be welcomed by all participants.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

When Fred Picker wrote The Zone VI Workshop and put forth the min time for max black testing procedure it made life so much simpler. This was an easy and straight forward way to quickly match the densities on the neg - and to determine what they need to be - for the paper you were using.

Steve - I think the general consensus nowadays is that "miminum time to black" is not a good method, as it is very dependant on the shape of the paper shoulder. Finding the 90% maximum black point is much prefered.

Kirk

 

[Jorge]

It also results in film densities that are very close to what Ansel and Minor suggested many years ago.

Once again, you fall back on outdated information. The density target that AA and MW talked about for zone VIII was proper for the papers of that time, since then papers have a much smaller exposure scale. This is why you are lucky that PMK exists, you would not know how to adjust paper and films to fit each other with a non staining developer or a staining developer that has little overall stain.

This once again has become a useless discussion with you, it is a shame that in your arrogance you fail to see your lack of knowledge. As Donald said, your magazine, your choice on what to publish.....go ahead and make a fool of yourself, in the end the purpose of this forum was fullfilled, which it is to provide as accurate information as possible, people reading this thread can come to their own conclusions.

 

[Gerald Koch]

I read this thread hoping to gain some information. But after the first page it has become Tweedle Dee vs Tweedle Dum times three. However did anyone make a good print before the invention of the densitometer?!

 

[Jorge]

I read this thread hoping to gain some information. But after the first page it has become Tweedle Dee vs Tweedle Dum times three. However did anyone make a good print before the invention of the densitometer?!

Did anybody get where they were going before the invention of the car?.....I guess you must be walking everywhere since better and more accurate ways to do things is something not important to you.

 

[Ole]

... However did anyone make a good print before the invention of the densitometer?!

One of my old (pre-zone system) photo books devotes 80 pages to developing and printing. There are 15 pages of developers, 5 pages on methodology (including how to keep the chemicals warm in winter), 20 pages on printing techniques and processes, and 40 on reducers, intensifiers and retouching and other ways to rescue an underexposed/overexposed underdeveloped/overdeveloped negative.

Quite simply they did it by trial and error. Mostly error, it seems - at least for the first 20 years of the learning period.

 

[steve simmons]

I think the general consensus nowadays is that "miminum time to black" is not a good method, as it is very dependant on the shape of the paper shoulder


Any test should be dependent on the paper being used. Otherwise there is not a good fit.

The remarakable thing is that photographers with years of expereince and very distinguished records of exhibits, books, teaching, and writing use this outdated test right upto today. With their success one would think the method works.

In the next few days I willpost a description of this method on the View Camera web site and in an upcoming issue we will show how and why it works. Then people can decide for themselves.

steve simmons

 

[Ole]

"Minimum time to black" has cost me more waste in both time and paper than any other method I have ever been advised to follow. It does work - to a certain extent - with some papers. But it is downright stupid to advise it as a general rule.

 

[Steve_7x]

To many variables - an alternative

All,

As a reader of this forum, as well as a reader of VC magazine I am less interested in the relative 'betterness' of one Pyro vs another Pyro vs any other developer. Doing a comparison test is a fruitless exercise as the results may apply to some - but inherently exludes others - those that use diferent films, process diferently or print using other materials

I propose that there be a series of articles one for each of the Pyro Developers.

- What is the base work flow that should be used. Pre-bath (y or n), Dev, Stop, Fix (type), Post Fix Bath (y or n), Wash (duration) etc...
- Any compensations for diferent developing methods (tray, brush, jobo, drums, etc...)
- Any compensations to get negatives that will work for diferent printing types (VC, Graded, Azo, UV)
- A chart with temp and dev times for the films available today

I think the purpose of an article on Pyro is to get folks to try the developers and see which ones work for them, and then allow them to refine their process or workflow to create the images they are happy with.

But heck this is just my opinion...

Steve

 

[steve simmons]

At times I find this forum frustrating but there are gems. The last post is terrific and David Goldfarb's questions about does it matter may be the most relevant posts in this thread.

Ok. I will work on their ideas.

steve simmons

 

[Gerald Koch]

I guess you must be walking everywhere since better and more accurate ways to do things is something not important to you.

I have been printing photographs for 55 years and have never resorted to the use of a densitometer. It IS possible to over intellectualize things.

 

[steve simmons]

My tray processing method is detailed in an article on the View Camera web site

www.viewcamera.com

and some of the questions are answered in Gordon Hutchings' The Book of Pyro

but more of what you are asking can be done in an article.

steve simmons

 

[Jorge]

I have been printing photographs for 55 years and have never resorted to the use of a densitometer. It IS possible to over intellectualize things.

It is also possible to dumb things down to the point they are useless....As to making photographs the same way for 55 years....well, useless information and not precisely a ringing endorsement.

 

[Jorge]

My tray processing method is detailed in an article on the View Camera web site

www.viewcamera.com

and some of the questions are answered in Gordon Hutchings' The Book of Pyro

but more of what you are asking can be done in an article.

steve simmons

Is this why you come to these forums and start these useless discussions, so you can advertise your rag?

Here is a link to the free articles in case anybody here wants to bypass all the advertisement.

http://www.viewcamera.com/archives.html

 

[Jorge]

I think the general consensus nowadays is that "miminum time to black" is not a good method, as it is very dependant on the shape of the paper shoulder


Any test should be dependent on the paper being used. Otherwise there is not a good fit.

The remarakable thing is that photographers with years of expereince and very distinguished records of exhibits, books, teaching, and writing use this outdated test right upto today. With their success one would think the method works.

In the next few days I willpost a description of this method on the View Camera web site and in an upcoming issue we will show how and why it works. Then people can decide for themselves.

steve simmons

Who are these photographers you keep mentioning? Please tell us, or are you once again pulling facts out of the air?

 

[Gerald Koch]

It is also possible to dumb things down to the point they are useless....useless information

Which is precisely what this thread has become. As I said I hoped to get some useful information but all that is here is a bunch of vitriol. Don't bother to reply as I shall not be visiting here again.