Pyro Thread on LF Forum.

[Marco Gilardetti]

Ditto, MUTATIS MUTANDIS. It seems we all had the same impression...

 

[c6h6o3]

I think the Pyrocat image is superior to the PMK image.

Which is which? The one on the right has more local contrast in the tree, which is why I prefer it. From a scan viewed on a monitor I can't really tell much about sharpness. If forced to use one of these two developers I'd choose the one on the right.

 

[c6h6o3]

Which is which? The one on the right has more local contrast in the tree, which is why I prefer it. From a scan viewed on a monitor I can't really tell much about sharpness. If forced to use one of these two developers I'd choose the one on the right.

Never mind. I just saw your post.

 

[noseoil]

They are both contact prints. tim

 

[Ria]

"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."

My whole point in trying PMK, Pyrocat, et. al. has been to find a developer that I can use to expand or contract contrast in my negatives in order to be able to produce a good image without having to muck about with different grades of paper or contrast filters when making a print. Pyrocat seems to be able to do that. With very contrasty scenes I can adjust my film development and reduce the contrast in the neg and when faced with flat light (rare in AZ, but it sometimes happens) I can adjust my film development and get more contrast in the neg. The less time I have to spend correcting the contrast for the paper, the more images I can make.
As for your suggestion that I print the PMK image with sharp focus-they are both contact prints. The negs were exposed as identically as humanly possible and the first to be developed chosen at random. (I am sure you did not mean to imply any duplicity on my part.)

 

[c6h6o3]

My whole point in trying PMK, Pyrocat, et. al. has been to find a developer that I can use to expand or contract contrast in my negatives in order to be able to produce a good image without having to muck about with different grades of paper or contrast filters when making a print.

That's the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The secret to producing a fine print is to match the contrast of the paper to that of the negative. You will NEVER (reflect on this word) be able to standardize your film exposure and development procedures to the point where manipulations in printing will be unnecessary. You'll have a much easier time of it by just learning how to print well.

BTW, since I don't use either Pyrocat or PMK, I was wondering: what developer do you mean by the "et. al." above?

 

[jgjbowen]

BTW, since I don't use either Pyrocat or PMK, I was wondering: what developer do you mean by the "et. al." above?

Jim,

I could swear that it was your singing the praises of TMY and Pyrocat-HD on the Azo forum that convinced me to try this wonderful combination.....no?

What do you use today?

Best,

John

 

[don sigl]

Another comparison quasi test

Ok, I’ve been following this thread for awhile. I’ve been using PMK for about 10 years. Both for roll film and tray processing sheet film. Recently, I bought a Jobo 3005 tube, and started developing sheet film with Pyrocat. The Pyrocat worked beautifully, and freed me from standing in the dark tray processing.

I’ve been thinking about changing over my roll processing to Pyrocat as well. Given this discussion, I decided to do a little test. This is not an ultimate test, but I thought I had some interesting results:

99% of my work is in studio lighting. 90% is figure work, so I’m always focused on skin tone. I had a shoot last weekend and decided I would clip test 1 roll and process it in Pyrocat. I determined development time based on the excellent article in the unblinking eye. The recommendation is 70% of PMK development. This worked out to be about 9 minutes at 68F. I tried it, and the clip looked good. I ran the rest of the roll.

I then processed a roll in PMK using my usual 13 minute development at 70F. I also follow Gordon Hutchings recommendation to resoak in the developer for 2 minutes. These negatives also looked good. They slightly denser, but I thought it could have been the stain.

I then selected a neg from each roll and went over to my Xrite 361T densitometer. This densitometer has a UV setting and provides more accurate density readings than using a standard densitometer on the blue setting. I got it for reading densities on pyro negatives and it has worked great for me.

I chose the densest skin tone on each neg as the upper limit. For the Pyrocat negative it was the inside of the models left arm. For the PMK negative it was the models back. I read the shadow density under the chair for both negatives.

The highlight densities were almost identical in both negatives. The PMK had slightly denser shadows (.05). The CI for the Pyrocat negative was .67. The PMK negative was .61.

I set up the enlarger., an Omega D6. Paper was Forte PWT. Developer was a home brew of Ansco 135, an acetic acid stop and Kodak rapid fix without the hardener added. Prits were washed for 5 minutes soaked in perma wash for 5 minutes and washed for another 15 minutes.

The Pyrocat negative exposure was 13 sec at f8 using a #2 Ilford filter. Development time was 1 minute 30 seconds. I felt this was a decent straight print. Not gallery material, but a print with good skin tones and a medium grey background. I put the PMK negative in the enlarger with the goal to match the background and floor tone as close as possible, and observe where the skin tones went.

Interestingly enough, the PMK negative (with a slightly lower CI) needed softer printing. Exposure was 16.6 seconds at f8. I had split print the negative to match the medium greys. 8.6 seconds on an Ilford #1.5 filter and 8 seconds on a #2. This gave me a very close background match in both prints. The Pyrocat print is the one with the model leaning back. The PMK is the one with her curled up forward. The prins are almost identical in tone.

However, it is interesting that the PMK negative had a slightly lower CI and still needed a slightly softer print filtration.

I recognize that this is not a thorough test, but I’m not much for shooting grey scales.

The only significant difference I can say is that there is some time and cost saving using the Pyrocat and (at least in this test).

 

[john_s]

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.

I am probably repeating what others have already said, but in different words.

Here is a quote from Geoffrey Crawley from an article in BJP about comparing several films:

"So how does one go about comparing the properties of one film with another? Firstly it is essential that they are developed to the same contrast."

I would think it self evident that in comparing two developers with the same film the same condition applies. I realise that there are going to be some differences making an exact match in contrast practically impossible, but one must get quite close. In comparing a PMK neg with a Pyrocat neg there is the added complexity of the different stain colour responding differentially with the emulsion of VC paper (and maybe even graded paper?). Maybe the definition of "same contrast" should be along the lines of "gives the same contrast with the chosen printing method". Yes, I realise that there will be differences in the look of the contrast of details, but at least the general contrast or contrast of broad areas in the print need to be matched.

And FWIW, I use Pyrocat for almost everything.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Don Sigl: It's hard to tell from the scans, but how does the grain compare on your test prints? I'd expect PMK to have a stronger grain masking effect.

 

[don sigl]

David Goldfarb:
Good point. But the prints are only 5x7 from 120 (6x7) format. I louped them, but can't say I see any difference between the two. Maybe with more enlargement.

Film was HP5+ btw.

 

[gainer]

Don Sigl: It's hard to tell from the scans, but how does the grain compare on your test prints? I'd expect PMK to have a stronger grain masking effect.

Why so? Is there a reason for the pigment "clouds" to be different in size? Is it the difference in color? How does one predict the size or effectiveness of the pigment?

So many times the methods of predicting one thing or another about developers have kept people from testing the methods by going against them. We cannot test methods by always using them. Every so often, I refer to the ancient ideas that garlic destroys magnetism and that tomatos are deadly poison. "Man, you keep the garlic away from my lodestone." "You fool! Don't eat that tomato!"

I have read that metol and catechol are subadditive, yet Pyrocat M shows otherwise. It is usually assumed that metol or phenidone need sulfite for superadditivity to take place with catechol or hydroquinone, yet Pyrocat MC proves otherwise for catechol, and substituting hydroquinone for catechol does not reduce activity.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but to point out that we don't know enough about the interactions between our chemicals to make infallible predictions about combinations of them. We're still at the stage of "Let's try so-and-so and see what happens." It's good to have a working hypothesis, but the test of it comes when we go against it.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks, Don.

The prediction isn't based on any principle other than experience and hearsay, which is why I asked. I haven't used Pyrocat-HD myself, but I've printed a few Pyrocat negs that others have made and I've read what Sandy and Gordon Hutchings and others have written, and in my own experience, I'm always a bit surprised by the smooth look of an enlargement from PMK as compared to ABC, which I use quite a lot for larger formats, since the "grain masking" still seems a bit mystical to me.

Don Sigl has offered a good demonstration that you can get a very similar tonal range and distribution from PMK and Pyrocat-HD negs developed to approximately the same CI, so it seemed like a good opportunity to ask about grain masking, which is often held out as one of the advantages of PMK.

 

[c6h6o3]

Jim,

I could swear that it was your singing the praises of TMY and Pyrocat-HD on the Azo forum that convinced me to try this wonderful combination.....no?

What do you use today?

Best,

John

I use Harvey's 777 for almost all my negatives. For minimal agitation development I use 510 pyro because it gives me less fog than Pyrocat HD.

Even before I discovered Harvey's I preferred ABC to Pyrocat. It's cleaner with TMY.

 

[Ria]

That's the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The secret to producing a fine print is to match the contrast of the paper to that of the negative. You will NEVER (reflect on this word) be able to standardize your film exposure and development procedures to the point where manipulations in printing will be unnecessary. You'll have a much easier time of it by just learning how to print well.

BTW, since I don't use either Pyrocat or PMK, I was wondering: what developer do you mean by the "et. al." above?

"NEVER" is a very long time. And since I have never discussed with you at what point I feel manipulations are necessary when printing; for you to state flatly that I will NEVER be able to to eliminate those manipulations implies a belief in your own omniscience that I believe to be unwarranted.
As for my "learning to print well"- I have learned to print well. As a matter of fact, I print very well. However, the ability to overcome deficiencies in a neg to get a good print is no reason not to strive to get the best (read easiest to print) negative with which to work.

"et. al." is a common abbreviation of a Latin phrase meaning "and others".

 

[c6h6o3]

"et. al." is a common abbreviation of a Latin phrase meaning "and others".

I know. That's what spawned the question. What developers comprise the "others"?

 

[c6h6o3]

As for my "learning to print well"- I have learned to print well. As a matter of fact, I print very well. However, the ability to overcome deficiencies in a neg to get a good print is no reason not to strive to get the best (read easiest to print) negative with which to work.

Agreed. I hope you find your personal "philosopher's stone" among developers. Harvey's comes closest for me.

 

[gainer]

The Pyrocat negative exposure was 13 sec at f8 using a #2 Ilford filter. Development time was 1 minute 30 seconds. I felt this was a decent straight print. Not gallery material, but a print with good skin tones and a medium grey background. I put the PMK negative in the enlarger with the goal to match the background and floor tone as close as possible, and observe where the skin tones went.

Interestingly enough, the PMK negative (with a slightly lower CI) needed softer printing. Exposure was 16.6 seconds at f8. I had split print the negative to match the medium greys. 8.6 seconds on an Ilford #1.5 filter and 8 seconds on a #2. This gave me a very close background match in both prints. The Pyrocat print is the one with the model leaning back. The PMK is the one with her curled up forward. The prins are almost identical in tone.

It might be instructive to include a reflective gray scale in a similar comparison. It appears that matching the medium grays did not match the tones under the chair. I can't do it now because my darkroom is being remodeled.

 

[don sigl]

It might be instructive to include a reflective gray scale in a similar comparison. It appears that matching the medium grays did not match the tones under the chair. I can't do it now because my darkroom is being remodeled.

Yes, unfortunately I didn't think of it at the time. The approach of the test was to match the grey and see where the "ends" went. I think the shadow under the chair matches a little closer than the scans indicate, but the lower CI in the PMK neg was caused by a slightly denser shadow area (Under the chair it read +.05 in the PMK negative). This is probably contributing to the slight difference in shadow density in the print.

Another interesting point is the softer printing required for the PMK. The #2 filter wouldn't hold the white highlight on the models back and increased the overall contrast throughout. The medium tone in the background was close to matching the Pyrocat print, but the contrast was again, slightly elevated.

Switching to a #1.5 muddied up the overall image a little, while increasing the highlight detail on the models back. The #1.5+ #2 combination matched the background dead on. The skin tones were of equal density and contrast on both prints.

My general conclusion is that (in this instance), the pyrocat neg had slighlty less contrast in the highlight areas, while the PMK negative had a little more contrast in the highlight areas, (even though the brightest highlight densities were the same in the two negatives). The PMK negative also had a little more shadow density (Possibly contributed to base fog. Probably should check that). This would explain the need to increase print exposure time while softening the filtration about 1/4 grade.

 

[gainer]

The Ilford #2 filter has a little magenta content I think. It may react differently with the two images because the pigment images are somewhat different in -blue content. I think there may be more to metering the densities than choosing the right blue channel. Perhaps a couple of prints on graded paper would show even more difference. I'm only guessing, of course. We may have learned more about the difficulties of using densitometers to predict the responses of VC papers to stain from different developers than about the developers themselves. If we had the spectral responses of the papers and the spectral contents of the images, we could so some sort of convolution integral, and we might get an Ah HA! out of it. If I sound like I know what I'm talking about, I fooled you too. My last contact with such things was in studies of human factors at least 25 years ago.

 

[Ria]

Agreed. I hope you find your personal "philosopher's stone" among developers. Harvey's comes closest for me.

Tee-Hee. "Philosopher's stone" indeed, yielding silver instead of gold. Good metaphor.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Back to this thread after a couple of days off.
I think the post by Don Sigl is much more realistic in my mind to what I have experienced using PMK extensively.
I will admit that I have never used Pyrocat.
Years ago, I tried a test with every film/dev combination that I could find and then printed them out to a common balance*which is very difficult*.
I had agreed to give a lecture pointing out the variences and reasons for using one film over the other.
The evening lecture was one of the worst evenings I ever had. Even though I could see some differences *35mm>11x14 print* the general audience basically could not .
I will definately try Pyrocat , but I don't think I will be finding any magic bullets, just another combination for situations with lots of highlight detail.
I am not sure how many people here have seen Les Mcleans 35mm > print work. We should ask him his magic bullet because he definately has found it.I think good technique through all the exposure to print cycle steps is more important than any one film, and or developer.

"NEVER" is a very long time. And since I have never discussed with you at what point I feel manipulations are necessary when printing; for you to state flatly that I will NEVER be able to to eliminate those manipulations implies a belief in your own omniscience that I believe to be unwarranted.
As for my "learning to print well"- I have learned to print well. As a matter of fact, I print very well. However, the ability to overcome deficiencies in a neg to get a good print is no reason not to strive to get the best (read easiest to print) negative with which to work.

"et. al." is a common abbreviation of a Latin phrase meaning "and others".

 

[gainer]

Now you have at least three versions of Pyrocat stock in water solution: HD, M, P. Then there are MC and PC in glycol solution with ascorbic acid but without sulfite. I prefer the MC.