Pyro Vs. Kodak Xtol developer

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Next week I get to see Sherman's Semi Stand Prints in Louisville, I hope he dosen't let me down, he has been talking a big story on this thread. Apparently there is a case of Dumante ordered , I hope Gittings dosen't show up.

I would love to see Steve's prints in person. I hear from other photographers I respect that they are outstanding.

 

[MaximusM3]

Not speaking for the other 7 here but you are right Gerald I cannot offer a scientific basis for my opinion.

What I can offer is over 30,000 roll processed in pyro , contacted then prints made from over the last 15 years. Not to mention the Sheets of film.

Some people make charts and plot curves, drink wine and pontify about printing
Others make a living from it and work 7 days a week at photography.

Which group do you fall into??

Ha, finally someone comes out saying what I've always believed in. Extensive, scientific knowledge/proof of how and why something works the way it does, does not make a great image or replace hard work/hands-on experience in making great images. In fact, I am a firm believer that, often in this field, the more you know (technically and scientifically), the less you got to show in the creativity department. That's because it is so easy to constantly get hung up on endless tests, doubts about one's processes, and trying to find scientific answers about everything, that all ingenuity and spontaneity to make a great picture is lost, behind the shutter and at printing stage. At the end of the day, for those who are inclined to always seeking scientific answers, talk is cheap (for as interesting as it may be in many cases), until you supply successful images that can back up all the wonderful theories and tech mumbo jumbo.
So, would "real" scientific information really help us in producing a great print from a Pyro negative or the advice of people who may have no clue about it but have printed thousands of negatives from it and can actually give their "professional" opinion?
I don't mean to sound harsh but I do speak my mind. This is of course a totally moot point if one is inclined to simply seek scientific knowledge/proof for the sake of it.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Which group do you fall into??

What I believe is important is the stain produced during development since it is created in proportion to the amount of silver produced. I think of this as image stain. Placing the negative back into the developer after all silver halide has been removed by fixing contributes nothing to the image stain. This procedure produces only an overall stain something like a built in ND filter. It's not going to create any mystical qualities in the negative.

Years ago when there was a great deal of interest in the Zone System there were a handful of gurus for lack of a better term. Their every word was considered as holy writ. No one was allowed to question any of their pronoucements let alone supply any scientific criticism. Sadly, I think that the technique of stain development is at a similar point. It's a valid and useful method but people need to separate the facts from a great deal of fiction.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I Yams what I Yams , as Popeye would say.

Recently a 40 print show that hung in the Royal Ontario Museum which was viewed by hundreds of thousand viewers , got extended for one year due to the positive responses. All the negatives produced this show were done in my very unsophisticated method of dipping back into the developer.
I think the prints are pretty good using this method.

I think you are missing my point about the hardening effect of tannin developer, nowhere did I say the stain had any mystical properties and I must admit it took me years to understand the zone system, and my take on it is probably very different from the gurus here and back then.

How you make the prints zing is most important. That just takes practice and a few thousand negatives to work with.

What I believe is important is the stain produced during development since it is created in proportion to the amount of silver produced. I think of this as image stain. Placing the negative back into the developer after all silver halide has been removed by fixing contributes nothing to the image stain. This procedure produces only an overall stain something like a built in ND filter. It's not going to create any mystical qualities in the negative.

Years ago when there was a great deal of interest in the Zone System there were a handful of gurus for lack of a better term. Their every word was considered as holy writ. No one was allowed to question any of their pronoucements let alone supply any scientific criticism. Sadly, I think that the technique of stain development is at a similar point. It's a valid and useful method but people need to separate the facts from a great deal of fiction.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I Yams what I Yams , as Popeye would say.

Recently a 40 print show that hung in the Royal Ontario Museum which was viewed by hundreds of thousand viewers , got extended for one year due to the positive responses. All the negatives produced this show were done in my very unsophisticated method of dipping back into the developer.
I think the prints are pretty good using this method.

I think you are missing my point about the hardening effect of tannin developer, nowhere did I say the stain had any mystical properties and I must admit it took me years to understand the zone system, and my take on it is probably very different from the gurus here and back then.

How you make the prints zing is most important. That just takes practice and a few thousand negatives to work with.

I'm sure that the prints at the show were very good. I personally don't believe that an overall stain added anything to their quality. I think they would be excellent either way. From my experience an overall stain would make the negatives harder to print.

You didn't imply anthing mystical and I think you are far too intelligent to do so. But after reading dozens of articles on the web you willl find such comments.

I think most people have problems understanding the Zone System, I know I did. Many of the books on the Zone System are not very good teaching aids. I have read others describe the difficulty. Some state that they have suddenly attained an epiphany when everything finally made sense.

 

[michaelbsc]

... until you supply successful images that can back up all the wonderful theories and tech mumbo jumbo.
So, would "real" scientific information really help us in producing a great print from a Pyro negative

This is exactly what George Eastman did. He applied scientific principles so that the average Joe could make successful images.

I would say the success of Kodak in the last century is adequate evidence of this method.

or the advice of people who may have no clue about it but have printed thousands of negatives from it and can actually give their "professional" opinion?
...

And this is exactly the mechanism Bob used successfully. He's in good company. There is passage in one of the A.A. books about Weston where the supreme geek of photography comments that he was watching Weston work and wondering just what in heaven's name the guy was doing. The final comment was "but the results speak for themselves." Clearly an acceptance by Adams that Weston's methodology was legitimate, even if it wasn't scientifically rigorous.

IMO it is a mistake to think of this as a zero sum game. Neither approach is wrong.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Gerold , lets talk a bit about the stain.

My testing without the stain showed very grainy negs, In fact that is why I referenced Avedon series earlier in this thread. I worked with a photographer and used pyro with no stain and the look is good.

I have used the non used developer after bath, but side by side I did not see any benifits. at the time

I am and old dog but I am willing to learn new tricks, in fact Steve Sherman and Sandy King would be my go to people if I want to start experimenting again.

One thing I should say, I am not bullshitting about the amount of pyro film I have printed and I firmly believe if something is not broke , don't try to fix it.


I wish a few experts on this thread , would explain the tannin effect of a pyro based developer, which all along I have been saying is the most exceptional property of a pyro developer over lets say Xtol , which is the basis of this thread the OP started.

BTW I am blushing that you think I am intelligent, you are the first person in the world to describe me as this.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

There is a wonderful scene in the film adaptation of Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in Kings Arthur's Court." Merlin has discovered gun powder and is attempting to distinguish what components of his recipe are necessary and which are not. After a successful explosion he remarks, "Next time I will leave out the frog." Not putting the negatives back into the used developer is "leaving out the frog."

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Bob,

I am not an expert on photograpic chemistry but I am a chemist. I also have been a photographer for 60 years. I have thus tried many things. PE could probably provide some more insights on what is happening. But here goes.

The principle advantage of a staining developer is that it produces not only a silver image but also a stain image. Compared to a conventional developer less silver needs to be produced to provide the same density and contrast. The stain image is grainless. Becuase of this the overall effect is a less grainy image. Less silver equals less grain. However, if you like dense negatives then this advantage is lost.

During development a stain is produced in direct proportion to the amount of silver that is reduced. This creates a stain image superimposed on the silver image having similar characteristics to the silver one. The stain is produced from the oxidation products of certain developing agents like pyrogallol, catechol, and hydroquinone. In order for the stain to form the sulfite content of the developer must be low just as it is for color developers. The stain consists of what are known as condensed polyphenols or humic acids. These compounds are highly colored and the stain is permanent. Once formed the stain is no longer effected by either the acid or the sulfite contained in such solutions as fixing baths. Humic acids are only soluble in concentrated solutions of either sodium or potassium hydroxide.

Now both tannin acid and the stain are condensed polyphenols. Tannic acid has a lower molecular weight than the stain and so is soluble in water. I think we are all familiar with that fact that animal hides can be tanned using tannic acid to make them stronger. A staining developer does the same thing. The chemical collagen in both the gelatine of the emulsion and the animal hides can be tanned thereby hardening them. Some people say that this tanning action prevents the silver grains from migrating and clumping up thus reducing the grain of the negative. With today's prehardened emulsions this alleged benefit may not be as great as in the past when emulsions were rather soft.

The tanning effect can be seen by the naked eye as it causes the emulsion to shrink producing a relief image. This also produces a refractive effect upon enlarging.
.
If the silver is removed from a negative produced by a staining developer the result is a grainless image similar to that produced by color films. Like so many things in photography this can be good or bad. Yes, there is no grain but the human eye may not perceive this image as being sharp. Anyone who has seen large color prints will experience this effect.

The amount of stain produced varies with the choice of developing agent. Some produce more stain than others. The color of the stain they produce may also be different. The developing agents differ in the conditions under which they produce a stain. Pyrogallol acts like a regular developing agent very similar to Metol in the presence of moderate to high amounts of sulfite producing no stain image.

I hope this brief description answers some of your questions.

Jerry

 

[MattKing]

One of the great things about APUG is that it brings together people like Bob Carnie ("Bob") and Gerald C Koch ("Jerry") to discuss these sorts of things.

Bob has lots of experience, is both perceptive and intuitive, and understands more about why and how things work then he is willing to let on.

Jerry is also perceptive and intuitive and also has lots of experience, but is most fascinated with the why and how questions.

All the rest of us get to go along for the ride, tossing in other bits and pieces where appropriate (and sometimes where not) and generally end up being a fair bit the wiser.

I've learned a lot from this thread.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Matt,

Thanks, it's my turn to blush. The give and take on APUG is fascinating and we all prosper because of it.

Jerry

 

[Klainmeister]

Having switched from Xtol to PMK and in the last 3 years, Pyrocat-HD, I find this one of the most fascinating threads in a long time. Both of you have very good insight...I just know for me that the pyro negs are easier to print. Period. Love the look.

 

[markbarendt]

Truly interesting thread, may have to try Pyro more in the future. Not rushing to buy though, still enjoying DD-X.

I think most people have problems understanding the Zone System, I know I did. Many of the books on the Zone System are not very good teaching aids. I have read others describe the difficulty. Some state that they have suddenly attained an epiphany when everything finally made sense.

I actually "got" the zone system concepts real quick. What I was at odds with though for a long time was the application.

The bulk of the zone system examples and discussions and even most exposure discussions I've seen center on landscape and still-life's where shadow & highlight detail actually matter. That isn't always the case, the subject matters.

Applying the zone system in portraiture for example, where the placement of the face exposure trumps the rest of the frame, is possible but not near as straight forward as shooting to the shadows and measuring contrast range for landscape work.

Roll film complicates zone system application and understanding too. Practicalities with rolls pushes us away from changes in development.

Modern metering systems also throw kinks in the understanding, the zone system doesn't live in a vacuum.

When I came back to photography 6 or 8 years ago I got an L-358 incident meter right off. Since then I've tried every type of metering available and I am capable of applying them all, but when it comes to printing the negs, and once I got a handle on printing and VC paper, I found the ones where I used the incident meter's suggestions at box speed and my normal development regimes for a particular film, almost always print easiest and most pleasing and lack little if any needed detail.

In that context applying the whole zone system is confusing, there's always the nagging "why bother?" hanging in the air.

Reading Dunn & Wakefield's exposure manual was a zone system epiphany for me, it taught me where it was appropriate and where other methods could be applied for better result in my work.

And this is exactly the mechanism Bob used successfully. He's in good company. There is passage in one of the A.A. books about Weston where the supreme geek of photography comments that he was watching Weston work and wondering just what in heaven's name the guy was doing. The final comment was "but the results speak for themselves." Clearly an acceptance by Adams that Weston's methodology was legitimate, even if it wasn't scientifically rigorous.

IMO it is a mistake to think of this as a zero sum game. Neither approach is wrong.

My style in life is more like Weston's as described here.

When I was learning to fly small planes I used to drive my Dad who was already a pilot crazy because I flew more intuitively than procedurally. He expected certain things at certain times, but I'd apply different controls/strategies. The end results were very comparable, nice smooth landings. My Dad's approaches were linear, mine were more, well, artistic. (Just in case you are wondering, my instructor was quite happy with my "style". Always well within the capabilities of the plane and the safety of all concerned.)

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I don't wish to take this thread off topic so this is only an aside. If you have seen Weston's darkroom you would be amazed as to how spartan it really is. No fancy gadgets only what has a real use.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Thats pretty good description , way beyond what I could say.

When I first started with Pyro , 1992 -3 period, my conclusions were pretty much that the developing silver was not migrating/blooming and I did the naked bulb test and confirmed that one developer **Hutchings PMK** certainly worked better. this was a huge benifit to me as a printer as I was still using a lot of graded paper at that time and I hated burning in soft muddy highlights to get detail.
Modern VC paper and split printing were a godsend to me , on top I had the weapon of mass destruction, pyro developer.. remember I was and still doing this as a commercial process and my competitors were not in the ball park with their quick and dirty process techniques that made them fast money but their film was crap... To this day I still charge more for film not processed by my lab as I do not want to fix lazy workers film.
The rings of relief you talk about were very obvious to me , much like what you see around Transparancies.
I am not sure if the emulsions of today have changed that much since 92 , maybe they have and the effect is not as much.

Magic Bullets: I have stated in the past here on APUG about there being none.

I lied

Here are a few gems: fresh film: Pyro: Split Printing: distilled water for the dev:Rotary process with and initial hand agitation to prevent mottling: Stand Development: glass carriers: Apo enlarging lenses: laser aligned enlager:Ilford Warmtone: Dektol 1 1:5 : bleach sepia and selinium afterbath.

the list goes on and on , each worker can add their own secrets that make their work great.

I have said this before, there is no such thing as the perfect print> A lot of the workers on this site who take printing seriously are at a world class level> historically speaking there are very few printers that are making better prints before us that are coming out of the darkrooms today. What is different is the quality of the image, that is the hard part.
If you don't believe me go to as many shows , photo collectors collections and look for yourself, the prints are all within reach to all, its the imagery that is king.
The very best print I have seen in the last couple of years is one owned by Paul Paletti , it is an 11x14 print of a wave coming in to shore, the tonal range, and crispness jumps off the wall.

So if you accumulate enough good habits, work hard each year on your projects, and have some talent your work will stand out.

Bob,

I am not an expert on photograpic chemistry but I am a chemist. I also have been a photographer for 60 years. I have thus tried many things. PE could probably provide some more insights on what is happening. But here goes.

The principle advantage of a staining developer is that it produces not only a silver image but also a stain image. Compared to a conventional developer less silver needs to be produced to provide the same density and contrast. The stain image is grainless. Becuase of this the overall effect is a less grainy image. Less silver equals less grain. However, if you like dense negatives then this advantage is lost.

The stain is produced from the oxidation products of certain developing agents like pyrogallol, catechol, and hydroquinone. In order for the stain to form the sulfite content of the developer must be low just as it is for color developers. The stain consists of what are known as condensed polyphenols or humic acids. These compounds are highly colored and the stain is permanent. Once formed the stain is no longer effected by either the acid or the sulfite contained in such solutions as fixing baths. Humic acids are only soluble in concentrated solutions of either sodium or potassium hydroxide.

Now both tannin acid and the stain are condensed polyphenols. Tannic acid has a lower molecular weight than the stain and so is soluble in water. I think we are all familiar with that fact that animal hides can be tanned using tannic acid to make them stronger. A staining developer does the same thing. The chemical collagen in both the gelatine of the emulsion and the animal hides can be tanned thereby hardening them. Some people say that this tanning action prevents the silver grains from migrating and clumping up thus reducing the grain of the negative. With today's prehardened emulsions this alleged benefit may not be as great as in the past when emulsions were rather soft.

The tanning effect can be seen by the naked eye as it causes the emulsion to shrink producing a relief image. This also produces a refractive effect upon enlarging.
.
If the silver is removed from a negative produced by a staining developer the result is a grainless image similar to that produced by color films. Like so many things in photography this can be good or bad. Yes, there is no grain but the human eye may not perceive this image as being sharp. Anyone who has seen large color prints will experience this effect.

The amount of stain produced varies with the choice of developing agent. Some produce more stain than others. The color of the stain they produce may also be different. The developing agents differ in the conditions under which they produce a stain. Pyrogallol acts like a regular developing agent in the presence of moderate to high amounts of sulfite producing no stain image.

I hope this brief description answers some of your questions.

Jerry

 

[Bob Carnie]

Just to name a few really , really good workers

Bill Schwab, Ike Eisenlord, Kerik, Thomas Bertlison, Andrew Moxam, Dan Lin, Steve Sherman, Papagene Guillume Zuilli, and I hope not to miss a few people here

I have seen all of their prints in person and IMO their skills are there. They have reached a stage where their printmaking is worldclass and no need to
improve . Their concentration should and is on image making as it should be.
The perfect print is in their past.

 

[Bob Carnie]

The print I was talking about owned by Paul Paletti is a Brett Weston.

 

[GraemeMitchell]

I have said this before, there is no such thing as the perfect print> A lot of the workers on this site who take printing seriously are at a world class level> historically speaking there are very few printers that are making better prints before us that are coming out of the darkrooms today. What is different is the quality of the image, that is the hard part.
If you don't believe me go to as many shows , photo collectors collections and look for yourself, the prints are all within reach to all, its the imagery that is king.
The very best print I have seen in the last couple of years is one owned by Paul Paletti , it is an 11x14 print of a wave coming in to shore, the tonal range, and crispness jumps off the wall.

So if you accumulate enough good habits, work hard each year on your projects, and have some talent your work will stand out.

Ah, and there it is! Well put.

Getting out and seeing as much work as possible in person. Get out and balance seeing Weston w/ maybe some Sander, or Penn, then find some Winogrands, then some Koudelka, then some Arbus or etc...they all did something tremendous, some w/ technique that can seem studied perfection, others w/ a seeming recklessness, but all w/ a method that can be revered. It's like reading Greenes' "The Power and the Glory" and then Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury, " completely different writing but such similar concerns...and both enough to change any readers life forever.

Oh, and on this airy sidetrack, I happened upon a docu the other night called "The Radiant Child." It's on Basquiat, and whether you're a fan of his work or not it's an excellent film to watch both for it's footage+comments on the art world, but moreover on a insightful (and understandably sentimental) look at a mind that created work in his early 20s of such immediacy and complexity that it'll put into perspective topics like developer discussions - not rule them out, just put them into perspective.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Aren't all artist's work a work in progress? I've heard Ansel Adams have reprinted negs later in his life with a different interpretation? Playing his score differently. The painter Wayne Thiebaud have bought back paintings to paint in them again? Striving for "Perfection" is at times dangerous. You'll never reach perfection and also the fear of not achieving perfection can be paralyzing. The worst danger is trying to be the perfect derivative of another artist. But this does not mean don't work hard at your art and at your craft.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Panoman617,

Pick a developer and a film. Use it 'til you know this combo inside and out.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think, at the end of the day, that it's all about knowing our materials.

Mistakenly, early in my photographer days, I was very keen on trying to improve by switching films, developers, and so on, but in the long run, it's technique that matters. It only took me five years to realize this.

Today I have established what materials I like to use, and it's mostly stay with one film/developer, and one paper/developer. I don't think I'm even close to reach their full potential, and wonder if I ever will. But I think to try to fully explore our materials is the type of progress we should explore, because that approach makes us think about the pictures rather than thinking about the materials, and a print can be absolutely glorious in print quality, but without a good picture underneath, it's still not interesting. The whole process easily becomes too much about the wrong stuff.
To find that balance between technique and subject matter is what I find to be the most challenging aspect of photography. I hope to continue learning about the materials I use, about lighting, about color (even in black and white), about framing, and about printing technique. I feel like a perpetual student. Someone else always knows something I don't. That's why the advice of someone like Bob Carnie is of invaluable help to me. The advice he gives me will be time proven in practical use.

So, to summarize, I think that all magic bullets are technique related, and none of them related to particular materials. This is my approach, and I admire others that can make beautiful or important prints using other approaches. There are many ways to get to the end result, for sure, so in my mind it becomes impossible to answer whether one developer is better than another. Just pick one and run with it and make the most of it. It isn't until you fully understand one developer that you can fully exploit and appreciate the qualities of another developer anyway, so either way you win by learning one developer first.

- Thomas

 

[Steve Sherman]

I think, at the end of the day, that it's all about knowing our materials.

Mistakenly, early in my photographer days, I was very keen on trying to improve by switching films, developers, and so on, but in the long run, it's technique that matters. It only took me five years to realize this.

Today I have established what materials I like to use, and it's mostly stay with one film/developer, and one paper/developer. I don't think I'm even close to reach their full potential, and wonder if I ever will. But I think to try to fully explore our materials is the type of progress we should explore, because that approach makes us think about the pictures rather than thinking about the materials, and a print can be absolutely glorious in print quality, but without a good picture underneath, it's still not interesting. The whole process easily becomes too much about the wrong stuff.
To find that balance between technique and subject matter is what I find to be the most challenging aspect of photography. I hope to continue learning about the materials I use, about lighting, about color (even in black and white), about framing, and about printing technique. I feel like a perpetual student. Someone else always knows something I don't. That's why the advice of someone like Bob Carnie is of invaluable help to me. The advice he gives me will be time proven in practical use.

So, to summarize, I think that all magic bullets are technique related, and none of them related to particular materials. This is my approach, and I admire others that can make beautiful or important prints using other approaches. There are many ways to get to the end result, for sure, so in my mind it becomes impossible to answer whether one developer is better than another. Just pick one and run with it and make the most of it. It isn't until you fully understand one developer that you can fully exploit and appreciate the qualities of another developer anyway, so either way you win by learning one developer first.

- Thomas

Perfectly said!

 

[Alan Johnson]

I wonder if the humic acids produced by pyro developers harden the emulsion.This might result in slower diffusion of developer in highly exposed areas so that they do not burn out when printed.That's just a guess by the way,not to be quoted as fact.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Just as a proof of concept, I played with making a developer using tannic acid itself. I analyze for tannic acid in water at work, and tannic acid is rather similiar to pyrogallol and pyrocatechol all rolled up into a giant molecule but less toxic than either of those two compounds.

I used the Pyrocat HD formula as a starting point - I found that it took a large amount of tannic acid to replace the pyrocatechol in the Pyrocat, on the order of several grams/liter (if I remember correctly) to get it to have a similar contrast index. It had a good stain as well.

I didn't pursue it very far, I just wanted to show it worked.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

No, Michael. Please don't turn it into that. I am not trying to destroy this thread about what developers are best and why.

I find it important to understand the materials we use, and I'm not stopping you from exploring it. My goal is to try to present people, like the original poster of this thread, with a balanced approach of how to use and apply our materials. I'm trying to illustrate that technique and hard work will conquer materials every time, and that the original poster shouldn't be fooled into believing that using pyro will somehow magically transform his pictures from good to brilliant. I'm trying to keep that balance to a thread where someone is trying to find out what developer to use, and I'm illustrating how important it is to be consistent.

So go on and discuss how pyrocatechin or pyrogallol and their respective types of stain will benefit your prints and how it happens, in this thread that was originally about finding out picking one developer over another, and I will sit here and be quiet about having a balanced approach to any materials we use.

- Thomas

...and yet another technical thread veers into speechmaking about learning to use our tools. Yes, yes, we all know this obvious truth regarding virtually any endeavor. It does not mean it is a waste of time to talk about the differences in materials when a question is posed. I especially think it is important since much of what is said is either incorrect or misleading.

Yes it is true some of the differences between materials are immaterial, and should pobably be ignored. And yes how we refine our technique and work with our materials is extremely important. But there are sometimes characteristics which are quite different, not good or bad, but different, and there are implications when printing. Again, not good or bad, just characteristics worth understanding.

For example, everybody talks about grain masking in Pyro negatives, how the stain makes grain less apparent. True, but the context is usually wrong. The grain masking effect reduces the prominence of grain relative to non-staining high acutance developers. Even with stain and less silver in them, Pyro and Cat negatives are still noticeably grainier, sometimes a lot grainier (depending on the formula) than a negative developed in XTOL. Sandy King himself has written about how if fine grain is important to someone using small or medium format they would probably be happier using XTOL than PMK or Pyrocat. The tiny differences, if any, in highlight tonality are outweighed, and can be compensated for with skill in printing.

Just one example.