Bob Carnie
Allowing Ads
I'm beginning to wonder if there is a large difference between Pyrocat derivatives and pyrogallol based developers, grain wise. I have 16x12" silver gelatin prints on VC paper and FP4+ film, 35mm, where I have trouble seeing the grain a couple of feet from the print surface.
But the negatives seemed to print well on Grade 2 graded paper, but I had to jump to Grade 3 for VC paper for the most part using the same negative.
It is an interesting thread this, and I'm learning quite a bit about pyro developers. I might get some just for the heck of it to try in very large brightness range photos.
Hi Bob,
Given the time period most likely a mature replenished dev.
Not sure if he processed them himself. Did he ?
G
He had the ability to hire some real fancy pancy printers in the day, I swear its pyro without the stain.
No I do not think he processed them himself, though I am sure he looked at every negative..
Lots of people used a mature replenished line, others flew with film to Picto to have it developed by inspection.
He was with the same group as Irving Penn and that dude really pushed the envelope when it came to film and printing, so I think for that period he could very well have been using pyro.
Penn and Avedon were great, and would leave no stone unturned.
There are two kinds of stain, general stain is like fog, imagewise stain is proportional to silver density. Imagewise stain is the desirable one.
Yes I jump a grade as well.
For split printing Non Stain normal scene I will start at about grade 1
For split printing Pyro somewhat normal scene I will start at about grade 2.
Ralph L had some points about 00 and Ilford Warmtone not recording well.
With Pyro negs I can confirm that 0 or 00 is not great with Ilford WT .
Thomas your jump from graded #2 to VC #3 seems logical to me, at least directionally.
I should have said:Hence,
- The pyro staining is non-uniform and therefore useful.
- The result of the staining is that the contrast of the negative is effectively higher, although not visually higher to the eye, and therefore one can start with a lower grade filter and have a greater range of increased contrast available if needed.
Right?Hence,
- The pyro staining is non-uniform and therefore useful.
- The result of the staining is that the contrast of the negative is effectively lower, although not visually higher to the eye, and therefore one should start with a higher grade filter.
I keep hearing conflicting answers on staining. One camp with Per, staining is proportional to exposure, use it.
The other camp with Sandy King [correct me if I am wrong], staining is uniform like a fog, do not use it.
If you look at Richard Avedon's studio portraits of lets say the Duke and Dutches of Windsor or Marylin Monroe you will see lots of uneven backgrounds for one, but also the grain is very defined, I have always thought that his film for this time period was developed in Pyro and unstained- most likely triX.
Super sharp, but extreme edge sharpness on these portraits on grey background.
I am not talking about In the American West or his work on white backgrounds.
Not sure if anyone else ever noticed this and I wonder how he made the negs.
Stain is proportional to the amount of silver halide reduced, meaning in highlight areas a fair amount of density when printing is coming from the stain. So what I'm saying is that if you look at the negative, the highlight areas might look comparitively thin (ie overall contrast looks low) while in printing the combined optical/spectral density of the silver and stain might be normal. So all we're talking about here is the fact with a pyro negative the density is a combination of silver and stain.
My experience tells me that Pyro developed negs do not like heavy exposure,
I expose the hell out of 'em. I find that it's heavy development, leading to overall heavy density, that it really doesn't like. I rate TMax 400 at 200 and place my shadows on Zone IV (so some might say I'm really rating it at 100) but I'm very careful not to over-develop. Nothing's harder for me to print than an over-developed Pyrocat negative, especially one I've developed semi-stand. I get much better prints from ones which are a little too thin than I do from ones which are too dense.
BTW, Tom Bertilsson: nice photograph!
I expose the hell out of 'em.
Same for me too. For any developer but especially Pyro.
Flight canceled :-(
I expose the hell out of 'em.
I get much better prints from ones which are a little too thin than I do from ones which are too dense.
first find a Z2 tonality and then determine the relationship between that Z2 tonality and what I perceive to be important shadow values. So long as those values are within 2 zones of one another I have found my exposure value.
What do you do with a flat scene where there are no Z2 values? I've been encountering this a lot lately.
I cannot get any fully scientifically tested [with proper controls] results stating that staining is either good or bad. Most threads that try to thrash that out get into flame wars and I stop reading them.
Steve
..........with Pyro negs and Multi Contrast paper, a well exposed, almost @ manufacturer's box speed and developed to a lower contrast index to yield some of the finest prints I have seen........
Cheers
None of the 8 people offer any scientific basis for their opinion.
This is what I found when researching a question on another thread. When you try to research staining developers what you find is speculation and personal bias with little real information. For example, on this thread 5 people say to place the negative back in the used developer and 3 say don't do it. None of the 8 people offer any scientific basis for their opinion.
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?