Sandy... I would love to see a larger example of the full print. I always strive to retain textural detail as well as tonal range/subtleties... and that image is special.
Printable View
Sandy... I would love to see a larger example of the full print. I always strive to retain textural detail as well as tonal range/subtleties... and that image is special.
The image to which Sandy refers, can be seen here.
If your browser lets you zoom in (usually by increasing the size of the font), you can see that the Photoshop ruler displays the size in inches 43.. 44... 45.. off the screen. Thats a big print from a small negative.
(To zoom in/increase font size on Windows, try pressing both the control key and the plus-key at the same time, namely CTRL/+
To zoom out/decrease font size on Windows, press the control key and the minus-key at the same time, namely CTRL/-
On the Mac, it's Command/+ and Command/-)
I go away for the weekend, Ken tries the recipe, and I miss all the hoopla!
Like Sandy, I use divided Pyrocat for roll film all the time. I decided to use it for my adventure into 8x10, because I going to be shooting Galli style, i.e., old, funky, fast glass and a Packard Shutter, which might not afford one the most precise, accurate, or repeatable exposure duration control (see the example below). Figure that even a maroon like myself might be successful at 8x10 with Sandy's development magic bullet.
Despite his modesty, Sandy deserves the credit for this one... it is not magic, but it is pretty close!
http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/JimGalliShutter.jpg
More info on the Galli Shutter
Best of Both Worlds? Maybe for me...
Please don't take this as an invitation to start digital v. analog photography discussion/feud/spitting match/...
I assume that many of you listen to Brooks Jensen's podcasts. If you don't, you might want to consider listening to Brooks' podcasts, he has thought more deeply about a lot of photography things more deeply than most of us. The last two podcasts (podcasts 555 and 556, published in early September of 2009) have been on some of the benefits of capturing digitally in the field and performing more of the creative work image making process in the digital darkroom. Following the vein of Brooks' train of thought, I have this comment on the hybrid process with compensating development...
Like Ken Lee mentioned early in this thread, compensating developers allow you to capture a wider brightness range that can be easily scanned and exploited in the digital darkroom to yield many of the benefits that Brooks discusses in the referenced podcasts. The bottom line for me is that LF B&W film capture with compensating development captures wonderful tonality and detail (texture) that I can not afford in digital capture, at least yet, and it does it relatively easily. By relatively easily, I mean that I do not have to nail an exposure and development combination to achieve good results. But, instead I have to be close on the exposure and just follow one development recipe to achieve good results. Which puts good technical results within the grasp of regular guys (maybe more properly read: "hacks like me") who would rather spend their weekends trying to create meaningful photographs rather than practicing technique in hopes of one day having achieve sufficient proficiency to start making meaningful photographs.
I still have a long way to go both in the craft of LF photograhy and I have yet to make a meaningful photograph, but with this hybrid process I can see the light at the end of the tunnel regarding the craft of LF photography... if you have figured out what it takes to make a meaningful photograph, please let me know. :)
For traditional darkroom users is there any downside to using a split developer technique for all types of lighting? For them would it be better to use it only in high contrast situations?
Perhaps others can, but I haven't fully established to my satisfaction, that Divided Pyrocat HD is best for all situations, hands down.
However, I plan to use it exclusively for now, and see... what develops. In scenes with normal lighting, it seems to have produced images with normal contrast. In scenes with extreme contrast, it does the same. As I asked before: "How do it know ?"
I LOVE that Maroon Galli shutter! What a great solution!!! Now, if only I could get one with one of Frank P's models attached... she could even come clothed, for shipping I guess.
It depends on what type of process the traditional darkroom user is using. If printing with VC silver papers I don't believe there would be much of a downside because you could adjust contrast with filters. On the other hand, there would be a definite downside to printing with a process (fixed grade silver papers for example, or vandyke) that did not allow for much control of contrast in the printing stage. Regardless, if I were only printing in the wet darkroom I would recommend using full exposure and development controls to get the best negative possible to start with.
