Finally done with PMK. What next? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Gary L. Quay

5-Jan-2014, 19:33

I've been threatening to do this for a few years, but I've finally decided to stop using PMK Pyro. I've had too many negatives ruined. I want to switch to another developer as my mainstay. I've used 510 Pyro, Pyrocat HD, Xtol, D76, F76+, HC-110, Ilfotec HC, Rodinal, Formulary 777, and Edwal 12 (plus a few others) in the past. Xtol has tended to give me flat negatives. HC-110 is versitile, but the contrast isn't always thrilling. I was told that Edwal 12 makes HP5+ "sparkle." It does, but it leaves a shiny film on the negative that has to be removed before drying. I missed a small strip of this film on a stunning 8x10 negative of Three Creeks Lake in Oregon, and it left a strip of higher density in the sky portion of the negative.

What i'm looking for is sharpness, versitility, good for Zone System, and good for varying contrast through development (i.e. stand, minimal agitation, or 2 bath).

I've narrowed down the list.

Xtol: Maybe I can get better contrast out of it. Plus: not as toxic. Minus: flat.
HC-110: Plus: versitile. Minus: flat.
F76+: Plus: Can be diluted for contrast, but I haven't tried.
D76 (or Divided D76): The standard.
DK-50: I haven't tried it yet, but some folks swear by it.

I'll also take suggestions. Any ideas?

Richard Wasserman

5-Jan-2014, 19:39

If I ever decide to not use Pyrocat (not too likely) I would use replenished Xtol. If your negatives are flat extend your development time.

Kirk Gittings

5-Jan-2014, 19:39

No offense but when you describe a developer like Xtol or HC110 as flat, I have to say you simply have not done the testing to arrive at proper times that will give you the contrast you want.

Andrew O'Neill

5-Jan-2014, 19:51

All those developers you listed (I wouldn't know about formulary and edwal 12 cuz I've never used them), and many more will work nicely with HP5 (which has been my main film). Pyrocat-HD is wonderful, and recently I've been likely Obsidian Aqua. Xtol diluted 1:1 is very nice.
Have you ever considered that maybe the film's not doing it for you? Time to change?

jonreid

5-Jan-2014, 20:03

Kimberly Anderson

5-Jan-2014, 20:21

I love PMK. I've tried all the others and landed here. PMK and me have processed hundreds of negatives...if I've had problems it was never the chems. It is interesting that each persons route is slightly different. I've arrived at PMK and am very happy and you are looking at finding something new. I guess it might help to know how you intend to use the negatives you will shoot. Knowing the processes you like and intend to use will help make your selection of developer easier.

StoneNYC

5-Jan-2014, 20:51

If you don't care about money, use DD-X, it would be my only developer if Rodinal weren't so cheap :) it's amazing in every way.

If you care a little about money, give Ilfsol 3 a try, it will give you a sharper and only slightly more contrasty image than HC-11(B) with similar times.

vinny

5-Jan-2014, 21:07

I also use pmk for almost everything and never have any issues associated with the developer. Sounds like operator error. Care to explain how exactly pmk is ruining your negs?

Nathan Potter

5-Jan-2014, 21:33

You might try a divided developer like Diafine. I use typically 3 to 4 min. in part A and part B with continuous small drum agitation. Very forgiving, particularly for high subject brightness range. Very useful when I forget (or just don't bother) to record the SBR during image formation.

Also if you are an intermittant developer like me the separate Parts A and B will last at least 2 years (probably longer) after mix in a tight container and yield a consistent negative density range over that time.

BTW don't use an H2O presoak before the Part A - it defeats the purpose of the divided technique by saturating the emulsion with water instead of the Part A.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Gary L. Quay

5-Jan-2014, 22:26

I also use pmk for almost everything and never have any issues associated with the developer. Sounds like operator error. Care to explain how exactly pmk is ruining your negs?

Uneven, blotchy areas. I get this with no other developer. I have "The Book of Pyro," and I've read it cover to cover.

--Gary

Gary L. Quay

5-Jan-2014, 22:28

Gary L. Quay

5-Jan-2014, 23:01

No offense but when you describe a developer like Xtol or HC110 as flat, I have to say you simply have not done the testing to arrive at proper times that will give you the contrast you want.

I bought a Kodak Model 1 densitometer a couple years age, but I have't found a manual for how to use it. Also, film testing is something I aspire to have the time for, or, rather, to make time for. Free time is a bit scarce. And, I've been putting it off. When I get the opportunity for photography, I think about testing, but I always opt to go out and take pictures instead. No offense taken. I've been putting it off for years. When I look at the array of films that I've been using (everything I could get my hands on), and the myriad of lenses that I use, plus all those devlelopers that I just had to try, testing has been daunting. It's been a bit like photographic ADHD. I wanted to try everything... at the same time. So, I'm in the process of narrowing things down a bit. I'm moving to three films at the most, and one standard developer (plus maybe a backup). Once I settle on those, I'm going to start my testing. I just have to figure out which films. HP5 will be one. Maybe FP4. A T-grain film like T-Max 100 of Delta 100 wil be another.

