Why Pyro?

Thanks Tim. OK, some real world personal experience of a photographer. Are you only using 35mm? Since the ability to vary development according to a given scene is less accessible with 35mm one might argue that Pyro offers advantages when using the 35mm format. If you have found that when using your standard film and exposing techniques highlights are better preserved in your prints when pyro is used then your point is well taken. Would you extend your perceived advantages to sheet film negatives developed in Pyro?

Thanks for the clarifications and amplifications David!

Ed

If you're looking to get pyro chemicals or any other chemicals you can order them from Quebec from JD Photochem. The woman's name is Claire and she's awesome to work with. You can contact her at contact@jdphotochem.com and she will send you a list of the chemicals.
I think I paid $45 about 7 months ago for Pyrocat HD chemicals. It makes around 5L working concentration, which is about 500L of working solution at 1:1:100. You do have to get a scale and extra containers so that you are accurate, but if your careful, your errors should be minimal. I have all the details about the chemicals and stuff like that if you want to PM me I'll dig it up and post it in this thread.

Don't dare breathe in any trace of "Pyrocat"...use all the safety measures that Jordan suggests.

I've used nothing but PMK and more recently its cousin Rollo Pyro for almost 20 years. I like it because it is cheap, has a LONG shelf life, is forgiving WRT development times and works great with alt-process printing (and silver, too). I also use it for my 120 and 35mm film and don't find it grainy at all. I mix mine from scratch, but it's still cheap if you buy the A & B pre-made from B/S, The Formulary, etc.

Mahler_one said:

Jason: I think your honest and interesting statement referenced below deserves some emphasis:

<They did print quite a bit differently that my PMK negs, not so much that I couldn't achieve the same ends. What I did find was that I had an easier time split printing with the PMK negatives>....

I hope that you don't mind my taking one of your statements out of context, and I apologize for deconstructing them somewhat. I also apologize in advance for highlighting some of the points you made. I want all to know that the responsibility for highlighting the points is mine alone. However, certainly your observations deserve discussion, and echo some of my thoughts. Thus, you could probably achieve the same ends, but that you did think that you had an easier time split printing, and the negatives printed differently. I take "differently" to mean that your PMK negatives, in the instances you cited, probably did not make the image as it appeared in the print any "different", i.e., any sharper, any brighter, etc. Instead, I take your statement to mean that "differently" means that the means used to print the negatives were different. Am I right? You are a very experienced and well thought of photographer and teacher who has much more knowledge then most of us when it comes to various photographic processes. Thus, if you were not to have used the negatives for any of the alternate processes, then aside from having an easier time making the prints via the split printing technique, what was the advantage of using Pyro for the negatives in question? One might enjoy developing with Pyro, one might like the looks of a Pyro developed negative, one might find that your developing technique allows one to develop Pyro with more repeatability, or any other of a number of reasons why one LIKES developing with Pyro. However, the results as seen on the print in the examples you cite appear not to be any different. Am I mistaken? Is so, please accept my apologies.

Ed

Click to expand...

Hi Ed,

Yes, you are essentially correct in interpreting my personal assessment. When I say they printed differently I was specifically referencing the printing exposures. The HC110 negatives seem to me essentially more "flat" than the behavior of the PMK negs in regard to the split grade process. By that I mean soft grade prints harder and hard grade prints softer, and seems to require a bit more finesse to coax out the look I prefer. More time spent dialing in the exposures, thus to my mind "more difficult". The print is from fairly mundane (at least for me) paper and developer, LPD and MGIV. I can't speak to a perception of those other qualities, because I have yet to run a comparison, but it is something I intend to do. I think a comparison of identical exposures is probably the only way to really ascertain any useful information in that regard, but I think one would have to do it for many different exposures to draw any meaningful conclusions, as every negative is unique in some way. Step wedges etc. give lots of useful information, but I am nevertheless occasionally astounded by the mediocre printing of some of the more technical photographers. Some others leave me in awe. I think there is something to be said for the marriage of intuition and craft. Advantages and disadvantages in that respect are situational, and always subjective to some degree. I have attached a PMK developed negative with an extreme range, the sun is actually in the shot, and the exposure was made with an un-coated process lens. The paper in this case is Varicon developed in 130, so we've moved up one notch on the "exotic" scale. I think it is a good example of PMK's ability to hold on to almost everything, and example of where pyro really shines, but an identical negative developed in a different developer would be nice to compare. The scan doesn't show it at all, but there are details visible in the dark rubble of the causeway, and the ball of the sun and much more detail in what appears white on the monitor are apparent in the print.

Great print Jason. I wish I could see it "in person". Varycon and 130....an interesting combination. I have Varycon VC FB, and 130, but I am still working on understanding all the qualities of Dektol and Ilford Pearl VC RC. I have taken the suggestions of many as to filling the waste basket to over-flowing as one learns to print. Hence, I have tried to stay with RC paper which is easier to use, etc., etc. I have a few Pryo negatives that are rather high contrast as well...hmmmm...perhaps time for the combination you have used.

Mahler_one said:

Don't dare breathe in any trace of "Pyrocat"...use all the safety measures that Jordan suggests.

Click to expand...

....I shouldn't be the one to speak about safety.

Mahler_one said:

Great print Jason. I wish I could see it "in person". Varycon and 130....an interesting combination. I have Varycon VC FB, and 130, but I am still working on understanding all the qualities of Dektol and Ilford Pearl VC RC. I have taken the suggestions of many as to filling the waste basket to over-flowing as one learns to print. Hence, I have tried to stay with RC paper which is easier to use, etc., etc. I have a few Pryo negatives that are rather high contrast as well...hmmmm...perhaps time for the combination you have used.

Click to expand...

Varycon is a cruel mistress.

Zone 15?

timbo10ca said:

My reasons for using Pyro (in the form of Pyrocat HD):
1) Long shelf life (still can't beat HC-110 though)
2) Semistand development- all writings I'd found were for FP4 in PyroHD (most notably Sandy King and Steve Sherman). I tried this first with my (then standard) developer- HC-110, but found it too hot and really blew out the highlights. Research here got the response that I was using the exact opposite type of developer for this technique than I should heave been. I was recommended to try Pyrocat HD
3) Ziatype- UV process that uses negs developed for "N" silver, so can use same neg for both processes.
4) Lodima- my recent tests happily show that I can use that same neg for this paper as well.

I did a workshop with Gordon Hutchings and he does some beautiful printing. He'd probably be able to do it without a PMK neg, but I saw first hand how you can salvage highlights on a neg developed in pyro that are sitting around Zone 15 and above. As he says " you cannot overexpose a pyro negative". I considered switching from Pyrocat HD to his new PMK because it's supposed to maintain box film speed, but I'm still just getting a handle on Pyrocat HD, and it works well for all my 3 processes. Plus I tray develop, which Pyrocat seems to be preferred for. Lastly, I believe PMK (and it's newer iteration) is more for enlarged negs. Not to say it wouldn't be great for contacts, but I just don't want to switch. Maybe once I get my 5x7 enlarger up and running.....

Tim

Click to expand...

Gosh Tim! What is Zone 15, and how does one even measure it?

Mahler_one said:

Thanks Tim. OK, some real world personal experience of a photographer. Are you only using 35mm? Since the ability to vary development according to a given scene is less accessible with 35mm one might argue that Pyro offers advantages when using the 35mm format. If you have found that when using your standard film and exposing techniques highlights are better preserved in your prints when pyro is used then your point is well taken. Would you extend your perceived advantages to sheet film negatives developed in Pyro?

Click to expand...

To be honest, I haven't tried Pyrocat with 35mm for 2 reasons: I have a bunch of HC-110 still (the stuff lasts FOREVER!) that gives me negs I'm happy with (they scan nicely too, but that's not for here!). Plus I've not been in a hurry due to various reposrts of it not being great for 35mm (grain, etc). When I run out of HC-110, I'll probably try it out. I want to have as few film/developer combos as possible.

Speaking to my ML and LF negs, I just don't have many "pre-pyrocat" to be able to compare to, and I never have shot a scene multiple times to compare different developers. I can say however, that my negs show a heck of a lot more detail in my highlights than what I get on my proof prints. Split grade printing is great, and I am generally able to burn in highlights and get the detail that's there.

