Use of X-Rite 361T for Pyro Film Tests to be Printed on Silver Paper

[John Oliver]

I would like to get a clarification for which channel to use on an X-rite 361T densitometer in plotting characteristic curves for various films developed in Pyro to be printed on silver based VC enlarging paper.

I am in the process of doing film tests for various films with the goal of processing and printing using the following approach and materials:

Step Wedge: Films exposed through a Stouffer 21 step wedge exposed in camera.

Films: Ilford FP4+, Ilford HP5+, Tmax400, Tri-x, Berger 200

Developers: 1) PMK Pyro 1:2:100 @ 70 in a JOBO using Expert drums with a nitrogen gas bleed (per Gordon Hutching's recommendations in the Book of Pyro and in person at the View Camera conference last year).
2) TmaxRS, 3) Xtol

Enlarger: Omega D2V with an Aristo V54 Cold light

Paper: Ilford Multgrade FB

Paper Developer: Dektol 1:3

Can I use traditional values (Ansel Adam's "The Negative") for Zone I of .1 above b+f, Zone V of .7 above b+f and Zone VII of 1.3 above b+f using the "O" ortho channel on my X-Rite 361T? Is the UV channel only useful for alternative processes (platinum etc)? Will the values mentioned above for Zones I, V and VIII be comparable for Pyro developer and conventional non-staining developers when read with the ortho channel (or will some conversion factor be required?)? Won't the Ortho channel ignore some density on the Pyro neg that actually prints? Is this insignificant value that can be ignored and fine tuned by viewing print results?
Any help with this?

I know there has been alot said in this forum in the past regarding similar issues but I can't seem to find the specific answers I need. I think I have my process in control (repeatibility) yet am having trouble interpreting the data.

Thanks.

John Oliver

 

[Kirk Keyes]

HI John - I'm surprised that no one has tried this one, so here goes.

"Can I use traditional values (Ansel Adam's "The Negative") for Zone I of .1 above b+f, Zone V of .7 above b+f and Zone VII of 1.3 above b+f using the "O" ortho channel on my X-Rite 361T?"

It looks like you have the Ortho and UV channels for the 361T, so I would use the ortho since it more closely matches the spectral sensitivity of your Ilford paper. X-rite makes an optional Visual filter as well, but I would still use the Ortho one for a stained film.

I'm not sure what the filter specs for X-rite are, but as a reference, Gretag uses these wavelengths for the D200-II:
Ortho - 500 nm (in the green portion of the spectrum), with a Tmax/2 bandwidth of 120nm. This means it transmits wavelengths from about 440 to 560 nm more than wavelengths outside of that range. That range includes the colors generally called indigo, blue, and green.
Visual - 555 nm (yellow-green), Tmax/2 bandwidth of 100 nm
UV - 373 nm, Tmax/2 bandwidth of 33 nm
and for comparison,
Blue - 458 nm, Tmax/2 bandwidth of 32
Green - 543 nm, Tmax/2 bandwidth of 28nm

PMK generates more density on the Blue than Green channels, and you can see that the Ortho filter covers both of those colors. It is also the range that your Ilford paper is most responsive to, especially if it's been set up for using VC papers: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/mgivfb.pdf

For densitometers that have Blue and Green channels, Sandy King has recommended in the past using a value that was the sum of 2/3 Blue density reading + 1/3 Green density reading.

"for Zone I of .1 above b+f, Zone V of .7 above b+f and Zone VII of 1.3 above b+f using "

As for these density values, you could use them as a general starting point. Or, probably better, you could do some testing by exposing your Stouffer wedge to your paper, and then measure the exposure scale of your paper/enlarger system.

"Is the UV channel only useful for alternative processes (platinum etc)? "

This generally true. I'm sure someone will let us know of other uses.

"Will the values mentioned above for Zones I, V and VIII be comparable for Pyro developer and conventional non-staining developers when read with the ortho channel (or will some conversion factor be required?)?"

The Pyro processed films will read somewhat higher densities with the Ortho channel then when compares to say the Visual channel or the Red channel. (PMK doesn't create very much if any at all stain in red wavelengths.)

For graded papers, it is not a big deal, the stain prints much like density from silver. But the tricky part here is that when printing on VC papers, as the pyro processed film may look "denser" to the densitometer - but the highlights on the print will print as a lower "zone" with the PMK films. It will act as if it is not as dense as a non-stained film that has been measured with the dnesitometer as the same density.

"Won't the Ortho channel ignore some density on the Pyro neg that actually prints?"

Yes, but not too much. Compare the spectral data from Ilford's site with the approximate bandwidths I gave above. But I think it is certainly going to be a better match for the Multigrade paper than the UV channel.

"Is this insignificant value that can be ignored and fine tuned by viewing print results?"

I don't know that I would say insignificant when using VC paper, but you will propably need to do a little fine-tuning to suit your needs.

Glad to see you using the nitrogen purge system - I set up one last fall and I'm really happy with it. It cut my processing times by about 30% and I can get to higher CI/ave. Gradient/G-bar/gammas now. I also use 24C for processing, as my water supply in the summer will get above 20C, but not usually 24C so I don't have to chill the Jobo then.

Kirk - www.keyesphoto.com

 

[John Oliver]

Kirk,

Thanks ever so much for your reply. It was very helpful and I seem to be back on the right track again. I redrew my curves using the Ortho channel data and processed some Tmax400 based on the new curves and the results look very much more reasonable.

I called X-rite for their filter spec curves for the Ortho and UV channels which they are going to send me. It never occurred to me that I could do that until I saw that you had similar data for another densitometer. I also got the spec sheet for the Ilford MG FB from the link that you sent me - thanks it is very useful.

I will do some test prints by exposing my step wedge this weekend along with proofing the negatives that I processed using the new curves. I can't wait.

Do you think it would help anyone to put some developing starting times up on the forum for a PMK/Jobo/Nitrogen Purge approach for various films? I have had to do a bit of experimentation to dial these in and now with your help, I think I have something useful.

Thanks again.

John

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Do you think it would help anyone to put some developing starting times up on the forum for a PMK/Jobo/Nitrogen Purge approach for various films? I have had to do a bit of experimentation to dial these in and now with your help, I think I have something useful.

HI John, Glad to have helped. I bet the UV reading was giving you negs that looked too thin.

As to posting start times, sure, if you want. I have only compared Fuji Acros and PMK and I found the time dropped by 30% (10 minutes down to 7 at 24C). I'm interested in what you have found.

I made a post here 4 months ago to see if anyone else was using Nitrogen and I didn't get much response, only one other. See: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) SO now there are 3 of us!

Send me an email when you get the X-rite info. I'm curious to see what they send. I find it helpful to know the actual filter transmissions to visualize what's going on. I tried to look up the values for your 811, but I could not find anything online. That's why I gave the Gretag values since I know they were out there.

"I will do some test prints by exposing my step wedge this weekend along with proofing the negatives that I processed using the new curves. I can't wait."

Have fun. It's interesting to see how they compare. Try printing some of the PMK negs at a higher contrast filter setting to better match the high zones to see what happens.

Kirk

 

[Loose Gravel]

Films: Ilford HP5+...

Developers: 1) PMK Pyro 1:2:100 @ 70 in a JOBO using Expert drums with a nitrogen gas bleed (per Gordon Hutching's recommendations in the Book of Pyro and in person at the View Camera conference last year).

John Oliver

John...maybe your interested...

I'm using same film and developer and drum and nitrogen, too. I'm not using Jobo's base, as I have a base similar to a Beseler or Unicolor that I use instead. And instead of a constant bleed of nitrogen gas, I fill the drum with gas just once. I do this by putting the wet film into the drum full of water. Top on. Lights on. Top off drum with water. Invert drum into small bowl of water and displace water with nitrogen through tube that fits under drum opening under water. Cork it off and tank is full of nitrogen. I put the developer in by momentarily removing cork and while drum is turning, use a right-angle funnel. Seems to work well. PMK comes out of tank looking like very weak tea. Originally, I used liquid nitrogen to displace air. This worked very well and was very easy. Now my source for LN2 has dried up.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

And instead of a constant bleed of nitrogen gas, I fill the drum with gas just once.

I would do this too, as it would cut way down of the amount of N2 used, but I have a Jobo CPA2 and it wouldn't work on it.

 

[John Oliver]

Dear Loose Gravel,

Liquid Nitrogen - whoa, that must have been fun! I am addicted to my JOBO CPA2 (has the lift to drain the tanks and recirculation pump) and can't use your approach although it sounds very practical.

I think there may be people who are using the smaller JOBO CPE2 (without the lift) and the JOBO 2500 series tanks that could benefit from your technique. The CPE2 is basically a tempering bath with a motor drive. The tanks are designed with a lid which must be removed to pour chemicals in and out. I can visualize this approach because before I got the bigger JOBO and Expert drum I used the smaller CPE2 for quite a while and experimented with different Pyro developers and I had my fair share of problems with streaking and uneven development in the process.

Thanks,

John

 

[Kirk Keyes]

I can visualize this approach because before I got the bigger JOBO and Expert drum I used the smaller CPE2 for quite a while and experimented with different Pyro developers and I had my fair share of problems with streaking and uneven development in the process.

I started with a CPE2 as well, but with a lift. To avoid streaking, I used a large volume of developer as well as "tipping" up the lift a few inches to redistribute the developer every few minutes. Worked for me.

On the Expert Drums, I have always use 1500 mls of PMK to minimize the oxidation. But the Nitrogen really makes that moot now, and I'm thinking of cutting back to 1000 mls.

And when using a Jobo lift with large volumes (or large tanks), always assist the lift by grabbing the support bars under the drum/tank and don't just use the handle. The handle will not last long that way...

 

[John Oliver]

Kirk,

Thanks, that is good advice on how not to destroy the handle on my JOBO.

I have reduced to 900 mls of PMK for 6 sheets of 4x5 in a 3006 expert drum and have had very good luck. Of course this allows me to use the 1000 ml tempering bottles that come with the JOBO which I find convenient. I use a N2 flow of 1 1/2 - 2 psi in a 1/8" ID tube. I continue to experiment with cutting down the N2 flow but for now this is working.

John

 

[Kirk Keyes]

I have reduced to 900 mls of PMK for 6 sheets of 4x5 in a 3006 expert drum /QUOTE]

That's almost exactly what I'm using - 1500 ml in the 3010 drum with 10 sheets. (I forgot to mention the drum earlier.) I've been using the same volume regardless of the number of sheets for the PMK. 1000 mls for all other chems after that.

For flow, I inverted a 1000 ml grad cylinder underwater, and I adjusted the flow to about 1 liter/minute. I start with a water prebath for a few minutes and with the gas on, and then drain and refill with PMK leaving the gas on for the development step. I then pull the N2 tube from the throat of the lift to facilitate pouring in the remaining solutions.

Kirk

 

[John Oliver]

I have reduced to 900 mls of PMK for 6 sheets of 4x5 in a 3006 expert drum /QUOTE]

That's almost exactly what I'm using - 1500 ml in the 3010 drum with 10 sheets. (I forgot to mention the drum earlier.) I've been using the same volume regardless of the number of sheets for the PMK. 1000 mls for all other chems after that.

For flow, I inverted a 1000 ml grad cylinder underwater, and I adjusted the flow to about 1 liter/minute. I start with a water prebath for a few minutes and with the gas on, and then drain and refill with PMK leaving the gas on for the development step. I then pull the N2 tube from the throat of the lift to facilitate pouring in the remaining solutions.

Kirk

"For flow, I inverted a 1000 ml grad cylinder underwater, and I adjusted the flow to about 1 liter/minute. I start with a water prebath for a few minutes and with the gas on, and then drain and refill with PMK leaving the gas on for the development step. I then pull the N2 tube from the throat of the lift to facilitate pouring in the remaining solutions."

Kirk: I think that's a great way to measure flow and I will copy it because I want to get the N2 down to a minimum. I have a 128 cu ft tank and the less times I have to take it for refills the better (I am on my third tank).

My method is as follows: In the dark I prewet my negatives in a small tray in water for about 30 seconds - shuffling through the stack a couple of times. I then load the negs into the expert drum, which is sitting in my sink and which had already been prefilled to the brim with tempered/filtered water, then put the lid on and turn on the lights. I let the negatives sit, presoaking for 4 additional minutes while I mix the Pyro. I set my timer, pour out all the presoak water from the drum, load the drum on the JOBO, turn on the N2, start the rotation, pour in the Pyro and start the timer. I turn the N2 off 5 seconds before the end of the developer period and leave it off for the rest of the processing. I leave the tubing in the filler throat permanently. I followed Gordon Hutching's advice, the best I could understand it, regarding the tubing however I never did get it in the central vent tube which sticks into the drum - I couldn't manage to feed it into the vent at the top without removing part of the plastic "nostral" in the fill funnel. I still managed to have the 1/8" tubing sticking into the tank though - I have it taped to the side of the vent tube at the vent's lower end, just missing the turning drum. There must be improvements on this but this is what I have come up with to date.

My developing times have decreased by about the same as yours (30%). I can have long developing times of say 16-20 minutes without replacing the developer which still seems active. When I dump it, it comes out the color of whisky or iced tea but certainly not inky. I also find that this approach minimizes generalized stain as opposed to image stain.

John

 

[Kirk Keyes]

John,

The grad cylinder trick does work, but I was thinking about getting a Dwyer style flow meter, something like this
http://www.dwyer-inst.com/htdocs/flow/SeriesVFA-VFBPrice.cfm that will measure a few liters per minute and putting it inline. Haven't gotten around to that yet. I've only got a 80 (?) cu ft tank and I haven't run out yet, but I don't process much film. Still above 2000 psi in the tank. I think at a couple of liters a minute, I can't even see any change in the secondary psi gauge on the regulator. If you're seeing pressure, then you probably can cut back on the flow.

For convenience, I would suggest loading the Jobo drum dry, and then fill it and let it sit. I know some people like to load them wet, put I find the drums easy to dry out between runs, and I'm afraid of bumping the drum and spilling a bunch of water out in the dark. I guess if it's in a sink then there in no worry.

What I do, is load the drum dry and set in the Jobo and get it rotating. I have a tempered water bottle in the Jobo and just dump that in - just 1 liter. Let the Jobo spin for 5 minutes or so, as I mix up the PMK at that point too. As I said earlier, I have the gas flowing during this time, and that should be able to purge out most of the air in that time. I then dump the presoak, a little air will pull in then, and then pour the PMK in.

I do have a little trouble feeding the gas tube down the Jobo drum fill tube. It seems to hang up as it makes the final bend into the Drum. But I found that my gas tube has a little permanent bend to it, so I just twist it a little at the top, and then that kind of helps it make the corner. I think last time I saw it hanging at the opening and inserted a small screw driver into the opening to uncatch from the drum un bend so I could push it out. I pull about 2 inches through to extent it into the drum. My tubing is pretty thin - about 3/16 OD and 1/8 ID Tygon, I think.

I have thought about leaving it, but I kind of got annoyed with the tubing hanging out the top so I just pull the catheter out and proceed as normal!

Yeah, my PMK at the und of the run is a light tea color now, instead of the pitch black it was before. I really could not do extended developments to any great extent before with some films, but I'm sure I can now.

Kirk

 

[Loose Gravel]

I have a another step of prewetting that I haven't seen elsewhere. This is PMK. My negs are soaked in a tray and then loaded in the tank which is full of water, too. Then I displace the water with N2. This is in the first post up the page. Then, instead of just adding the PMK A+B, I add just the B-part with its half of the water. Since I use 1000cc in the expert drum for 6 sheets of 57 ( I think I only need 600cc, but I use 1000cc to just keep everything easy and for those N+3 conditions), I add the B-part which is 500cc. This I run for 2 minutes before adding the A-part, another 500cc, for a total of 1000cc.

Long ago I had trouble with the film getting wetting streaks from the initial developer splashing on the film. I did everything I could think of to prevent this and this is one of the steps I added. Whether it was the fix, or whether it was the EDTA, the prewetting steps, or the full moon, I don't know, but I've kept them all.

Good luck.

 

[gainer]

If you are going to use images of the step wedge that have been developed in Pyro, why not simply contact print them on the paper and use a reflection densitometer. You are primarily interested in the way paper responds to the pyro negative, so why not measure that? The transfer function from original step density wedge to its image on paper is what you want to know, is it not?

 

[John Oliver]

Gadget:

Good question. I got into this approach because I wanted to establish film speed points, and because I wanted to establish development times for N, N-, N+ etc. I wanted more predictable control over metering/exposure and development of the films I use. I don't have a reflection densitometer although it would be easy enough to get one. I would also say that I never anticipated how complicated it would get to "simply" measure the transmission densisty of a Pyro negative.


John

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Then, instead of just adding the PMK A+B, I add just the B-part with its half of the water. Since I use 1000cc in the expert drum for 6 sheets of 57 ( I think I only need 600cc, but I use 1000cc to just keep everything easy and for those N+3 conditions), I add the B-part which is 500cc. This I run for 2 minutes before adding the A-part, another 500cc, for a total of 1000cc.

Loose, I used to do this too. I would use a 1000 ml Part B as a "presoak" and not dump it out and then add 500 ml Part A. I did this for a while, but then I noticed that my 3010 drum was leaking some - enough to darken the water bath in the Jobo water.

So I quit splitting the developer to make sure that I was getting a more consistent developer solution. It's an old drum - a new drum probably works better.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

The transfer function from original step density wedge to its image on paper is what you want to know, is it not?

Excellent point - but sometimes the journey is as interesting as the destination. And maybe trying to understand the process helps take some of the uncertainty out of it.

 

[John Oliver]

Dear Loose Gravel,

It never occurred to me to split the A and B solutions that way. We share the same prewetting approach to avoid developer stains. Using just that method I no longer get any developer stains - no problems with uneven development or stains ever. I wonder if you could give up splitting the A and B solutions - but of course what ever works for you.

I have been loading 5x7 Bergger 200 (Bergger is on a relatively flimsy base) in my 3006 drum and sometimes get an emulsion scratch in the process. The 5x7 negative is a tight fit compared to a 4x5 negative in the same drum. I have been blaming a softened emulsion due to the presoak and clumsy fingers in the dark.

Is there a trick to this?

best regards,

John

 

[Kirk Keyes]

I have been loading 5x7 Bergger 200 (Bergger is on a relatively flimsy base) in my 3006 drum and sometimes get an emulsion scratch in the process. John

John, I have found the Bergger 200 to be pretty suspectable to damage during processing, at least when compared to other films. It even seemed to have fingerprints that I'm pretty sure weren't mine...

It does get a lot of stain with PMK, but the surface damage issues would sway me from making it my main film. I would use FP4+ instead, as I found they are about the same speed in my processing setup. Perhaps you'll have better luck with me.

 

[John Oliver]

John, I have found the Bergger 200 to be pretty suspectable to damage during processing, at least when compared to other films. It even seemed to have fingerprints that I'm pretty sure weren't mine...

It does get a lot of stain with PMK, but the surface damage issues would sway me from making it my main film. I would use FP4+ instead, as I found they are about the same speed in my processing setup. Perhaps you'll have better luck with me.

Kirk,

I am giving the Bergger a try primarily because of the great reports about taking stain and because some people have said it was similar to older much-loved emulsions (Super XX) and I wanted to find out for myself what that was all about.

You know there is a finger print right on the edge of one of my Bergger negatives that absolutely ruined an otherwise nice image. It surprized me a great deal because this is not a mistake I have often made. It never occurred to me that it might have come in the box!

John

 

[gainer]

Excellent point - but sometimes the journey is as interesting as the destination. And maybe trying to understand the process helps take some of the uncertainty out of it.

This is just a conjecture, but I have a feeling that there will be enough variation in the results of development by PMK or other pyro to justify several repetitions of any condition. This, of course, is normal experimental procedure. I think it will be quite informative to use the densitometer in both visual and blue or UV modes, as well as the printing either by enlargement or contact on both graded and VC papers. A great amount of information can be had just from visual examination of the prints of step wedges. The paper will not be able to capture the full range of the step wedge negative in one exposure, but several prints from different ranges of a negative can give an indication of linearity as well as density range. Don't forget to test the effect of VC filters on paper prints. Some interesting effects are gotten by use of low values of magenta or blue filtration on pyro negatives.

 

[sanking]

Gadget:

Good question. I got into this approach because I wanted to establish film speed points, and because I wanted to establish development times for N, N-, N+ etc. I wanted more predictable control over metering/exposure and development of the films I use. I don't have a reflection densitometer although it would be easy enough to get one. I would also say that I never anticipated how complicated it would get to "simply" measure the transmission densisty of a Pyro negative.


John

I have known for a very long time that establishing a precise relationship between transmission density readings of pyro negatives and effective printing density on VC papers would be a fairly complicated problem. But in all honesty I never knew exactly how complicated it would be until I actually tried to do it. What you find is that there are many factors that have to be taken into account: color of the stain, spectral sensitivity of the paper, light source, as well as the VC filter. I am fairly persuaded at this point that the type of precision that is possible with sensitometry using pyro negatives for printing on graded silver papers and with alternative processes sensitive to UV light is simply not possible with VC papers. I may be wrong about this but it will take a lot of work on someone’s part to prove it.

In my opinion Kirk is right in that an ortho reading would probably give a more accurate indicator of actual printing density than Blue, Visual or UV channel, but not even the Ortho reading can compensate for the fact that VC papers have what is in essence two different emulsions that are each sensitive to light of a different color.

Oh well, AZO and alternative processes such as carbon and pt./pd. are, IMHO, nicer anyway, and realistically I wonder how much longer VC papers will be around?

Sandy

 

[philsweeney]

I would like to get a clarification for which channel to use on an X-rite 361T densitometer in plotting characteristic curves for various films developed in Pyro to be printed on silver based VC enlarging paper.
John Oliver

Hi John,

You trade one thing for another! If control is your primary goal and you are going to use VC paper I would suggest not using a staining developer and do the BTZS tests. If you are convinced PMK is giving you a print you desire versus another developer, fine. But either way you need to be able to measure print densities. The effect of the VC filters can easily be seen by printing from a stained negative (however you obtain the negative). Using PMK you will require more density for VC papers compared to a graded paper. I have never seen a image on VC paper (from a PMK negative) that looked better than printed to a graded paper. However, if you standardize your methods for printing to grade 2 graded paper and overdevelop a negative, many times it will print well onto VC grade 2! If you standardize for VC grade 2 your weaker negatives can still be printed to VC grade 3 and fixed grade 2 and 3.

best
phil