Pyro Thread on LF Forum.

[sanking]

For informative reading I would suggest that all of you interested in the issue of staining developers have a look at the following thread on the LF forum, particulary the last several threads (as of 11:30 EST, 7-90-06).

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=169129#post169129

Bear in mind that Steve Simmons has been claiming greater highlight detail for PMK over Pyrocat-HD based on his tests of these two developers published in the July/August 2004 issue of View Camera. Turns out that his comparison was not based on real silver prints, graded paper or VC, but on scans.

Bearing in mind that Simmons rejected a very thorough manuscript on this subject, submitted by Jorge, which contained quite a number of *real* silver prints, I find this absolutely shocking. I am surprised that the facts tooks so long to come out, but if you look carefully in his article Simmons carefully avoided mentioning that the conclusions were based on scans. In fact, he suggested that they were based on projection printing.

Sandy

 

[Jorge]

Sorry Sandy, but all I see is more of the same pissing match that has been going on for 2 years already..... Simmons refuses to acknowledge basic scientific principles and relies only on anecdotal experience, why bother trying to teach the pig to sing, it only frustrates you and annoys the pig.... let it go and go make some prints...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Turns out that his comparison was not based on real silver prints, graded paper or VC, but on scans.

That's pretty astonishing, if it's true. Is that in the thread? I couldn't find it there, and I sold off my back issues of VC magazine a while ago.

 

[Jorge]

It is another thread David, the right one is:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=169140#post169140

In this one they talk about using the scanner, still a boring thread after two years of the same ol crap.....

 

[JBrunner]

This thing is not good for the LF community, and it makes Sandy and Steve both look poor, regardless of the merits. Both would be best served to continue his own testing, and publish his results, and take the high road in dealing with each other. Most interested in this will be able to duplicate a given test, and draw their own conclusions.

I don't enjoy two people I hold in high regard knocking each other, and their respective achievements. It diminishes us all. FWIW.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yup, it's mostly the same old same old, and it doesn't make either Sandy or Steve look very good, but the clarification about the scanner is significant, because the spectral sensitivity of the scanner is quite different from the spectral sensitivity of just about any traditional paper, with the possible exception of Panalure. I posted a response in the thread Jorge referenced.

 

[reggie]

When I read the VC article when it came out, I assumed that Pyrocat HD had become so popular that the sales of PMK and probably suffered a lot and that the article was written to bolster PMK. The relationship between Simmons and Hutchings is well known and I saw the 'comparison' to be driven primarily by financial consideration. Any contrarian evidence could easily be ignored by VC.

But then, maybe I'm a cynic.

-R

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

This thing is not good for the LF community, and it makes Sandy and Steve both look poor, regardless of the merits. Both would be best served to continue his own testing, and publish his results.

Whatever they do, if the use of a scanner is not acknowledged in the "Materials and Methods" paragraph, that's not a publication, that's just chatting at the local pub IMHO.

 

[noseoil]

I'm hoping Ria will post the results of her most recent (as in yesterday) PMK / Pyrocat tests here somewhere on the forum. My thread, in which I rightly had my conclusions questioned due to methodology, was a bust. There were too many variables (mistakes) used to draw significant conclusions. While I stand by my conclusions, my methods were flawed.

She did two identical 4x5 shots of a saguaro skeleton with Ilford's FP4. Then used the two developers to make prints on VC resin coated paper, one set of contact prints, one set of enlargements. I've been pestering her about pyrocat for a year now, and things became interesting yesterday when the prints were made. The 8x10 detail enlargement from the pyrocat film is wonderfully rich. Her prints showed some interesting results, so hopefully they will be posted soon to show how much different things can be when using two "similar" pyro developers. The detail in the pyrocat print is exquisite, with rich tonality, texture and depth. The PMK print looks nice when viewed by itself, but a side by side look is very revealing. It just looks flat and lifeless with dull surfaces on the ribs and muted, muddy tonality.

One truly unfair portion of the test was the agitation method, minimal vs. the PMK 15 second shuffle. Anyone who has had to use PMK in a tray for 15 or 20 minutes will not appreciate how much simpler it is to use tube development. Anyone who has never had the pleasure of viewing a minimal agitation pyrocat negative will not understand what type of difference this method can bring to a print. This is the single biggest drawback I can see to using PMK. I think the uneven staining properties of PMK are its single biggest drawback. If this problem could be solved, it would be a great developer. As things are, it is good, but not great. Pyrocat is simply a great developer.

As to the great debate, Sandy & Jorge are steeped in scientific method, while S.S. is steeped in his own B.S. Unfortunately for him, he does not have the ability to admit a mistake or to do objective tests. To use scans from negatives and hide this in a published article is the true mark of a charlatan. tim

 

[Jorge]

As to the great debate, Sandy & Jorge are steeped in scientific method, while S.S. is steeped in his own B.S. Unfortunately for him, he does not have the ability to admit a mistake or to do objective tests. To use scans from negatives and hide this in a published article is the true mark of a charlatan. tim

Unfortunatelly, after 2 years of this same pissing match, neither Sandy or I realized that Simmons had made these "comparisons" with scanned images. If we had the most likely response would have been an "LOL" and we probably would have drop the matter.... I think this is a great example of the kind of technical knowledge used at VC magazine. Shame.......

