Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,557   Posts: 1,573,248   Online: 977
      
Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 6101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 172
  1. #151
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,503
    Images
    299
    Thinking out loud here:

    Perhaps using a film such as TMax 400 (TMY-2) presents an advantage with extreme contrast scenes. It records a very large brightness range in linear fashion, (I think 14 stops), which is more than most, if not all, other films. Would that make a difference in the necessity of using a developer to help contracting such extreme contrast, while getting less of the blooming effect? Or is this purely a developer related phenomenon?
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  2. #152

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Carnie View Post
    Ok , I am going back quite a bit here so bear with me.

    I got turned on to Pyro by Gordon Hutchings early 90's, at that time I had a small shop in Toronto printing for commercial photographers , before photoshop so there was big budgets and lots of film, I was using a lot of graded paper at the time and experimenting with split printing.

    I do not believe everything I read or hear, so when people were boasting of the benifits of pyro I was curious.

    so I did a lot of testing, and I mean a lot, included were some pretty good fine art photographers who were working only in BW.
    We secured tons of films and did basically the one light source or high lighting range situation with different films and developers, we underexposed, normal exposed, overexposed with different times , under normal and push.
    Then we made prints to 20 x24 to look at the results.

    I followed Gordon Hutchings notes to a tee, and included this new to me developer into the mix.

    In every case where strong lighting conditions were the source, myself and each photographer picked the pyro negs.. that were overexposed and drop developed as per Hutchings notes.
    In every case the highlights were better defined and so too were the shadows.
    This was with graded paper and all efforts were made to match the overall print.

    Later came split printing which is not part of this thread, but it too opened more doors.

    I think that each and everyone watching this thread should do this test, and see what their eyes are telling them, Pyro or Pyrocat vs Xtol or D76- same scene and pump up the lighting contrast.
    Put the negatives and make prints, try to match and see which one works for you.

    Michael I only can say that in every situation where there is strong lighting I recommend a staining/tannin/hardening developer with overexposure and under dev.
    I am printing a show right now , 8x10 tri x in Pyro, indoor with window light only no flash and extreme long exposures to get the image.
    I am absolutely certain that if we used D76 , the prints would not have the range that I am pulling out of them.
    When you are at the extremes and trying to make a full tone print, there is a point of no return, blacks block up , highlights bloom and flare and go soft no matter how hard you try to burn in.

    Remember the days of 7 to 8 stop burn ins on graded paper to bring in detail?
    People resorting to hot water and finger development, muddy highlights.
    Highlights not coming in no matter wtf you did.

    When I brought Pyro into our workflow and split printing on VC paper those days are gone.
    Probably dosen't answer you well but I am believing my eyes , rather than scientific proof or what is written, remember I did not immediately believe what Hutchings had to say.
    Fred Picker wrote a lot about printing, I have all his notes, and books, his best advice was to test for yourself and see the results.
    Bob, agreed each person really needs to try it for him/herself. I strongly believe in individual testing since I don't believe most of what I read either.

    For what it's worth, I did alot of testing similar to what you describe before I embarked upon serious work with night scenes, indoor etc under extreme contrast conditions. I used VC paper only though. I was curious to see if I could make things work without staining developers because I was going to be using mostly 35mm for this stuff and needed finer grain. Sexton's work with extreme contrast lighting was my inspiration, since I had honestly never (and still haven't) seen anything better, and he was using plain old TMAX RS, diluted, with reduced agitation.

    After alot of experiments I found that although it was sometimes a bit easier to bring in subtle high value detail with the stained negatives (depending on the scene), with some extra work I was able to get results as good with non-stained negatives, with careful exposure and development (I currently use diluted Perceptol). I agree though D76 in particular would not be my first choice for this work - although it can produce very sharp, low contrast results with some compensating effects at 1+3. Now I'm not going to delude myself into thinking diluted Perceptol is as sharp as Pyro. It is not, but it is reasonably sharp, and much finer grained than the staining alternatives.

    Here is an example print. Note this is a crap quality scan as I have no idea what I'm doing. But there is alot of depth to the low values, including fine mesh in the transom above the door, while at the same time there is detail, and value differences even within the lightbulb itself, although it may not show well here. The starring around the lightbulb was unavoidable due to the small aperture. This is by no means an easy print to make, but I was able to get as good a result as with Pyro (I made PMK and Windisch Comp. negatives of the same scene), exactly as envisioned. I've done the same tests with other negatives that were made under even more extreme contrast and got the same results.

    Anyhow, interesting discussion. I enjoy taking about this stuff even though we all know in the end technique and skill make the print, as Thomas rightly points out.

    PS if you click on this thumbnail it enlarges a little distorted and screwed up so it seems you have to then click again to view it properly - ie open it in a new window.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Apartment doorway.jpg  
    Last edited by Michael R 1974; 08-02-2011 at 12:56 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #153
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,394
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Thinking out loud here:

    Perhaps using a film such as TMax 400 (TMY-2) presents an advantage with extreme contrast scenes. It records a very large brightness range in linear fashion, (I think 14 stops), which is more than most, if not all, other films. Would that make a difference in the necessity of using a developer to help contracting such extreme contrast, while getting less of the blooming effect? Or is this purely a developer related phenomenon?

    I don't use TMax films any longer, but I've found that the highlights withDelat 100 & 400, and also HP5, in Pyrocat HD in cases of extreme highlight contrast have been easier to print with better detail and less prone to what I guess you calling blooming - light scatter/halation.

    Ian

  4. #154
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,687
    Images
    14
    That room situation is exactly the range I am talking about and encourage a lot of workers to get detail in the bulb and shadows.
    If you have both with technique then all you have to do is work on your vision.

    BTW most of my work is with print solarization so the original neg is not as critical as would with night scenes or extreme lighting.
    I am now thinking to fog the neg(solarize) then fog the print (solarize) at 30 x40 size to see what effect I can get.

  5. #155

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,005
    Hey wait a minute are you saying my vision needs work?

    By the way my experience is similar to Ian's above. There's a proposed explanation for this in Anchell/Troop regarding the size of the grain surface and relative to its depth. Apparently Kodak's T-grains are flatter and larger relative to Ilford's Delta grains, which are a little smaller in surface area and thicker. This apparently explains why retention of fine highlight detail and tonality is slightly easier with Delta. In my experience it is splitting hairs though and I use mostly TMAX. Who knows if the explanation is correct, to what degree it makes a difference. After all Anchell also feels the flat grain films are materially inferior in tonality to "traditional" emulsions, and I don't buy this based on the print evidence I've seen.

  6. #156
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,793
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    I don't use TMax films any longer, but I've found that the highlights withDelat 100 & 400, and also HP5, in Pyrocat HD in cases of extreme highlight contrast have been easier to print with better detail and less prone to what I guess you calling blooming - light scatter/halation.

    Ian
    So Ian, is this because of the curve shouldering, allowing the image to fit the paper curve better?
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  7. #157
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,394
    Images
    148
    I don't do curves Mark, only in the past with ex-girl friends and now the wife, and it tends to mean a clip around the earss, and they get touchy if we spot differences

    More seriously I think it's something at the top of the curve that gets missed with conventional densitometry. It might surprise you that we rely on a more visual tesing approach here inEurope with almost no densitometty. JohnBlakemore, perhaps the finest everv exponent of the Zone System does everything with visual comparisons.

    My own view is those using densitometers have no confidence in their own abilities they never leave the nest and fly . . . . . . .

    Ian

  8. #158
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,793
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Thanks Ian.

    The reason I asked is that I don't make curves either and the look is how I've ended up with Delta.

    The thing that curves have done for me is provide a language to talk about exposure, placement, printing...
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  9. #159
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,394
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    The thing that curves have done for me is provide a language to talk about exposure, placement, printing...
    That's very true, but with staining developers curves don't tell us eveything, the colour of the stain has an effect at the printing stage and that varies between graded and variable contrast papers and also brand.

    Ian

  10. #160

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,883
    Images
    23
    great thread !

    SNIP
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    The weird part of using pyro PMK is after fixing, you dunk the film back into the developer.

    i have never heard of this ...
    how long do you put it back in the developer for ?

    i've never used pyro developers but use coffee developers
    which some people suggest is like its the 3rd cousin 4 times removed ..
    i might try this sometime ...



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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