PDA

View Full Version : Best way to develop 4x5 in PMK, new to Pyro



brian steinberger
7-Nov-2006, 17:14
I've asked this question before, but this one is mainly towards PMK users. I'm going to give PMK a try with FP4 and Tri-x 320. I'm currently using tanks and hangers. In Hutchings book he states that tanks and hangers don't work well with Pyro developers. The Jobo tanks look nice, but do you have to constantly roll them? And also, how do you insert and take out film that is needed for a different development times? It's easy to add film during the process with tray processing and when using tanks. Anyone use the JOBO tanks as inverted tanks? Don't you get better edge effects? Thanks for any suggestions to a newbie at Pyro!

Brian

steve simmons
7-Nov-2006, 18:00
Why not just use trays. I have done so with PMK for 25+ years.I devlop 6 at a time and I can do each one for a different time. My procedure is in the FreeArticles section of the View Camera web page

www.viewcamera.com


steve simmons

Glenn Thoreson
7-Nov-2006, 18:08
Because I don't normally have but a few sheets, or maybe just a couple to develop, I just remove the reels from my Paterson style roll film tank and do one sheet at a time in it. Folks say you can do about four at a time by folding them like a taco and putting a loose rubber band around them. A Nikkor tank may be a solution but they're too expensive for me.

Dave Aharonian
7-Nov-2006, 19:46
I started out using PMK about 6 years ago. At that time I used tray development with mixed success. It seemed that even with the most meticulous technique, I would end up with a few badly scrathes negs. Eventually I gave up and bought a Jobo 3010 expert drum. It was one of my best investments. I use it on a Beseler motor base I got off eBay. Every neg I process now comes out absolutely perfect. Even development, no scratches. I'm a very happy camper. I'm in the middle of processing about 200 sheets of FP4 right now and as always, they are coming out perfect. Yes, trays are much more convenient for doing plus and minus dev't. I do a specific batch of only normal or plus/minus development. Its a bit of a pain but I usually have more than just a couple of sheets to do. By all means try tray development and see if it works for you, but I found the Jobo drum to be the answer for perfect PMK dev't.

Caroline Matthews
7-Nov-2006, 20:26
As Steve said, use trays. Why spend a couple of hundred dollars for something you may not use if you don't like PMK? The benefit of using Jobo drums is in temperature control via the Jobo processors. The side benefit is the automated processing.

And, Steve, I don't think you have been using PMK for over 25 years. Please try to be reasonably accurate.

Andrew O'Neill
7-Nov-2006, 23:59
PMK works best in trays. It's the simplest way and you can control of how often you agitate for edge effects. For stand or semi-stand development it is best to develop the film in a vertical position...tubes work well for this. You can make them yourself.

Jay DeFehr
8-Nov-2006, 01:18
Caroline,

there are many benefits to using a Jobo drum: easy loading, minimum solution volume, daylight processing, temperature control, even development, consistency, and scratch-free negs, none of which requires a processor. I would only recommend tray development to those who cannot afford anything better, who like sitting in the dark, and are willing to tolerate the occasional scratched negative (there will be the occasional scratched negative). Jobo drums work with other developers as well as PMK, in fact, there are better developers for drum processing than PMK, so if Brian decides he doesn't like PMK, at least he'll have a good drum to use with whatever developer he decides to use.

Jay

steve simmons
8-Nov-2006, 06:39
From Caroline,
"And, Steve, I don't think you have been using PMK for over 25 years. Please try to be reasonably accurate."

Gordon Hutchings and I have been friends since about 1978 He created the PMK formula in about 1980 and asked several of us to begin testing it for him. This would have been about 1980 or 81. Beginning in 78 I started using the Wimberley W2D2 formula and learned tray developement about 79. I was taught tray development by Jim Galvin and Morley Baer

True, his book did not come out till the mid 90s but that is only when he went public with the formula after years of testing.

steve

j.e.simmons
8-Nov-2006, 06:44
You might look to BTZS tubes as a less expensive alternative to Jobo. However, I'd recommend using trays for a bit until you see if you like the developer.
juan

steve simmons
8-Nov-2006, 06:56
IMHO the key to my tray development process is the pre-soak and the placing of the films emulsion side down in the tray of developer. Also, by putting the film into the developer at different times I do not have to count and keep track of where each sheet is in the pile. It is also not necessary to do the same number of sheets each time. I simply do keep track of how often I rotate the stack from top to bottom. I go through the stack six times a minute no matter how many sheets I have. This keeps the agitation constant.

steve simmons

brian steinberger
8-Nov-2006, 09:57
The Jobo tanks sound intersting, and it would be nice to use the drum no matter what developer I decide on. What about using the Jobo tanks and filling them up and inverting them as opposed to rolling on a base?