 

[juan]

On thing that interested me in the linked thread was the assertion by both Sandy and Steve, and commented on by Ole, that the stain affects VC paper strangely. I've recently used come VC paper to test a new to me staining developer, and I ran into very long development times. I'm going to retest with graded paper to see if it really makes a difference.
juan

 

[donbga]

I'm hoping Ria will post the results of her most recent (as in yesterday) PMK / Pyrocat tests here somewhere on the forum.

Who is Ria and why should we care?

 

[sanking]

Unfortunatelly, after 2 years of this same pissing match, neither Sandy or I realized that Simmons had made these "comparisons" with scanned images. If we had the most likely response would have been an "LOL" and we probably would have drop the matter.... I think this is a great example of the kind of technical knowledge used at VC magazine. Shame.......

That is exactly the point. We did not know at the time that Steve Simmons based his conclusions on, 1) looking at the negatives on a light table and and, 2) inkjet prints of scans. Those facts should have been stated in the article in describing the methodology of the testing. But there is no mention of scans or inkjet prints in the article.

From the beginning this article did not pass my "smell test": it failed to describe the methodogy of the testing, contained assertions that I knew to be false, and at least one important error regarding the chemical make-up of Pyrocat-HD. And now it has turned into a stink bomb and landed all over Steve.

Because now we know the facts, and in retrospect we can see that the facts were deliberately held back. For example, in all of the early discussions about this article (and the methodology received quite a bit of criticism when it first came out) we were never told that the conclusions were based, not on real silver prints, but on visual examination of negatives on a light table and on inkjet prints. Steve will no doubt weasel around and claim that he never said that the prints in the article were real silver prints, and that is true. But I am certain that virtually everyone who read the article assumed, and justifiably so, that the testing was based on real silver prints, either VC or graded papers. I was always bothered by the fact that Steve never stated what kind of paper he used, since knowing this is critical when you print with stained negatives because of the different way these papers respond. But in my wildest dreams I would never have assumed that he did not even bother to make real silver prints. I think what he did in presenting the material the way he did was intellectual dishonest, and professionally unethical.

This is the last thing I will have to say on APUG about Steve Simmons and his testing procedures.

And BTW, I am getting ready for a trip to islands off the BC coast and won't be reading or responding to the forums for a couple of weeks, Pyro or otherwise. So Bye for now.

Sandy

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Sandy. I visited the LF site last night for the first time in months (I've ignored the site for the last 3 months - too many Trolls IMO).

I agree with you and Jorge on your critique of Steve Simmons' testing procedures.

Have a great trip to B.C.

 

[noseoil]

post from Ria / pmk & pyrocat test

I am posting this from Noseoil's computer after using his scanner.

I have been a faithful user of PMK for some time. Over the last year or so I have heard enough about Pyrocat HD from people whose opinions I respect to give it a try from time to time. However, I had not ever done a head to head comparision. Until now. I took 2 shots of the same subject in order to see for myself the difference between PMK and Pyrocat HD with minimal agitation. Same camera and lens, same film, same exposure, printed on the same paper (Ilford MG RC) same exposure, same development of the print. The only difference between the two images is the development of the negs.

I do not have access to a densitometer so I can not speak to neg density, contrast, stain values, etc. The only test which I can do (or care to do) is the completely subjective test of which one I think looks better. I think the Pyrocat image is superior to the PMK image. I think the apparent sharpness of the Pyrocat is greater and for the sort of images I do, that is a plus. I will continue to use PMK for those situations (eg portraiture) where a softer look is desirable; but for the most part, I believe I will be turning to Pyrocat HD for the majority of my film development. Ria

 

[Donsta]

If I read this correctly, S.S. basically stated 100% clearly in his article that he made prints on the same VC Ilford paper but now he says he never made prints - he just compared scans??? If that is the case, I am astounded that even he has sunk so low! It sort of confirms my suspicions about him as a person too. I spent an hour looking for that issue of VC today but couldn't find (I think I sensibly threw them in the trash when I moved this year).

 

[Jorge]

Yep, you read correctly, sad......

If I read this correctly, S.S. basically stated 100% clearly in his article that he made prints on the same VC Ilford paper but now he says he never made prints - he just compared scans??? If that is the case, I am astounded that even he has sunk so low! It sort of confirms my suspicions about him as a person too. I spent an hour looking for that issue of VC today but couldn't find (I think I sensibly threw them in the trash when I moved this year).

 

[Bill Mitchell]

It probably don't matter worth a damn, anyhow. Just use whichever one's cheaper, or lasts longer, or mixes easier, or smells better. Or whatever.

 

[Dave Wooten]

The photo on the right looks substantially better on my monitor?

 

[bob01721]

This thing is not good for the LF community, and it makes Sandy and Steve both look poor, regardless of the merits. Both would be best served to continue his own testing, and publish his results, and take the high road in dealing with each other. Most interested in this will be able to duplicate a given test, and draw their own conclusions.

I don't enjoy two people I hold in high regard knocking each other, and their respective achievements. It diminishes us all. FWIW.

I agree wholeheartedly. Everyone involved in this debacle has shown himself to be be a petty, small-minded, rude, egotistical jerk! These are people I had come to respect for their technical accomplishments and contributions to the craft... but I've lost respect for all of them. NONE are what I would consider "decent" people. To me they're ALL just a bunch of jerks!

 

[Ria]

Sorry...
PMK on the left, Pyrocat HD on the right.

Ria

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

The photo on the right looks substantially better on my monitor?

Yes, quite obviously. And personally, I guess this is only because it shows a higher contrast. No offense intended to anyone, this doesn't look again like an efficient comparative test IMHO.

 

[noseoil]

Marco, it is difficult to see well on a monitor when judging prints. I watched as Ria showed me the two prints, side by side, and was taken by the subtle differences between these two images. This is the trouble with scans on a monitor (S.S.'s method), it is very difficult to see and judge pixels when talking about prints. I could not believe that Ria was able to print both images at the same setting with a dichroic head and VC paper (time, aperture, dvelopment, light, were all the same, identical). The two films look very different due to the stain properties, but they are the same in that they both use the same grade of paper at the same settings.

Your comment about the contrast and the images is a valid one, but perhaps for a different reason than you might expect. What you are seeing is the "micro contrast" in the pyrocat print. The large areas of high values and low values are as close to each other as possible. The areas within these portions are what show a difference. The cactus skeleton shows a very nice texture in the pyrocat print, from light area through dark it is just better. The PMK image is softer, muted and muddy. The pyrocat image shows subtle texture from shadows through mid tones and into the highlights.

For those who are still not convinced that the world is round, I would only say that doing your own tests is the only way to find out. Spend a few minutes of your own time, come up with two of your own representative samples and post them for others to see. tim
P.S. We are all here to learn about photography, film, printing and related matters. We spend our precious time in learning these things. If there is controversy in the world, let it be about something which matters, film and prints.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

Perhaps I haven't been clear enough - I agree with every consideration of yours. My point is that - assumed that the fact that both negatives would print almost fine on the same graded paper is quite amazing itself - perhaps the negative on the left needed a little more contrast to print at its best.

I'm not even trying to judge which image is better from my monitor. I only seem to see that the image on the right has an evident overall brighter background and a more vivid contrast range. Perhaps the image on the left has been printed a little too flat, because the same paper has been used when a slightly more contrasty one was needed.

That said in the sense that a flatter negative doesn't necessarily bear less information than a contrasty one, nor gives images which couldn't be more pleasing than those printed by one which shows more native contrast...

 

[Bob Carnie]

I am very new to this thread and as well to this debate
But . looking at the two scans , Yes the one on the left is inferior.But to my thinking why was not each print made well.
If one is trying to say PMK is flat and soft like the image that is on the left, well I have a lot of explaining to my clients for over 10 years of pmk processing.
You say that both images are printed on the same paper , contrast setting and dev/combination?
Why not print the image on the left with sharp focus and to a decent contrast balance and then pop in the negative on the right and do the exact same settings.
I think if you post these two new scans the one on the right will look brutally harsh and the one on left will look good.

just my 2cents

Marco, it is difficult to see well on a monitor when judging prints. I watched as Ria showed me the two prints, side by side, and was taken by the subtle differences between these two images. This is the trouble with scans on a monitor (S.S.'s method), it is very difficult to see and judge pixels when talking about prints. I could not believe that Ria was able to print both images at the same setting with a dichroic head and VC paper (time, aperture, dvelopment, light, were all the same, identical). The two films look very different due to the stain properties, but they are the same in that they both use the same grade of paper at the same settings.

Your comment about the contrast and the images is a valid one, but perhaps for a different reason than you might expect. What you are seeing is the "micro contrast" in the pyrocat print. The large areas of high values and low values are as close to each other as possible. The areas within these portions are what show a difference. The cactus skeleton shows a very nice texture in the pyrocat print, from light area through dark it is just better. The PMK image is softer, muted and muddy. The pyrocat image shows subtle texture from shadows through mid tones and into the highlights.

For those who are still not convinced that the world is round, I would only say that doing your own tests is the only way to find out. Spend a few minutes of your own time, come up with two of your own representative samples and post them for others to see. tim
P.S. We are all here to learn about photography, film, printing and related matters. We spend our precious time in learning these things. If there is controversy in the world, let it be about something which matters, film and prints.