Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,566   Posts: 1,545,414   Online: 1011
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Düsseldorf, Germany
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,021
    Images
    1
    Roy I agree with you entirely. I rarely try something new and when I do I do intensively for a week or two. If the new procedure shows no discernible difference from my normal methods or if the differences do not justify the extra work involved (if any) I will have seen it by then. As you are aware I have been doing real-scene comparisons of Pyrocat HD using BTZS style tubes with gentle versus minimal agitation. I have exposed like a banshee the last two weeks and processed and printed them. Except in one or two cases I cannot see a difference in print quality. What the experiment taught me was that all I needed to achieve the same level of sharpness and ooomph as a minimally agitated negative was to expose my negatives a half stop more and agitate them a little less gently. In addition, whatever quality differences exist does not justify the extra use of solution nor the extra time involved for processing using minimal agitation. I refuse to get bogged down with experimentation so I try to do it intensively and for a limited short time period.
    Francesco

  2. #12
    roy
    roy is offline
    roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    West Sussex
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,305
    [quote="Francesco"] I rarely try something new and... If the new procedure shows no discernible difference from my normal methods or if the differences do not justify the extra work involved (if any) I will have seen it by then.

    You may guess what is coming next......
    As a potential Pyrocat user, I have to ask if you consider the switch to that to be a step forward in your case and, if so, how ?
    Roy Groombridge.

    Cogito, ergo sum.
    (Descartes)

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Düsseldorf, Germany
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,021
    Images
    1
    The caveat Roy is that it involves a switch to AZO as well as the use of Efke PL100 film - switch to contact printing is really what it is. When I enlarged my 8x10 negatives the films I used were Tmax 100 developed in RS and Ilford FP4 and HP5 developed in a variety of devs. The decision for me was whether I was happy with the prints I was making and whether a revamp of my preferred method (enlarging) was necessary. And so I said to myself if I really wanted to see a difference between methods I should really go for it. By doing so I will definitely spot major differences. Pyrocat was chosen because it was available here in Europe in liquid form (Lotus View Camera) and because I was fascinated with the articles written about it. Efke because it was cheap (if it turned out wrong then the financial outlay was not that great). And AZO because I have seen a print made in AZO.

    Results: my old enlarged prints are dull, flat and lifeless compared to my AZO contact prints. I still cannot believe what I have achieved using these materials.

    You never know though. I might go back to enlarging again one day...if they ever get that AZO enlarger light source to market (hehe).

  4. #14
    roy
    roy is offline
    roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    West Sussex
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,305
    [quote="Francesco"].
    Results: my old enlarged prints are dull, flat and lifeless compared to my AZO contact prints. I still cannot believe what I have achieved using these materials.

    Reasons enough. That sums it up well, Francis. Thanks.
    Roy Groombridge.

    Cogito, ergo sum.
    (Descartes)

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    I too, wanted to keep the film development technique to a simple process, minimizing time and effort. this would allow me to spend my limited available time taking pictures and printing. more rewarding activities then developing film.

    my detailed testing of film/developer/paper combinations about a year and a half ago convinced me of the following:
    1. that for a moderate enlargement (in my case 5x7 neg to 11x14 print) a pyro developer gave a sharper print than D76 or XTOL or HC110.
    2. at this moderate degree of enlargement tri-x APPEARED sharper than a very fine grained film.
    3. Pyrocat HD is the ONLY pyro type developer that I can rotary process in a JOBO without worrying about uneven development. Rollo pyro was second best and PMK was an abysmal failure.
    4. Rotary development gives me more even development than I could ever achieve by tray processing.

  6. #16
    bmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,156
    Images
    9
    so what is the shelf life on the liquid concentrate rollo pyro kit?
    hi!

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    at least 6 months.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    [quote="Deckled Edge"]
    Quote Originally Posted by bmac
    I'm really itching to try some negs in pyro.

    I encourage you to exercise your curiosity, as I did. After 9 years of ABC & PMK I have hundreds of olive green negatives. Then one day I exclaimed, "This is too much work!" I went back to HC110 and TXP. Now I have hundreds of non-olive green negatives as well. When I print them I cannot, and I would defy you to, tell which are which. In retrospect, it WAS too much work. But, knock yourself out and make your own decision.

    Apart fromt the question of image quality, which all of us would agree should be the major issue, I am curious to know exactly what you found to be too much work about the use of ABC and PMK. When I first began using PMK my first reaction was that it was a lot easier to use than the conventional developers that I had been using up to the time (D76, HC110, etc.), because of the stability of the stock solutions and the ease and consistent of the mixed working solutions. And I feel the same way today about PyrocatHD.

    In other words, from my own perspective developers like PMK and PyrocatHD are no more trouble to use than conventional developers and are in fact in many ways easier to use. They are highly consistent, have very long shelf life, and are among the most economical of all developers.

    But let me say this about developers, and it also applies to developing technique. All of the general purpose developers are about 97-99% alike. But it is that extra 1-3% difference that can distinguish beteween ordinary work and outstanding craftmanship. Therefore when comparing developers and methods of development expect subtle rather than major differences. People have been developing film a very long time. If major improvements in technique were possible they likely would have been discovered by now.

    Sandy King

  9. #19
    lee
    lee is offline
    lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,913
    Images
    8
    I agree with Sandy here. I use PMK for everything now and have for many years. It is no harder to use than any other developer and the results I get are better with this than most of the other developers.

    lee\c

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Francesco
    As you are aware I have been doing real-scene comparisons of Pyrocat HD using BTZS style tubes with gentle versus minimal agitation. I have exposed like a banshee the last two weeks and processed and printed them. Except in one or two cases I cannot see a difference in print quality. What the experiment taught me was that all I needed to achieve the same level of sharpness and ooomph as a minimally agitated negative was to expose my negatives a half stop more and agitate them a little less gently..

    Francesco,

    I gather from your comments that you are backing away from earlier conclusions in which you reported distinctive differences between negatives developed with minimal agitation in comparison to those developed with gentle rotary agitation?

    Curiously I am coming to the other conclusion. In examining my negatives I can see a very significant difference in apparent sharpness in negatives developed with extreme minimal agitation when compared to those developed with gentle rotary agitation. More importantly, the difference is not one of overall contrast since I am normalizing CI of my comparison negatives. Rather, the difference results form micro-contrast that apparently results from adjacency effects.

    Does the greater apparent sharpness of the negative carry over to the print? My initial answer to that question is yes, with the qualification that some types of subject will illustrate the difference more than others. Subjects in my experience that tend to benefit most from adjacency effects are those that contain a lot of adjacent highlight and shadow areas, especially when fine detail is involved.

    Is the difference worth the extra trouble in processing? Hard to say. I think the only way to know for sure is make the comparisons and evaluate the results.

    Sandy

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin