Finally done with PMK. What next?

[Gary L. Quay]

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]

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]

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.

[jonreid]

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.

Agree, test and test again until you get it right.

[Gary L. Quay]

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]

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]

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.

[StoneNYC]

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

[Mark Barendt]

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.

[Michael Kadillak]

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.