Printable View
For years Steve Simmons and Gordon Hutchins have been arm twisting me to try Pyro. They have even suggested, in a workshop that we teach together, that I may be some lower life form because I don't use Pyro. So if for perhaps no better reason than to shut them up I'm going to try it. The question is does anyone out there have direct experience using Rollo Pyro in BTZS tubes which is my prefered method of developement?
Kirk,
No experience with BTZS tubes, but a resounding yes to pyro. As to being a lower life form, don't believe them. We know better as you are able to type and use a computer, thus disproving their theory.
Perhaps you could tell us which film choices you prefer for your work, so someone with hard numbers could start you on your way. For your sheet film you might think along the lines of Pyrocat HD (Sandy King's formula) as it will allow you full fim speeds when compared to PMK or ABC.
I tried Rollo Pyro in a Jobo which is close to what you want. I didn't like it and so for a long time I developed TMax in Tmax RS developer. Now that I do alot of 11X14's I needed to find something other than TMax and have settled on Efke PL100 with pyrocat. I would suggest reading about pyrocat on the Unblinking Eye, AZO forum and APUG B&W forum. My biggest complaints about Rollo Pyro were its tendency to make overly dense negatives, its toxicity, and little or no improvement over what I was getting with TMax RS developer. Start with Sandy King's article on the Unblinking Eye. Of course alot depends on what film you use, its size and what you print on...
Jerry
It was implied but not said directly: I use pyrocat in a Jobo....
Jerry
Greetings Kirk. I've used Rollo Pyro in BTZS tubes for some time, though I have now switched to Pyrocat HD. It is certainly worth giving RP a try in your BTZS tubes and I am pleased to help in anyway.
For starters, I found that it is ESSENTIAL to wet your film BEFORE loading. For some reason, the normal presoak and developer do not migrate to the backside of dry loaded film causing the film to stick to the inside of the tube making removal difficult. I ruined several good negs during my first attempts. Simply soak exposed film in a small tray of water before loading.
A second recommendation is to roll the tubes very slowly during the development phase. I believe some others have found Jobos too fast for RP so I slowed rotation with my BTZS tubes with good results. I guess at something like 4 to 5 rpm.
I'd like to hear about your results -- in Monterey perhaps.
Don Miller uses a bit of nylon screening along with film in the tube. This keeps the film off the wall of the tube. He seems to be having really good luck with this added bit of help in the tube.
leec
You can also load the film into the tubes dry and wet the back in the pre-soak water. Just pop the cap and pull the film partially in and out of the tube a few times. This will assure that you get some exchange of solutions on the film base during development.
After develoment I just drop the tube into a tray of stop bath, roll it around a couple of times and then remove the film from the tube for fixing.
I used rollo pyro in BTZS tubes for about a year. No problems developing with the tubes but the greenish colour of the negatives didn't work well for me on VC paper. Too flat. Maybe it's better suited for alternative printing. Switched to Pyrocat-HD and am much much happier. Semi-stand development in the tubes works well too with Pyrocat-HD.
FYI I have always shot 4x5. I look for brilliance and drama in a print. I loved the mid-tone contrast of the Tri-X HC 110 combination. For years I used Tri-X and HC-110 and printed primarily on the old Zone VI Brilliant graded papers, but over the years I went to printing larger and on expanded dev. negatives I had objectionably large grain at 11x14 and especially 16x20. So for a few years I tried T-Max 100 in T-Max RS. I loved the grain. After some struggle I made the middle and lower tones do what I want but had severe problems containing high values. I have some beautiful landscape prints from this period, but it was a struggle. For the last couple of years I have been primarily using FP4 in various developers. I always use VC papers (primarily Ilford and Berger) now with extensive use of split filtering with a color head.
For years Steve Simmons and Gordon Hutchins have been arm twisting me to try Pyro. They have even suggested, in a workshop that we teach together, that I may be some lower life form because I don't use Pyro. So if for perhaps no better reason than to shut them up I'm going to try it. The question is does anyone out there have direct experience using Rollo Pyro in BTZS tubes which is my prefered method of developement?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a litle tongue in cheek here. Kirk and I have been friends for 14+ years and he is partly responsible for my moving to New Mexico. His interest in a pyro formula came from seeing some of Gordon Hutchings prints at a workshop we taught a couple of years ago.
steve simmons
Kirk- In testing combinations, consider using a two-bath approach with PMK pyro in tubes. I do that, get the full development, but don't prolong the film (FP4+ rated at 64) in exhausted developer which just adds to the overall density. Sort of trialed and errored it, but basically split my standard 9 min development into two seperate fill and dumps at 4:30 each. Gives good negative density, stain, but minimizes the fog+film base stain. I also mix up a seperate batch of stain solution using Sodium Metaborate vice using the old developer as this also helps keep the fog+film base stain to a minimum. Watch film quantity, though. I think I need a little more contrast in my 8x10 negs, so I'm going to work on that (maybe with some negs from Monterey!)
As far as the magic of pyro, I can only say that it is really quite easy to use and very consistent, and non-toxic (using PMK in tubes - I don't get near the chemicals and they're all liquid except for the Sodium Metaborate). I know that's counter to some other's experience, but for my process it's very stable, and I prefer that (number one criteria, in fact). In terms of quality, I have a couple of prints from TMAX negatives that I printed with masks, then bleached the negatives (actually in camera duplicates that were 99.9% identical) and re-developed in pyro, and printed without masks. Same paper, and same result (except that the non-masked pyro negative prints didn't have the dust spots that I typically get with masked printing). Sold me.
Steve is right of course. Gordon has some prints from negatives in extreme contrast situations printed on gelatin silver that held vibrant highlight detail which intrigued me.
Paul, I always thought (based on info from Gordon) that the oxidizing caused by the rolling of tubes made PMK a poor choise for BTZS. Is there any chance you could bring a print to the conference? Kirk
Ask anyone who is twisting your arm (: -))if they have made duplicate negatives of a variety of different scenes, properly processed one set of negatives in a "normal" developer and the other in pyro, in both cases using procedures determined after proper testing, made prints from both sets of negatives, and then could tell just by looking which print had been made from which type of negative. I spent many many hours doing that with PMK (not Rollo) and could never see the slightest difference (much less improvement) in the two prints, the "PMK print" and the "normal negative" (D76 1-1 in my case)print were always identical. My tests indicated that PMK does nothing that couldn't be done by any other "normal" developer properly used in most situations. A friend who was doing the same testing at the same time I was used Rollo in a Jobo system and reached the same conclusion.
There may be some circumstances of lighting, contrast, etc., or possibly some materials (e.g. graded paper, different film than the HP5+ I used), with which pyro will excel and so allow the production of a noticeably better print than if a negative of the same scene had been processed in a "normal" developer or with different materials. But even assuming such scenes exist (and I never encounter one though I confess I didn't seek out the extremes of lighting and contrast for my tests), or that my materials just weren't the optimum for pyro, for me the scenes didn't seem to be common enough to bother using pyro as a standard developer and I wasn't willing to spend a lot more time testing materials other than those I already used and knew.
Please understand that I pass this along as nothing more than my experience using my materials in my darkroom using my testing procedures, etc. etc. Others like pyro a lot, think it makes a big difference, etc. etc. That may be true for them and if so, more power to them. I would just suggest that before going off on a pyro testing tear (and if I did nothing else I satisfied myself that you can't use a blue filter on a color densitometer to read pyro negatives)ask anyone who tells you how great it is exactly what basis they have for reaching that conclusion. If their basis satisfies you then by all means give it a try.
Dear Brian
many of us have done this and could see a difference. We don't need to redo the tests - we would prefer to spend our time photographing.
In the past you have made reference to your printing ability and your photography. Is there a place where we could see some of your work to place your comments in context?
steve simmons
Hey Steve , how about an issue of VC dedicated to pyro? Have articles on PMK,WD2D and pyrocatHD written by their inventors with images and then get Kirk to try all three, seeing how he is a pyro virgin:).Maybe he could review the slosher from the photographers formulary at the same time. I certainly would like to see all three compared,not necessarily to see whats the best but how each maybe used under certain circumstances. what do you all think?
As expected (and as needed) this is devolving into a pro's and con's of Pyro vs the world of developers. My experience is not offered as an end-all to anyone - I'm not that good enough of a photographer let alone printer to even think that this is appropriate. My experience with Pyro (PMK specifically) is born simply from the fact that if I can eliminate as many variables as possible from the process, then I can focus more on things like taking pictures. If I need to focus more on the variables to become a better printer/photographer, then I'll reach that conclusion sometime and if so motivated will go down that path. My perception of a number of photographers and printers that I think are "good" (e.g. I'd like to have the same quality) is that elimination of variables from the overall process is an objective.
When I started in LF, TMAX was the latest new film and so I started using it. Developed in different developers, I was never certain that I was getting Zone III placement when I wanted Zone III placement. Sometimes it was spot on, sometimes it was spot "off." I know John Sexton uses TMAX, and if I could shoot and print like he does, I would be extolling TMAX, I'm sure. But I can't, and don't. I love to read, especially technical articles (I'm an engineer - it's in my blood) and read about pyro, specifically PMK, and FP4+. I tried the combination, and got Zone III placement in Zone III (visually estimated). Again, and again, and again. Yippie, eliminated a process. And my prints were at least as good if not better in my opinion than before. I've tried the new Tri-X, and rated at 200, it has the same development time and visually effective result (in terms of density in Zone III) as FP4+ rated at 64. Yippie, a second film with twice the speed and same process. My kind of engineered process.
Obvisouly Kirk wants to go further in his printing (the prints I've seen look pretty darn good to me, but I understand his need to push further), so he should, and we all should help with our experiences and put or opinions in context as to what our overall objectives are. And have fun, for sure.
Andy has a really good idea. If not in View Camera then somewhere. I am really new to pyro myself and the that information would be great.
We have a PMK vs HD article in progress and are hoping for the July/August 04 issue.
steve simmons
I agree with Paul. Lessen, eliminate or simplify the variables and allow our vision to dominate our efforts. There is nothing more liberating, more conducive to making an expressive print than having one film, one developer, one paper as ones only tools. In my case it is Efke PL100, Pyrocat HD and AZO. I spend so much time making new negatives nowadays because I spend less time fumbling in the darkroom.
Oh, there is a huge difference in AZO prints that I made using non-Pyro negatives and my Pyrocat negatives (same scene, same exposure, same paper). HUGE!!!
I totally agree,lessen and simplify. Francis any chance of uploading a couple of pics. I'm sure others would be interested in seeing the results.
My my Steve, sorry if I touched a tender nerve. But why would seeing my photographs help you place my comments "in context?" For that matter, what do you mean by placing my comments "in context?" What context are you talking about? I think my comments speak for themselves, there's no context in which they need to be placed.
You seem to be suggesting that if I'm a terrible photographer or printer the results of any testing I do can't be valid. If that's the case I don't see the connection at all. I said the prints I made from negatives processed in two developers looked the same. I said nothing about their technical or artistic qualities, I didn't say they were good or bad, I just said there was no difference.
There actually have been quite a few people who have done a lot of excellent testing of materials but who aren't great photographers. Richard Henry comes to mind, also Phil Davis. I'm not in their league when it comes to testing but I think it illustrates the point that there's no necessary correlaton between one's ability to test materials and one's ability as a photographer or printer.
I described in some detail the results of my tests. How about telling us in comparable detail about the testing you say you did - what materials you used, what types of scenes you photographed, how you went about determining your developing and processing times, that kind of thing would be very useful to know so that we could properly evaluate your opinions.
Andy, I regularly post at the APUG site. Got three right now in the critique gallery.
Andy, check the posts under the name "Francesco".
Francis, thanks for pointing me towards the APUG site. Actually, I was hoping to see negatives made of the same subject at the same time developed in both pyro and non pyro developers,merely to compare the images and evaluate their qualities. Maybe you could upload some at the APUG site as I'm sure others would like to contrast and compare. Best Regards
A debate on the merits of pyro versus non-pyro developers is fine. I think it is a mistake, however, to complicate the issue by confusing issues such as "vision" and "testing" as intrinsically linked to the type of developer we us, which clearly implies that those who have vision don't test, and those who test don't have vision. The only purpose served by the use of such language is to put down those you don't agree with.
A case in point would be the photographers Dick Arentz and Michael Smith. Dick is a very technical photographer who bases much of his work on BTZS type sensitometric testing and does not use Pyro developers, whereas Michael promotes the use of Pyro and hates to test. Very few people who have seen their work would question their vision or technical expertise.
I believe it is generally true that pyro users are not on the whole as involved in sensitometic testing as users of non-staining developers. This is most likely due to the fact that the color of the stain greatly complicates the use of sensitometry. Brian Ellis noted that “you can't use a blue filter on a color densitometer to read pyro negatives.” This is not entirely accurate. If you are printing with graded silver papers the narrow band blue filter on most color densitometers will give a fairly accurate indication of effective printing density. It will not be exact because graded silver papers, in addition to blue sensitivity, also have some sensitivity to UV, violet and green light. However, if you make sure to use a UV filter when printing graded papers the blue mode reading of a densitometer will come very close to the effective printing.
VC papers are more complicated because they have, in addition to a blue sensitive layer, a low-contrast green sensitive layer. With these papers the blue mode of a densitometer will indicate a higher contrast than is in fact the case. This can be overcome to some extent by using the Visual mode of the densitometer and taking the reading through a 47B filter. The 47B has a much broader band and passes a fair amount of green light.
People who use UV sensitive processes such as Pt/Pd, Carbon, Kallitype should have no problem at all with densitomer readings of stained negatives provided that they use an instrument capable of UV reading. UV reading densitiometers are capable of indicating to a very close value the actual effective printing densities of stained negatives.
Another issue when using staining developers is the color of the stain. Developers such as PMK and Rollo Pyro, which use sodium metaborate as the accelerator, tend to produce a greenish stain that has different printing characteristics than the brownish stain of developers like Pyrocat-HD, which uses the carbonates as the accelerator. The different way these developers render tonal values with scenes of certain colors can be as great as when using filters of different colors with traditional developers, yet I dare say that very few people who user Pyro developers have much of an understanding of this issue. The intelligent use of sensitometric testing can be informative in this regard.
As usual Sandy, great insightful comments! I am not one to test for testings sake. I am only interested in making meaningful images that convey the mood of a place. I tend to find something I like and work with it for years, adapting my sense of previsualization to the materials I understand and have a comand of. To paraphrase an old friend, who has written alot of simple profound words about photography, Robert Adams "it is all about the image".
Sandy - The problem I had with the blue filter wasn't the accuracy of the readings as such, I couldn't get consistent readings. I.e. I'd read the same area three times and get three different readings. I don't think it was a problem with my densitomter since I hadn't experienced this problem with other materials though conceivably there was a problem with the blue filter itself, I don't use if for anything else.
Brian,
Sounds like something might have been wrong with your densitometer. I have never experienced any problem like this in reading pyro stained negatives and over the years I have used several different densitometers. Were you using a regular color densitometer in blue mode or a monochrome one with a blue filter?
Same here Brian, I have never had any problems getting consistent readings, either with Pyrocat HD or PMK, ABC. You must have had a glitch in your densitometer.
Dear Brian,
First of all you have not told us what film you did the testing with. If you used T-Max then you selected a film that will not show the advantages of a staining developer. If this is what you did you need to tell us, and if you did not you need to tell us as well. The choice of film will make a difference.
Secondly, I have frequently explained that I do my EI and dev time testing using the min time for max black etc. procedure. I have also done several articles over the years in View Camera explaining and showing how I test, how I expose and determine dev times, etc. My work and my procedures are a matter of public record.
Thirdly, you are a John Sexton devotee'. I have observed over the years of your posting that anything outside that approach seems to be dismissed by you and anything John does seems to be supported. In another forum you even encouraged someone who wanted to learn to print his own negs better to take a Sexton workshop where you don't get to do anything but watch Sexton print and are not allowed to use any of the equipment. When I pointed out to the questioner this fact you protested and continued to question my motives. John does not use a staining developer and I would not expect you to want to use one either. I am not sure you would enter the testing with an open mind.
So, if you want to go on being critical without also putting yourself out there (which is a safe but becoming a transparent thing to do) go ahead. It would be more informative if you would post remarks with a context so people can evaluate what you have to say by knowing all of the relevant info.
steve simmons
I would like to clear up a misconception about T-max and pyro. Here are some recent results. The same scene was taken with 2 films of 5X7 T-max 100 shot at ASA 64. The SBR was only 5. The film developed with T-max RS 1:9 for 8 minutes at 75 degrees had a fb+f of 0.11 and a density range from .22 to 1.65. The sheet of film developed with pyrocat 1:1:100 at 75 degrees for 8 minutes had an ortho fb+f of 0.07 with a density range from 0.16 to 1.07. Using a 361T densitometer set to measure uv, the fb+f was 0.23 with a density range of 0.33 to 1.63.
I haven't printed them yet but they both should do well in Pt/Pd.
I should add that my solution B of pyrocat was a 100% solution rather than a 75% solution, thanks to Photographer's Formulary.
I think that it is a misconception that T-max doesn't stain well with pyro. In fact my first attempts with T-max and Rollo Pyro gave such bullet proof negatives that I never went back to the Rollo Pyro. That is when I started using T-max RS with John Sextion's published numbers and have been generally quite satisfied with the negatives it produces.
Jerry
Jerald, SBR = 5, Tmax 100, Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 and ONLY developed for 8 minutes. WOW!!!! I have never measured a scene less than SBR = 7 but even that needs a development time greater than 10 mins. Of course the film is different, Efke PL100. Still I am impressed with your procedures.
Francis, remember that I was developing at 75 degrees not 70 as Sandy suggests and that the solution B was 100% not 75%. A SBR of 5 is not all that unusual here in Cleveland, unfortunately.
Jerry