Pyocat-HD/-MC 2 Bath Developing...

[sanking]

I have one relatively elementary question. as this process as described ( and proved by Ken with his photos) has a very strong compression effects - does not it yield very flat negatives if they are not of high contrast scene?

I use Pyrocat-HD as one bath developer and it already can do a lot to save the highlights. Sometimes the negatives can be quite flat and after scanning require substantial boost in contrast (as the raw scan occupies only rather narrow part of the total range) - what may yield in loss of smoothness in the tones and brings up the grain as well.

So - how do you post process your images?

I post process with Photoshop and the primary mechanism for adjusting contrast is Curves. Unless you clip highlight or shadow tonalities in scanning or in making a curves adjustment you should not love any tonal values in making the curves adjustment. I also have not seen any problem with increased grain when adjusting curves, though I guess it is possible depending on what you start with and how abrupt your adjustment is. The main danger is making curve corrections is that if the correction is to drastic it may cause posterization, but this is pretty easy to see on the screen.

But primarily you just make sure to avoid clipping tonal values at both ends in making adjustments for contrast. Never use the Brightness/Contrast tool in Photoshop as this will nearly always clip tonal values.

Sandy

[Marko Trebusak]

One way to know for sure. Expose a few sheets and fine tune your method. Worst case: Use the Pyrocat with conventional Efke film.

Yes, I know. And will take your advice to the hart . I use Pyrocat as my only developer, but right now I'm collecting data to jump into IR photography. And I prefer not to invent "warm water", if someone was in my position before and is prepared to share his findings. .

Cheers,
Marko

[William Barnett-Lewis]

Hey, I'm watching to see what you find out. I've been eying that film for awhile (a bit of the 25 & a bit of the IR could be fun) so whatever you do learn, please make sure it get's posted somewhere on this site.

Thanks!

[Marko Trebusak]

Hey, I'm watching to see what you find out. I've been eying that film for awhile (a bit of the 25 & a bit of the IR could be fun) so whatever you do learn, please make sure it get's posted somewhere on this site.

Thanks!

Will do so, but it might take quite a bit of time .

Cheers,
Marko

[Matus Kalisky]

Sandy,

I indeed agree, however my concern about low contrast negatives that result in very flat scan is a bit different. A "very flat scan" shows itself very obviously when one opens the "levels" adjustments - as the whole image occupies only narrow portion of the 0 - 255 scale. Adjusting the black and white points stretches the existing tonal values (and of course increases the contrast) and may yield posterization.

So - my question could be put in a bit different way - how to properly adjust very flat (for what ever reason, actually) scans without destroying the tonalities. In darkroom one would use a higher contrast paper or filter (I guess).

[Marko Trebusak]

Sandy,
So - my question could be put in a bit different way - how to properly adjust very flat (for what ever reason, actually) scans without destroying the tonalities. In darkroom one would use a higher contrast paper or filter (I guess).

I'm not Sandy (obviously ), but my answer would be: curves, curves, curves! Curve adjustment in Ps would increase contrast like VC filters would (in sort of way). If you have local problems, then tone masking is the answer (you will apply curve adjustment to only narrow tone scale). A coleague of mine have a cool tool for such a problem.

Cheers,
Marko

[Bob McCarthy]

I tried two bath developing for a while though it was D23 not pyro. I found if it fit the scene it worked great. But if the scene were more "normal" the negative was too flat and making a levels adjustment, while nominally appeared to work, it took on a harshness that I didn't like.

16 bit scans help somewhat,btw.

I only use a two bath process where appropriate.

Bob

[Bob McCarthy]

Sandy,

I indeed agree, however my concern about low contrast negatives that result in very flat scan is a bit different. A "very flat scan" shows itself very obviously when one opens the "levels" adjustments - as the whole image occupies only narrow portion of the 0 - 255 scale. Adjusting the black and white points stretches the existing tonal values (and of course increases the contrast) and may yield posterization.

So - my question could be put in a bit different way - how to properly adjust very flat (for what ever reason, actually) scans without destroying the tonalities. In darkroom one would use a higher contrast paper or filter (I guess).

I always thought hard papers with low contrast negatives looked a little funky too.

Bob

[sanking]

Sandy,

I indeed agree, however my concern about low contrast negatives that result in very flat scan is a bit different. A "very flat scan" shows itself very obviously when one opens the "levels" adjustments - as the whole image occupies only narrow portion of the 0 - 255 scale. Adjusting the black and white points stretches the existing tonal values (and of course increases the contrast) and may yield posterization.

So - my question could be put in a bit different way - how to properly adjust very flat (for what ever reason, actually) scans without destroying the tonalities. In darkroom one would use a higher contrast paper or filter (I guess).

Perhaps I am not understanding the problem. However, in my experience if you start with 255 tones in your scan and do not clip highlight or shadow tonality you should still have 255 tones when you increase the contrast of an image file with the curves adjustment. I have adjusted the contrasty of many image files of scans of very flat negatives without losing tonal values and without causing posterization. It is obviously important to work with 16 bit files (or change your 8 bit file to 16 bit) but expanding of compressing contrast should not reduce the number of total tones that you have unless you clip at the top or at at bottom.

Sandy

[Ken Lee]

I tried two bath developing for a while though it was D23 not pyro. I found if it fit the scene it worked great. But if the scene were more "normal" the negative was too flat and making a levels adjustment, while nominally appeared to work, it took on a harshness that I didn't like.

16 bit scans help somewhat,btw.

I only use a two bath process where appropriate.

Lately I've been working with Divided D-23. (Perhaps a better name would have been Dual D-23, since it is not a truly divided developer like Divided Pyrocat: development takes place in both A and B stages with DD-23, while with Divided Pyrocat, it only takes place in Solution B).

DD-23 is not as well suited to roll-film as Divided Pyrocat, because where we often shoot scenes of varied subject brightness range, and contrast control via development - and development by inspection - are inappropriate. For that, truly divided developers like Diafine and Divided Pyrocat come to the rescue. They develop all scenes within reason, to the same contrast index.

For scenes of extreme contrast, DD-23 doesn't produce "miracles" either, while Divided Pyrocat does.

For sheet film however, I like DD-23 for scenes of low to moderate contrast. Because development takes place in both solutions, you can use DD-23 to control contrast, while still getting some "extra" compensation afforded by the fact that developer gets extinguished in the highlights. Unlike other approaches, you can develop first for the high values in Solution A, and then for the shadows in Solution B. It gives full film speed and excellent shadow separation.

After restoring my membership in View Camera the other day, the first thing I did was download and read Sandy's article on DD-23 and Diafine - written, I presume, before his work with Divided Pyrocat.