For scanning I have not found any downside in the use of two-bath developers regardless of the type of lighting in the scene. Low contrast scenes witll give negatives of lower contrast and high contrast scenes will give negatives of higher contrast, but the tones can adjusted in Photoshop as long as you are able to scan with detail in the highlights.
Sandy King
I can attest that Sandy is correct regarding traditional printing with VC papers. Using a divided developer for your negatives works very well. I have also used it for some contact printing of WP negatives on graded papers (Kentmere Bromide grades 2 and 3) with good results. Normal scenes develop to normal contrast, just as do the normal scenes included in a roll of 120.
The toughest situation for divided development is very dull lighting. In those situations, I have intensified the negative in selenium, which works well.
what do you mean here sandy? you would use other developing formulas?
i print in my DR cause my scanner hates me. now if i get some love from my scanner with this technique i may never be forced back to the DR. BUT if i use the wet DR on VC papers this will work nicely?
i will try it for sure....sounds great.
thanks
eddie
This page may be useful... :)
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/De.../formulas.html
jim k
Ken, the two-bath developer you have used has retained detail in the shadows and highlights, but the tones looks very flat, grey and ugly. If I made a print that looked like it appears on my PC, I wouldn`t be at all pleased with it. I think that you could get much more pleasing contrast with Pyrocat as a single-solution developer or with a soft-working Metol developer like Perceptol diluted 1+3.
Sorry Ken, but I just don`t like the tonality of those images.
I think you missed the point. The idea was the capture the full range of data so it could be refined later in photoshop. There is not enough data attached to the post to do it properly, but the original file would be a walk in the park
Quick and Dirty - this literally took 2 minutes (1 minute each).
bob
of course it looks flat, but my point is the information is there
If I increase the contrast ramps more in this small sample, it pixilates badly. But with local adjustments it can be anything you want.
You've apparently have not worked much with digital editing. Not a slam, but just trying to encourage you to understand, contrast is a choice and the amount is an option if all the data is there in the first place.
I'm not working with the original file, but this small, highly compressed sample the OP put up.
bob
Bob, if you can radically push the contrast up in Photoshop without losing the details, then I might find the image acceptable. I certainly wouldn`t like the actual print to look like it appears on my PC monitor. I have not worked much with digital editing because I make silver-prints.
The details are there. let me provide some additional examples.
A is darkening the room where the photographer resides, the contrast between the shooting room and the subject room has increased
B is increasing the contrast in the subject room independent of the shooting room
These are small files made from a highly compressed original (posted by OP).
While the matter "if they are art" is not mine. The photographers vision is acheivable in this way, and in a way normal development can not always provide.
bob
Sorry for any confusion, fellers. :) Just tryin' to show how easy it is to capture 14 Zones... or more !
I just pointed the camera at some scenes of extreme contrast. I would not have made those photos for artistic purposes.
I think Bob has already done a fine job in demonstrating the basic possibilities, without spending an unreasonable amount of time.
If we don't much care for the look of these images, it's probably due to their inherent blandness as subjects.
Perhaps the most instructive comparison would be to show 2 identical sheets of film, developed in single and 2-bath developer, side by side. Such comparisons can probably be found on the web already.
I am involved in a project for my day job, which has taken up most of my spare time. If I get the chance to make a side-by-side comparison, I will.
After all, we're not trying to sell or promote anything here: just sharing. :)
chair or interior
Sorry Eddie, I edited my previous post.
If I get some time, I'll give those a shot.
I understand that seeing the basic "quantitative" possibilities, we would like to look further, and get more "qualitative" understanding too.
Thanks for the examples Ken- the amount of information you got is incredible and wonderful.
I wasn't confused, but I can be, so here's my question.
IF one were to print on regular silverchemical paper in a wet darkroom, wouldn't all those tones in the neg be valuable to get the look one desires in a print?
Or to put the opposite spin- would one be unable overcome the 'flat look' ?
I don't need you to do more work, please commet from your experience.
regards
Ed
I'm quite new to this: I started 6 days ago.
Sandy King, on the other hand, created the Pyrocat developers, including their use in a 2-bath approach. He wrote an article on it for View Camera, and had some things to say about it... in this very thread. :)
It's best to ask him, or the others who are old-timers with this technique.
That being said, I suppose that one can make negatives that are just too flat, using even normal development. Using 2-bath or other kinds of compensation under those circumstances, is probably inviting that kind of trouble. It may well turn out that like other skillful measures, this one is best used under particular circumstances. As Sandy points out, he uses it for roll film. With sheet film, he prefers more standard methods of contrast control, except when the lighting calls for robust compensation.
Also telling, is that in his book "The Negative", Ansel Adams mentions compensating developers, only after he lays out the Zone System in great detail. By far, the great emphasis is on the use of normal methods of contrast control.
Ed,
I can comment.
I have been using two bath developers for years. The ones I have tried are DD76, Diafine, and Barry Thornton's two bath, which is a variant of DD23. I have used DD76 for LF, but now would use it only for 35mm (especially) and 120 (sometimes). After using Diafine for a while, I tried my version of Thornton's, and liked it better. All of this was for tray processing.
Now that I have started rotary processing and dialed the process in using Thornton's formula, I am going to do some more testing. I have some Pyrocat MC on the way from the Formulary, and might also test some Diafine for rotary processing. (I suspect that I will be very happy with the Pyrocat, so the Diafine testing may never happen.) The only reason I have scanned some of my negatives is for proofing. It saves time so I can work on prints in the darkroom. Every negative I have developed using a two bath has been printed in the chemical darkroom.
All of this is a way of saying that I have some decent experience with this.
There has never been a problem with getting a black black or white white. Many of my photos were taken in the winter on overcast days on HP5+ (not a high contrast film) and then developed in either Diafine or Thornton's. Other photographers (who are excellent printers) have seen my work and none has commented that they are flat. I think that the only person on the forum who has seen any of my prints is Jim Galli, and when he saw them he commented about the contrast in some of them.
There is a lot of information in the negatives, probably exceeding the paper's range to capture it all. I think this is a good thing. Sometimes a photo seems to call out for an exhibition of subtle tonal differences throughout the print. When that happens, the information is there for you. In other situations, the information can be "printed away" if desired. Most negatives print well on grade 2 or 3 VC paper. I have one photo that was taken on an extremely flat day that makes a nice snappy print on Ilford MGIV FB with the +5 filter on my Saunders VC head. If I wanted to, I could probably tone the negative in selenium and print it using the #4 filter. The great thing about two baths is that negatives like that can be developed in the same developer, for the same amount of time as another photo taken on a bright contrasty day, along with some other negatives made on different films!
I find the two bath quite liberating. I can spend my precious time making photos and printing, and not obsessing about developing negatives.
For many, they just can't accept that all this is possible. I have a friend who once worked at a well-known local photo supplier. One of his vendors mentioned that another customer of his wanted them to create a Diafine like developer for them to private label. My friend referred him to me, knowing that I had used a lot of Diafine. During the conversation, he kept wondering why anyone would want to work this way. When I told him the composition of Thornton's formula, he told me that he doubted it would even make an image appear on the film! This from a chemist, even after I told him I was using it and printing negatives made that way!!
The only thing to do is try it. DD23 or Thornton's is probably the easiest if you have the chemicals on hand. You only need Metol, Sodium Sulfite, and Sodium Metaborate. Give it a whirl. You might like it. :)
I should add one additional thought.
What "really" makes this work is the seamless way photoshop facilitates masking parts of the negative.
The scene can be broken into multiple images. The shooting room can be addressed and edited alone w/o touching the subject room (and visa versa) with the contrast ratios set separately.
the combined image looks more lifelike as it outputs the scene much as the eye sees it.
If all the data is there (abeit in a very flat native way), the parts can be handled to make it more appealing, in a way the wet darkroom can never accomplish. I began my darkroom experience in the 70's, and digital darkroom in the last decade. When inkjet printers are as capable and beautiful as a silver print, we will get prints that flat out were not possible in the wet darkroom.
Inkjet printing is just now approaching the silver print in beauty. The latest papers and inks are pretty amazing. This did not exist just a year ago.
In B&W, Jon Cone is doing some remarkable work and with the latest Harmon and Ilford papers we can have it all.
bob
David and Ken
Thanks very much
I've done almost no LF, struggled a lot with printing 116 and larger negs [by others] from the 30s that are typically quite dense and of high contrast. Some are not really printable and many are simply painful. I've also struggled to avoid too much contrast in my own 120 negs, since I have the luxury of "desert" light much of the year.
[I did almost break my arm patting myself for a successful wedding 8x10 in softened light- got texture in the white dress too]
That's what prompted my question, and your examples and answers are not only very helpful, but what I had hoped- I might start with DD23
regards
Ed
thanks david.
On Flickr, there are a lot of photos which have been tagged as "two-bath".
See http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=two-bath&w=all
Many of them are devoid of any obvious flatness or blandness of tone.
Here's someone who seems to get quite normal looking images, using the Thornton 2-Bath developer:
http://www.stevemphoto.com/photograp.../05/index.html
Ed,
I think that 2 baths are ideal for the lighting you work in most of the year, and especially when using roll film. Although I use 2 baths in all light, I think that one great benefit for me is that they work so well in the harsh light I have here in CA much of the time.
If you're concerned about low contrast with Divided Pyrocat, consider what Sandy has shared on the APUG site (emphasis added).
In considering changes bear the following in mind.
1, I would recommend that you simplify matters by not changing the time in either Solution A or Solution B. But if you change the time stick with it as it will simplify the other adjustment you can make.
2. Contrast is controlled by the amount of reducer that can be absorbed by the emulsion in Solution A. Assuming you stay with 6 minutes and 75F, using a stronger dilution will increase final negative contrast, using a weaker one will reduce final negative contrast. In other words, if 1:20 is the norm, a 1:10 dilution will give you more contrasty negatives, a 1:40 dilution will give negatives with less contrast. I think 1:10 is a good starting point for tank development with intermitten agitation, 1:20 is for rotary agitation.
3. Effective film speed is controlled by the time in solution B. What happens is that the reducer in the emulsion is quickly used up in the highlight areas, and since it can not be replenished as in normal single bath processing, the negative builds contrast rapdily when it goes into the solution, but in about three minutes all of the reducer is used up so that the build up of density in the highlights stops. However, the negative will continue to build up density in the mid-tones shadows throughout development, which increases effective film speed. So if six minutes is the norm for Solution B, four minutes will give less effective film speed, ten minutes will give more effective film speed.
Scenes of great contrast can be captured on B&W film with several methods. One method is simply to shorten time of development, another is to develop in very dilute solutions for a long time with minimal agitation. Both methods work, but the second method generally give slightly higher film speed than the former. Water bath development has also been used but I personally have not had much success with this method.
The method I have used in the past has been very dilute developer solutions with minimal agitation. However, it is necessary to take notes and time development because even in very dilute solutions the film can develop to a high contrast.
More recently I have been using two-bath development to control contrast in scenes of great contrast. What I have found is that there is not very much difference in the look of a negative developed this way compared to one developed for the necessary amount of time with a dilute solution with minimal agitation, except for the fact that long development times seem to add a bit more B+F to the negative.
If you print such a negative straight, with no adjustment for contrast, the print will probably look flat because of the very long tonal range of the negative.Silver printers use various methods of split filtration to increase mid-tone contrast while still retaining detail in the shadows and highlights. Most processes do not allow this kind of adjustment, however, and the result is that the mid-tones often print rather flat with negatives that have captured a very long range of subject brightness. Many people like this look and praise the long tonal range of their prints, even though they may be rather flat in the mid-tones.
Clearly scanning the negative and adjusting tonal values allows for a lot more control, both with inkjet printing and with alternative processes with a digital negative.
Sandy King
Thanks Maestro. Beautifully stated !
Bottom line is all the important detail must be recorded. If it's not there it can never be printed back in. But others have really already stated this.
Excellent discussion... :)
For your files, Bruce Barnbaum discusses compensating development and divided development, within his 3rd Edition "The Art of Photography," Chapter 9. It is an interesting read with detailed instructions, where Bruce talks to HC-110 throughout the discussion. The thought and the process are there.
As sided note, Bruce mentions that his experience shows a negative can contain information from Zone O through to Zone 18. Bruce demonstrated this compensating procedure and how compensating development could capture most of the zones, during one of his lectures a few years ago. The resulting negative was very thin, the contact print extremely flat and lifeless, where Bruce the Master Printer that he happens to be, produced a wondrous exquisite print.
If anyone has that text, you might want to rummage through it...
Lastly, since I cannot find Metol north of the 49th, I would like to ask whether anyone experimented with XTOL, using it as a divided developer? I will try that for fun.
jim k
I thought of trying to make a divided Mytol, but never got around to it.
I thoroughly dislike compressed midtones and that flat-look in silverprints. My preference is for well separated midtones which I find gives the print more impact, even if it means some sacrifice to one end or both ends of the tonal range.
I guess that for digital prints and the making of digital negatives, things can be adjusted to obtain the desired effect in a way that is not possible with the traditional wet process.
okay. i am in. i just developed a couple of 120 rolls of HP5 with pyro hd 1:10. 4.5 min in both A and B.
the negs look great. i will print them today in the DR.
boy this is fun....!
okay. one more thing. i can not find it even though i read it recently. how long will my 1:10 pyro hd solution keep for? how many rolls/sheets can i do and in what time frame?
thanks.
i just souped another batch of neopan 400 in the above dilutions. a bit more flat than the hp5. but i will print some later to see.
how long will my 1:10 pyro hd solution keep for? how many rolls/sheets can i do and in what time frame?
On this Forum thread, http://www.largeformatphotography.in...t=47780&page=2, Sandy says this:
"Although I prefer to discard the used working solutions, it is possible to re-use them three or four times within a window of two or three hours. Don't try to save for another day, however."
(I got so confused with all the different postings, I had to make a collection of links for myself) :rolleyes:
Eddie, If you fiind that your second batch of negs are too flat just try selenium toning. This will increase contrast/density linearly. You may be pleased with the results. Just tone with visual inspection and try not to overdo it... you can always tone more a second time.
http://www.kennethleegallery.com/ima...rum/img214.jpg
Sinar P, 240mm APO-Nikkor
4x5 TMY, Divided D-23
I mixed up some Divided D-23, using the Thornton version. As others have pointed out, it's not a "real" divided formula, since development occurs in both baths. However, using an InfraRed monocular, you can monitor the progress in each bath, and perform Development By Inspection. Does this mean you get the best of both worlds: the compensation of Two-Bath, plus contrast control ?
Ed Buffalo suggests in this article, that "...you develop in solution A until your high values are almost where you want them, then you place the film in solution B and develop until the shadow values are where you want them."
To those with experience: is Ed's assessment correct ?
Well, that is an very nice looking flower and leaves image.
I think Ed is essentially correct, but if you are going to develop by inspection I don't see what you have to gain with two-bath development, especially if you are developing to scan. I think you could get equivalent results with a plain one-bath solution.
Sandy
You're probably right !
It's great to "expose for the shadows, and develop for the highlights", but it may be even more helpful (especially when the exposure is off) to be able to develop for both. (?)
I'll fiddle a bit and see. There are many situations - architecture, outdoor portraits, landscapes with clouds - where I have learned in the past to "just say no" and save the film for a more probable shot. I would like to be able to work with subjects of greater dynamic range, without having to make careful notes or give special handling. Being able to manage things during DBI, strikes me an attractive option.
well i played with some pyro hd as a two part developer. fun. i had roll film ready for processing so i hope it is okay to show the pics as we are talking about a developing technique.
hp5. pyro hd 1:10. 4.5 min per bath. regular shooting as i had not planned to change developers. direct sun.
the prints are freaking sharp! the 1st one is a straight print. the other i used a #3 filter to add contrast. ilford VC RC warmtone paper. ilford paper developer.
Interesting... please keep it up!! Have you tried the selenium toner yet to add contrast?