Ed Richards
8-Nov-2006, 10:55
Jobo expert drums do not have caps, so inverting them is a problem. Rolling is easy, and they work with any developer that does not oxidize too quickly. There is a cheap bessler base on the site right now.

brian steinberger
8-Nov-2006, 15:58
Ed,

I thought PMK was a developer that oxidized quickly. I know Jobo makes a 4x5 tank for inversion. Maybe someone can chime in here and recommend one.

Jay DeFehr
8-Nov-2006, 16:36
Hi Brian.

I don't think PMK is a good choice for use with the Expert drums; the solution essentially cascades from one chamber to the next, and PMK is very sensitive to oxidation. The other choice is the 2521 drum and 2509 reel. These can be inverted, or rotated, but are a little more tricky to load, and will require a lot of solution to cover the film for intermittent inversion agitation.

Jay

Michael Daily
8-Nov-2006, 17:04
I use a Bessler tube and base for processing. I modified the base by putting in a varaible switch and set it to the slowest rate I can get it to turn at. Total cost: base $15, tube $1, switch $19.95. Works fine.

chilihead
9-Nov-2006, 18:26
Get a six sheet Jobo drum and use Rollo Pyro and you will never use anything else.

Ron Marshall
9-Nov-2006, 19:19
The Jobo tanks sound intersting, and it would be nice to use the drum no matter what developer I decide on. What about using the Jobo tanks and filling them up and inverting them as opposed to rolling on a base?

I've done it that way and it works very well, but, and it's a big but, you use lots of developer.

I use the stopper from the foot-pump and plug the hole in the center with a pen.

I fill just to the top of the cylinders, 2700ml for the 3006, and then roll the drum back and forth on a counter. I roll for 10 seconds every three minutes. I have tried this with HC-110, XTOL, Pyrocat-HD and Rodinal. The best results were with Pyrocat-HD.

NER
9-Nov-2006, 19:51
Like Steve said, use trays and process emulsion side down. The 25-year claim is absolutely correct. Along with Steve, Jim Galvin, Ralph Talbert and few others, I too was one of the early users before the book was published and I have never found the need to use any other developer since.

N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com/

Don Hutton
17-Nov-2006, 09:06
From Caroline,
"And, Steve, I don't think you have been using PMK for over 25 years. Please try to be reasonably accurate."

Gordon Hutchings and I have been friends since about 1978 He created the PMK formula in about 1980 and asked several of us to begin testing it for him. This would have been about 1980 or 81. Beginning in 78 I started using the Wimberley W2D2 formula and learned tray developement about 79. I was taught tray development by Jim Galvin and Morley Baer

True, his book did not come out till the mid 90s but that is only when he went public with the formula after years of testing.

steve

Strange - in your "pyro magnum opus" published in View Camera June/Aug 2004 you state in black and white:"In 1984, I began testing Gordon Hutching's PMK formula..." Which lie is correct? Or is Caroline just wrong anyway?

Marko
17-Nov-2006, 11:24
From Caroline,
"And, Steve, I don't think you have been using PMK for over 25 years. Please try to be reasonably accurate."

Gordon Hutchings and I have been friends since about 1978 He created the PMK formula in about 1980 and asked several of us to begin testing it for him. This would have been about 1980 or 81. Beginning in 78 I started using the Wimberley W2D2 formula and learned tray developement about 79. I was taught tray development by Jim Galvin and Morley Baer

True, his book did not come out till the mid 90s but that is only when he went public with the formula after years of testing.

steve


Strange - in your "pyro magnum opus" published in View Camera June/Aug 2004 you state in black and white:"In 1984, I began testing Gordon Hutching's PMK formula..." Which lie is correct? Or is Caroline just wrong anyway?

1981 or 1984, I really don't see that much of a difference. There is about month and a half left until 2007 now, which makes it 25/26 vs. 22/23 years.

Would 2-3 years out of a quarter of a century be such a tremendously strong reason for disrupting an otherwise interesting and educational thread with yet another flame war?

This keeps happening with increasing frequency, each time Pyro gets mentioned and/or Steve Simmons dares say something. I really don't know what it is that sets some people off against each other in this manner and frankly, I don't give a damn.

Perhaps the moderators would consider creating a special Steve-Simmons-and-View-Camera-bashing thread, or maybe even a Pyro-Wars thread, where people who feel so strongly about either could really have at it to their hearts' content without the rest of us having to ingest all that venom?

brook
17-Nov-2006, 11:43
Brian, If you are happy using the hangers and tanks, consider using Pyrocat HD, I have found perfectly even development if a water soak is used first. I think uneven edge development was the problem mentioned with PMK in hangers.

I tray developed for about 5 years,PMK, ABC, Pyrocat hd, ect. I had to use tanks and hangers for a HABS job last year(their specs) and chose Pyrocat HD as I had been happy with its consistancy. I was impressed by the results, perfectly even development and scratch free negs every time. Its not as efficant on the chemistry,
but everything is a trade off. Everything 8x10 and smaller now goes into the tanks.

Scott Davis
17-Nov-2006, 11:52
After trying to get a grip on hanger processing (I still get developer surge marks on the film where the drain holes in the hanger are), and scratching the dickens out of too many sheets in trays, I went with the Jobo Expert drums. I bit the bullet (HARD) and got a used CPA2, 3005 and 3010 drums, and have been using Pyrocat HD. This has been the most trouble-free method for me to date. I keep the hangers and tanks around for when I want to do semi-stand.

brook
17-Nov-2006, 12:17
After trying to get a grip on hanger processing (I still get developer surge marks on the film where the drain holes in the hanger are), and scratching the dickens out of too many sheets in trays, I went with the Jobo Expert drums. I bit the bullet (HARD) and got a used CPA2, 3005 and 3010 drums, and have been using Pyrocat HD. This has been the most trouble-free method for me to date. I keep the hangers and tanks around for when I want to do semi-stand.


Guess there is just no telling, I always got over dense edges tray processing, not to mention the scratches......

What developer were you using to get the surge marks?

steve simmons
17-Nov-2006, 12:21
If you are having trouble wth tray processing try the process described in the article on the View Camera page under Free Aticles. This is how I was taught.

Here is the direct ink

http://www.viewcamera.com/pdf/TRAYPRO.pdf

stev simmons

Andre Noble
17-Nov-2006, 16:01
Jobo with Pyrocat HD Works "O.K.", but due to agitation grain is enlarged.

I may soon go back to trying tray processing to squeeze the most from emulsion.

sanking
17-Nov-2006, 17:08
Jobo with Pyrocat HD Works "O.K.", but due to agitation grain is enlarged.

I may soon go back to trying tray processing to squeeze the most from emulsion.

I have never observed an increase in grain size with any developer that could be contributed to rotary agitation compared to tray development. For the same time of development you will usually get more contrast with continuous rotary agitation than with tray development, and greater contrast can cause an increase in apparent grain. However, in my experience films developed to the same CI do not show more grain with continuous rotary processing than with tray processing.

There may, however, be some slight loss of effective film speed with rotary agitation. If you want to squeeze the most from the emulsion in terms of effective film speed you may want to consider a slosher or cradle that will keep the film separated and allow for reduced agitation. With some combinations of film/deveoper minimal agitation methods can indeed increase effective film speed.

Sandy King

ronald moravec
18-Nov-2006, 08:26
PMK will not work in a rotary drum of any kind. Gordon`s solution was to run a nitrogen feed line down the Jobo lift to displace all the Oxygen in the drum. It is in his book. I tried replacing the developer twice during development and it still oxydises too fast. Nitrogen is the solution.

Keep your bare fingers out of the stuff. It is toxic to some degree.

He also describes a method of developing one 4x5 sheet in an 8x10 tray. ONE sheet only goes in emulsion up and the sides are lifted in rotation. The sheet is to swish and twist around vigorously. The negs are perfectly developed with PMK and I tried with other developers and it work as well.

My best results were in sealed tanks that eliminate oxygen/PMK contact. Any Nikor tank from 35mm to 4x5 seems to work fine. You will need to use shorted times compared to any other method as there is no oxidation slowing the process down. Start with 60% the original time for any open system. Your developer comes out looking just like it went in.

Andre Noble
19-Nov-2006, 17:47
My Hand processed in pyocat roll films are noticeably more sharp/fine grain than same sheet film emulsion in Jobo.

sanking
19-Nov-2006, 21:19
My Hand processed in pyocat roll films are noticeably more sharp/fine grain than same sheet film emulsion in Jobo.

I am not at all surprised that you get sharper results with film processed in Pyrocat by hand. That is also my experience, not only for Pyrocat but for a number of other developers as well.

However, it would very much surprise me that type of agitation is the cause for the finer grain you are observing with hand processed roll film. Granularity is affected by type of developer (solvent developers give finer grain), exposure (more exposure increases grain) and CI (higher contrast increases grain), and to my knowledge not by type of agitation.

Moreover, the conditions that cause an increase in apparent sharpness, micro-contrast from edge effects) actually increase rather than decrease graininess. I suspect that the increased sharpness you are getting with hand processing is somehow masking the appearance of grain in textured areas. You might see something different if you were to compare large areas of even density with the two types of development. One of the things you can nearly always count on with developers is that the conditions that favor greater sharpness cause more graininess, and the conditons that favor grain reduce apparent sharpness.

Sandy King

Doremus Scudder
20-Nov-2006, 06:10
I've been using PMK/Tri-X (along with other films) for (an unspecified number of) years now. I also tray process. With emulsion hardened films and the hardening effect of the PMK, scratches are a rarity for me. I develop emulsion side up, and up to 6 sheets at a time. I agitate by shuffling once through the stack every 30 seconds for the first half of the development, and once every minute for the remainder. Not pushing the sheets down into the developer rapidly prevents over-developed edges. I also turn the film 180 degrees with each shuffle. I use deep 5x7 trays and 500ml of PMK. I have no problems with developer exhaustion with up to 6 sheets. The edge effects (Mackie lines) with this scheme are visible through my Peak enlarging magnifier when enlarging.

Steve, how do you manage to go through the stack six times a minute? That's almost one shuffle a second! I could never move that fast.

I have good results emulsion side up. Emulsion side down is good too (obviously, since many use this method). Finding the routine that delivers good results and sticking to it is the trick. Tray developing appeals to my Spartan nature: simple tools and skill instead of technology... No machine could sculpt the Pietá, but Michelangelo managed with just a hammer and chisel...

One aspect of PMK developing that others her have not discussed much: Do wear vinyl or nitrile gloves if you will be putting your hands in the developer. It is toxic enough to warrant this precaution if you plan on using it a lot.

Do some searches on whether or not to use the "after bath": i.e. two minutes in the used developer after fixing to help build stain. I have tried acid and alkaline processes with and without the after bath and have still not made up my mind....

Hope this helps
Doremus Scudder

steve simmons
22-Nov-2006, 16:22
"Steve, how do you manage to go through the stack six times a minute? That's almost one shuffle a second! I could never move that fast."

It is a continuous shuffling. Not fast or frantic but steady. It is about 1 sheet every 1.8 seconds. If I have fewer sheets I just slow the shuffling a little to keep my agitation constant.

steve simmons

Doremus Scudder
23-Nov-2006, 01:50
Steve,

One of these days you'll have to show me your technique. For me, with floppy vinyl gloves on, it is all I can do to get through six sheets of 4x5 in under 30 seconds. My rate is about one "flop" every five seconds. Of course, I'm not a very fast runner either....

At any rate, I have been trying to agitate as little as possible to maximize the edge effects. I used to go through the stack just once a minute, but with PMK that sometimes resulted in uneven development. Therefore, I changed to my present agitation scheme of once through the stack every 30 seconds for the first half of developing and then once a minute for the remainder of the time.

The edge effects are present and visible under my grain magnifier. I wonder if film developed in PMK with a more vigorous agitation scheme also exhibits edge effects... Maybe I'll do a comparison next session (if I can get up to speed :-) )

Best,

steve simmons
23-Nov-2006, 06:41
I use tight medical gloves that I get at a scientific supply house

steve