The Perils of Pyro???

Jorge · Jun 6, 2004

L Gebhardt said:
For the users of Pyrocat and PMK what is a good film to test with, if one wants to redo Bond's test? I will be testing Pyrocat with TriX, HP5+, and FP4+. Do these stain well and show the benefits of pyro? Once I determine my development times I plan on shooting the same images and using different developers in my Jobo then printing them each on the same paper as my test.

All 3 films you mention will do very well with stainning developers. I use the photowarehouse film (which some say is relabeled FP4) and I get ecxellent results with pyrocat HD. OTOH if you plan to do the testing for enlargement, I would recommend Tri X as the best film for PMK.

Johnny V · Jun 6, 2004

My Grandfather died of Parkinson's disease and he never developed a piece of film in his life!

garryl · Jun 6, 2004

Did my first roll of Bergger 200 (35mm) stained in PMK tonight. It seemed to have a higher B+F level than usual- wet from the can (visually that is).
Am I seeing a combo of stain+silver or something wrong? Will drying change things? Anyone else trying this combination?

Jorge · Jun 7, 2004

garryl said:
Did my first roll of Bergger 200 (35mm) stained in PMK tonight. It seemed to have a higher B+F level than usual- wet from the can (visually that is).
Am I seeing a combo of stain+silver or something wrong? Will drying change things? Anyone else trying this combination?

Could be that pesky dihydrogen monoxide, I tell you the stuff is a danger to anything and everything.....

Seriously now, give us more details. Did you do a prebath, an after bath, any chance of using hard water?
All these are factors that cause greater b+f. Some films are unsuited for the after bath, since all it does is increase overall stain.

mobtown_4x5 · Jun 7, 2004

I agree that the article, esp the anecdotal item on Weston, sounds like crummy journalism?

However, FWIW, just curious, what about the author's assertion that a more dramatic acutence gain can be achieved through unsharp masks rather than choice of (staining) developer. Anyone who has done/seen both have an opinion on this?

As far as pyro is concerned, i have been cooking it down and freebasing it for months now, and i feel just fine.

Donald Miller · Jun 7, 2004

mobtown_4x5 said:
I agree that the article, esp the anecdotal item on Weston, sounds like crummy journalism?

However, FWIW, just curious, what about the author's assertion that a more dramatic acutence gain can be achieved through unsharp masks rather than choice of (staining) developer. Anyone who has done/seen both have an opinion on this?

As far as pyro is concerned, i have been cooking it down and freebasing it for months now, and i feel just fine.

Let me begin by saying that I have been aware of Howard Bond since the mid 80's and I attended a workshop with him in 1989. I think that Howard is an interesting individual that seems to have become more entrenched in his views as he has gotten older.

Now as to your question about the comparison of Pyro and unsharp masking... These accomplish decidedly different effects. Unsharp masking does have certain applications-with certain prints. It is a tool that works to reduce overall contrast so that the local contrast within the image may be increased by increasing paper grade or filtration in the case of variable contrast materials. Unsharp masking works on this compression of overall contrast by increasing effective negative shadow density. I have done and still occasionally do unsharp masking when the print indicates the use of this tool. While I do have registration modifications to my enlarger, unsharp masking does not require expensive pin registration equipment for successful implementation.

Pyro/staining class of film developers work on proportional stain which is greatest in the highest negative density regions...the print highlights. Therefore the benefit of these types of developers in my experience is that they afford greater print highlight tonal separation.

It concerns me that Howard Bond, whom I respect, has taken such a biased and ill informed view and then propogated it in this published article. His position, as I view it, is almost akin to making a comparison between "drinking a cup of coffee and having sex"

I hope that I have answered your question

garryl · Jun 7, 2004

The Negatives look better dry and in the morning light, but the B&F still "looks" high
compare to the same film in D-76 (1:1). I used distilled water throughout, except for
the wash cycle. After all the negative posts, I did not use the "afterbath". The film(
Bergger 200) was shot at 200 and given 10min. @ 72 degrees( the temp of the tap
water of the wash. My scanner is down, so can't post a picture- sorry. The film was
from stock that was kept refrigerated and within EXP. date.

Tom Duffy · Jun 7, 2004

garryl,
the negs should print fine, but with long exposure times. BPF will give you a very high level of general stain in PMK. Switch films or developer (Pyrocat HD) to get a more normal looking neg. When i switched to pyrocat, my printing times were halved.
Tom

gainer · Jun 7, 2004

I have known Howard Bond through personal correspondence concerning his work on reciprocity characteristics of modern films. His work on that subject was meticulous and, I'm sure, consumed more time and materials than his compensation from Photo Techniques would cover. Our correspondence was by snail mail, handwritten. You can tell a lot about a person from handwriting.

Howard did not take into account one of the incontrovertible advantages of pyrogallol: the fact that the same negative may show the high contrast required for many of the alternative printing methods and also be easilly printed on VC paper.

When it comes to unsubstantiated and enthusiastic reporting of results, photographers are in the lead, even those of this esteemed forum. We often come upon a process that seems to be better than anything we have previously tried, and promote it without proviing proper comparisons with likely contenders. Let us not accuse another of conspiracy or other skulduggery on that account.

Have any of you expressed your opinions of Howard's article to the editor of Photo Techniques?

bmac · Jun 7, 2004

gainer said:
When it comes to unsubstantiated and enthusiastic reporting of results, photographers are in the lead, even those of this esteemed forum. We often come upon a process that seems to be better than anything we have previously tried, and promote it without proviing proper comparisons with likely contenders. Let us not accuse another of conspiracy or other skulduggery on that account.

To me there is a big difference between posting messages in a forum about a technique you are excited about, and printing an article in a magazine. But maybe that's just me.

Jorge · Jun 7, 2004

gainer said:
Have any of you expressed your opinions of Howard's article to the editor of Photo Techniques?

Pat, I was tempted to send a letter to them but in the end decided against it.

As with many things in photography film testing is part science and part aesthetic evaluation. If his evaluation of PMK is one where he does not see any advantage on using PMK, that is his judgment and prerogative, I have no problem with that. My main objection was to the pyro scare and his unfounded comments. Unfortunately is hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube, and pyro got this "toxic" reputation from years back based on misleading or not well thought out information. I credit Susan Shaw with the errors made by Bond, unfortunately he based his information on erroneous or incomplete data.

It would have serve no purpose to write to PT, they do not seem to have a "letters to the editor" page anymore and in the end the damage is done. As I told John, a little bit of good lab practices will got a long way and prevent any possible intoxication.

gainer · Jun 8, 2004

Howard did not make any mistakes that I could see in what he did or the photos to illustrate it. He did not cover the subject as thoroughly as he might have. Whether the article was cut in the editorial process, I do not know. His comments about the toxicity of pyro were not from his own discovery, but I think what he was getting at is that if a less toxic process can get equal or better results, that is the one you should use.

We certainly are entitled to criticize where we think it necessary, but I believe the attribution of ulterior motives is not a necessary part of such criticism. When we perceive an error in theory or practice, I would rather simply point out the error and let it go at that. It proves nothing about the virtues of pyro to impugn Howard's character.

Jorge · Jun 8, 2004

gainer said:
Howard did not make any mistakes that I could see in what he did or the photos to illustrate it. He did not cover the subject as thoroughly as he might have. Whether the article was cut in the editorial process, I do not know. His comments about the toxicity of pyro were not from his own discovery, but I think what he was getting at is that if a less toxic process can get equal or better results, that is the one you should use.

We certainly are entitled to criticize where we think it necessary, but I believe the attribution of ulterior motives is not a necessary part of such criticism. When we perceive an error in theory or practice, I would rather simply point out the error and let it go at that. It proves nothing about the virtues of pyro to impugn Howard's character.

I am sorry but I have to disagree with you on both counts. For one, most everybody here will tell you TMX 100 will not stain as well and will not show as great an advantage in pyro as many other films, even it's sibling 400 TMX. You say you dont see any mistakes, to me this is the most evident mistake. If you are going to choose a film to demonstrate the advantages of pyro, pick one that works the best, not the worst...no?

Is it any surprise that UM turned out to be the better technique? Not if you pick one variable that deliberately puts the alternate technique at a disadvantage. But as I said, this is immaterial, one can choose to believe him or not on this and move on.

You say his comments about pyro toxicity are not from his own discovery, and this is precisely my point, why make statements about something you know absolutely nothing about? Why make assumptions on the toxicity of something based on one case of a famous photographer. If this is the kind of statements that should be taken at face value, then I can counter his assertion by saying that Michael A Smith has been putting his hands both in pyro and Amidol just as long as Weston now, and he shows no indications of Parkinson's disease, so he must be wrong. Both statements would be wrong. His and mine. There is not a causal relationship that pyro causes Parkinson's and hinting or speculating about it on an article is just plain wrong.

Let me put it this way, Ascorbic acid has an LD50 of 3900 mg/kg in mouse, how about I start a rumor that Patrick Gainer's Vitamin C developer is toxic and people should stay away from it? Can you see my point? Taking a seemingly accurate data an using it without the proper context and without the proper analysis can create a snow ball effect, specially with those who are not scientifically trained. To this day I still see people who refuse to take advantage of pyro developers because of the supposed "toxicity" rumor started by that dumb woman in her book. Is pyro toxic? Sure it is! is it Toxic in the concentrations we use it, not at all! Just like your developer.

I dont understand the reason why this article was printed, not in the form that it was. You might want to give Bond the benefit of the doubt, me, I think it was a poor editing choice on the part of PT, and a self serving desire to promote UM over anything else by Bond. Call me a cynic but that is how I see it.

jovo · Jun 8, 2004

As the initiator of this discussion it seems appropriate to point out that I would never have questioned pyro without the apparent imprimatur of a publication many regard as useful and reliable. When I read Ctein on the impermanence of RC paper, or Barnbaum on bleaching, I fully expect to be able to rely on the conclusions of a thoroughly researched essay. Steve Simmons caution to beware the writer with a product to push or an axe to grind should not be a concern of mine when reading PT, or View Camera for that matter.....that's the editor's job and if he does it poorly, then I and, hopefully, many others will cease to read, purchase or subscribe to that magazine.

The New York Times, arguably on of the most reliable and substantial newspapers in the world, has had a miserable year with professional scandals, editorial changes and hand wringing self-analysis. Why? Because the editors became complacent and careless and allowed mistakes to occur and reoccur. Mr. Bond should not have been allowed to have his article published with so many dubious claims. It is almost certain that his article WAS published because his long standing tenure there invited minimal scrutiny from editors whose job it is to never assume that anyone they sign off on doesn't need to be challenged for veracity.

Because the reach of PT extends far, far beyond this forum, it's not very likely that this discussion will take place elsewhere. The accumulated expertise of practioners with substantial knowledge will go unread, and many will believe exactly what they've read. So....shame on PT for it's editorial shoddiness. I will not be so quick to take what I used to assume was 'truth' between the covers of that journal for granted ever again.

Donald Miller · Jun 8, 2004

Addressing the position of Photo Techniques and I assume Howard Bond. I wrote and submitted to PhotoTechniques an article on "Sharp Masking for Local Contrast" a year or so ago. After submission the article was rejected by PhotoTechniques because one of their contributing editors felt that it was impossible to institute the modifications to enlarging equipment that I had designed and then had built by a local machine shop. Since the article flew in the face of many of Howard's closely held beliefs about unsharp masking I must assume the contributing editor mentioned by the magazine was most probably Howard as he was a contributing editor at that time and that he had a vested interest in unsharp masking (he offers workshops in this procedure).

This article was then accepted and printed in another photographic publication.

It seems to me, based in my experience, that anything that is new or at odds with the position of certain individuals at PhotoTechniques is dealt with summarily. The problem that I see with incestuous relationships of this type is that one begins producing "idiot children".

gainer · Jun 8, 2004

That is a bit on the paranoid side I think. I am also a contributing editor and have been in the position of having to recommend not publishing one or another submission. I have no veto power, but was occasionally called upon to review a submitted paper. Since Joe White is no longer editor, I have no idea where I stand. At any rate, when I reviewed an article, I gave explicit comments. If the article could be revised to make it more acceptable, that is what I recommended. An example would be if the article contained unsubstantiated claims that could be substantiated by proper examples or comparisons, I would not recommend outright rejection, and some of those article were eventually accepted. I had much experience on editorial committees at NASA, and that was our procedure. Peer review, recommendations, corrections, and resubmittal.
I have designed an easel densitometer that can let me get H&D curves, set printing exposure by desired Zone at a particular image point, and more, but it is outside the acceptable subject matter of PT, and in fact of this forum.
This is getting to be not such a quick reply. Gotta go now.

dr bob · Jun 9, 2004

Donald Miller said:
>some editing<
It seems to me, based in my experience, that anything that is new or at odds with the position of certain individuals at PhotoTechniques is dealt with summarily. The problem that I see with incestuous relationships of this type is that one begins producing "idiot children".

Well, there's nothing wrong with incest as long as it is kept in the family

Actually I had a similar response from PT. Patrick edited a submission which I revised accordingly and resubmitted. Joe White accepted it and stated that it would definitely be published. Not so. Now Joe is gone and there is no way to access the PT editorial staff that I have found - no email, no address, no phone No.

I have tried to contact them via FAX but no response. I want them to officially reject my submission so I can try publication elsewhere. How the H--- do you get to them? I even put a written note in one of their self addressed envelopes they send out for renewal.

gainer · Jun 9, 2004

1-847-647-2900. When the automatic lady asks if you know the extension, enter 1306. That will get you the editor if he's there or an answering machine if not. Don't get too excited yet. I gather things are in a bit of turmoil.

I don't know why Joe left and I don't know how much of what he edited was in his hip pocket. The new editor is Scott Lewis. Tinsley Preston keeps his hand in the publication.

My late wife was an author trying to get published. She thought she was on the way when the editor that liked her work left. No more talk, no publishing.

garryl · Jun 9, 2004

de ja vue- Photo Vision?

gainer · Jun 10, 2004

For one thing, new editors often don't want anything to do with the prevoius person's work, no matter how good it is. They have some idea of putting their stamp on anything they do. I know it is this way in the fiction world. On the other hand, any submission is potentially the property of the editor's employer and cannot go with the editor to a different publisher. In fiction writing you have to know that the competition is such that your work will never be missed. Oh, well.

dr bob · Jun 10, 2004

Thanks "gadget". I'll give the land-line a try. I have no desire to have PT publish - I just want them to relinquish my work in a formal manner.

modafoto · Jun 11, 2004

Deniz said:
so for me its Yay for rodinal...

Long live Rodinal! It has lived for 113 years now and will be around us for years to come.

gainer · Jun 11, 2004

That's only 36 years longer than I have lived. That's not so old.

modafoto · Jun 14, 2004

gainer said:
That's only 36 years longer than I have lived. That's not so old.

It's 4½ times my age or said in another way 88 years older than me...

Greetings from an old-fashioned youngster

garryl · Jun 14, 2004

modafoto said:
It's 4½ times my age or said in another way 88 years older than me...

Well in 44 years- you'll change your mind.

Right behind ya Pat!

The Perils of Pyro???

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency