Printable View
Hi, all -
Ken Lee's superlative shot of his dog, summarily processed in divided Pyrocat-HD, has me wondering about trying the developer. I've never used any staining developers, opting instead for HC-110 as a standard soup. My workflow is analog-to-digital; my negatives are always scanned. With this in mind, is a staining developer worth trying?
Thanks,
Scott
Yep!
Thanks, Gem. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Gem Singer
Other than B&H, which claims a lead time of two to four weeks (!!!), where can you buy this stuff?
Let me preface my remarks by admitting I'm no scanning expert; I scan my negs for archiving only, not for printing, and I do so with a very low end scanner. That said, I use both staining and non-staining developers, and I can find no clear advantage to either over the other, as far as scanning is concerned. Ken is a scanning expert, and I'm sure he could produce similarly excellent results if he used a non-staining 2-bath developer, like Stoeckler's, or if he added a few grams of sulfite to his Pyrocat to eliminate the staining property. Ken might have something more substantial to add to the conversation.
In the US you can buy virtually all of the modern pyro staining developers in liquid kits at the Photographer's Formulary, and many of them at Bostick & Sullivan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott --
Sandy King
In the photo in question, the key is divided developer.
See this thread for an excellent discussion among friends and fans.
With a developer that accommodates scenes of extreme contrast, we can explore the world outside the narrow confines to which we have grown accustomed.
For the photo in question, the fact that it's a staining developer too, is inconsequential in my humble opinion.
Speaking of scanning, I am not much of an expert. Here are my thoughts on the subject.
I would argue that the stain is not entirely inconsequential because some of the tonal smoothness is due to grain masking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Lee
Also, the acutance that I observe in two-bath Pyrocat is unique in my experience and not an effect I was able to get with either Diafine or divided D23 so there is more going on here than just two-bath development. And in my opinion part of the acutance is due to tanning or hardening of the emulsion which enhances sharpness because there is very little migration of silver halides during development, giving a more precise reduction. Tanning is a by-product of staining. Or is it the other way around?
Sandy
Sandy,
I agree regarding acutance, which is why I didn't mention developers like DD23 or Diafine, both of which contain a lot of sulfite. Stoeckler's can be adjusted to resemble a two bath version of Beutler's metol acutance developer, and enough sulfite to eliminate the staining property of Pyrocat HD would not significantly impact its tanning/acutance effects. I won't comment on any grain masking effect, except to say it's very difficult to demonstrate.
Jay,Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr
But regarding Stoeckler's two bath formula, it is like divided D23 in that you have the sulfite in Solution A, which means there is some development going on before you transfer the film to the Solution B Borax bath.
What creates the great acutance with two-bath Pyrocat is that virtually no development takes place in Solution A and when you drop it into Solution B the development just explodes, which results in very rapid local exhaustion of the developer at all of the lines between high and low density areas. There may be another explanation for this but the acutance with certain films is simply off the board and unlike anything I have ever seen, even with stand development.
I would add that the acutance is much greater with some films than with others. It is especially great with Acros and when you look at the emulsion of an Acros negative developed in two-bath Pyrocat it is etched with relief lines rather like a carbon relief when it is still wet.
Sandy
I recently had the pleasure of seeing some of Sandy King's carbon prints made from enlarged negatives. He scans his 6x7 cm negatives that he develops in two bath Pyrocat. While I haven't compared them side to side with contact prints made from unenlarged in camera negatives, I don't think I could tell the difference. They are that sharp and absolutely grainless. So yes, I think it's worth trying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott --
One caveat: you need a very high resolution scanner.
Sandy,
I know what you mean. I've been developing Acros in Hypercat 2-bath, and the sharpness is impressive. It's difficult to quantify, but I seem to get greater sharpness with a dilute solution of high pH, than with a more concentrated solution of lower pH. Maybe there's some local neutralization happening, in addition to the local exhaustion? You might be right about the difference in Stoeckler's developer and the ones we're using, but I would be very surprised if ours were significantly impacted by the addition of the few grams of sulfite necessary to eliminate staining.
I've been working with GSD-10, my glycin developer for stand development, and the sharpness it produces is somehow different than that produced by Hypercat. I can't say one is sharper than the other, but there is some qualitative difference.
Two questions for you guys: Can the divided processing be done in a rotary drum, and where can I read more about this stuff?
Scott,
Yes, two bath development can be done in a rotary drum. In fact, I don't recommend rotary processing with Hypercat, except when used as a two bath developer. Of course, 2-bath development works at least as well with intermittent agitation as it does with rotary agitation. As for reading, most of the major authors on photographic processing address 2-bath development. Barry Thornton was an advocate, and wrote about it in his book, The Edge of Darkness.
If you can locate a copy I wrote an article on two-bath development that was published in View Camera a couple of years ago. The complete reference is, Sandy King “Two Bath Development: Exposure and Development Strategy for Scanning,”: View Camera, July/August 2008, 55-58.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott --
In the article I discuss rotary two-bath development.
You can also find lots of information on two-bath development by doing a google search. The problem with lots of the stuff you read on two bath development is that it has just been regurgitated by someone who did not take the take to test for themselves.
For the article in View Camera I tested Diafine and divided D23.
Sandy King
Much of what you will read about 2 bath development is simply not true. You will read that it does not work with modern emulsions, and that other forms of development are clearly superior. It does work with modern emulsions, and as Sandy's work shows, other forms are not clearly superior.
In my opinion, the best (and most helpful) discussions of two bath developers are in Sandy's article in View Camera magazine, Thornton's "The Edge of Darkness" and in the threads you will find discussing Sandy's 2 bath approach with various Pyrocat formulae.
You may want to select the blue channel (and override eventual channel select/mix) automatisms in the scanner and software if you scan stained negatives and desire results similar to a wet darkroom print - the stain usually is brownish, and will affect the other channels much less.
Dave,
The credible experts I've read don't claim other forms of development are "clearly superior", but many question the advantages, and to be fair, most of what I've read was written before the advent of film scanning and hybrid workflows, when the relative advantages of 2-bath development were less compelling.