DISCLAIMER: The following is a notation of my experience. It is not a specific recommendation nor has it been calculated to 12 decimal places of analysis. Quantum effects have not been considered. This product is not intended to diagnose, cure, or treat whatever ails you. Your mileage may vary. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Neener Neener.
As I have noted in the past, I have spent some years exploring (semi)stand and Extreme Minimal Agitation (EMA) techniques across a variety of films and developers. For a good many things with normal SBRs, I still prefer using PMK Pyro in its usual manner. But dilute/low dilution/long schemes still have a place in my world when I want to punch up local contrast in a scene.
Today's darkroom exercise was printing some of the Fomapan 200 developed in ultra dilute Pyrocat-HDC. As a point of reference, my normal semistand development (1 initial agitation, 1 midpoint) with that developer/film combo is 1.5:1:250 for 25-30 min.
This gives me consistent and solidly printable negatives. But I felt that the film was giving away fine detail with objects like leaves that it didn't have to. So, I wanted to try longer development using more intermediate agitation cycles (EMA) with ultra high dilution levels to see if I could:
Both were shot with a Leica IIIf using 50mm f/2.2 or 35mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar lenses. The camera was hand held and I shot in at least one common location and similar (not identical) lighting for both rolls.
Development took place in a filled 500ml Nikor double height 35mm tank with a single stainless Nikor reel resting on an inverted funnel to minimize streaking risk.
Both were agitated for 1 min initially and then again for 5 and 10 seconds respectively at 16, 31, & 46 min, ending development at 60 min.
The 2:1:400 negatives are just a tad more dense than I like which suggests I could eliminate one of the agitation cycles.
The 1:1:500 negatives are nearly perfect, though I probably could dial down the EI to 160 for about 1/3 stop more shadow detail.
The 2:1:400 negatives printed just fine but are not remarkably better than my normal approach. They are sharper, just not dramatically so. HOWEVER, this is not entirely a fair test because I had to handhold at 1/50 which may have injected a small bit of camera shake.
The 1:1:500 negatives printed flawlessly at pretty much a normal "Grade 2" contrast (nearly equal hard and soft filtration on the enlarger). More importantly these negatives are very sharp. At first glance, the wet prints show no notable grain. These were shot at 1/100 which also minimized risk of camera shake.
Edge effects are still unclear. I am waiting for prints to finish washing and dry before I'll really be able to tell if there was much improvement there.
When complete, I'll scan some prints to share with the class. At this point it looks like 1:1:500 promises excellent sharpness, minimal grain, expanded mid tones, and well managed highlights characteristic of this development approach.
I would note ahead of time, that some of these subtleties can be lost in the translation to a forum posting but I'll give it shot.
As I have noted in the past, I have spent some years exploring (semi)stand and Extreme Minimal Agitation (EMA) techniques across a variety of films and developers. For a good many things with normal SBRs, I still prefer using PMK Pyro in its usual manner. But dilute/low dilution/long schemes still have a place in my world when I want to punch up local contrast in a scene.
Today's darkroom exercise was printing some of the Fomapan 200 developed in ultra dilute Pyrocat-HDC. As a point of reference, my normal semistand development (1 initial agitation, 1 midpoint) with that developer/film combo is 1.5:1:250 for 25-30 min.
This gives me consistent and solidly printable negatives. But I felt that the film was giving away fine detail with objects like leaves that it didn't have to. So, I wanted to try longer development using more intermediate agitation cycles (EMA) with ultra high dilution levels to see if I could:
- Achieve better sharpness without objectionable grain - because very high dilution should improve developer acutance behavior.
- Enhance edge effects - with very dilute, infrequent agitation, the highlights should develop to completion almost immediately and encourage formation of so called "Mackie Lines" because of highlight development exhaustion at the dark/white boundaries.
Both were shot with a Leica IIIf using 50mm f/2.2 or 35mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar lenses. The camera was hand held and I shot in at least one common location and similar (not identical) lighting for both rolls.
Development took place in a filled 500ml Nikor double height 35mm tank with a single stainless Nikor reel resting on an inverted funnel to minimize streaking risk.
Both were agitated for 1 min initially and then again for 5 and 10 seconds respectively at 16, 31, & 46 min, ending development at 60 min.
The 2:1:400 negatives are just a tad more dense than I like which suggests I could eliminate one of the agitation cycles.
The 1:1:500 negatives are nearly perfect, though I probably could dial down the EI to 160 for about 1/3 stop more shadow detail.
The 2:1:400 negatives printed just fine but are not remarkably better than my normal approach. They are sharper, just not dramatically so. HOWEVER, this is not entirely a fair test because I had to handhold at 1/50 which may have injected a small bit of camera shake.
The 1:1:500 negatives printed flawlessly at pretty much a normal "Grade 2" contrast (nearly equal hard and soft filtration on the enlarger). More importantly these negatives are very sharp. At first glance, the wet prints show no notable grain. These were shot at 1/100 which also minimized risk of camera shake.
Edge effects are still unclear. I am waiting for prints to finish washing and dry before I'll really be able to tell if there was much improvement there.
When complete, I'll scan some prints to share with the class. At this point it looks like 1:1:500 promises excellent sharpness, minimal grain, expanded mid tones, and well managed highlights characteristic of this development approach.
I would note ahead of time, that some of these subtleties can be lost in the translation to a forum posting but I'll give it shot.
Last edited:
