Where were the Pyro wars?

[mdm]

Why use any pyro at all. Given most people scan, seldom print all that big and use modern films that are not grainy, what real advantage is there in a real world? Maybe if you are alt printing like Sandy or printing on azo like Edward Weston, maybe its worthwhile. Instead of arguing about the pyro wars, perhaps spend some time justifying its use at all.

[Andrew O'Neill]

David, one advantage is that the same negative developed in pyro can be printed on silver papers (especially VC) or for alt processes.

[Michael Kadillak]

Why use any pyro at all. Given most people scan, seldom print all that big and use modern films that are not grainy, what real advantage is there in a real world? Maybe if you are alt printing like Sandy or printing on azo like Edward Weston, maybe its worthwhile. Instead of arguing about the pyro wars, perhaps spend some time justifying its use at all.

The reason that one uses a developer like pyro is so that you are not lumped into the category of "most people". As Kirk mentioned, find what works and stick with it. That said sometimes you need to get out of the box. That is the niche that the Photography Formulary fills in the sense that you can try a small package of a developer (and they have many to chose from) without committing to acquiring the specific components that may be useless if you do not like it. That is what I did. Once I found what worked I then felt much more comfortable purchasing those specific components to mix it myself.

What I remember about those prior discussions is that for a single unit of real progress on this issue we had to wade through three units of complete BS. Thankfully we have moderators that are highly savvy to certain tendencies on this subject to keep things in check.

[William Barnett-Lewis]

Why use any pyro at all. Given most people scan, seldom print all that big and use modern films that are not grainy, what real advantage is there in a real world? Maybe if you are alt printing like Sandy or printing on azo like Edward Weston, maybe its worthwhile. Instead of arguing about the pyro wars, perhaps spend some time justifying its use at all.

Well, one of the reasons I'm interested is that now that I'm moving up to 5x7 and using traditional grain films (Foma/Arista.Edu Ultra 100 & maybe 400) with the intent of contact printing. Eventually I intend to use Lodima & Amidol to make landscape contact prints to try and sell in the tourist trade here in Northern Wisconsin.

If Pyro helps me achive that goal, it's worth exploring. If not, then not. It appears that it might help so I need to explore that tool and trying to find info on it is not very easy.

I think the idea upthread to "just do it" may well be what I simply need to do & order a batch of pyrocat-HD in glycerin from Photographic Formulary. And then see how bad a mess I can make of my negs because if there is one thing I know it's that as soon as you change anything in LF, mistakes follow

[Drew Wiley]

Real simple. Subjects that were hell for me to print pre-pyro suddenly got real easy. There
were other conspicuous visual advantages in the actual prints, esp in terms of microtonality. Anyone who accuses us of some snooty mentality probably hasn't done this kind of experimentation, esp now that pyro formulas are widely accessible. You don't have to use them. But it's no coincidence that they've gotten popular and even generated so much controversy over minor nuances between them. With the exception of TechPan,
I haven't found a single b&w film that pyro hasn't improved, that is, for general shooting.
I still use other developers in the lab for specialized things like color masking, where I want
a different gradient and, of course, cannot tolerate a stain.

[RichardSperry]

"Why use any pyro at all"

Pyrocat HD is about the least expensive developer you can buy.

If you mix it yourself from chemicals it works out to about 200 liters per $50. Roughly $1 per gallon.

http://stores.photoformulary.com/Det...path=205340282

Even at $30 for 50 liters, that's 13 gallons for $30(in glycol it has a long shelf life). Or $2.30 a gallon, compared to $7-8 for D76.

Even if it cost more, I really like the look of it printed, and would buy it.


Edit: dang, forgot I already posted in this thread. Message is still the same, buy it and try it. If you don't like it, don't use it.

[Jay DeFehr]

Richard,

It costs me about $35 to make 500 liters of Obsidian Aqua working solution, or about 7 cents/ liter, compared to 25 cents/ liter for Pyrocat HD ( using your figures).

I agree -- none of these staining developers should be expensive compared to non- staining developers. Commercially made developers add a lot of overhead, doubling or more, the cost of the developer to the user. Artcraft Chemicals will make up any developer you want -- just provide the formula and quantity. You won't get branded packaging, or instructions, but that information is almost always available on the net. Artcraft adds a very reasonable handling fee for making up custom kits, so the price to the user is very low compared to the commercially packaged products from other suppliers.