Other than that, maybe flat was the wrong word. There's a certain feeling you get when you pull a negative out of the fixer, and it's stunning. I've never got that feeling using those deveolpers. I've gotten good negatives, very printable ones. But never a "Wow!" I got that with Edwal 12, and with PMK on occasion.

lab black

5-Jan-2014, 23:33

Gordon Hutchings is a remarkably bright gentleman and possibly, he might be a good source for guidance regarding your concerns with PMK as well as suggestions to assist you to move in a different direction.

TheToadMen

6-Jan-2014, 00:19

Other than that, maybe flat was the wrong word. There's a certain feeling you get when you pull a negative out of the fixer, and it's stunning. I've never got that feeling using those deveolpers. I've gotten good negatives, very printable ones. But never a "Wow!" I got that with Edwal 12, and with PMK on occasion.

I recently changed to a new lab for C-41 developing. I did as a test also send some B&W films to develop. I had my WOW moment when I got the films back. Very, very nice negatives, even the Agfa Scala developed as negative.

They use Ilford DDX.

jcoldslabs

6-Jan-2014, 00:39

Gary,

I've been an HC-110 devotee for years now. I can't make the case that it is the best or even the most versatile developer out there, but it has performed well for me across a wide range of fresh and long-outdated films. It works in a compensating capacity when used highly diluted with semi-stand development (1:150 and above) and has given me more contrast than I can handle at strong concentrations, all without blotches or unevenness. To be honest I'm surprised you get flat negs with HC-110. Taming contrast with it has been the biggest issue I've had, not the other way around.

As for testing, it doesn't have to be rocket science if you don't want it to be. I would argue that every sheet I develop is another link in the testing chain. I'm on a slow march to getting the results I want, and with each negative I process I get a little bit closer.

Jonathan

StoneNYC

6-Jan-2014, 07:00

I recently changed to a new lab for C-41 developing. I did as a test also send some B&W films to develop. I had my WOW moment when I got the films back. Very, very nice negatives, even the Agfa Scala developed as negative.

They use Ilford DDX.

+1

Eric Biggerstaff

6-Jan-2014, 08:30

I have used most of the ones you list (D76, F76, Rodinal, DDX, TMAX RS, Xtol, HC110, Pyrocat MC) and all can provide excellent results but.......you have to test as others have said. Testing doesn't really take that long can easily be done in a few hours of time. You have a densitometer so go for it!

Testing done correctly will not only provide correct film speed and development times but will also help you gain confidence in the materials you are using which allows you to concentrate on the image as opposed to the process. If you test, you will save yourself a great deal of frustration in the future.

Drew Wiley

6-Jan-2014, 11:03

If you are getting negatives ruined in PMK, you might look at your development technique in general. I use PMK for all kinds of film, in many formats, and don't think
I've ever had a neg spoiled by it. Merely switching developers might not solve your problem.

spacegoose

6-Jan-2014, 12:51

Unless there is something wrong with the exposure or processing, D-76 1:1 is my first choice with HP5+.

C_Remington

6-Jan-2014, 13:25

Drew Wiley

6-Jan-2014, 14:06

I don't mean to sound presumptuous, but what is the quality of your mix water as well as wash water?

Gary L. Quay

6-Jan-2014, 17:07

I don't mean to sound presumptuous, but what is the quality of your mix water as well as wash water?

Distilled water for mix, Portland water for wash.

--Gary

Jac@stafford.net

6-Jan-2014, 17:09

Have you tried Barry Thornton's Exactol Lux (http://stores.photoformulary.com/Detail.bok?no=88)?

Gary L. Quay

6-Jan-2014, 17:09

The next question, I guess, is: does anyone know how to use a Kodak Model 1 densitometer? I have a very old one. It looks like it is from the 1930's or 1940's.

Gary L. Quay

6-Jan-2014, 17:12

Have you tried Barry Thornton's Exactol Lux (http://stores.photoformulary.com/Detail.bok?no=88)?

Not yet. I have some from Photographers' Formulary that I haven't opened.

--Gary

Gary L. Quay

6-Jan-2014, 17:16

Testing doesn't really take that long can easily be done in a few hours of time. You have a densitometer so go for it!

I don't know how to use it. I've looked online for tutorials, but none deal with the model I have. it's a Kodak Model 1.

Taija71A

6-Jan-2014, 18:56

I don't know how to use it. I've looked online for tutorials, but none deal with the model I have. It's a Kodak Model 1.

____

Gary... Did you try here perhaps?
*It might be a 'longshot'... But then again...

e-mail: craigcamera@outlook.com
#KOD-1356 Instruction Manual -- Kodak Color Densitometer Model 1 (Reprint) $18.00
#KOD-1092 Instruction Manual -- Kodak Transmission Densitometer (1940) $25.00

--
Best regards,

-Tim.
_________

Gary L. Quay

6-Jan-2014, 19:11

____

Gary... Did you try here perhaps?

*It might be a 'longshot'. But then again...

e-mail: craigcamera@outlook.com
#KOD-1356 Instruction Manual -- Kodak Color Densitometer Model 1 (Reprint) $18.00
#KOD-1092 Instruction Manual -- Kodak Transmission Densitometer (1940) $25.00

--
Best regards,

-Tim.
_________

I've been to this page, but I have so far refused to pay that much for a photocopy, but as a last resort, I'll do it.

Thanks!

--Gary

Gary L. Quay

6-Jan-2014, 19:33

Thanks to everyone for the replies. I suppose it's time to break down and buy the densitometer manual (unless someone wants to scan theirs and email it to me), and do the film testing. While some haven't had trouble with PMK, I am not ready to chalk it up entirely to used error. There doesn't seem to be any difference in the processing between the good negatives and bad ones. I've had lots of good ones. My experience hasn't been entirely bad. I just got done with two portrait jobs for paying clients, and all of the negs were developed in PMK, and all were flawless. I lose about one in 10 to the blotching. It's fairly mild, but it sometimes shows up in areas of uniform density, like cloudless skies. I will most likely to a test with a number of film / developer combinations, and pick the best ones. Thanks again!

--Gary

frotog

6-Jan-2014, 19:43

I know you've already committed to ditching the PMK but I'm curious about your technique as I've been there with the splotches and uneven development and subsequently spent a good deal of time working out the bugs of my PMK process. Are you tray developing by any chance?

Michael Kadillak

6-Jan-2014, 20:37

Somewhere along the process you are doing something not quite correct and it is the source of your frustration. It is not the developer or the film it is the process IMHO. At this juncture I would strip things down to their basics and review every step you are doing along the way with your film process down to the nats ass and I guarantee you that the problem will surface. Detail your process from the pre wash time to development process, temp, agitation technique, stop, fix and wash. The more detail the better. All of these developers will produce world class negatives with the majority of the films you listed.

Gary L. Quay

7-Jan-2014, 00:19

Are you tray developing by any chance?

Yes. I process either single sheets with constant agitation for the first minute, and every 15 seconds after, or i process multiple sheets with continuous agitation.

Mark Barendt

7-Jan-2014, 04:15

There's a certain feeling you get when you pull a negative out of the fixer, and it's stunning. I've never got that feeling using those deveolpers. I've gotten good negatives, very printable ones. But never a "Wow!" I got that with Edwal 12, and with PMK on occasion.

My definition of a pretty negative has changed over time as has my understanding of how to get one.

Pretty negatives used to look a bit like slides to me, now they are the ones that I can see will print well.

The biggest general improvement in my negatives, bar none, came when I got serious about using an incident meter to set camera exposure. It gave me an objective reference point that helped me raise my whole game. Lots more pretty negatives.

Not saying that will solve all your problems, especially the mottling, just saying the problems aren't always in the tank.

Regular Rod

7-Jan-2014, 04:36

frotog

7-Jan-2014, 06:30

Yes. I process either single sheets with constant agitation for the first minute, and every 15 seconds after, or i process multiple sheets with continuous agitation.

Aha! Just as I suspected. Tray dev. reeks havoc on PMK developed sheets. I'm surprised you're satisfied with any of the negs you've done this way. Chances are that those "acceptable" negs are mottled as well, you just aren't noticing it. This is not to say that PMK does not work in trays. Of course it works. But what is your criteria for a satisfactory neg.? A lot of folks developing this way are contact printing and they might never notice the blemish.

How's your b+f density? Pyro oxidizes rapidly, causing mottling and lots of fog. If the gutter of your sheet is not clear then this is a good indication that there is too much oxidation in your process. Since you are already using distilled water, my guess is that this is the source of your mottling.

I solved my problem by reducing oxidation all together. Now I use either a combo-plan tank filled up to the top or a jobo drum with a nitrogen gas line fed through the lift as Hutchings illustrates in his book. Both these processes produce flawless pmk negs every time. My PMK comes out of the tank as light gold as it goes in. If your PMK looks dark when you're finished with it then you have too much oxidation in your process. If you don't have the combo-plan try developing a single sheet taco-style, making sure to fill the tank to capacity in order to displace all the air out of your tank. I like to use a little nitrogen gas so that I can get more rigorous agitation.

Another thought is that your mottling is the result of rapid emulsion swelling. Have you tried using a pinch of sodium metaborate in your pre-wash?

bob carnie

7-Jan-2014, 06:43

Increase agitation in the first 15 seconds of development.

Like others here I use PMK for over 15 years with no issues.

If you have a lot of grey sky, or grey background, we will hand invert the tank for the first 20 seconds or so of development and then put it on our Jobo.

The book does not cover this area very well.
I would not give up on this developer as it is great.

Uneven, blotchy areas. I get this with no other developer. I have "The Book of Pyro," and I've read it cover to cover.

--Gary

Michael Kadillak

7-Jan-2014, 06:58

The biggest general improvement in my negatives, bar none, came when I got serious about using an incident meter to set camera exposure. It gave me an objective reference point that helped me raise my whole game. Lots more pretty negatives.

That was truly a defining event to me as well. The incident meter was a breakthrough. Now I take out the spot meter only on special occasions. Came at a critical time as sheet film prices particularly in the ULF formats dictate as close to perfect results as humanly possible.

James Morris

7-Jan-2014, 08:28

What agitation technique are you using?

Kevin Crisp

7-Jan-2014, 09:18

I've been extremely pleased with HC110, d76 1:1 and Xtol. My negatives are not 'flat' as I interpret that, unless, of course, the scene was and I did not attempt to increase contrast in the exposure and processing. Kirk is right, if you test, you shouldn't be getting disappointments with any of these.

Drew Wiley

7-Jan-2014, 09:55

I've developed sheet film in trays of PMK for years, including lots of HP5. Never an issue. Done it in hand inversion tanks with various 120 and 35mm films of all kinds.
Never a problem. And I've used all kinds of developers over the years. PMK remains my favorite for general photography. And I can't think of any significant processing variable that would spoil a neg in it compared to any non-staining general-use developer, or any other staining flavor of "pyro" either, with the exception of automated drum processing, which is probably not the greatest idea with PMK. The stain has a lot to do with highlight control, and affects grain rendition in enlargement, but I don't see how any common developer out there has any relation to a terminology of "flat" or "nonflat" - that is a function of film curve, subject range, exposure, and degree and style of development. There are special techniques like stand and water-bath, two-step compensating development, etc, but with any ordinary product, including PMK, it's a function of time, concentration, temp, and agitation. There are nuances between a neg developed in PMK vs HC-110 dil B, or 76, for example, but the same degree of contrast can be achieved with any of them quite easily. Something just doesn't add
up here. When PMK first became popular, everyone was praising how well matched it was to HP5, like a dream marriage. None of that has changed.

Gary L. Quay

7-Jan-2014, 22:49

Did you get on OK with 510-PYRO?

Have you considered OBSIDIAN AQUA?

They are the only developers I use now. I've got all sorts of other stuff, including HC 110, just rotting in the bottles but the results, for me, from both 510-PYRO and OBSIDIAN AQUA are so very good that I won't be going back to the others just to save them from being wasted. The images are too important to me.

RR

I've used 510 Pyro, and I've never had the mottling problems with it. I may try Obsidian Aqua. Who knows? I haven't had the time to do the testing required to use either. I've always relied on manufacturers' data or the Massive Development Chart for times, and those developers don't show up much. I'm not ruling them out.

Gary L. Quay

7-Jan-2014, 22:58

Pyro oxidizes rapidly, causing mottling and lots of fog. If the gutter of your sheet is not clear then this is a good indication that there is too much oxidation in your process.

Another thought is that your mottling is the result of rapid emulsion swelling. Have you tried using a pinch of sodium metaborate in your pre-wash?

I worried that this was the problem. The last few negatives I processed never left the soup. I moved them around rapidly in the Liquid. I don't think I had any issues with those negs. I haven't tried the sodium metaborate. Do you use distiller water for your presoak?

frotog

8-Jan-2014, 05:04

Yes, distilled water pre-wash is essential. Try a pinch of the metaborate and a longer (say 3-5') prewash. Also, PMK needs frequent, strong agitation. If you are experiencing mottling you are absolutely correct in limiting exposure of sheet to air. Given your predilection for tray developing you might want to invest in a slosher and a deep-wall tray. Despite the huge oxidation of the developer, this will allow for vigorous agitation and free you from having to handle the film once it's wet.

I worried that this was the problem. The last few negatives I processed never left the soup. I moved them around rapidly in the Liquid. I don't think I had any issues with those negs. I haven't tried the sodium metaborate. Do you use distiller water for your presoak?

Regular Rod

8-Jan-2014, 08:32

I've used 510 Pyro, and I've never had the mottling problems with it. I may try Obsidian Aqua. Who knows? I haven't had the time to do the testing required to use either. I've always relied on manufacturers' data or the Massive Development Chart for times, and those developers don't show up much. I'm not ruling them out.

Would you like to have my routine for both developers?

RR

Drew Wiley

8-Jan-2014, 09:23

Any kind of tray development needs a very regular,even, consistent smooth kind of motion to it. It help to have oversized trays, and I personally use dimpled-bottom ones. You need a good pre-soak. The stop bath should not be excessively acidic (even 1% is more than enough to do the job), and you can even use a tray of plain water between the stop and fix to remove the acidity, if the emulsion swells so quickly in the fix that there is a kind of "shock" to it which makes sheets stick together. The same kind of thing can happen in the developer if the pre-soak is insufficient. And it might be helpful to try just a few sheets at a time, like maybe 4, until your technique works smoothly. This is advice I would give relative to ANY developer, not just PMK. And I'd take any generic time chart, like the Massive Dev one, with a grain of salt.... might be OK as a starting point, but you still have to work out your own parameters. Distilled water helps, but you might also need to have a decent water filter on your wash line. Tap water quality varies widely from location to location. PMK is not overtly sensitive in this respect, but you still have to be particularly conscious of things like iron particles getting into the water from old plumbing lines, which will cause a visible problem.
You might also just do an experiment with already processed sheets film that you might otherwise throw away, with the room lights on, so you can see if your
agitation or shuffling technique has air bells trapped for any significant length of time against the emulsion side. Practice with the lights on until you've nailed down
your technique.

Kirk Gittings

8-Jan-2014, 10:47

That was truly a defining event to me as well. The incident meter was a breakthrough. Now I take out the spot meter only on special occasions. Came at a critical time as sheet film prices particularly in the ULF formats dictate as close to perfect results as humanly possible.

Can you explain this more Michael? I haven't used an incident meter since 1978, when I finally "got" the ZS and moved on to a Pentax spot meter.

Drew Wiley

8-Jan-2014, 11:44

A defining event for me was getting rid of incident meters forever, and TTL metering too. Once I standardized on spotmeters, I've never looked back.

bigdog

8-Jan-2014, 13:02

D76 ...: The standard.

There's a reason for that ...

Drew Wiley

8-Jan-2014, 13:55

Not everyone is content driving a Buick.

Gary L. Quay

9-Jan-2014, 00:44

Would you like to have my routine for both developers?

RR

Yes, please.

--Gary

Regular Rod

9-Jan-2014, 06:11

Yes, please.

--Gary

Email sent. Love your blog...

RR

TheToadMen

10-Jan-2014, 02:06

Hi Gary,
Nice blog indeed. Nice to read.
The other site in your signature www.foolscape.net seems to be off line?
I get this message: "Sorry! This site is no longer available."
Bert from Holland
http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl

http://www.flickr.com/photos/foolscape_imagery/
http://www.foolscape.net
http://quaygang.wordpress.com

Gary L. Quay

10-Jan-2014, 02:36

Hi Gary,
The other site in your signature www.foolscape.net seems to be off line?
I get this message: "Sorry! This site is no longer available."
Bert from Holland
http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl

That's a relief. Now, I can start a new web site.

Thanks!

--Gary

Gary L. Quay

22-Jan-2014, 13:08

Email sent. Love your blog...

RR

I never got the email. Could you please try again? A Private Message here on LFinfo would work.

Thanks!

--Gary

Regular Rod

22-Jan-2014, 16:17

I never got the email. Could you please try again? A Private Message here on LFinfo would work.

Thanks!

--Gary

Here it is:

http://freepdfhosting.com/a1e73b320a.pdf

RR

Bill Burk

22-Jan-2014, 23:48

Don't you just turn the light on, spin the dial and set it to zero... Put your negative in place, and spin the dial until the light spot that you are adjusting matches what you can see of the negative? Then read the density off the dial. Best I can tell from pictures and what I assume of the operation, there should be two light bulbs, one in the base and one in the head... The one in the head shines through the yellow dial probably into a mirror that points up to your eye... While the light on the base has a straight path up to your eye (through your negative).

Gary L. Quay

29-Jan-2014, 11:32

Here it is:

http://freepdfhosting.com/a1e73b320a.pdf

RR

Thanks! I'll give it a try.

--Gary

Gary L. Quay

29-Jan-2014, 11:47

Gary L. Quay

29-Jan-2014, 12:26

I did some densitometer investigation, and discovered why I couldn't make heads or tails out of it. There was black crud throughout the inside, including on the lenses and mirrors. I took it apart, and cleaned it up. Now, I can get the dots to match. Why didn't I think of that before?

Bill Burk

29-Jan-2014, 19:00

Sounds like you figured it out!

StoneNYC

30-Jan-2014, 06:36

I figured out that I don't want to mess with pyro after hearing about the mental issues it causes... Who wants a bottle of pyrogalol?

vinny

30-Jan-2014, 07:05

I figured out that I don't want to mess with pyro after hearing about the mental issues it causes... Who wants a bottle of pyrogalol?

?????? wear gloves when using photo chemicals. Don't drink the stuff.

StoneNYC

30-Jan-2014, 07:11

?????? wear gloves when using photo chemicals. Don't drink the stuff.

There's a difference between wearing gloves (which I do) and a breathing mask (which I do) than wearing a bio suit in a clean room to prevent Parkinson's and other neurological diseases... I'm sorry even Edwin Weston's photography was not worth his life or the work he could have done. Everyone tells me you can get any result you like with any developer if you test and learn how the two interact. I hear it over and over again. So why risk ruining my life when I can just use Rodinal Hah! Yes I know that has bad chemicals too but it's not powder floating in the air. I develop in my kitchen (with strict rules and procedures to keep myself safe) I'm not about to start mixing pyro, and end up ingesting some floating particles that land on my cooking utensils, that's just foolish. It's why I don't use powder chemicals in the first place.

bob carnie

30-Jan-2014, 07:17

by drinking the stuff he will get closer to the photo gods.

?????? wear gloves when using photo chemicals. Don't drink the stuff.

Michael Kadillak

30-Jan-2014, 08:33

I mix my pyro outside with a mask and gloves and wear a mask and gloves when I use it which is just common sense. Ditto for powdered cement which is similarly a carcinogen. The fact is that the reason people have used pyro for a century is because it works. When you look at pictures of Edward and Brett Weston their fingernails were black from using amidol signifying that protective gloves were not in play here. Edward had his fingers in pyro developed a heck of a lot longer than Brett and Brett lived to his early 80's. If you don't have the capability nor the desire to work through the safety issues there are other options. I contend that there are ways to take the adverse variables with this chemical out of play without any adverse consequences. Just my $0.02.

There's a difference between wearing gloves (which I do) and a breathing mask (which I do) than wearing a bio suit in a clean room to prevent Parkinson's and other neurological diseases... I'm sorry even Edwin Weston's photography was not worth his life or the work he could have done. Everyone tells me you can get any result you like with any developer if you test and learn how the two interact. I hear it over and over again. So why risk ruining my life when I can just use Rodinal Hah! Yes I know that has bad chemicals too but it's not powder floating in the air. I develop in my kitchen (with strict rules and procedures to keep myself safe) I'm not about to start mixing pyro, and end up ingesting some floating particles that land on my cooking utensils, that's just foolish. It's why I don't use powder chemicals in the first place.

vinny

30-Jan-2014, 08:35

There's a difference between wearing gloves (which I do) and a breathing mask (which I do) than wearing a bio suit in a clean room to prevent Parkinson's and other neurological diseases... I'm sorry even Edwin Weston's photography was not worth his life or the work he could have done. Everyone tells me you can get any result you like with any developer if you test and learn how the two interact. I hear it over and over again. So why risk ruining my life when I can just use Rodinal Hah! Yes I know that has bad chemicals too but it's not powder floating in the air. I develop in my kitchen (with strict rules and procedures to keep myself safe) I'm not about to start mixing pyro, and end up ingesting some floating particles that land on my cooking utensils, that's just foolish. It's why I don't use powder chemicals in the first place.

Again,You are full of it. What dust? http://www.freestylephoto.biz/015060-Formulary-PMK-Pyro-Liquid-Film-Developer For $30 you get a TON of it that lasts for a couple years.

Andrew O'Neill

30-Jan-2014, 09:13

Everyone tells me you can get any result you like with any developer if you test and learn how the two interact. I hear it over and over again.

StoneNYC, working with a staining developer allows you the luxury of easily printing the same negative on silver gelatin or alternative printing methods, such as carbon, etc. They scan beautifully, too. I wear gloves and a respirator when mixing.

Peter Gomena

30-Jan-2014, 09:20

I order my Pyro developers pre-mixed and wear nitrile gloves while processing. My darkroom is well ventilated. I wear glasses all the time, so splashes are not a big concern. It's not a big deal if you use a little caution and follow good basic laboratory procedures.

StoneNYC

30-Jan-2014, 10:15

StoneNYC, working with a staining developer allows you the luxury of easily printing the same negative on silver gelatin or alternative printing methods, such as carbon, etc. They scan beautifully, too. I wear gloves and a respirator when mixing.

You can't print carbon without using a staining developer?

I order my Pyro developers pre-mixed and wear nitrile gloves while processing. My darkroom is well ventilated. I wear glasses all the time, so splashes are not a big concern. It's not a big deal if you use a little caution and follow good basic laboratory procedures.

Kitchen...(I do wear gloves and mask always though)

Again,You are full of it. What dust? http://www.freestylephoto.biz/015060-Formulary-PMK-Pyro-Liquid-Film-Developer For $30 you get a TON of it that lasts for a couple years.

The version I wanted to use was a special mix, a non-staining pyro... So you have to mix it yourself. The second bath removes the stain but leaves the pyro "look" on the neg.

I mix my pyro outside with a mask and gloves and wear a mask and gloves when I use it which is just common sense. Ditto for powdered cement which is similarly a carcinogen. The fact is that the reason people have used pyro for a century is because it works. When you look at pictures of Edward and Brett Weston their fingernails were black from using amidol signifying that protective gloves were not in play here. Edward had his fingers in pyro developed a heck of a lot longer than Brett and Brett lived to his early 80's. If you don't have the capability nor the desire to work through the safety issues there are other options. I contend that there are ways to take the adverse variables with this chemical out of play without any adverse consequences. Just my $0.02.

It's good to hear, I haven't completely disgraced it, but weather outside living in New England is unpredictable, do you mix every time you develop? It make some kind of concentrate mix that's liquid and then dilute it after for a working solution?

I develop once a week at least.

Drew Wiley

30-Jan-2014, 10:37

I've posted on this subject many times before, but to summarize it, I've been watching various artist acquaintances over the years, and am also smack dab down
the street from major pharmaceutical factories, where formerly paint factories existed... so I've witnessed a lot of people with failing livers, weird cancers, and
horrific neurological conditions, who could have avoided all this just with a little common sense regarding what they handled and breathed. And in this day and age,
when disposable plastic gloves are abundant and cheap, I don't know why anyone would skip them with reference to even ordinary darkroom chemicals. Even the
non-toxic ones can lead to allergic sensitization sometimes. I happen to use mostly the PMK formula for film development. The mixed concentrates lasts me about
a year. The kinds of chromium compounds and other heavy metals that "alt" UV printers sometimes use are far worse than the two "pyros", but there's little doubt
that inhaling pyro powder is a bad thing, as it soaking your fingers in it.

Gary L. Quay

30-Jan-2014, 10:39

ROL

30-Jan-2014, 10:55

I've been threatening to do this for a few years, but I've finally decided to stop using PMK Pyro.

Oh no! Please, NOT THAT! Oh Lord, you're frightening me… gooood help us all.

Sorry, I missed the post as I was otherwise engaged. Still teetering on the edge of that building? All seriousness aside, if you can't achieve decent negatives with any of the developers mentioned, the problem lies elsewhere. I fear you'll be wasting a lot of time searching for that magic bullet.

ROL

30-Jan-2014, 10:56

I figured out that I don't want to mess with pyro after hearing about the mental issues it causes... Who wants a bottle of pyrogalol?

hgjfjhgkfdkjbb n mn6576132bwqhfuhq2wq,m//12e. jgyweiouojknk.wedekljn
.mkscd/
',

Drew Wiley

30-Jan-2014, 11:05

I always presoak, for every kind of film, sheet or otherwise. Same agitation pattern as development, though a minute or two should be sufficient. Don't know about
metaborate, whether it helps or not. I don't use it, but others might use a pinch.

Drew Wiley

30-Jan-2014, 11:09

... but I'd agree that dip n' dunk won't be any easier or safer than other methods. It might be harder, and you'll probably need substantially larger volumes of chem,
so will actually have more cumulative exposure to anything suspect. ... but yes, distilled water if there is any questions of particulates or excessive mineral content
in your tap water. But in any case, distilled for the final rinse, with a tad of Photoflo or the equivalent added.

mihag

30-Jan-2014, 12:43

What about the stain, is it toxic, should one wash their hands after handling a pyro developed film?

bob carnie

30-Jan-2014, 12:50

Plus one though I so not wear glasses

I order my Pyro developers pre-mixed and wear nitrile gloves while processing. My darkroom is well ventilated. I wear glasses all the time, so splashes are not a big concern. It's not a big deal if you use a little caution and follow good basic laboratory procedures.

vinny

30-Jan-2014, 13:02

A further consideration for getting my processes straightened out is whether or not I should do a presoak. I will likely to be moving to a dip & dunk system for everything. I just need some more 8x10 tanks. I want to do dip & dunk because there is very little handling of the film. Here are the questions: should I use distilled water? A wetting agent? Sodium Metaborate? Should I agitate during the presoak?

Thanks for all the responses so far.
If the temps here ever get back into the double digits, I'll be resuming production of my 1L and 2L ABS tanks for sheet film/hangers. Process film in hangers w/o mixig gallons of chemistry. Info on my website.

StoneNYC

30-Jan-2014, 14:50

What about the stain, is it toxic, should one wash their hands after handling a pyro developed film?

Good question!

Michael Kadillak

30-Jan-2014, 21:29

You can't print carbon without using a staining developer?

It's good to hear, I haven't completely disgraced it, but weather outside living in New England is unpredictable, do you mix every time you develop? It make some kind of concentrate mix that's liquid and then dilute it after for a working solution?

I develop once a week at least.

I mix a gallon of Pyrocat HD and a gallon of ABC Pyro about once every 4-6 months although the Pyrocat lasts longer. I usually wait until the ambient temperature is at least 50 degrees and the wind is calm outside. Plug the electronic scale and the heater magnetic mixer in the porch socket and it takes me about 10 minutes a batch from start to finish. The carbonate I mix in the basement as it is not at all dangerous.

I mix my Amidol fresh each printing session. I premixed the allotted weight of necessary chemicals in sealed baggies and just dump the three of them into the water and it takes me no time at all.

Oren Grad

30-Jan-2014, 22:17

You can't print carbon without using a staining developer?

That's not what he said.

Normally silver and alt processes do best with negatives developed to different maximum densities. A negative optimized for silver or for alt processes will typically be difficult or impossible to print the other way. The advantage of a pyro developer is that it produces a negative that appears to have a higher density to UV than it does to visible light. The consequence is that when you get your process dialed in you can make negatives that print well both in silver and in alt processes that rely on UV exposure.

Much more detail here:

http://home.roadrunner.com/~bobherbst/articles/pyro_and_platinum_printing.pdf

StoneNYC

30-Jan-2014, 23:25

That's not what he said.

Normally silver and alt processes do best with negatives developed to different maximum densities. A negative optimized for silver or for alt processes will typically be difficult or impossible to print the other way. The advantage of a pyro developer is that it produces a negative that appears to have a higher density to UV than it does to visible light. The consequence is that when you get your process dialed in you can make negatives that print well both in silver and in alt processes that rely on UV exposure.

Much more detail here:

http://home.roadrunner.com/~bobherbst/articles/pyro_and_platinum_printing.pdf

Thanks

Andrew O'Neill

30-Jan-2014, 23:36

You can't print carbon without using a staining developer?

Not what I said. Of course you can. What I said was, you can print the same stained negative on gelatin silver papers and alt processes, such as carbon. I mentioned carbon transfer, because that is what I have the most experience in. I also print kallitypes with the same stained negative. I use pyrocat-hd and obsidian aqua (I prefer pyrocat-hd). Very economical developers and last quite long in their separate stock solutions. You mix them up from stock to make a working solution. Both developers are great for rotary or tray work.

Gary L. Quay

31-Jan-2014, 01:12

Oh no! Please, NOT THAT! Oh Lord, you're frightening me… gooood help us all.

Sorry, I missed the post as I was otherwise engaged. Still teetering on the edge of that building? All seriousness aside, if you can't achieve decent negatives with any of the developers mentioned, the problem lies elsewhere. I fear you'll be wasting a lot of time searching for that magic bullet.

Actually, I mentioned those other developers because I've had good results with them. I had very good results this morning with Ilfotec-HC. What I'm asking for is not accusations of bad practices in the darkroom (I've had a number of them in this thread). I've only had trouble with PMK pyro, but not always. I really just wanted to know which developer, in other photographers' experience, was the best and most versatile. I got some good info so far, and figured out why my densitometer wasn't working properly, but I didn't want to go through film testing with 6 or 7 developers. I was hoping that photographers on this site could help me narrow down the list.

--Gary

Regular Rod

31-Jan-2014, 04:09

Actually, I mentioned those other developers because I've had good results with them. I had very good results this morning with Ilfotec-HC. What I'm asking for is not accusations of bad practices in the darkroom (I've had a number of them in this thread). I've only had trouble with PMK pyro, but not always. I really just wanted to know which developer, in other photographers' experience, was the best and most versatile. I got some good info so far, and figured out why my densitometer wasn't working properly, but I didn't want to go through film testing with 6 or 7 developers. I was hoping that photographers on this site could help me narrow down the list.

--Gary

Have you managed to do that?

RR

Gary L. Quay

1-Feb-2014, 00:59

Have you managed to do that?

RR

No. Not really. Oh, well. I'll take the fixed densitometer and call it a success, though.

--Gary

Regular Rod

1-Feb-2014, 04:40

No. Not really. Oh, well. I'll take the fixed densitometer and call it a success, though.

--Gary

To be of any real help folks can only recommend what they actually know. I have only used two PYRO type developers so can only say what I know about them. 510-PYRO is simple to use but needs heat to make up the stock solution. The results are great if you want a nice long range of tones with readily controlled highlights. OBSIDIAN AQUA is easier to make up and uses less expensive materials, BUT has two stock solutions, A and B, so there are two lots of measuring out to do but that is really no hardship. The sharpness it delivers is remarkable. It has become my go to developer.

So there's my attempt at helping you narrow it down. Either developer is great and they both last indefinitely as stock solutions. You won't regret using either of them.
:)
RR

Gary L. Quay

1-Feb-2014, 19:32

To be of any real help folks can only recommend what they actually know. I have only used two PYRO type developers so can only say what I know about them. 510-PYRO is simple to use but needs heat to make up the stock solution. The results are great if you want a nice long range of tones with readily controlled highlights. OBSIDIAN AQUA is easier to make up and uses less expensive materials, BUT has two stock solutions, A and B, so there are two lots of measuring out to do but that is really no hardship. The sharpness it delivers is remarkable. It has become my go to developer.

So there's my attempt at helping you narrow it down. Either developer is great and they both last indefinitely as stock solutions. You won't regret using either of them.
:)
RR

Thanks! I've been thinking seriously about trying Obsidian Aqua. What I like about 510-pyro and Obsidian Aqua is that they eliminate the rapid oxidization that plagues PMK. You can actually tray process in a normal manner.

--Gary