Tim

JBrunner said:

Hi Ed,

Yes, you are essentially correct in interpreting my personal assessment. When I say they printed differently I was specifically referencing the printing exposures. The HC110 negatives seem to me essentially more "flat" than the behavior of the PMK negs in regard to the split grade process. By that I mean soft grade prints harder and hard grade prints softer, and seems to require a bit more finesse to coax out the look I prefer. More time spent dialing in the exposures, thus to my mind "more difficult". The print is from fairly mundane (at least for me) paper and developer, LPD and MGIV. I can't speak to a perception of those other qualities, because I have yet to run a comparison, but it is something I intend to do. I think a comparison of identical exposures is probably the only way to really ascertain any useful information in that regard, but I think one would have to do it for many different exposures to draw any meaningful conclusions, as every negative is unique in some way. Step wedges etc. give lots of useful information, but I am nevertheless occasionally astounded by the mediocre printing of some of the more technical photographers. Some others leave me in awe. I think there is something to be said for the marriage of intuition and craft. Advantages and disadvantages in that respect are situational, and always subjective to some degree. I have attached a PMK developed negative with an extreme range, the sun is actually in the shot, and the exposure was made with an un-coated process lens. The paper in this case is Varicon developed in 130, so we've moved up one notch on the "exotic" scale. I think it is a good example of PMK's ability to hold on to almost everything, and example of where pyro really shines, but an identical negative developed in a different developer would be nice to compare. The scan doesn't show it at all, but there are details visible in the dark rubble of the causeway, and the ball of the sun and much more detail in what appears white on the monitor are apparent in the print.

Click to expand...

Sweet print Jason.... may be even a candidate for our print exchange? I bring it up, because that negative I used was 120 FP4+ developed "N+1" IIRC in Pyrocat HD. You may give your impression of the "real world" results I got, as long as you're not too hard on me- it may help Ed out.... Mind you, this is not a good example of pyro maintaining highlight detail- it was a flat scene I had to boost contrast on. The fact that it was used in some pretty inexperienced hands may be more valuable.

Tim

Mahler_one said:

Gosh Tim! What is Zone 15, and how does one even measure it?

Click to expand...

I was going on the assumption here that you are familiar with the zone system. If you are not, I apologize and will try to elaborate.

Essentially, say you have a scene with a huge range from light (specular highlights on wet pavement) to dark (deep shadow due to bright mid-afternoon sun) regions in a scene (many "zones" of one stop each). The number one thing you want to do is make sure you don't underexpose the shadows and get straight black- no detail. You do this at the expense of really over exposing those highlights. Traditionally you reduce the development to settle down the highlights. You can do this a number of ways (reduced time, or reduced agitation) but sometimes you just can't do *anything* to save those highs, because they are SO bright. But you want that detail in the print- enter pyro developers- they preserve the highlight detail in the negative so you can get them into the print (obviously will take some fandangling, but at least it's possible, where otherwise it may not be in a non-staining developer). It is commonly found that without manipulation, you can print detail from zone 3 (shadow with detail) to zone 8 (highlight with detail) because paper has a range of 5 stops (less than what you can capture on the neg- depending on what developer and technique you use). Zone 10 is paper white. Zones beyond that are super bright areas in the scene. This neg that Gordon Hutchings printed had a spread of like 15 zones or something crazy, but you could see detail in the highlights on the neg, and he was able to print them. Essentially he didn't bother with alot of contracted development because the knew the detail would be there. He just printed down the highlights, and there it was.....

Tim

The attitude of some people appears to be that unless one can demonstrate and prove a tangible improvement in final print quality there is no reason to use pyro staining developers. However, even if this class of developers were no better than traditional developers the fact remains that many of the formulas are very easy to use, are very long lived and quite inexpensive. Most of the formulas have shelf life of at least a year and will give the same results when a year old as when just mixed. And with one liter stock solutions one has enough to develop literally hundreds of rolls of film so you don't have to mix often. Compare that to a formula like D76 which is both more expensive to mix and will not give the same results six months after mixing as when fresh.

Pyro staining developers vary a lot in terms of grain, but the best of the modern formulas (PMK, Pyrocat-HD, Rollo Pyro) give grain that is very similar to that of D76 1:1 and other popular traditional developers. The old ABC Pyro gives a lot of grain, and is also very fickle because of the low concentration of sulfite which changes to sodium sulfate when stored. I would recommend avoiding ABC Pyro unless you develop a lot of film and clearly understand how it works.

Finally, although this is outside the interest of APUG film developed in staining developers scans with finer grain than film developed in a traditional developer to the same contrast.This is a potentially an important consideration for people who print in the darkroom and digitally, or who just print digitally.

That said, I believe that there are some real advantages to pyro staining developers for some applications, say if you want to print in both silver and an alternative process with the same negative, or if you need to highlight compression with VC silver papers, or if you just need more contrast for alternative processes. And, even though the difference may not be great, the tanning of the gelatin that accompanies staining gives negatives of higher resolution than those developed in traditional developers. I have tested and confirmed this for myself by contact printing high resolution targets (220 lines per millimeter). In these tests PMK and Pyrocat-HD consistent gave about 10-15% higher resolution than D76 1:1 and Xtol 1:2. The issue is that in order to fully take advantage of this fact one would have to print very large. In this regard the advantage of Pyro over other developers may actually be greater for 35mm and MF, where we expect a lot of enlargement, than for LF. BTW, in one of his tests of pyro versus traditional developers even Howard Bond recognized that above a certain size the prints made with pyro developed negatives were sharper than made with the non-staining developers he used.

Sandy King

Another thing I just thought of is that the stain is a hardener as well, so you don't need to use one in your fix.

Zone 15

timbo10ca said:

I was going on the assumption here that you are familiar with the zone system. If you are not, I apologize and will try to elaborate.

Essentially, say you have a scene with a huge range from light (specular highlights on wet pavement) to dark (deep shadow due to bright mid-afternoon sun) regions in a scene (many "zones" of one stop each). The number one thing you want to do is make sure you don't underexpose the shadows and get straight black- no detail. You do this at the expense of really over exposing those highlights. Traditionally you reduce the development to settle down the highlights. You can do this a number of ways (reduced time, or reduced agitation) but sometimes you just can't do *anything* to save those highs, because they are SO bright. But you want that detail in the print- enter pyro developers- they preserve the highlight detail in the negative so you can get them into the print (obviously will take some fandangling, but at least it's possible, where otherwise it may not be in a non-staining developer). It is commonly found that without manipulation, you can print detail from zone 3 (shadow with detail) to zone 8 (highlight with detail) because paper has a range of 5 stops (less than what you can capture on the neg- depending on what developer and technique you use). Zone 10 is paper white. Zones beyond that are super bright areas in the scene. This neg that Gordon Hutchings printed had a spread of like 15 zones or something crazy, but you could see detail in the highlights on the neg, and he was able to print them. Essentially he didn't bother with alot of contracted development because the knew the detail would be there. He just printed down the highlights, and there it was.....

Tim

Click to expand...

Hi Tim: I am familiar with the zone system, and that's why I asked what zone 15 is!! How does Gordon tell zone 14 from zone 15?

Thanks for the interesting answer. Much appreciated.

<The attitude of some people appears to be that unless one can demonstrate and prove a tangible improvement in final print quality there is no reason to use pyro staining developers. However, even if this class of developers were no better than traditional developers the fact remains that many of the formulas are very easy to use, are very long lived and quite inexpensive. Most of the formulas have shelf life of at least a year and will give the same results when a year old as when just mixed. And with one liter stock solutions one has enough to develop literally hundreds of rolls of film so you don't have to mix often. Compare that to a formula like D76 which is both more expensive to mix and will not give the same results six months after mixing as when fresh.>

Sandy: I would agree with your statement, and certainly-as I stated-that is a reason to use Pyro developers. You are the expert regarding Pyro developers, and I would not have the experience, or knowledge, to comment on your other statements. Of course, as you opine, the scanning issue is one that effects only some of us. Moreover, if one does really only need the negative for "traditional" silver enlarging than, as stated, the need for pyro for alternate process is obviated. There seems to be lots of agreement that Pyro offers advantages for UV alternate process work, and to be able to resolve 220lines/mm is obviously amazing.

Thanks for giving all of us the benefit of your experience Sandy.

Ed

Ed,

To avoid any confusion, I tested with 220 lines per millimeter targets. With Kodak Tmax-100 film, which theoretically can resolve about 200 lines per millimeter, I got about 160 lines per millimeter with PMK and Pyrocat-HD, about 135 lines per millimeter with D76 and Xtol. This was with contact printing the target, using a point source light about 50 inches from the target, and optimizing exposure and development to give maximum resolution.

My point was that the Pyro formulas are capable of delivering a bit more resolution but to see this on the print would require a lot of magnification.

The other point was simply that the modern pyro formulas are great general purpose developers that are in most cases easier to use an less expensive than traditional developers, especially those like D76 that contain a lot of sulfite.


Sandy

Mahler_one said:

There seems to be lots of agreement that Pyro offers advantages for UV alternate process work, and to be able to resolve 220lines/mm is obviously amazing.

Thanks for giving all of us the benefit of your experience Sandy.

Ed

Click to expand...

Mahler_one said:

How does Gordon tell zone 14 from zone 15?

Click to expand...

With a Pentax spot meter

Not sure how many EV steps are on those...... Good question. Probably more due to many years of experience.

Sandy, Timbo...thanks. Great reading.

I have often read that Pyro developers such as PMK flatten the highlight areas when printing on VC papers (I believe Howard Bond has written this as has Barry Thornton and perhaps others). In my own work (I am not a very good printer and do little these days) I have not particularly noticed this. In various posts above only Mr Gainer mentions this as being not true. Perhaps I missed other comments regarding this and am wondering if there is wide agreement one way or the other and should this feature of Pyro developers be thought of as an 'urban myth'?

There is a lot of mixing of human factors and physical measurement factors going on here. The clear vision of the human eye subtends about 1 arc minute around any fixation point. Look at this colon : from 12 inch distance. You cannot see both dots clearly at the same time. You will become conscious of scanning from one dot to the other if you want to see if one is different from the other. Consequently, the eye moves rapidly from one point to another in any photograph, adjusting its f:stop at each point. It is blind while pivoting from one fixation point to another. Sleight-of-hand experts make use of this fact.

The perceptible difference of brightness of two adjacent points is a function of the brightness level, and is actually a ratio rather than a difference. As a consequence, there is no point in trying to show 15 distinguishable levels of brightness in a photograph as camera and film "see" them. The result will be perceived as a very dull photo by a human observer.

In particular instances, such as a photo of a wall with a window to a much brighter scene, we can dodge the interior scene while burning the exterior scene in printing or vice versa in photographing, so that both scenes will "fit" the printing paper. Such a ploy allows the contrast of each scene of the print to be more like the contrast of each part of the original. The density range of the film is very much greater than that of paper, so the problem is in the playback medium, not the recording.

This kind of manipulation can be accomplished in a dxxxxxxl camera because the pixels that record the scene also measure its brightness.

My opinion is that no one can claim to portray a 15 Zone scene on paper without dodging and/or burning in the printing.

gainer said:

My opinion is that no one can claim to portray a 15 Zone scene on paper without dodging and/or burning in the printing.

Click to expand...

No doubt. But at least you can do it selectively to fit your vision if the information is there in the negative. If it isn't, you don't have any options.

The questions then are what is the binary number that represents the ratio of the maximum usable density of film to its minimum usable density, and what fraction of that is its just noticeable difference, and how do these characteristics translate to the same characteristics of the printing material ? Will simply capturing the entire desired SBR on film grarantee that the previsualized print can always be obtained?

Don't get me wrong. I think pyro staining developers are great. I just like to tease. I don't always agree with expressed reasons for the greatness.

gainer said:

The questions then are what is the binary number that represents the ratio of the maximum usable density of film to its minimum usable density, and what fraction of that is its just noticeable difference, and how do these characteristics translate to the same characteristics of the printing material ? Will simply capturing the entire desired SBR on film grarantee that the previsualized print can always be obtained?

Don't get me wrong. I think pyro staining developers are great. I just like to tease. I don't always agree with expressed reasons for the greatness.

Click to expand...

That is definitely beyond my exper-tease ba dum dum