Just thought I would post an example of semi-stand development using 4x5 HP5+ and PyroCat-HD 1:1:200 for about 25 minutes in a Unicolor drum. The shot is the interior of an abandonded cotton gin. The exposure was about 90 sec based on the shadow readings. Agitiation was 30 seconds at the begining of the development cycle and at the half way point. The highlights in the mid section are very bright but not wuite blown out.
Don,Originally Posted by Don Bryant
What was the process? Silver or alternative?
Very interesting subject. If it is still available, and local to the Atlanta area, would be interested in driving down there and photographing the interior with you some time. Maybe bring Sam Wang along?
Sandy
"...comments in this thread are not based on theory and/or old testing, but on real subjets with real film and real cameras and real lighting conditions and real results."
As was my comparing PMK and Pyrocat HD in which I liked the results from PMK much better. I have been criticized for my testing methods but the picture is the real test. Comparing lab results is not an indicator of what a film and developer will do in real life.
We need to be careful about looking at images posted on a web site. The backlighting of the computer monitor gives an artificial feeling of luminance to all photos that are displayed this way. A print is viewed by reflected light not transmitted light. To post an image this way as proof that a technique works, or is better than another technique can be very misleading.
steve simmons
If what you want is a comparison in real life time, I am more than pleased to accomodate you.
OK, how about this. You send 20 mounted photographs to the next APUG conference, image size 12X20 or smaller and on 20X24" mounting board or less, and I do the same. Subject lighting conditions will be limited to direct backlighting up to an angle of ninety degees and with contraction development of -10 or more. You use your deveoper, dillution and type of agitaton of choice, and I do the same.
APUG administrators will select judges to evalutate the prints, with no interference from you or me.
Sandy
Last edited by sanking; 8-Jul-2006 at 15:54.
And BTW, we each do all the work, and document it. That would include all exposuce calculations, setting up the camera, making the exposures, development, and all printing calculations.
Don't want the results distorted by the interference of others, right?
Best,
Sandy King
Last edited by sanking; 8-Jul-2006 at 16:26.
Sandy you pictures have motivated me to do more stand/semi stand processing. Can I ask tho what zone you expose your detailed shadows in. An article I read in a special edition Darkroom Techniques had the author exposing them up to zone 4, 4.5 and even 5 IIRC in extremely contrasty situations.
You have been invited several times to come to the View Camera conferences and as you know there would be a lot of PMK prints. You have declined every time. You have been invited to write for View Camera about a variety of topics. You have not responded to thse invitations. My goal in doing this upcoming article on staining develpers, which you now seem willing to participate in, is to bring a lot of the myth and gossip about staining developers out into the light so that people can better undestand how they work. I am glad that you will now participate and will now join a larger and more public conversation.
As a possible continuation of this public conversation may I suggst that you send 20 prints to View Camera. You can suggest two of the judges. I will select two and the fifth will be someone who does not use a staining developer so they won't have a bias any way or the other. After the judgiung you can select five of your prints for publication in View Camera and you will have the opportunity to write a statement giving all the tech info on each photo and why you processed the film the way you did. I will do the same. I wlll ask the judges to write their comments about all of the prints and these commentswill appear along with your five samples and my five samples. This will be a completly open and public forum for everyone to see and be aware of. By doing such an open forum everyone will be able to learn a lot. I certainly will and I hope you will also. The large format community will benefit greatly from this article and it will generate a lot of conversations about technique which will be good for the lf community
View Camera
Box 2328
Corrales, NM 87048
I look forward to this second article and shedding even more public light on this topic.
steve simmons
Last edited by steve simmons; 8-Jul-2006 at 16:30.
As was my comparing PMK and Pyrocat HD in which I liked the results from PMK much better. I have been criticized for my testing methods but the picture is the real test. Comparing lab results is not an indicator of what a film and developer will do in real life.
We need to be careful about looking at images posted on a web site. The backlighting of the computer monitor gives an artificial feeling of luminance to all photos that are displayed this way. A print is viewed by reflected light not transmitted light. To post an image this way as proof that a technique works, or is better than another technique can be very misleading.
steve simmons[/QUOTE]
If what you want is a comparison in real life time, I am more than pleased to accomodate you.
OK, how about this. You send 20 mounted photograhs to the next APUG conference, image size 12X20 or smaller and on 20X24" mounting board or less, and I do the same. Subject lighting conditoins will be limited to direct backlighting up to an angle of ninety degees and with contraction development of -10 or more.
APUG administrators will select judges to evalutate the judges, with no interference from you or me.
The issue is not a comparison of PMK and Pyrocat-Hd. The issue is that your original test of PMK verus Pyrocat-HD tests was flawed, and to this day you apparently don't have a clue as to why this is so, even though many people with good knowledge of sensitometry have tried to explain the issues to you.
OK, you don't understand the issues, and frankly I am fresh out of trying to explain them to you, other than the fact that your original tests show that you had no idea of how to develop the tests to the same CI.
You can complain, cry, scream or whine about the remarks I have made about your tests, but if you look on the net almost everyone who has expressed an opinoin about this agrees with my position.
Get over it. You made a mistake. Try to move on.
Sandy King
I have made you an offer Sandy for a further public forum. I am hoping that you will accept it.
I developed the PMk and pyrocat negs to the same zone 8 density and exposed them for the same zone 1 density. I then went out to the real world and made comparison shots of the same subject matter.
My offer stands.
steve simmons
Last edited by steve simmons; 8-Jul-2006 at 16:49.
Perhaps you did not read my previous message. My offer for a presentation at APUG still stands. I hope you have enough confidence in your technique to step up to the plate with *real* prints.
But regardless, your original test of PMK versus Pyrocat-HD was flawed, and almost everyone who has expressed an opinion about the tests agrees with my point of view. Would you like go back thorugh through the archives to determine who agrees with you and who agrees with me? It is pathetic to the extreme that you still stand by your test, but I an personally not surprised.
Sandy King
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks