I agree with Ari. That's a really good photo, Ken.
Divided Pyrocat is the best developer for a high contrast scene that I 've tried.
I agree with Ari. That's a really good photo, Ken.
Divided Pyrocat is the best developer for a high contrast scene that I 've tried.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Yes. I look at Ken's images and I'm thinking "do not try this at home".Originally Posted by Ari
I have to say, though, that I recently had a similar experience using color film, processed normally.
Exposure was 40 seconds at f/32, putting the sunlit scene outside the window at Zone XIII (or a bit less when considering reciprocity failure). But the print still shows a different density between the specular highlights in the bottles on the shelves in front of the window and the sunlit grass in the background. With black and white, though, I don't think I could possibly have gotten my scanner to see through the resulting density. Color negative film doesn't get as dense. I have not yet developed the black and white negative I made at the same time--I may try the divided Pyrocat for it.
Rick "time's a wastin'" Denney
Very nice, Rick.
Ken, how would this neg have been different in Diafine? Enjoy the snow, by the way.
I just read about the intensity of the snowstorm. Loss of power, etc. I hope you all are alright.
We have electricity here, for which I am grateful. We got around 20 inches of snow in my part of Massachusetts, so I got a 1/2 day off of work and was able to run a developer test: 2 identical exposures, one developed in Diafine and the other in Divided Pyrocat HDC.
Here's the Diafine negative. It's very similar to the Divided Pyrocat version, and with a bit of adjustment could probably be made to match - but some differences are there. In both cases I have scanned so as not to clip either the dark or high values. While the Diafine negative is denser, the curve is different. I prefer the Divided Pyrocat negative.
Because my tests are "amateur grade" at best, I defer to Sandy King for a reliable, comprehensive and articulate study. (We've been discussing an article about Divided Pyrocat, along lines similar to his wonderful View Camera article on Diafine. Perhaps some additional enthusiastic "demand" will hasten the project)
Beautiful image, Ken, and highly unusual interpretation with the muted tones.
I am working on the testing, but as they say, there is no good wine before its time. Or something like that. Sometimes the process of discovery and explanation is like sweating bullets. But I am counting on your wonderful images to illustrate the article, whenever I get it done.
Sandy
For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
[url]https://groups.io/g/carbon
Wow, subtle, subtle difference. The door knob and the picture frame just a bit lower value. How about grain structure? What about at a high magnification? I guess Diafine appeals to me for its ease of use.
Glad you are ok. I read it will rain later this week in Maine. We get bad ice storms here in Tennessee that you guys dont seem to get.
Yes, I think the enthusiastic demand is there.
Many thanks...
Diafine is a very compelling choice: it's hard to beat re-use.
Some of the differences may depend on the brightness and calibration of your monitor: one of the annoying features of this form of communication. (Even when we calibrate a monitor, we have to choose the brightness level: there's no standard. Depending on the room we're in, our eyes adjust further... Don't get me started*. Try looking again later in a darkly-lit room, or turn your monitor brightness all the way up.)
Steering clear of sensitometry, I can state that in this case, compared to the Divided Pyrocat negative, the Diafine negative has compressed low values and compressed high values. To put it another way, the Divided Pyrocat negative looks more linear.
I have not applied any curves to these photos, only setting the ends of the histogram at scan time. Some form of S-curve could be applied to the Diafine photo to make it more like the Pyrocat photo (which looks more like the original scene), but that would defeat the point of the exercise.
Because I use film that is 4x5 or larger - and use (only) an Epson scanner - the difference in grain between the two developers is less critical, and my sample scans at high magnification would be unreliable. That being said, I can state that the Divided Pyrocat negatives appear to have finer grain when examined with a loupe. There are several reasons why that could be so for most films, but again I defer to "bigger guns".
*Back in the day, I used to accompany my father to the "hi fi" store, where you could compare the effects of different speakers, headphones and amplifiers and dream about owning them. The more carefully we listened to the same piece of music, the more distinct the differences became. Of course speakers have a different sound when you bring them home, because of the acoustics of your room... it's endless.
I was reluctant to post my second pair of test negatives because of uneven development and some scratches. However, it gives a better demonstration of the difference.
This scene was of even greater brightness range. The statue on the table was dark enough that my Pentax digital spot meter could not get a reading. I used incident metering instead, in the style recommended by Phil Adams where we meter the shadow area and then give an extra stop.
For both negatives, the scanning histogram was adjusted to leave a touch of texture in the snow, and render the clear film edge as black. No curve was applied.
If all we had was the Diafine negative, we could apply some curves and rescue it. However, the Divided Pyrocat negative requires no substantial correction: it seems to stay linear all the way down, and (most importantly) feels like light "right out of the box".
Diafine
Divided Pyrocat
Last edited by Ken Lee; 11-Feb-2013 at 05:14.
Thanks for posting these, Ken. It almost looks like an exposure difference. Any chance of a slow shutter or any other difference?
My Diafine negatives are always denser than my Divided Pyrocat negatives (and my negatives developed in ordinary developers). The Diafine histograms are shifted further to the right. But what matters is the region between the darkest and lightest areas of the curve, wherever they are.
The Diafine negatives I have produced are denser, but the difference in density between their darkest and lightest areas is smaller than what I get with Divided Pyrocat. With Diafine it's as though all the tonal information is crammed into a smaller part of the curve, which also happens to be a higher part of the curve.
I have tried to move my Diafine negatives further left, by using 70 degree water instead of 75, but it hasn't made an appreciable difference. I also tried dilution of 1:1 (which may be fine with continuous rotary agitation) but got negatives that were too flat.
It would be great if others could make some comparisons. What I have so far, can only be described as "anecdotal evidence" at best. Kodak TMY may not be the best candidate. I have read that Diafine was created with Tri-X in mind, and there are several other films to investigate. Also, these were 6-second exposures. That may matter also.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks