New To PYRO

[matthew klos]

Hi there,


So i just started using pryo and i have been shooting FP4 rated at 100, and developing it in PMK for 9 minutes, and my negatives are absolute BRICKS. My normal time for a 16x20 print, on a cold head enlarger with an aperture full open at 5.6 is ranging up into the 250 seconds. The negatives themselves look beautiful, the tonal range looks amazing, and even the contacts on rc paper look gorgeous. But for enlargements the amount of time it takes to make a exposure is crazy. Any advice?

[Peter De Smidt]

Is the problem overall fog, or too much density in the highlights? If overall fog, then there are some steps you can take to minimize it. If there's too much density in the highlights but low base density, then you might try developing less.

To give a better answer, more info would help. What is your processing method? Are you printing on VC paper? What is your light source?

[Claude Sapp]

For comparison, I use PMK to develop FP4+. I use BTZS, but my "normal" development time is 9.5 minutes, film rated at 64. Development is in hand rolled tubes, and I get reasonable enlargement exposure times with cold light. Sounds like your fb+f is higher than mine.

[John Bowen]

What are you enlarging to 16x20.....8x10 or 110?

[Gem Singer]

Since you state that your contact prints look great, the solution is to use a brighter light in your enlarger to reduce the exposure time.

PMK developer imparts a strong yellow stain to a negative. Yellow filters blue light. A cold light emits light from the blue end of the spectrum. It's like adding extra yellow filtration. Cuts down the brightness of the enlarger light source.

A 16x20 enlargement requires the enlarging head to be raised high above the lens board, resulting in a smaller amount of light reaching the paper.

A stronger enlarger light source as well as 135mm enlarging lens, instead of a 150 will help to make the exposure times shorter.

[matthew klos]

My development is in stainless steel canisters. I develop my film at 70 degress.

When i print I have been using a 90 lens so that i do not have to raise it as high.

Right now i am using Ilford VC fiber.

I dont think its fog, in my contacts i am getting brilliant whites. But the density looks good, its not like the density is so THICK thick i look at it and say wow. It just looks like great overall exposed negatives.

[matthew klos]

Would a color enlarger head be better, since i can use magenta to control my print?

[matthew klos]

Another thing i think would be importan to add is my agitation. I agitate constantly for the first 30 seconds. Than every 30 seconds for 5 seconds, and than i let it stand still. At times there seems to be flatter highlights, when i actually make the print, where on a contact the highlights seem perfect, brilliantly white and clear with information in them. I have to end up dialing up in filtration to bring the highlights up. My usual developer is HC-110 Dilution B. But i have seen amazing prints from pyro, and thought i would have to give it a chance. I have a very important project i am starting to shoot, and i need to get my technical stuff wired down, and i really would like to continue with pyro.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't see any substantial difference between FP4 in pyro than any of the other films
I have done with this (and there have been plenty of them). Prints very consistently on each of my four enlargers (two have additive colorheads, one subtractive, and one a coldlight). What kind of bulb are you using, or specific light source? The highlights on
FP4 can block up if you overdevelop, but the base fog should not be appreciable.
I rate it at ASA50, and have printed it on all kind of papers, both VC and graded.

[Peter De Smidt]

A properly exposed and developed pyro-stained negative should look thinner, in my experience, than one developed in a non-staining developer.

[Daniel Stone]

are you re-staining after fixing? Gordon Hutchings doesn't recommend that anymore for PMK, due to the added stain that increases printing times.

lots of people like Pyrocat-HD though, might want to give that a try. Less stain IMO than with PMK.

-Dan

[Paul Metcalf]

Are you post-fix staining using the used developer? If so, try post-fix staining using a weak solution of sodium metaborate (the Part B solution of PMK). That will not provide as much overall fog staining. Or as DanielStone suggests...

[Brook Martin]

I find PMK negs do well with an acid fix, a sulfite/Hypo clear treatment, and no post fix dunk in anything to increase stain. If the negs are bright green, you have way too much non image stain and it only makes printing time way too long.

[Drew Wiley]

Peter mentioned it ... you need to learn to trust the pyro stain. If you have a thick
negative in the ordinary sense PLUS a lot of image stain, it will simply be too much.

[Sirius Glass]

Peter mentioned it ... you need to learn to trust the pyro stain. If you have a thick
negative in the ordinary sense PLUS a lot of image stain, it will simply be too much.

????

Are you saying, if it is a dense negative do not stain, but if it is not dense then stain?

Steve

[matthew klos]

I shot a roll last night of a normal subject matter i normally shoot. I rated it this time the FP4 at 125 instead of 80, and the density looks better, not as "brick" like. I stuck with the 9 minutes which seemed to work.

To answer some questions, i develop in pmk, i than stop with water, i fix with TF-4, i than take my used developed and re stain for 5 minutes. and i agitate maybe once every minute. Now right after i took my film out of the fixer i unrolled it a little to look, and there was definitely a green stain there, there seemed to be no fog, even developmental staining, but after i re-stained , and than washed for 15 minutes, you could see a big difference. i have not had the chance yet to contact or print these, but they seem a lot better.

This week, im going to do a test with the FP4, where i will shoot three sheets of the same film, develop in HC-110, Pryocat HD, and PMK, contact and print a 11x14 and see what i get.

[Peter De Smidt]

It's been said before, but you should stop soaking your fixed film in used developer, especially since you're using tf-4! All you're doing is increasing fog.

[Peter De Smidt]

????

Are you saying, if it is a dense negative do not stain, but if it is not dense then stain?

Steve

No, he was simply re-iterating the point that a properly exposed and developed PMK negative looks thinner than a negative properly exposed and developed in a non-staining developer.

At zone VIII, the density of the PMK negative is approximately 60% silver density and 40% stain density. Visually, though, the stain doesn't look anywhere near that dense. Hence if you're trying to make a pmk negative look to your eye like a properly exposed and developed non-stained negative, then you'll have significantly over-developed your PMK negative.

The best way to evaluate a stained negative is through printing, or with the use of a UV densitometer. Eyeballing the negative only works if you're very familiar with how a stained negative should look.

[sanking]

It's been said before, but you should stop soaking your fixed film in used developer, especially since you're using tf-4! All you're doing is increasing fog.

What Peter said. Soaking your film in the used developer may increase general, or BF stain, which is like fog, but general stain has no benefit in printing but increases printing time.

Gordon Hutchings' book on pyro printing offers a lot of good information but his suggestion to soak the film in the used developer was a bad idea that has caused a lot of wasted discussion about the practice. As someone else pointed out, even he no longer recommend the practice so let's move on.

Sandy King

[matthew klos]

Thank-you all, i will give this a try. All i was simply saying was that i just eyeballed the negative that is all.

Thank-you Sandy. If i am correct and you are the same sandy king, i am a student of christopher james, your information on carbon printing is very nice!

[matthew klos]

When i try Pyrocat HD, do i not need to re soak my film in developer? Or i can now get rid of that idea all together?

[Peter De Smidt]

Why is this not getting through? Don't soak your film in used developer, whether you're using PMK, Pyrocat HD or any other staining developer. All that does is increase overall stain, which adds to printing time.

[Sirius Glass]

No, he was simply re-iterating the point that a properly exposed and developed PMK negative looks thinner than a negative properly exposed and developed in a non-staining developer.

Thank you for clarifying that. His statement could be interpreted more than one way.

Bottom line ... do not stain [especially since I am using a dichroic enlarger.

Steve

[matthew klos]

Christ, SORRY peter for wasting even more of you time! People on this forum need to chill out, all of you get into the stupidest fights over film and chemistry. We all shoot because this is fun, not so we can argue over this shit on the internet.

[Peter De Smidt]

What fight? What disagreement? 5 people told you not to soak your fixed film in used developer, and no one told you to do so, but when you ran another test, you did it again.

[Pawlowski6132]

Christ, SORRY peter for wasting even more of you time! People on this forum need to chill out, all of you get into the stupidest fights over film and chemistry. We all shoot because this is fun, not so we can argue over this shit on the internet.

What an ass. If you don't like it, leave.

[matthew klos]

"but when you ran another test, you did it again."

i hadnt read the posts peter, i had done the test before any of the posts had been made. There is no need to be rude, by saying "why is this not getting through".

[Peter De Smidt]

"but when you ran another test, you did it again."

i hadnt read the posts peter, i had done the test before any of the posts had been made. There is no need to be rude, by saying "why is this not getting through".

Right, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt after you ran the test, and so I re-iterated the point, after which, you asked about it again.

Before you make a post in a tread where you're asking for help, don't you think it'd be polite to read the thread before asking something repeatedly? In that situation, implying that you should be paying a little more attention isn't inappropriate. In any case, if being accused of being a bit inattentive is the worst thing that's happened to you this week, well, it wasn't such a bad week, was it?

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I'm one of those folks who does use an alkaline afterbath with PMK, and I do it
to fine-tune the negative density with considerable success. But this is relative to the
specific film in mind and the silver density itself, and I would agree that it can get out
of hand with FP4 if you don't have sufficient experience with this specific film.

[Peter De Smidt]

Drew, are you using an alkaline fixer?

[Bob McCarthy]

I just read through the thread. I noticed two items that may be germain to the discussion. First item was he is shooting roll film and secondly he's using an 90 mm enlarging lens.

Medium format - enlarged 16x20's with a cold light head with magenta filtration (?) - is gonna take some time.

Any issues with excessive stain are really icing on the cake.

John Bowen was on to it but OP never answered question.

bob

[Drew Wiley]

Magneta? On a cold light??? That would be misery. The correct filter for high contrast
would be blue.

[Bob McCarthy]

I found magenta comment, had to do with changing to a color head not cold light.

My zone VI cold light head with difuser box was dog slow with small pieces of film.

bob

[sanking]

Thank-you all, i will give this a try. All i was simply saying was that i just eyeballed the negative that is all.

Thank-you Sandy. If i am correct and you are the same sandy king, i am a student of christopher james, your information on carbon printing is very nice!

Thank you for your comment, Matthew. Yes, I am the Sandy King that does carbon printing.

Sandy

[sanking]

Well, I'm one of those folks who does use an alkaline afterbath with PMK, and I do it
to fine-tune the negative density with considerable success. But this is relative to the
specific film in mind and the silver density itself, and I would agree that it can get out
of hand with FP4 if you don't have sufficient experience with this specific film.

How does adding more general fog density fine tune the negative? Beats me why anyone would want to add overall density to a negative.

Sandy

[matthew klos]

Do any of you guys change the formula of the dilution a and b for platinum contact printing?