Why Pyro?

Mahler_one · Mar 5, 2009

Mr. G...interesting and erudite posts. I thank you very much for responding. Do I understand that you are saying that some of the claimed differences with Pyro are NOT susceptible to being proved by human vision? Moreover, it is interesting to hear that there is no easily perceivable and definable zone 15....with the utmost respect to Tim who has heard Gordon SAY that there were 15 zones, but that 15 zones were not able to be discerned objectively, nor proven by scientific measurements. Thanks so much Tim for the information. Thus, if the human eye cannot see the differences claimed for prints developed in Pyro ( I hope I understood what you wrote Mr. G....remember...conventional silver printing ), then one must extend such observations to conclude that there is no artistic reason to use Pyro. Please...I am only trying to obtain some objective information here, and I am not casting any aspersions towards those who use and like Pyro. However, many have claimed magical properties to conventional prints made with Pyro developed negatives. The reality might be that one is capable of making the exact same prints from negatives developed in D 76. Of course, one might need some different exposures and contrast settings...but, in practiced hands, the prints will look exactly the same! Just as Howard Bond has stated many times. When a well respected and highly acclaimed photographer such as Sandy King writes about Pyrocat then all of us sit up and listen. Pyro developers last longer, are probably cheaper in the long run, etc., etc. However, the conventional silver prints made from Pyro developed negatives will NOT look any different. There simply MIGHT not ( I am still hedging my bets in deference to all of the wonderful and acclaimed photographers who state that Pyro does allow one to make prints that have a different look. I am a beginner with not enough experience to really know. ) be any magical look to the prints developed from Pryo developed negatives. That same "look" can be obtained from negatives developed in conventional D76.

To me, the situation with Pyro has an uncanny resemblance to the situation regarding split grade printing. From my reading I have found that, some time back, skilled printers argued that prints made using the split grade technique were capable of capturing a different look then prints made on VC paper using more conventional printing techniques. As I have read, such claims took on the mantra of "truth" until it was shown by Phil Davis and others that prints obtained using the classic split grade printing were NO different from the results obtained using conventional use of filters. Note that I did not say that using split grade printing was not "easier", more "fun". more "intuitive", etc. for those who use the technique. I am saying that studies have conclusively shown that the same unique results that were claimed for split grade printing can be obtained by the more conventional means of using two grades of filters at the same time. To the dismay of those who claim that a benefit can be seen in the final print as a result of split grade printing, such claims are simply not true. Paper and developer can only reproduce so many tones.

Ed

gainer · Mar 5, 2009

The original concept of Zones was born of a musical analogy. Imagine 2^15 Zones captured on a piece of paper which has a maximum reflection density of about 2 and a minimum of about 0.05. That is a ratio of about 40, which is between 2^5 and 2^6. If you compress Zone 15 into Zone 6 by contrast control, Zone 14 will not be in Zone 5, but will be very close to Zone 15 because there are now 15 steps between 0 and 6.

timbo10ca · Mar 5, 2009

Mahler_one said:
Mr. G...interesting and erudite posts. I thank you very much for responding. Do I understand that you are saying that some of the claimed differences with Pyro are NOT susceptible to being proved by human vision? Moreover, it is interesting to hear that there is no easily perceivable and definable zone 15....with the utmost respect to Tim who has heard Gordon SAY that there were 15 zones, but that 15 zones were not able to be discerned objectively, nor proven by scientific measurements. Thanks so much Tim for the information. Thus, if the human eye cannot see the differences claimed for prints developed in Pyro ( I hope I understood what you wrote Mr. G....remember...conventional silver printing ), then one must extend such observations to conclude that there is no artistic reason to use Pyro. Please...I am only trying to obtain some objective information here, and I am not casting any aspersions towards those who use and like Pyro. However, many have claimed magical properties to conventional prints made with Pyro developed negatives. The reality might be that one is capable of making the exact same prints from negatives developed in D 76. Of course, one might need some different exposures and contrast settings...but, in practiced hands, the prints will look exactly the same! Just as Howard Bond has stated many times. When a well respected and highly acclaimed photographer such as Sandy King writes about Pyrocat then all of us sit up and listen. Pyro developers last longer, are probably cheaper in the long run, etc., etc. However, the conventional silver prints made from Pyro developed negatives will NOT look any different. There simply MIGHT not ( I am still hedging my bets in deference to all of the wonderful and acclaimed photographers who state that Pyro does allow one to make prints that have a different look. I am a beginner with not enough experience to really know. ) be any magical look to the prints developed from Pryo developed negatives. That same "look" can be obtained from negatives developed in conventional D76.

To me, the situation with Pyro has an uncanny resemblance to the situation regarding split grade printing. From my reading I have found that, some time back, skilled printers argued that prints made using the split grade technique were capable of capturing a different look then prints made on VC paper using more conventional printing techniques. As I have read, such claims took on the mantra of "truth" until it was shown by Phil Davis and others that prints obtained using the classic split grade printing were NO different from the results obtained using conventional use of filters. Note that I did not say that using split grade printing was not "easier", more "fun". more "intuitive", etc. for those who use the technique. I am saying that studies have conclusively shown that the same unique results that were claimed for split grade printing can be obtained by the more conventional means of using two grades of filters at the same time. To the dismay of those who claim that a benefit can be seen in the final print as a result of split grade printing, such claims are simply not true. Paper and developer can only reproduce so many tones.

Ed

I'd like to address both paragraphs. First of all, I'm not sure why more than the traditional 10 zones (12, 15, or whatever) cannot exist in a scene (i.e. cannot be perceived and defined). The statement of zone 15 should not be taken literally- it could be 14 or 16- I think it was 15 in this one scene Gordon showed us a negative of, but it may have even been higher. The point being that there are scenes with potential for huge luminance ranges. If you want to capture detail across the board and have it available for printing, using whatever technique is present, pyro negs are supposed to help you do that. Personally, I've never looked through my meter and tackled such problems, but I've seen prints of Gordon's, and Steve Sherman describes some pretty big zone captures too (I think he actually had a zone 15 highlight in his newsletter last month IIRC). Measuring such SBR's are likely done through experience and puting ND filters in front of the meter (well, that's what I'd do anyway....).

Regarding split grade printing: when you consider what you're doing with it, you're simply making fractional grades that may have taken many attempts to find using a dichroic head- there are no "settings" for grade 3. 68 but you may find that's the sweet spot for a particular print. You're just splitting a contrast grade print into its 2 respective exposures- a magenta and a yellow. Once picked up, I don't know of anybody who doesn't find it faster. Your print would look no different from the one made if you dialed it in for a single exposure. The ease is what makes people using it think they're getting better prints from it- much less fussing around and you can get some very fine tuning done.

Tim

JBrunner · Mar 5, 2009

Hi Ed,

To address the difference in a silver print, I would say no, or at least, no, not until your printing skills are at a point where subtle differences can be exploited. Pyro isn't a magic bullet that will turn a mediocre exposure on its ear. A good printer can make a really good print out of any decently envisioned and properly exposed and developed negative. Differences in developers are a lot like seasoning in cooking. Because a great chef uses rosemary on pork doesn't mean my pork will be near like his, just because I used rosemary too. Pyro developers are great, but the magic bullet is you.

timbo10ca · Mar 5, 2009

gainer said:
The original concept of Zones was born of a musical analogy. Imagine 2^15 Zones captured on a piece of paper which has a maximum reflection density of about 2 and a minimum of about 0.05. That is a ratio of about 40, which is between 2^5 and 2^6. If you compress Zone 15 into Zone 6 by contrast control, Zone 14 will not be in Zone 5, but will be very close to Zone 15 because there are now 15 steps between 0 and 6.

Yes, but we are speaking in terms of units of exposure in one stop "steps" (I'm simplifying to each step being one tone, not the actual zone it is). I don't have to be able to visually discern zone 14 from zone 15 or 16 to know there is detail in that highlight I want to print during local contrast control and not globally. I'm thinking of Gordon's example of wet pavement in bright sun. He had to really print down that area (can't remember how- probably burning) to get detail in the pavement. So although very bright to look proper, there was detail. Yes, it may have been the same tone on the paper as what he got from a zone 8 area in the negative, but he was able to fit a very bright highlight onto the tonal range of the paper. It may be a major contraction in that area, but the *detail was there to use*. Paper can't see more than a 5 stop range but the human eye can, and although not a literal representation on paper, he more accurately printed what we would have seen if we were there at that time. Areas of brightness greater than zone 9 don't just go white to our eyes. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well.....

timbo10ca · Mar 5, 2009

JBrunner said:
Hi Ed,

To address the difference in a silver print, I would say no, or at least, no, not until your printing skills are at a point where subtle differences can be exploited. Pyro isn't a magic bullet that will turn a mediocre exposure on its ear. A good printer can make a really good print out of any decently envisioned and properly exposed and developed negative. Differences in developers are a lot like seasoning in cooking. Because a great chef uses rosemary on pork doesn't mean my pork will be near like his, just because I used rosemary too. Pyro developers are great, but the magic bullet is you.

Amen

gainer · Mar 6, 2009

timbo10ca said:
Yes, but we are speaking in terms of units of exposure in one stop "steps" (I'm simplifying to each step being one tone, not the actual zone it is). I don't have to be able to visually discern zone 14 from zone 15 or 16 to know there is detail in that highlight I want to print during local contrast control and not globally. I'm thinking of Gordon's example of wet pavement in bright sun. He had to really print down that area (can't remember how- probably burning) to get detail in the pavement. So although very bright to look proper, there was detail. Yes, it may have been the same tone on the paper as what he got from a zone 8 area in the negative, but he was able to fit a very bright highlight onto the tonal range of the paper. It may be a major contraction in that area, but the *detail was there to use*. Paper can't see more than a 5 stop range but the human eye can, and although not a literal representation on paper, he more accurately printed what we would have seen if we were there at that time. Areas of brightness greater than zone 9 don't just go white to our eyes. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well.....

1 stop IS a factor of 2 in exposure. For the most realistic reproduction of a scene, the print will have to have the same range of reflection densities that we would see in the original scene. A print on the whitest paper and with the least development fog can show no more than about 7 Zones, and part of that is in the non-linear range of the paper scale.

By reducing local contrast in the print below the actual scene contrast, we can fool the eye to some extent. That is why most negatives are developed to a contrast ratio of 0.56 or so.

It's getting late. I can't think straight. Good night.

k_jupiter · Mar 6, 2009

domaz said:
I should know, I ruined a bunch of negatives with Pyrocat even though I thought I was being very careful. I'm going back to D-76 and DD-X, developers that are downright hard to mess up.

I yam cornfused. Are you saying you are not smart enough to use pyro developers or not careful enough? In either case, I might suggest caffinol where you can drink your mistakes.

I have done some side by side with Wd2d+ and Rodinal on the same scene shot at the same exposure at the same time on two sheets of 3x4 film. The differences were amazing. The bottom end values on the Rodinal dropped out where I have at least 2 distinct levels of gray using the pyro formula.

I do use Rodinal for my 135 and some 120 films but for my 4x5 I use Wd2d+ or Pyrocat HD (depending on whether I am rolling my film or developing in a tank like MF film (inversion processing).
The Best of all three worlds.

tim in san jose

sanking · Mar 6, 2009

To clarify, or perhaps to add to the confusion.

First, the subject brightness range that can be captured on film is very high. I have had no difficulty at all in capturing SBR ranges of 15 and more. One simply exposes for the shadows and then develops the highlights to the density range desired for the process in mind. Whatever process you use will mean compressing the tonal scale of the subject, from the scene to the negative and again to the print.

In theory one should not have any difficulty in printing a negative that has been exposed and developed to the right DR for the scene and process, regardless of the original SBR of the scene. In practice this may result in less contrast in some areas of the print than desired. Thus, dodging and burning with split filtration may be necessary to make a print with a pleasing tonal scale.

Second, pyro staining developers give a kind of automatic highlight compensation with VC silver papers that can not be obtained with any other kind of developer, even compensating ones. This is due to the color of the stain and the way it interacts with the blue and green sensitive components of the emulsion of VC silver papers. This has been discussed several times on APUG and has been the subject of some misunderstanding. You do not get this type of highlight compensation with pyro developers when printing with graded silver papers, only with VC papers.

Sandy King

markbarendt · Mar 6, 2009

Does pyro work well with t-grain films?

Went looking for times on the MDC and it doesn't look like pyro gets much use for pushing, is that a fair assesment?

gainer · Mar 6, 2009

domaz said:
Be careful switching developers. Pyro by it's nature is much more fickle than the mainstream developers. You will either be mixing from scratch, which is error prone, or mixing parts A and B which isn't hard but if you cross-contaimanate, your negatives are done. I should know, I ruined a bunch of negatives with Pyrocat even though I thought I was being very careful. I'm going back to D-76 and DD-X, developers that are downright hard to mess up.

A single solution concentrate with characteristics very much like PMK can be made by substituting p-aminophenol base for the Metol and a small amount of ascorbic acid for the metabisulfite, then dissolving it in triethanolamine (TEA). Thus:

400 ml TEA.
50 g pyrogallol.
5 g p-aminophenol base.
4 g ascorbic acid.
TEA to 500 ml.

This solution, diluted 1 part to 50 parts of water, is like PMK diluted 1:1:50 . The concentrate has long shelf life. You don't have to remember to add B. P-aminophenol base may be had from Photographer's Formulary.

Phillip P. Dimor · Mar 6, 2009

I've always liked PMK pyro for everything except continous agitation (rollers, tubes, etc.)
I used trays for sheet film which takes getting used to. Those slosher trays look great if you are only doing 1-2 sheets.
Once you mix it, it doesn't last long in a tray although the stock solution lasts a very long time (reminds me of Rodinal).
I used it with 35mm and 120 and I found it was worth using for smaller formats. It has a great look.

There are other pyro formulas better suited for continuous agitation, I haven't used them but definitely would (Pyrocat..) if I had the need/chance.

RJS · Mar 6, 2009

Mr. King: It has been written by some that negatives developed in Pyro lack 'sparkle' in the highlight areas due to the yellow stain you describe when printed on VC papers. This has not been my experience, but I am not anymore (if I ever was) a very fine printer. I have been under the impression that, when developed appropriately and printed with the appropriate filtration on VC paper the highlights would be indistinguishable from an equally 'good' print on graded paper.Is this a fair statement in your opinion?

Mahler_one · Mar 6, 2009

Tim: I do agree with you...split grade printing does make the going faster. However, as you might know, some time back there were those who said that prints made using the split grade techniques achieved a "look" on the paper that was not achievable using the more usual two grades at once. It was that special attribute to split grade printing that I was alluding to, and which was shown to be incorrect. Thanks. I appreciate the comments.

Ed

Mahler_one · Mar 6, 2009

Thanks for the clarification and information Sandy. Much appreciated.

Ed

Mahler_one · Mar 6, 2009

Pyro

JBrunner said:
Hi Ed,

To address the difference in a silver print, I would say no, or at least, no, not until your printing skills are at a point where subtle differences can be exploited. Pyro isn't a magic bullet that will turn a mediocre exposure on its ear. A good printer can make a really good print out of any decently envisioned and properly exposed and developed negative. Differences in developers are a lot like seasoning in cooking. Because a great chef uses rosemary on pork doesn't mean my pork will be near like his, just because I used rosemary too. Pyro developers are great, but the magic bullet is you.

Exactly my points Jason. Thanks for simplifiying. I agree with the "Amen" from Tim!

Mahler_one · Mar 6, 2009

Pyro

timbo10ca said:
Yes, but we are speaking in terms of units of exposure in one stop "steps" (I'm simplifying to each step being one tone, not the actual zone it is). I don't have to be able to visually discern zone 14 from zone 15 or 16 to know there is detail in that highlight I want to print during local contrast control and not globally. I'm thinking of Gordon's example of wet pavement in bright sun. He had to really print down that area (can't remember how- probably burning) to get detail in the pavement. So although very bright to look proper, there was detail. Yes, it may have been the same tone on the paper as what he got from a zone 8 area in the negative, but he was able to fit a very bright highlight onto the tonal range of the paper. It may be a major contraction in that area, but the *detail was there to use*. Paper can't see more than a 5 stop range but the human eye can, and although not a literal representation on paper, he more accurately printed what we would have seen if we were there at that time. Areas of brightness greater than zone 9 don't just go white to our eyes. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well.....

Not sure either Tim....we do agree though...the paper can't see more that a 5stop range...so, even if the eye can see more the 5 stops, there aren't more then 5 stops to see! I just don't get seeing 15 zones on any paper UNLESS one compresses the previously said 15 zones into 5 stops, and calls the lightest tones zone 15. Thus, one takes the 15 zones and divides them into the 5 stops instead of fitting the "conventional" zones into the 5 stops. If such is Gordon's ( or to be fair, anyone elses ) way of fitting 15 zones onto the paper then fine. One can, after all, use the zone system as one wishes just as long as such sytem works for your materials. However, I still think that his brightest bright with detail is no brighter then ours, regardless of what one calls it. There is no brighter white than what a given paper can produce.

Mahler_one · Mar 6, 2009

Before calling it quits tonight, it is quite amazing to see such interesting ( and well reasoned ) responses about Pyro, and what such negatives can achieve in the hands of a skilled printer. It is equally amazing to see what a skilled printer can do with a negative developed in D76. Howard Bond and Phil Davis on the one hand, Gordon, Sandy, and so many other really great photographers who use Pyro on the other. I guess we'll have to be content to "leave it there". Apparently, there is no easy answer about Pyro, and there is no one correct way to do virtually anything. I'll have to do some hard thinking about the zone 15 information that Tim and Mr. G graciously supplied, although I'm not sure that I will ever "get it".

As I said previously, just have fun.

Heartfelt best wishes to all of you.

Ed

Colin Corneau · Mar 6, 2009

I wanted to learn more...and got exactly what I asked for!

sanking · Mar 6, 2009

Hi RJS,

My personal experience is this. Having developed hundreds of negatives in PMK, and later Pyrocat-HD, I have not seen the problem of "lack of sparkle" in the highlights as characteristic of these developers. Dull highlights are possible with any developer, staining or otherwise.

I don't entirely agree with you on the question of highlights in VC versus graded papers. It is true that with appropriate filtration (or split filter printing) one could approximate final results on VC and graded papers. However, the VC papers will print generally with more compensation in the highlights with a staining developer. Which means that one could only replicate results by burning in the highlights when printing with non staining developers.

Having said all that I want to fully recognize that my comments on VC versus graded papers are primarily theoretical in that most all of mu personal works for the last decade has been with alternative printing processes.

Sandy King

RJS said:
Mr. King: It has been written by some that negatives developed in Pyro lack 'sparkle' in the highlight areas due to the yellow stain you describe when printed on VC papers. This has not been my experience, but I am not anymore (if I ever was) a very fine printer. I have been under the impression that, when developed appropriately and printed with the appropriate filtration on VC paper the highlights would be indistinguishable from an equally 'good' print on graded paper.Is this a fair statement in your opinion?

timbo10ca · Mar 7, 2009

Mahler_one said:
Not sure either Tim....we do agree though...the paper can't see more that a 5stop range...so, even if the eye can see more the 5 stops, there aren't more then 5 stops to see! I just don't get seeing 15 zones on any paper UNLESS one compresses the previously said 15 zones into 5 stops, and calls the lightest tones zone 15. Thus, one takes the 15 zones and divides them into the 5 stops instead of fitting the "conventional" zones into the 5 stops. If such is Gordon's ( or to be fair, anyone elses ) way of fitting 15 zones onto the paper then fine. One can, after all, use the zone system as one wishes just as long as such sytem works for your materials. However, I still think that his brightest bright with detail is no brighter then ours, regardless of what one calls it. There is no brighter white than what a given paper can produce.

The point I was trying to make is not whether you can print brighter on the paper, but rather that you can capture brighter in the negative and then print it down onto what the paper can handle. Other developers are supposedly more prone to losing that detail and blowing out in the very bright highlights, giving you nothing to print.

Why Pyro?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency