Pyrocat-HD vs. PMK, image stain

[noseoil]

There have been a few posts recently asking about Pyrocat and why it is superior to other developers. Here is a side-by-side study showing the difference between a general stain and image stain. Granted, the contrast inherent in the two images is not the same, but the "haziness" of PMK is evident in the lighter image. Both are contact prints of the same scene. They were taken in similart lighting conditions on the same day. I used PMK for a couple of years until I switched to Pyrocat.

The more contrasty image was done with Pyrocat-HD, Efke 100, minimal agitation, a 240mm G-Claron and was printed on the old azo grade 2. It's a crop from an 8x10 print, from which I tried to get a similar portion of the scene. While it shows better contrast, there is an overall sharpness and clean tonality which just isn't possible with the general stain present in PMK.

A friend graciously offered the HP5 image with PMK to do the comparison (thanks Ria). It was taken with a 300mm Symmar-S lens and 4x5 reducing back, HP5, and contact printed on Ilford FB paper. Development was with PMK with "normal" agitation, which means agitation cycles every 15 seconds to avoid uneven staining. This lens is incredibly sharp when looking at the 4x5 image in the "sweet spot" which was the center of the image circle. A lens hood was used and the reducing back was built with a recess to avoid internal flare.

While this test is in no way scientific, it does show a big difference between PMK & Pyrocat. Both exhibit good tonality, but the Pyrocat has a cleaner, sharper more vibrant look to it which PMK can't touch. Mnimal agitation helps bring out this sharp look. With "normal" development and Pyrocat, this would not have the clean sharp edge possible only with minimal agitation. The HP5 should have a sharper look to it due to grain size and a wonderfully sharp lens, but the general stain has the effect of masking the image so it looks less sharp and even a bit cloudy. tim

 

[Lachlan Young]

A friend graciously offered the HP5 image with PMK to do the comparison (thanks Ria). It was taken with a 300mm Symmar-S lens and 4x5 reducing back, HP5, and contact printed on Ilford FB paper. Development was with PMK with "normal" agitation, which means agitation cycles every 15 seconds to avoid uneven staining. This lens is incredibly sharp when looking at the 4x5 image in the "sweet spot" which was the center of the image circle. A lens hood was used and the reducing back was built with a recess to avoid internal flare.

If this was on MG paper then it is obvious that the yellow stain is affecting the contrast - suggest he prints it on Galerie or similar then compare - the difference may be a lot less striking. Mind you, the pyrogallol and catechol devs that produce a brown stain are IMHO much less of a PITA as they don't limit your choice of paper and don't stain as madly as PMK quite apart from their ability to be used semi-stand.

Lachlan

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

One of these is PL100 and one is HP5? One with a G-claron and one with a Symmar-S? Two negs developed most likely to different densities? Different apertures, different papers, etc.

There are too many variables here for this to be a meaningful comparison of the two developers.

 

[Amund]

One of these is PL100 and one is HP5? One with a G-claron and one with a Symmar-S? Two negs developed most likely to different densities? Different apertures, different papers, etc.

There are too many variables here for this to be a meaningful comparison of the two developers.

I agree, a "test" can`t be more flawed than this. It proves absolutely nothing at all...

 

[Amund]

But just to add my take on HD vs PMK, in the kind of weather we have in Norway these days(superbright sun, little/no skies) extreme contasts, I find PMK "the best", as it tames extreme contrast good. On days with normal contrast, I find Pyrocat very good, and for the rest of the year(dull light, very little contrast) I prefer developers like HC-110, XTOL ect... IMO, there is no developer that is "the best" for every situation....

 

[User Removed]

I think people are right, Tim. I know that PMK gives flatter shadows, but this test really does not prove that.

The difference in the image could be due to the lens, the skill of the printer, the paper being printed on (of course AZO will look better then Ilford MG), the film, the amount of development, ect.

You would need to shoot two exact negative on the same camera, film, ect...and print them both on the same paper for the same time, ect.

All the best,

Ryan McIntosh
www.RyanMcIntosh.net

 

[WarEaglemtn]

(of course AZO will look better then Ilford MG)

Maybe you don't know how to print?
Not everything looks 'better' on Azo.

 

[User Removed]

(of course AZO will look better then Ilford MG)

Maybe you don't know how to print?
Not everything looks 'better' on Azo.

Or maybe you have just never printed on AZO or seen many good prints on AZO....


I printed on Ilford Multigrade for years, and swiched over to AZO just a couple years ago, and I can tell you that there is not ONE negative I print that looks better on Ilford Multigrade. Ilford MG paper is FLAT and LIFELESS and lacks the DEPTH of AZO.

Sure, many wonderful prints have been made on Ilford MG paper, and maybe they would not have been good negatives to be printed on AZO. However, in my opinion...AZO is far superior to Ilford MG.

This is not the right forum to get into debating papers, so sorry.

Regards,

Ryan McIntosh
www.RyanMcIntosh.net

 

[Michael Kadillak]

It has been a known fact for many years that PMK is a developer for those that want to enlarge only. For contact printing, it is simpy not the right tool IMHO.

Furthermore, I would concure 100% with Ryan in his contention that a silver chloride paper (Azo) is a paper with the potential to extract visual tonalities in a print that are just not attainable with conventional silver papers. In the hands of a skilled craftsman who knows his materials, silver chloride paper is as good as it gets.

That is not a knock on anyone that choses this particular set of materials, it simply is a fact. Yes, there are many marvelous images that can be produced on silver paper but for me (emphasis on ME) they are not the "best" that could be produced. Now I paraphrase this in the context that grade 2 Azo requires judicious utilization of ones materials to accomodate the needs for the fixed grade Azo #2 paper with a density range of about 1.65. With only fixed grade #2 and #3 paper, a water bath is all that one has to extract a bit of latitude in the printing process as opposed to a complete set of multi contrast filters for the conventional silver printer. However, when one exposes correctly and develops to the specified density range it is a melody from heaven. Once I saw what Azo could do I was hooked. I have not used my Durst 184 and 138 enlargers in two years and may never again. They are collecting dust in my darkroom.

The beauty of photography is that one can use any film, film and paper developer and paper that they chose that works for them.

Bravo!

 

[juan]

Tim, I thought I had talked Ria into using Pyrocat HD - I guess you'll have to work on her more.
juan

 

[garysamson]

"That is not a knock on anyone that choses this particular set of materials, it simply is a fact. Yes, there are many marvelous images that can be produced on silver paper but for me (emphasis on ME) they are not the "best" that could be produced."

I would politely disagree, it is not simply a fact. Using only one film, one developer or one paper limits the potential creativity available to the artist / photographer. I have seen many fine (outsrtanding) contact prints on gelatin silver paper other than AZO. It is not just an issue of extracting the greatest tonal range out of a particular paper that makes the resulting image successful, but the artist's individual choice of materials, image content and final interpretation of that image that results in a long lasting and moving photograph that stands the test of time.

 

[Steve Sherman]

Unfortunately these two films are markedly different in inherent characteristics. The Efke film is capable of considerable expansion and contraction due to its short toe and shoulder. Efke’s straight line is much longer and able to separate mid tones much better. Whereas the HP 5 has a long toe and shoulder and much flatter straight line where mid tones would show separation.

Azo Vs enlarging paper is clearly a personal and subjective debate. That said, I’ve been a silver gelatin printer for 25 years and only recently incorporated Azo into my work. To me Azo is a cleaner crisper look with the image more dimensional at the surface. I can’t believe I would ever say this but I actually prefer the single weight of Azo to the easier to use double weight of most enlarging papers. And MAS’s water bath development trick with Amidol is probably the most dramatic darkroom control I have run across in the last 10 years.

If I could ever get the consistent color I want out of both grades of Azo I would be thrilled.

my 2 cents

 

[reggie]

"That is not a knock on anyone that choses this particular set of materials, it simply is a fact. Yes, there are many marvelous images that can be produced on silver paper but for me (emphasis on ME) they are not the "best" that could be produced."

I would politely disagree, it is not simply a fact. Using only one film, one developer or one paper limits the potential creativity available to the artist / photographer. I have seen many fine (outsrtanding) contact prints on gelatin silver paper other than AZO. It is not just an issue of extracting the greatest tonal range out of a particular paper that makes the resulting image successful, but the artist's individual choice of materials, image content and final interpretation of that image that results in a long lasting and moving photograph that stands the test of time.

I have to disagree, too. I use AZO a lot and really like it. But it is not the be-all, end-all of photogrpahy. Can anyone name a single generally acknowledged 'masterpiece' made on AZO in the last 50 years? In my entire collection, I don't have one. Paul Caponigro is one of the finest printers of all time. He doesn't seem to have any problem pulling great prints from his bromide papers. Same for Brett Weston and so on.

But, this thread started out on pyro developers. I do have a question. Is the 'minimal agitation' technique really necessary with sheet film that will be contact printed or slight enlarged?

Thanks.

-Mike

 

[Steve Sherman]

I do have a question. Is the 'minimal agitation' technique really necessary with sheet film that will be contact printed or slight enlarged?

You need to clarify what your question is

 

[c6h6o3]

While this test is in no way scientific, it does show a big difference between PMK & Pyrocat.

No it doesn't.

To show the difference, set up your camera and put in a holder loaded on both sides with the same film. Expose both sheets of film at the same shutter speed and aperture under the same light. Develop one sheet in Pyrocat HD and the other in PMK. Use the same development technique for both. (If you use minimal agitation for one, use it also for the other.) Print both negatives on the same manufacture and contrast grade of paper. Develop both prints in the same developer. Then show us the results. If there's a difference attributable to the different developers we'll be able to see it.

 

[Ken Lee]

To show the difference...

Yes - and make a single contact print with both negatives on the same sheet of paper. That way, they are both exposed, developed, fixed, and rinsed at the same time, and when it comes time to put an image on the web, they get scanned at the same time as well. Otherwise, this is just more of what scientitsts call "anecdotal" evidence.

 

[noseoil]

Gentlemen please...

I had hoped to convince you all with my years of study of this problem, as well as my scientific method. I shall return to my laboratory and re-do the tests. It seems some here just aren't ready to undertake an unbiased look at reality. Next, I think I shall use Efke 25 and J&C 200 for my trials with these two developers. Once these are complete, I shall attempt to prove that Global Warming is real, based solely on anecdotal evidence and speculation.

Thanks to all who took part in my study. I stand corrected. -) tim

 

[User Removed]

haha. Funny Tim. I look forward to seeing your global warming debate, and maybe one on how Alien's are real!

See you back in Tucson in August bud!

Ryan McIntosh
www.RyanMcIntosh.net

 

[Tom Duffy]

When last I did a comparison of PMK and Pyrocat (about 3 or 4 years ago), I used the same lens, film, filtration, etc. I used Tri-x 5x7 film and contact printed on AZO, using the Smith amidol formula. I shot a lighthouse in bright sunlight. For this film/developer/paper combination I found that both developers produced a good print, with the PMK providing slightly more detail in the bright whites. Otherwise the prints were very similar looking.

So which developer do I use? The Pyrocat of course, since it can be used in a Jobo rotary processor with out streaking, which the PMK can't. There is also no question that, in a rotary processor, pyro developers provide a sharper negative that "regular" developers.

Take care,
Tom

 

[don sigl]

For this not being the the forum for paper discussion,there certainly seems to be a lot here. Just my 2 cents; Ilford MG is very popular. I've used all the Ilford papers over the last 20 years. They are very fine products....especially useful for people with average printing skills, or students. Comparing them to Azo is somewhat ludicrous. Comparing them to papers like Forte Fortezo or Poly Warmtone is....maybe not quite as ludicrous, but getting there. Just saying...

 

[photobum]

I don't have a dog in this fight because I'm a D-76 user. But....WarEagle has stayed out of this since his one post. Ryan, some photographers have been known to lock themselves away, snowbound for an entire winter, printing nothing but Azo. My guess is that Mr. Eagle has used more Azo in four months than you will in four years.

There is some interesting history behind some of the people that post here. Just because you love a process don't ever dismiss another viewpoint.

 

[c6h6o3]

Can anyone name a single generally acknowledged 'masterpiece' made on AZO in the last 50 years?
-Mike

'Holland Canal' by Brett Weston

 

[Stack8]

I may be wrong, but I thought I read where Kodak has stoped making Azo paper. I used it years ago for contact printing.

 

[noseoil]

Stack, you are correct, Azo is no longer made by Kodak. There are some folks who are putting together a deal to have a new type made, but I don't think it is available quite yet. Fortunately, I'm still ok on the old grade 2 azo, for now. tim