Wimberley WD2+ Pyro

[danlidon]

I just tried out some of the photographer's formulary john wimberley pyro developer. Has anyone else tried this, and what kinds of results did you get? I've never used pyro developer before or any developer that gives a stain. I'm pretty sure I developed my negatives correctly, but I'm not sure what the best way to print them would be. I've tried a print with a couple different filters and can't seem to get one I like. Any thoughts?

 

[keithwms]

How are you printing? Graded paper? Multigrade? And what's wrong with your prints... can you scan one and show us, or describe it?

I have really enjoyed wd2d+.

 

[Robert Brummitt]

I also use WD2D+ with great results. It would be helpful if you supplied a sample image or description of the issue.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

It gives beautiful results. Tri-X , FP4. It's a no brainer pyro.

 

[danlidon]

I'll scan a negative and a print tomorrow. They just seemed a little flat to me, a lot of grays and no sharp blacks.

 

[mikebarger]

Did you test for film speed and development time?

Mike

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

They always look flat. Print you will be surprised.

 

[craigclu]

I had the same experience some years back when I chose PF's kit of WD2D+. The packets were brown and discolored quite a bit and my very thin negatives were literally not salvageable. I called there with my concern of getting some oxidized chemistry and was told that the negatives would appear thin but I never got it to work for me. I had good initial success with PyroCat and the very similar Prescysol. I'm still suspicious of getting some badly packaged/stored materials.... I've been meaning to mix up some WD2D for fun (the formula is public and available) but never seem to get to it. I've read where the "+" simply has EDTA to make it more predictable with various water supplies. Please keep us posted on what you learn as I'm curious about similar experiences to mine.

 

[danlidon]

the first one is a negative scanned with no editing. the second one was edited to show that there is still some detail in there. it seems like there is a salvageable print in there somewhere. i need to spend some more time in the darkroom playing around with it. i think my main problem is that i didn't chose a good subject for this developer. blonde girls in black clothes on white backgrounds are never easy to print. i'll have to get out a shoot and landscape this week and then i'll give the developer another try.

 

[pgomena]

If you have good control of lighting and exposure in the studio, the subject and developer should be irrelevant. Don't blame the chemicals if you haven't done a thorough test of the materials and how they behave. Your example looks underexposed and underdeveloped to me.

Peter Gomena

 

[jim appleyard]

I used this dev once and liked it very much. Ran some TX thru it from a wedding and the black tux and white gown look great; lots of detail, nothing blown out.

At the moment, I have too much other chemistry to go thru now, but I would like to get more of this fine dev. in the future

 

[Robert Brummitt]

What format are the two images?

 

[RobertP]

I've used John's developer for years. I mix and use the original formula. It is used 1:1:15. Which means with the + formula not only does it have edta to expand the shelf life it is also a more concentrated formula. But either formula produces beautiful stain.