High SBR: Comparing D-23 1:1 vs. Pyrocat-HD EMA

[tundra]

If you did not need compensation in the highlights or good shadow detail what method/developer would you choose to get good separation in the mid tones? This would apply for example if photographing a tree trunk/burr with only 3-5 zones.

I cannot speak for Steve, but I'd take two approaches to this and compare the results.

First, I'd try conventional expanded (N+) development with normal agitation using Pyrocat-HD, HC-110B, D-76, or DK-50 ... whichever is most available or best understood by you. (I am not excluding other developers, these are just the ones I have handy Keep in mind that effective film speed will rise when you do this so you have take that into account.

Secondly, I'd try a low agitation technique with Pyrocat-HD - either Extreme Minimal Agitation or Semistand. (I have found full Stand development too inconsistent with modern films.) In this case, I'd rate the film a full box speed. In both cases, I'd vigorously agitate the first 2 mins. For EMA, I'd dilute 1.5:1:150, and agitate at 12 and 21 minutes and end development at 30mins as a starting point. For Semistand, I'd dilute 1.5:1:200 and develop for either 45 or 60 min, with a single midpoint agitation of 15 sec. This assumes 68F chemistry temp.

With minimal agitation techniques, I've found that if you use hangers they have to be the minimal clip style not the frame type or you risk bromide drag. X-Ray film clips will probably work too. For rollfilm avoid the plastic reels and the Brand-X stainless reels - stick with Nikkor - their reel spacing has yet to give a problem with bromide drag, at least with 35mm. (I have not tried rollfilm this way yet.)

My 2 cents worth ... and worth what you paid

[Drew Wiley]

Remember, you need not only a film punch, but a precisely matching masking exposure frame - essentially a contact printing frame with the correct registration pins present in the glass, at identical spacing.

One trick I liked to do was to take an appropriate film and both overexpose and overdevelop it slightly, for sake of optimal highlight expansion and midtone mictotonality - counterintuitive for sure - but then rein in the printing density range via unsharp masking. This worked particularly well with 8X10 shots on HP5 developed in pyro, then printed on premium VC papers through a blue filter. It isn't appropriate for every image, but the subtlety of its almost-etched look and extreme textural rendition throughout can be stunning. It takes some practice to master. An analogous but more versatile and slightly more subtle effect is achievable on finer-grained films with otherwise good acutance like FP4 and TMY400.

TMX100 is a somewhat different issue. It has a very long straight line and excellent development versatility as far as gamma is concerned, just like its faster TMY cousin, and responds well to masking in terms of tonality control. But despite its considerable capacity for detail, it lacks good native edge acutance. So it's a good candidate for the kind of enhanced development options under consideration in the immediate thread. I don't want to get into that particular fray or debate, but do have my own analogous method specifically for this particular film, which significantly improves its acutance. But minimal agitation per se is just too risky in terms of streaking or other forms of unevenness, given the amount of sheer backpacking distance I sometimes undertake to get these shots to begin with.

[tundra]

Remember, you need not only a film punch, but a precisely matching masking exposure frame - essentially a contact printing frame with the correct registration pins present in the glass, at identical spacing.

One trick I liked to do was to take an appropriate film and both overexpose and overdevelop it slightly, for sake of optimal highlight expansion and midtone mictotonality - counterintuitive for sure - but then rein in the printing density range via unsharp masking. This worked particularly well with 8X10 shots on HP5 developed in pyro, then printed on premium VC papers through a blue filter. It isn't appropriate for every image, but the subtlety of its almost-etched look and extreme textural rendition throughout can be stunning. It takes some practice to master. An analogous but more versatile and slightly more subtle effect is achievable on finer-grained films with otherwise good acutance like FP4 and TMY400.

Yes, I will either have to make do with taping them together (using the punch to re-register) or trying to find a frame. I'm fairly handy and I have access to people who like 3d printing, so making one is not out of reach either.

[Drew Wiley]

Most 3D printing materials aren't going to be dimensionally stable enough for this kind of application. Registration has to be maintained within two thousandths of an inch regardless of temperature or humidity fluctuations. Even the masking film itself has to be dimensionally stable (polyester or Estar base, not acetate), and preferably the original shooting film itself too. A good machinist can easily work in those tolerances. But the problem is finding thick glass which can be drilled that precisely. The most appropriate thick anti-Newton glass is no longer made. And most glass shop thick glass is tempered and not drilled well. If possible, it's best to find an already matching punch and frame set, made at the same time as a pair. Otherwise, you'd need to resort to the registration pins being slightly outside the glass area itself, drilled into perimeter aluminum. That's how its most commonly done nowadays. Heiland claims to offer matched components in a variety of custom sizes; but I don't know about their pricing or delivery schedule. And there are other suppliers for 4x5 size only, which is best for MF or 35mm film too, since you punch a strip of sheet film and tape the smaller original to it (using thin polyester rather than acetate or paper tape).

[Steve Sherman]

If you did not need compensation in the highlights or good shadow detail what method/developer would you choose to get good separation in the mid tones? This would apply for example if photographing a tree trunk/burr with only 3-5 zones.

I believe Pyro based developers are superior to all other developers, particularly when silver printing is the end goal, with PyroCat being slightly superior to PMK.

[davidkachel]

#2, I have had conversations with Mr. Kachel regarding his philosophy, while in theory, his approach is valid, it does not take into account the difference between a film's characteristic curve compared to that of Multi-Contrast paper's potential curve. In other words and in my theory, I forsake compressing tonalities by way of development contraction so those same mid-tones can be exaggerated in a much more aggressive manner by way of MC papers. Adjacency Effects is the exact reason mid-tones can "survive" that much compression. So, while, it seems backward or unnecessary to "compress" negative tonalities only to turn around and "expand" those same tonalities in the final printing process. The steeper curve of MC papers brings those mid-tones to greater vibrancy, unlike that of simple higher negative densities. Similar to the end justifies the means." As the author states, nothing really counts until the final silver print is in hand, and that is the exact place that I speak from.

Hi, Steve...
Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner, but I didn't see it until just now. Actually, I addressed exactly your point, but not in that particular article. I wrote a rather lengthy article shortly after the series on Contraction, entitled: The Primacy of Local Contrast, in which, among other things, I specifically state that film is best used for decreasing local contrast, while paper best serves the needs of increased local contrast. The article appeared a short time after the Contraction series, I believe. Perhaps that is where you got the idea, but have since forgotten. If you came up with it on your own, bravo! I don't recall anyone else having that insight.
You can find a recent update of the article here: http://davidkachel.com/wpNewDK/?page_id=8

[Steve Sherman]

Hi, Steve...
Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner, but I didn't see it until just now. Actually, I addressed exactly your point, but not in that particular article. I wrote a rather lengthy article shortly after the series on Contraction, entitled: The Primacy of Local Contrast, in which, among other things, I specifically state that film is best used for decreasing local contrast, while paper best serves the needs of increased local contrast. The article appeared a short time after the Contraction series, I believe. Perhaps that is where you got the idea, but have since forgotten. If you came up with it on your own, bravo! I don't recall anyone else having that insight.
You can find a recent update of the article here: http://davidkachel.com/wpNewDK/?page_id=8

Hello David,
Thanks for responding and for the shoutout on insight. Actually, only 4-5 years into playing with sheet film back in the mid '80s I realized that the graded papers of the times provided the mid-tone edge relationships I responded too over that of normal contrast graded papers. Years later when MC papers finally caught hold in quality when compared to graded papers did I begin to reduce development to a lower highlight density to only turn around and print with harder contrast. It didn't make a lot of sense on the surface, yet a deeper dive reveals exactly how Green and Blue light affect MC papers and the potential to my approach. I've always enjoyed high contrast situations and regularly used the McSavveny method of film contraction for Silver Gelatin printing prior to a switch to Pyro in the mid '90s. Around late 2003 I perfected an Extreme Minimal Agitation technique with modern thin emulsion films, (perfected, not discovered). The film is essentially agitated for only 10% of the time in developer. So, because of MC papers I pushed those mid-tone contrast trends to an extreme, i.e., generous low value exposure, shadows higher on the straight line and reduced development to again use higher contrast relationships in the mid-tone section. The EMA film processing technique provides increased separation in all negative densities, the lower highlight density allows for a minimum of Green light exposure resulting in exaggerated mid-tone relationships. In that regard, the Zone System does take into account the potential of modern MC papers. Which is why I wrote a detailed article for UnBlinkingEye on my Separation System linked here: https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PPSS/ppss.html Here is a more detailed look into my EMA technique on the same website
https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/RASS/rass.html Clearly, there can be several approaches to designing negatives for Silver printing, my non-traditional Zone System approach of additional exposure and reduced highlight density in concert with PyroCat HD, the EMA processing technique has served me very well since 2003. While I have never done contrast masking, those who have knowledge of the masking technique have offered these thoughts, the EMA film processing approach is organic and the vibrancy and smoothness of mid-tone relationships seems more traditional in the final print. Appreciate you reaching out. SS

[Steve Sherman]

If you did not need compensation in the highlights or good shadow detail what method/developer would you choose to get good separation in the mid tones? This would apply for example if photographing a tree trunk/burr with only 3-5 zones.

Apologies on not seeing this until today, I would use the exact EMA technique no matter what the original scene contrast may call for. Very simply, if the original scene contrast doesn't require as much separation, I would simply add more Green light to the print exposure to tone down the negative relationships if they are deemed to much by the creator of the neg. Also, my development scheme still uses a development approach of N - 1, 2, 3, 4 or N or N + 1, 2, 3 and 4 as an FYI.